AEP-NRC-2022-51, Evacuation Time Estimate Analysis

Evacuation Time Estimate Analysis

ML22244A113
Person / Time
Site:	Cook
Issue date:	08/31/2022
From:	Ferneau K American Electric Power, Indiana Michigan Power Co
To:	Document Control Desk, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
References
AEP-NRC-2022-51
Download: ML22244A113 (363)

Text

a:

INDIANA Indiana Michigan Power MICHIGAN Cook Nuclear Plant POWER* One Cook Place Bridgman, Ml 49106 A unit ofAmerican Electric Power Indiana Michigan Power.com August 31, 2022 AEP-NRC-2022-51 10 CFR Part 50, Appendix E.IV(4)

Docket Nos.: 50-315 50-316 U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission ATTN: Document Control Desk Washington, DC 20555-0001 Donald C. Cook Nuclear Plant Unit 1 and Unit 2 Evacuation Time Estimate Analysis Pursuant to 10 CFR Part 50, Appendix E.IV(4), Indiana Michigan Power Company, the licensee for Donald C. Cook Nuclear Plant Unit 1 and Unit 2, is providing as the enclosure to this letter, an Evacuation Time Estimate (ETE} analysis. The analysis was prepared using data from the most recent decennial census.

There are no new or revised commitments in this letter. Should you have any questions, please contact Michael K. Scarpello, Regulatory Affairs Director at (269) 466-2649.

Sincerely, Kelly J. Ferneau Site Vice President BMC/kmh

Enclosure:

Donald C. Cook Nuclear Plant Evacuation Time Estimate Analysis

U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission AEP-NRC-2022-51 Page 2 c: R. J. Ancona - MPSC EGLE - RMD/RPS J. B. Giessner - NRC Region III NRC Resident Inspector R. M. Sistevaris - AEP Ft. Wayne, w/o enclosures J. E. Walcutt - AEP Ft. Wayne, w/o enclosures S. P. Wall - NRC Washington, DC A. J. Williamson - AEP Ft. Wayne, w/o enclosures

ENCLOSURE TO AEP-NRC-2022-51 Donald C. Cook Nuclear Plant Evacuation Time Estimate Analysis

Donald C. Cook Nuclear Plant Development of Evacuation Time Estimates Work performed for American Electric Power, by:

KLD Engineering, P.C.

1601 Veterans Memorial Highway, Suite 340 Islandia, NY 11749 June 14, 2022 Final Report, Rev. 0 KLD TR - 1241

SIGNATURE LIST Kevin Simpson Donald C. Cook Emergency Preparedness Manager

_________________________________________________/____________6/30/2022 Donald C. Cook Nuclear Plant Date Project Lead, Emergency Preparedness

_________________________________________________/____________

State of Michigan Date Radiological Emergency Preparedness Unit

_________________________________________________/____________

Berrien County Sheriff's Department Date Emergency Management / Homeland Security Donald C Cook Nuclear Plant KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

Table of Contents 1 INTRODUCTION .................................................................................................................................. 11 1.1 Overview of the ETE Process...................................................................................................... 11 1.2 The Donald C. Cook Nuclear Plant Location............................................................................... 13 1.3 Preliminary Activities ................................................................................................................. 13 1.4 Comparison with Prior ETE Study .............................................................................................. 16 2 STUDY ESTIMATES AND ASSUMPTIONS............................................................................................. 21 2.1 Data Estimates ........................................................................................................................... 21 2.2 Methodological Assumptions .................................................................................................... 22 2.3 Assumptions on Mobilization Times .......................................................................................... 23 2.4 Transit Dependent Assumptions ................................................................................................ 23 2.5 Traffic and Access Control Assumptions .................................................................................... 25 2.6 Scenarios and Regions ............................................................................................................... 25 3 DEMAND ESTIMATION ....................................................................................................................... 31 3.1 Permanent Residents ................................................................................................................. 32 3.1.1 University ........................................................................................................................... 32 3.2 Shadow Population .................................................................................................................... 33 3.3 Transient Population .................................................................................................................. 33 3.3.1 Seasonal Transient Population........................................................................................... 34 3.4 Employees .................................................................................................................................. 35 3.5 Medical Facilities ........................................................................................................................ 36 3.6 Transit Dependent Population ................................................................................................... 36 3.7 School Population Demand........................................................................................................ 38 3.8 Special Event .............................................................................................................................. 38 3.9 Access and/or Functional Needs Population ............................................................................. 39 3.10 External Traffic ........................................................................................................................... 39 3.11 Background Traffic ................................................................................................................... 310 3.12 Summary of Demand ............................................................................................................... 310 4 ESTIMATION OF HIGHWAY CAPACITY................................................................................................ 41 4.1 Capacity Estimations on Approaches to Intersections .............................................................. 42 4.2 Capacity Estimation along Sections of Highway ........................................................................ 44 4.3 Application to the DCCNP Study Area ........................................................................................ 46 4.3.1 TwoLane Roads ................................................................................................................. 46 4.3.2 Multilane Highway ............................................................................................................. 46 4.3.3 Freeways ............................................................................................................................ 47 4.3.4 Intersections ...................................................................................................................... 48 4.4 Simulation and Capacity Estimation .......................................................................................... 48 4.5 Boundary Conditions .................................................................................................................. 49 5 ESTIMATION OF TRIP GENERATION TIME .......................................................................................... 51 5.1 Background ................................................................................................................................ 51 5.2 Fundamental Considerations ..................................................................................................... 52 5.3 Estimated Time Distributions of Activities Preceding Event 5 ................................................... 54 5.4 Calculation of Trip Generation Time Distribution ...................................................................... 55 5.4.1 Statistical Outliers .............................................................................................................. 55 5.4.2 Staged Evacuation Trip Generation ................................................................................... 57 5.4.3 Trip Generation for Waterways ......................................................................................... 59 6 EVACUATION CASES ........................................................................................................................... 61 Donald C. Cook Nuclear Plant i KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

7 GENERAL POPULATION EVACUATION TIME ESTIMATES (ETE) .......................................................... 71 7.1 Voluntary Evacuation and Shadow Evacuation ......................................................................... 71 7.2 Staged Evacuation ...................................................................................................................... 71 7.3 Patterns of Traffic Congestion during Evacuation ..................................................................... 72 7.4 Evacuation Rates ........................................................................................................................ 74 7.5 Evacuation Time Estimate (ETE) Results .................................................................................... 74 7.6 Staged Evacuation Results ......................................................................................................... 76 7.7 Guidance on Using ETE Tables ................................................................................................... 77 8 TRANSITDEPENDENT AND SPECIAL FACILITY EVACUATION TIME ESTIMATES ................................. 81 8.1 ETEs for Schools, Transit Dependent People, and Medical Facilities......................................... 82 8.2 ETE for Access and/or Functional Needs Population ................................................................. 89 9 TRAFFIC MANAGEMENT STRATEGY ................................................................................................... 91 9.1 Assumptions ............................................................................................................................... 92 9.2 Additional Considerations .......................................................................................................... 92 10 EVACUATION ROUTES and Congregate care centers ...................................................................... 101 10.1 Evacuation Routes.................................................................................................................... 101 10.2 Congregate Care Centers ......................................................................................................... 101 A. GLOSSARY OF TRAFFIC ENGINEERING TERMS .................................................................................. A1 B. DYNAMIC TRAFFIC ASSIGNMENT AND DISTRIBUTION MODEL ......................................................... B1 C. DYNEV TRAFFIC SIMULATION MODEL ............................................................................................... C1 C.1 Methodology .............................................................................................................................. C2 C.1.1 The Fundamental Diagram ................................................................................................. C2 C.1.2 The Simulation Model ........................................................................................................ C2 C.1.3 Lane Assignment ................................................................................................................ C6 C.2 Implementation ......................................................................................................................... C6 C.2.1 Computational Procedure .................................................................................................. C6 C.2.2 Interfacing with Dynamic Traffic Assignment (DTRAD) ..................................................... C7 D. detailed description of study procedure .......................................................................................... D1 E. SPECIAL FACILITY DATA ...................................................................................................................... E1 F. Demographic SURVEY ........................................................................................................................ F1 F.1 Introduction ............................................................................................................................... F1 F.2 Survey Instrument and Sampling Plan ....................................................................................... F1 F.3 Survey Results ............................................................................................................................ F2 F.3.1 Household Demographic Results ....................................................................................... F2 F.3.2 Evacuation Response ......................................................................................................... F3 F.3.3 Time Distribution Results ................................................................................................... F4 G. TRAFFIC MANAGEMENT PLAN .......................................................................................................... G1 G.1 Manual Traffic Control .............................................................................................................. G1 G.2 Analysis of Key TACP Locations ................................................................................................. G1 H. EVACUATION REGIONS ..................................................................................................................... H1 J. REPRESENTATIVE INPUTS TO AND OUTPUTS FROM THE DYNEV II SYSTEM ..................................... J1 K. EVACUATION ROADWAY NETWORK .................................................................................................. K1 L. PROTECTIVE ACTION AREA BOUNDARIES .......................................................................................... L1 M. EVACUATION SENSITIVITY STUDIES ................................................................................................. M1 M.1 Effect of Changes in Trip Generation Times ............................................................................ M1 M.2 Effect of Changes in the Number of People in the Shadow Region Who Relocate ................. M1 M.3 Effect of Changes in EPZ Resident Population ......................................................................... M2 M.4 Effect of Changes in Average Household Size .......................................................................... M3 Donald C. Cook Nuclear Plant ii KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

M.5 Enhancements in Evacuation Time .......................................................................................... M3 N. ETE CRITERIA CHECKLIST ................................................................................................................... N1 Note: Appendix I intentionally skipped Donald C. Cook Nuclear Plant iii KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

List of Figures Figure 11. DCCNP Location ..................................................................................................................... 111 Figure 12. DCCNP LinkNode Analysis Network ...................................................................................... 112 Figure 21. Voluntary Evacuation Methodology ........................................................................................ 29 Figure 31. PAAs Comprising the DCCNP EPZ........................................................................................... 318 Figure 32. Permanent Resident Population by Sector ............................................................................ 319 Figure 33. Permanent Resident Vehicles by Sector ................................................................................ 320 Figure 34. Shadow Population by Sector ................................................................................................ 321 Figure 35. Shadow Vehicles by Sector .................................................................................................... 322 Figure 36. Transient Population by Sector.............................................................................................. 323 Figure 37. Transient Vehicles by Sector .................................................................................................. 324 Figure 38. Employee Population by Sector ............................................................................................. 325 Figure 39. Employee Vehicles by Sector ................................................................................................. 326 Figure 41. Fundamental Diagrams .......................................................................................................... 410 Figure 51. Events and Activities Preceding the Evacuation Trip ............................................................. 517 Figure 52. Time Distributions for Evacuation Mobilization Activities .................................................... 518 Figure 53. Comparison of Data Distribution and Normal Distribution ...................................................... 519 Figure 54. Comparison of Trip Generation Distributions....................................................................... 520 Figure 55. Comparison of Staged and Unstaged Trip Generation Distributions in the 2 to 5 Mile Region .......................................................................... 521 Figure 61. EPZ PAAs .................................................................................................................................. 68 Figure 71. Voluntary Evacuation Methodology ...................................................................................... 715 Figure 72. DCCNP Shadow Region .......................................................................................................... 716 Figure 73. Congestion Patterns at 45 Minutes after the Advisory to Evacuate ..................................... 717 Figure 74. Congestion Patterns at 2 Hours and 15 Minutes after the Advisory to Evacuate ................. 718 Figure 75. Congestion Patterns at 3 Hours after the Advisory to Evacuate ........................................... 719 Figure 76. Congestion Patterns at 3 Hours and 30 Minutes after the Advisory to Evacuate ................. 720 Figure 77. Congestion Patterns at 4 Hours after the Advisory to Evacuate ........................................... 721 Figure 78. Congestion Patterns at 4 Hours 30 Minutes after the Advisory to Evacuate ........................ 722 Figure 79. Congestion Patterns at 5 Hours 15 Minutes after the Advisory to Evacuate ........................ 723 Figure 710. Evacuation Time Estimates Scenario 1 for Region R03 ..................................................... 724 Figure 711. Evacuation Time Estimates Scenario 2 for Region R03 ..................................................... 724 Figure 712. Evacuation Time Estimates Scenario 3 for Region R03 ..................................................... 725 Figure 713. Evacuation Time Estimates Scenario 4 for Region R03 ..................................................... 725 Figure 714. Evacuation Time Estimates Scenario 5 for Region R03 ..................................................... 726 Figure 715. Evacuation Time Estimates Scenario 6 for Region R03 ..................................................... 726 Figure 716. Evacuation Time Estimates Scenario 7 for Region R03 ..................................................... 727 Figure 717. Evacuation Time Estimates Scenario 8 for Region R03 ..................................................... 727 Figure 718. Evacuation Time Estimates Scenario 9 for Region R03 ..................................................... 728 Figure 719. Evacuation Time Estimates Scenario 10 for Region R03 ................................................... 728 Figure 720. Evacuation Time Estimates Scenario 11 for Region R03 ................................................... 729 Figure 721. Evacuation Time Estimates Scenario 12 for Region R03 ................................................... 729 Figure 722. Evacuation Time Estimates Scenario 13 for Region R03 ................................................... 730 Figure 723. Evacuation Time Estimates Scenario 14 for Region R03 ................................................... 730 Figure 81. Chronology of Transit Evacuation Operations ....................................................................... 825 Figure 101. Evacuation Routes ............................................................................................................... 106 Figure 102. TransitDependent Bus Routes ............................................................................................ 107 Donald C. Cook Nuclear Plant iv KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

Figure 103. Congregate Care Centers and School Reception Centers .................................................... 108 Figure B1. Flow Diagram of SimulationDTRAD Interface........................................................................ B4 Figure C1. Representative Analysis Network ......................................................................................... C12 Figure C2. Fundamental Diagrams ......................................................................................................... C13 Figure C3. A UNIT Problem Configuration with t1 > 0 ............................................................................ C13 Figure C4. Flow of Simulation Processing (See Glossary: Table C3) .................................................... C14 Figure D1. Flow Diagram of Activities ...................................................................................................... D5 Figure E1. Schools within the EPZ ............................................................................................................. E6 Figure E2. Medical Facilities within the EPZ ............................................................................................. E7 Figure E3. Major Employers within the EPZ.............................................................................................. E8 Figure E4. Recreational Areas within the EPZ ........................................................................................... E9 Figure E5. Lodging Facilities within the EPZ ............................................................................................ E10 Figure F1. Household Size in the EPZ ........................................................................................................ F7 Figure F2. Household Vehicle Availability ................................................................................................. F7 Figure F3. Vehicle Availability 1 to 4 Person Households ....................................................................... F8 Figure F4. Vehicle Availability 5 to 7 Person Households ....................................................................... F8 Figure F5. Household Ridesharing Preference ......................................................................................... F9 Figure F6. Commuters in Households in the EPZ ...................................................................................... F9 Figure F7. Modes of Travel in the EPZ .................................................................................................... F10 Figure F8. Impact to Commuters due to the COVID19 Pandemic ......................................................... F10 Figure F9. Number of Vehicles Used for Evacuation .............................................................................. F11 Figure F10. Households Evacuating with Pets/Animals .......................................................................... F11 Figure F11. Shelter in Place Characteristics ............................................................................................ F12 Figure F12. Shelter Then Evacuate Characteristics ................................................................................. F12 Figure F13. Evacuation Destinations....................................................................................................... F13 Figure F14. Time Required to Prepare to Leave Work/College .............................................................. F13 Figure F15. Time to Commute Home from Work/College...................................................................... F14 Figure F16. Time to Prepare Home for Evacuation ................................................................................ F14 Figure F17. Time to Remove Snow from Driveway ................................................................................ F15 Figure G1. Traffic and Access Control Points for the DCCNP EPZ ............................................................ G5 Figure H1. Region R01.............................................................................................................................. H3 Figure H2. Region R02.............................................................................................................................. H4 Figure H3. Region R03.............................................................................................................................. H5 Figure H4. Region R04.............................................................................................................................. H6 Figure H5. Region R05.............................................................................................................................. H7 Figure H6. Region R06.............................................................................................................................. H8 Figure H7. Region R07.............................................................................................................................. H9 Figure H8. Region R08............................................................................................................................ H10 Figure H9. Region R09............................................................................................................................ H11 Figure H10. Region R10.......................................................................................................................... H12 Figure H11. Region R11.......................................................................................................................... H13 Figure H12. Region R12.......................................................................................................................... H14 Figure H13. Region R13.......................................................................................................................... H15 Figure H14. Region R14.......................................................................................................................... H16 Figure J1. Network Sources/Origins.......................................................................................................... J6 Figure J2. ETE and Trip Generation: Summer, Midweek, Midday, Good Weather (Scenario 1) .............. J7 Figure J3. ETE and Trip Generation: Summer, Midweek, Midday, Rain (Scenario 2) .............................. J7 Figure J4. ETE and Trip Generation: Summer, Weekend, Midday, Good Weather (Scenario 3).............. J8 Donald C. Cook Nuclear Plant v KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

Figure J5. ETE and Trip Generation: Summer, Weekend, Midday, Rain (Scenario 4) .............................. J8 Figure J6. ETE and Trip Generation:

Summer, Midweek, Weekend, Evening, Good Weather (Scenario 5) ....................................................... J9 Figure J7. ETE and Trip Generation: Winter, Midweek, Midday, Good Weather (Scenario 6) ................ J9 Figure J8. ETE and Trip Generation: Winter, Midweek, Midday, Rain/Light Snow (Scenario 7) ............ J10 Figure J9. ETE and Trip Generation: Winter, Midweek, Midday, Heavy Snow (Scenario 8) .................. J10 Figure J10. ETE and Trip Generation: Winter, Weekend, Midday, Good Weather (Scenario 9) ............ J11 Figure J11. ETE and Trip Generation: Winter, Weekend, Midday, Rain/Light Snow (Scenario 10) ....... J11 Figure J12. ETE and Trip Generation: Winter, Weekend, Midday, Heavy Snow (Scenario 11) .............. J12 Figure J13. ETE and Trip Generation:

Winter, Midweek, Weekend, Evening, Good Weather (Scenario 12) ..................................................... J12 Figure J14. ETE and Trip Generation:

Summer, Weekend, Evening, Good Weather, Special Event (Scenario 13) ............................................ J13 Figure J15. ETE and Trip Generation:

Summer, Midweek, Midday, Good Weather, Roadway Impact (Scenario 14) ........................................ J13 Figure K1. DCCNP LinkNode Analysis Network ....................................................................................... K2 Figure K2. LinkNode Analysis Network - Grid 1 ...................................................................................... K3 Figure K3. LinkNode Analysis Network - Grid 2 ...................................................................................... K4 Figure K4. LinkNode Analysis Network - Grid 3 ...................................................................................... K5 Figure K5. LinkNode Analysis Network - Grid 4 ...................................................................................... K6 Figure K6. LinkNode Analysis Network - Grid 5 ...................................................................................... K7 Figure K7. LinkNode Analysis Network - Grid 6 ...................................................................................... K8 Figure K8. LinkNode Analysis Network - Grid 7 ...................................................................................... K9 Figure K9. LinkNode Analysis Network - Grid 8 .................................................................................... K10 Figure K10. LinkNode Analysis Network - Grid 9 .................................................................................. K11 Figure K11. LinkNode Analysis Network - Grid 10 ................................................................................ K12 Figure K12. LinkNode Analysis Network - Grid 11 ................................................................................ K13 Figure K13. LinkNode Analysis Network - Grid 12 ................................................................................ K14 Figure K14. LinkNode Analysis Network - Grid 13 ................................................................................ K15 Figure K15. LinkNode Analysis Network - Grid 14 ................................................................................ K16 Figure K16. LinkNode Analysis Network - Grid 15 ................................................................................ K17 Figure K17. LinkNode Analysis Network - Grid 16 ................................................................................ K18 Figure K18. LinkNode Analysis Network - Grid 17 ................................................................................ K19 Figure K19. LinkNode Analysis Network - Grid 18 ................................................................................ K20 Figure K20. LinkNode Analysis Network - Grid 19 ................................................................................ K21 Figure K21. LinkNode Analysis Network - Grid 20 ................................................................................ K22 Figure K22. LinkNode Analysis Network - Grid 21 ................................................................................ K23 Figure K23. LinkNode Analysis Network - Grid 22 ................................................................................ K24 Figure K24. LinkNode Analysis Network - Grid 23 ................................................................................ K25 Figure K25. LinkNode Analysis Network - Grid 24 ................................................................................ K26 Figure K26. LinkNode Analysis Network - Grid 25 ................................................................................ K27 Figure K27. LinkNode Analysis Network - Grid 26 ................................................................................ K28 Figure K28. LinkNode Analysis Network - Grid 27 ................................................................................ K29 Figure K29. LinkNode Analysis Network - Grid 28 ................................................................................ K30 Figure K30. LinkNode Analysis Network - Grid 29 ................................................................................ K31 Figure K31. LinkNode Analysis Network - Grid 30 ................................................................................ K32 Figure K32. LinkNode Analysis Network - Grid 31 ................................................................................ K33 Figure K33. LinkNode Analysis Network - Grid 32 ................................................................................ K34 Donald C. Cook Nuclear Plant vi KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

Figure K34. LinkNode Analysis Network - Grid 33 ................................................................................ K35 Figure K35. LinkNode Analysis Network - Grid 34 ................................................................................ K36 Figure K36. LinkNode Analysis Network - Grid 35 ................................................................................ K37 Figure K37. LinkNode Analysis Network - Grid 36 ................................................................................ K38 Figure K38. LinkNode Analysis Network - Grid 37 ................................................................................ K39 Figure K39. LinkNode Analysis Network - Grid 38 ................................................................................ K40 Figure K40. LinkNode Analysis Network - Grid 39 ................................................................................ K41 Figure K41. LinkNode Analysis Network - Grid 40 ................................................................................ K42 Figure K42. LinkNode Analysis Network - Grid 41 ................................................................................ K43 Figure K43. LinkNode Analysis Network - Grid 42 ................................................................................ K44 Figure K44. LinkNode Analysis Network - Grid 43 ................................................................................ K45 Donald C. Cook Nuclear Plant vii KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

List of Tables Table 11. Stakeholder Interaction ............................................................................................................ 17 Table 12. Highway Characteristics ............................................................................................................ 17 Table 13. ETE Study Comparisons ............................................................................................................. 18 Table 21. Evacuation Scenario Definitions............................................................................................... 27 Table 22. Model Adjustment for Adverse Weather ................................................................................. 28 Table 31. EPZ Permanent Resident Population ...................................................................................... 311 Table 32. Permanent Resident Population and Vehicles by PAA ........................................................... 311 Table 33. Shadow Population and Vehicles by Sector ............................................................................ 312 Table 34. Summary of Transients and Transient Vehicles ...................................................................... 312 Table 35. Summary of Employees and Employee Vehicles Commuting into the EPZ ............................ 312 Table 36. Medical Facility Transit Demand ............................................................................................. 313 Table 37. TransitDependent Population Estimates ............................................................................... 313 Table 38. School Population Demand Estimates .................................................................................... 314 Table 39. Access and/or Functional Needs Demand Summary .............................................................. 315 Table 310. DCCNP EPZ External Traffic ................................................................................................... 316 Table 311. Summary of Population Demand .......................................................................................... 316 Table 312. Summary of Vehicle Demand................................................................................................ 317 Table 51. Event Sequence for Evacuation Activities ............................................................................... 510 Table 52. Time Distribution for Notifying the Public .............................................................................. 510 Table 53. Time Distribution for Employees to Prepare to Leave Work .................................................. 511 Table 54. Time Distribution for Commuters to Travel Home ................................................................. 512 Table 55. Time Distribution for Population to Prepare to Evacuate ...................................................... 513 Table 56. Time Distribution for Population to clear 6 8 of Snow ...................................................... 513 Table 57. Mapping Distributions to Events............................................................................................. 514 Table 58. Description of the Distributions .............................................................................................. 514 Table 59. Trip Generation Histograms for the EPZ Population for Unstaged Evacuation ..................... 515 Table 510. Trip Generation Histograms for the EPZ Population for Staged Evacuation ........................ 516 Table 61. Description of Evacuation Regions ........................................................................................... 64 Table 62. Evacuation Scenario Definitions ............................................................................................... 65 Table 63. Percent of Population Groups Evacuating for Various Scenarios ............................................. 66 Table 64. Vehicle Estimates by Scenario .................................................................................................. 67 Table 71. Time to Clear the Indicated Area of 90 Percent of the Affected Population .......................... 710 Table 72. Time to Clear the Indicated Area of 100 Percent of the Affected Population ........................ 711 Table 73. Time to Clear 90 Percent of the 2Mile Region within the Indicated Region ......................... 712 Table 74. Time to Clear 100 Percent of the 2Mile Region within the Indicated Region ....................... 713 Table 75. Description of Evacuation Regions ......................................................................................... 714 Table 81. Summary of Transportation Resources .................................................................................. 811 Table 82. School Evacuation Time Estimates Good Weather............................................................... 812 Table 83. School Evacuation Time Estimates - Rain ............................................................................... 814 Table 84. School Evacuation Time Estimates - Snow ............................................................................. 816 Table 85. TransitDependent Evacuation Time Estimates Good Weather ........................................... 818 Table 86. TransitDependent Evacuation Time Estimates Rain ............................................................ 819 Table 87. Transit Dependent Evacuation Time Estimates - Snow ......................................................... 820 Table 88. Medical Facility Evacuation Time Estimates - Good Weather ............................................... 821 Table 89. Medical Facility Evacuation Time Estimates - Rain ................................................................ 822 Table 810. Medical Facility Evacuation Time Estimates - Snow ............................................................ 823 Donald C. Cook Nuclear Plant viii KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

Table 811. Access and/or Functional Needs Population Evacuation Time Estimates ............................ 824 Table 101. Summary of TransitDependent Bus Routes ......................................................................... 102 Table 102. Bus Route Descriptions ......................................................................................................... 103 Table 103. Reception Centers for Schools and Childcare Centers .......................................................... 105 Table A1. Glossary of Traffic Engineering Terms .................................................................................... A1 Table C1. Selected Measures of Effectiveness Output by DYNEV II ........................................................ C8 Table C2. Input Requirements for the DYNEV II Model ........................................................................... C9 Table C3. Glossary ..................................................................................................................................C10 Table E1. Schools within the EPZ .............................................................................................................. E2 Table E2. Medical Facilities within the EPZ............................................................................................... E3 Table E3. Major Employers within the EPZ ............................................................................................... E3 Table E4. Recreational Areas within the EPZ ............................................................................................ E4 Table E5. Lodging Facilities within the EPZ ............................................................................................... E5 Table F1. D.C. Cook Demographic Survey Sampling Plan and Results ..................................................... F6 Table G1. List of Key Manual Traffic Control Locations ........................................................................... G3 Table G2. ETE with No MTC .................................................................................................................... G4 Table H1. Percent of Protective Action Area Population Evacuating for Each Region ............................ H2 Table J1. Sample Simulation Model Input ................................................................................................ J2 Table J2. Selected Model Outputs for the Evacuation of the Entire EPZ (Region R03) ............................ J3 Table J3. Average Speed (mph) and Travel Time (min) for Major Evacuation Routes (Region R03, Scenario 1)................................................................................... J4 Table J4. Simulation Model Outputs at Network Exit Links for Region R03, Scenario 1 .......................... J5 Table K1. Summary of Nodes by the Type of Control ............................................................................... K1 Table M1. Evacuation Time Estimates for Trip Generation Sensitivity Study ........................................ M4 Table M2. Evacuation Time Estimates for Shadow Sensitivity Study ..................................................... M4 Table M3. ETE Variation with Population Change .................................................................................. M5 Table M4. ETE Results for Change in Average Household Size............................................................... M5 Table N1. ETE Review Criteria Checklist ................................................................................................. N1 Donald C. Cook Nuclear Plant ix KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

EXECUTIVE

SUMMARY

This report describes the analyses undertaken and the results obtained by a study to develop Evacuation Time Estimates (ETE) for the Donald C. Cook Nuclear Plant (DCCNP) located in Berrien County, Michigan. ETE are part of the required planning basis and provide American Electric Power (AEP) and State and local governments with sitespecific information needed for Protective Action decisionmaking.

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

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

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

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

December 2019.

Project Activities This project began in November 2020 and extended over a period of about 17 months. The major activities performed are briefly described in chronological sequence:

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

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

Estimated the number of employees who reside outside the Emergency Planning Zone (EPZ) and commute to work within the EPZ based upon data from the US Census Longitudinal EmployerHousehold Dynamics from the OnTheMap Census analysis tool1.

Employment data for the site is based upon data provided by AEP.

Studied Geographic Information Systems (GIS) maps of the area in the vicinity of the DCCNP, then conducted a detailed field survey of the highway network to observe any roadway changes relative to the previous ETE study done in 2012. Obtained construction plans for roadway improvements that were scheduled for completion prior to the finalization of this report, as per NUREG/CR7002, Rev. 1.

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

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

Donald C. Cook Nuclear Plant ES1 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

Used the existing Protective Action Areas (PAA)2 to identify regions.

Conducted an online randomsample demographic survey of residents within the EPZ, to gather focused data needed for this ETE study that were not contained within the census database.

A data matrix was provided to AEP and the OROs at the kickoff meeting. Available data was provided by Berrien County emergency management officials for transient attractions and special facilities (schools, medical facilities). Internet searches and phone calls to facilities were also utilized. If updated information was not provided or available, the data gathered for the 2012 ETE study was utilized.

The traffic demand and tripgeneration rates of evacuating vehicles were estimated from the gathered data. The trip generation rates reflect the estimated mobilization time (i.e.,

the time required by evacuees to prepare for the evacuation trip) computed using the results of the demographic survey of EPZ residents.

Following federal guidelines, the existing 7 PAAs, within the EPZ, are grouped within circular areas or keyhole configurations (circles plus radial sectors) that define a total of 14 Evacuation Regions.

The timevarying external circumstances are represented as Evacuation Scenarios, each described in terms of the following factors: (1) Season (Summer, Winter); (2) Day of Week (Midweek, Weekend); (3) Time of Day (Midday, Evening); and (4) Weather (Good, Rain, Snow). One special event scenario for the Silver Beach fireworks show was considered.

One roadway impact scenario was considered wherein a single lane was closed on I94 eastbound (from DCCNP to the interchange of I196) for the duration of the evacuation.

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

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

A rapidly escalating accident at the DCCNP that quickly assumes the status of a general emergency wherein evacuation is ordered promptly and no early protective actions have been implemented such that the Advisory to Evacuate (ATE) is virtually coincident with the Integrated Public Alert and Warning System (IPAWS) notification.

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

If the emergency occurs while schools are in session, the ETE study assumes that the children will be evacuated by bus directly to school reception centers located outside the 2

The PAAs have been updated since the 2012 ETE study. KLD received updated PAA boundaries from the Berrien County Homeland Security Division for use in this study.

Donald C. Cook Nuclear Plant ES2 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

EPZ. Parents, relatives, and neighbors are advised to not pick up their children at school prior to the arrival of the buses dispatched for that purpose. The ETE for schoolchildren are calculated separately.

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

Attended final meeting with AEP personnel and emergency management personnel representing state and county governments to present results from the study.

Computation of ETE A total of 196 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 14 Evacuation Regions to evacuate from that Region, under the circumstances defined for one of the 14 Evacuation Scenarios (14 x 14 = 196). Separate ETE are calculated for transitdependent evacuees, including schoolchildren for applicable scenarios.

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

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

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

The computational procedure is outlined as follows:

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

The evacuation trips are generated at locations called zonal centroids located within the EPZ and Shadow Region. The trip generation rates vary over time reflecting the Donald C. Cook Nuclear Plant ES3 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

mobilization process, and from one location (centroid) to another depending on population density and on whether a centroid is within, or outside, the impacted area.

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

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

Traffic Management This study applies the existing comprehensive traffic management plans provided by Berrien County. As discussed in Section 9 and Appendix G, no additional traffic and access control points (TACP) are recommended as a result of this study.

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

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

Table 61 defines each of the 14 Evacuation Regions in terms of their respective groups of PAAs.

Table 62 defines the 14 Evacuation Scenarios.

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

Tables 73 and 74 present ETE for the 2mile region for unstaged and staged evacuations for the 90th and 100th percentiles, respectively.

Table 82 present ETE for the schools in good weather.

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

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

Figure 61 displays a map of the DCCNP EPZ showing the layout of the 7 PAAs that comprise, in aggregate, the EPZ.

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

Table M3 compares the results of the sensitivity study conducted to determine the effect Donald C. Cook Nuclear Plant ES4 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

on ETE due to changes in the permanent resident population within the study area (EPZ plus Shadow Region).

Conclusions General population ETE were computed for 196 unique cases. Table 71 and Table 72 document these ETE for the 90th and 100th percentiles. The 90th percentile ETE range from 2:05 (hr:min) to 3:40. The 100th percentile ETE range from 4:15 to 6:05.

Inspection of Table 71 and Table 72 indicates that the ETE for the 100th percentile are significantly longer than those for the 90th percentile. When the system becomes congested, traffic exits the EPZ at rates somewhat below capacity until some evacuation routes have cleared. As more routes clear, the aggregate rate of egress slows since many vehicles have already left the EPZ. Towards the end of the process, relatively few evacuation routes service the remaining demand. As a result, those vehicles who take longest to mobilize dictate the 100th percentile ETE. See Sections 7.3 through 7.5, and Figures 710 through 723.

Inspection of Table 73 and Table 74 indicates that a staged evacuation provides no benefits to evacuees from within the 2mile region (compare Region R01 with Regions R12 through R14, in Table 73) and adversely impacts some evacuees beyond the 2mile region (compare Regions R02, R04 and R05 with Regions R12 through R14, respectively, in Table 71). See Section 7.6 for additional discussion.

Comparison of Scenarios 5 (summer, midweek/weekend, evening) and 13 (summer, weekend, evening) in Table 71 and Table 72 indicates that the special event, Silver Beach fireworks show, has a significant impact on both the 90th percentile ETE (increased by up to 1 hour1.157407e-5 days <br />2.777778e-4 hours <br />1.653439e-6 weeks <br />3.805e-7 months <br /> and 5 minutes) and the 100th percentile ETE (increased by up to 1 hour1.157407e-5 days <br />2.777778e-4 hours <br />1.653439e-6 weeks <br />3.805e-7 months <br /> and 40 minutes). See Section 7.5 for additional discussion.

Comparison of Scenarios 1 and 14 in Table 71 and Table 72 indicates that the roadway closure - one lane on I94 eastbound - causes at most a 10 minute increase for the 90th percentile ETE and no impact for the 100th percentile ETE. See Section 7.5 for additional discussion.

The population centers of St. Joseph and Benton Harbor are the most congested areas throughout the evacuation. Both I94 northbound and US31 northbound, specifically near the I196 interchange, experience significant congestion throughout the evacuation period. All congestion within the EPZ clears by 4 hours4.62963e-5 days <br />0.00111 hours <br />6.613757e-6 weeks <br />1.522e-6 months <br /> after the Advisory to Evacuate. See Section 7.3 and Figures 73 through 79.

Separate ETE were computed for schools, medical facilities, transitdependent persons and access and/or functional needs persons. The average singlewave ETE for schools is 55 minutes less than the 90th percentile ETE for the general population; average single wave ETE for medical facilities is 35 minutes less than the 90th percentile ETE for the general population; average singlewave ETE for transit dependent persons is comparable (5 minutes longer) to the 90th percentile for the general population. The average single wave ETE for access and/or functional needs persons is 40 minutes longer than the general population ETE at the 90th percentile. See Section 8.

Donald C. Cook Nuclear Plant ES5 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

Table 81 indicates that there are not sufficient buses and ambulances available to evacuate everyone in a single wave. See Section 8.

A reduction in the base trip generation time by 1 hour1.157407e-5 days <br />2.777778e-4 hours <br />1.653439e-6 weeks <br />3.805e-7 months <br /> reduces the general population ETE at the 90th percentile by 10 minutes. An increase in mobilization time by 1 hour1.157407e-5 days <br />2.777778e-4 hours <br />1.653439e-6 weeks <br />3.805e-7 months <br /> increases the 90th percentile ETE by 25 minutes. See Table M1.

An increase in voluntary evacuation of vehicles in the Shadow Region has no impact on the general population ETE. See Table M2.

An increase in permanent resident population (EPZ plus Shadow Region) of 25% or greater results in an increase in the longest 90th percentile ETE of 30 minutes, which meets the federal criterion for performing a fully updated ETE study between decennial Censuses.

See Section M.3.

An increase in the average household size from 2.36 people per household to 2.95 people per household will result in 14% less evacuating vehicles and minimally impacts ETE with a reduction of 20 minutes in a full EPZ evacuation (Region R03) at the 90th percentile. See Section M.4.

Donald C. Cook Nuclear Plant ES6 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

Table 31. EPZ Permanent Resident Population PAA 2010 Population3 2020 Population 1 2,239 2,155 2 14,350 14,681 3 6,079 6,344 4 30,819 29,206 5 14,371 12,028 6 0 0 7 0 0 EPZ TOTAL: 67,858 64,414 EPZ Population Growth (20102020): 5.08%

3 The PAA boundaries have changed slightly since the previous ETE study (KLD TR-488, Rev. 1, dated November 2012). The 2010 numbers in Table 3-1 present the population in the old PAAs, while the 2020 numbers present the population in the latest PAAs.

Donald C. Cook Nuclear Plant ES7 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

Table 61. Description of Evacuation Regions Radial Regions Wind From Protective Action Area Region Description (in Degrees) 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 R01 2Mile Region N/A X X R02 5Mile Region N/A X X X X R03 Full EPZ N/A X X X X X X X Evacuate 2Mile Region and Downwind to 5 Miles Wind Direction Wind From Protective Action Area Region From (in Degrees) 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 NW, NNW N, NNE, R04 303.7556.25 X X X NE ENE, E, ESE, SE, SSE 56.25168.75 Refer to Region R01 R05 S, SSW 168.75213.75 X X X SW, WSW, W, 213.75303.75 Refer to Region R02 WNW Evacuate 2Mile Region and Downwind to the EPZ Boundary Wind Direction Wind From Protective Action Area Region From (in Degrees) 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 R06 N, NNE, NE 348.7556.25 X X X X X R07 ENE, E, ESE, SE, SSE 56.25168.75 X X X R08 S, SSW 168.75213.75 X X X X X R09 SW 213.75236.25 X X X X X X R10 WSW, W, WNW 236.25303.75 X X X X X X R11 NW, NNW 303.75348.75 X X X X Staged Evacuation 2Mile Region Evacuates, then Evacuate Downwind to 5 Miles Wind Direction Wind From Protective Action Area Region From (in Degrees) 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 R12 N/A 5Mile Region X X X X NW, NNW N, NNE, R13 303.7556.25 X X X NE ENE, E, ESE, SE, SSE 56.25168.75 Refer to Region R01 R14 S, SSW 168.75213.75 X X X SW, WSW, W, 213.75303.75 Refer to Region R12 WNW PAA(s) ShelterinPlace until PAA(s) Shelterin PAA(s) Evacuate 90% ETE for R01, then Place Evacuate Donald C. Cook Nuclear Plant ES8 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

Table 62. Evacuation Scenario Definitions Time of 4

Scenario Season Day of Week Day Weather Special 1 Summer Midweek Midday Good None 2 Summer Midweek Midday Rain None 3 Summer Weekend Midday Good None 4 Summer Weekend Midday Rain None Midweek, 5 Summer Evening Good None Weekend 6 Winter Midweek Midday Good None Rain/Light 7 Winter Midweek Midday None Snow 8 Winter Midweek Midday Heavy Snow None 9 Winter Weekend Midday Good None Rain/Light 10 Winter Weekend Midday None Snow 11 Winter Weekend Midday Heavy Snow None Midweek, 12 Winter Evening Good None Weekend Silver Beach 13 Summer Weekend Evening Good Fireworks Show Roadway Impact -

14 Summer Midweek Midday Good Single Lane Closure on I94 Eastbound 4

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

Donald C. Cook Nuclear Plant ES9 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

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

Midday Midday Evening Midday Midday Evening Evening Midday Region Good Good Good Good Rain/Light Heavy Good Rain/Light Heavy Good Special Roadway Rain Rain Weather Weather Weather Weather Snow Snow Weather Snow Snow Weather Event Impact Entire 2Mile Region, 5Mile Region, and EPZ R01 2:05 2:10 2:05 2:10 2:05 2:05 2:10 2:15 2:05 2:10 2:15 2:05 2:05 2:05 R02 2:20 2:20 2:10 2:15 2:15 2:20 2:20 2:40 2:10 2:15 2:25 2:15 2:15 2:20 R03 3:00 3:05 2:50 2:55 2:55 3:00 3:10 3:40 2:50 2:55 3:25 2:50 3:35 3:10 2Mile Region and Keyhole to 5 Miles R04 2:10 2:15 2:10 2:10 2:10 2:15 2:15 2:25 2:10 2:10 2:20 2:10 2:10 2:10 R05 2:15 2:15 2:10 2:10 2:10 2:15 2:15 2:35 2:10 2:10 2:20 2:10 2:10 2:15 2Mile Region and Keyhole to EPZ Boundary R06 2:20 2:20 2:15 2:15 2:15 2:20 2:20 2:40 2:15 2:15 2:30 2:15 2:15 2:20 R07 2:05 2:10 2:05 2:10 2:05 2:05 2:10 2:15 2:05 2:10 2:15 2:05 2:05 2:05 R08 3:10 3:20 2:55 3:05 3:05 3:10 3:20 3:40 2:55 3:00 3:30 3:05 4:10 3:15 R09 3:00 3:15 2:50 3:00 2:55 3:00 3:10 3:35 2:50 2:55 3:30 3:00 3:45 3:10 R10 3:00 3:05 2:50 2:55 2:55 3:00 3:10 3:40 2:50 2:55 3:25 2:50 3:35 3:10 R11 2:20 2:20 2:15 2:15 2:15 2:20 2:20 2:40 2:15 2:15 2:30 2:15 2:15 2:20 Staged Evacuation 2Mile Region and Keyhole to 5 Miles R12 2:40 2:40 2:35 2:40 2:40 2:40 2:40 3:05 2:35 2:40 3:00 2:40 2:40 2:40 R13 2:20 2:20 2:20 2:20 2:25 2:20 2:20 2:40 2:20 2:20 2:40 2:25 2:25 2:20 R14 2:40 2:40 2:40 2:40 2:45 2:40 2:40 3:05 2:35 2:40 3:00 2:45 2:45 2:40 Donald C. Cook Nuclear Plant ES10 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

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

Midday Midday Evening Midday Midday Evening Evening Midday Region Good Good Good Good Rain/Light Heavy Good Rain/Light Heavy Good Special Roadway Rain Rain Weather Weather Weather Weather Snow Snow Weather Snow Snow Weather Event Impact Entire 2Mile Region, 5Mile Region, and EPZ R01 4:15 4:15 4:15 4:15 4:15 4:15 4:15 4:45 4:15 4:15 4:45 4:15 4:15 4:15 R02 4:20 4:20 4:20 4:20 4:20 4:20 4:20 4:50 4:20 4:20 4:50 4:20 4:20 4:20 R03 4:25 4:25 4:25 4:25 4:25 4:25 4:25 4:55 4:25 4:25 4:55 4:25 6:05 4:25 2Mile Region and Keyhole to 5 Miles R04 4:20 4:20 4:20 4:20 4:20 4:20 4:20 4:50 4:20 4:20 4:50 4:20 4:20 4:20 R05 4:20 4:20 4:20 4:20 4:20 4:20 4:20 4:50 4:20 4:20 4:50 4:20 4:20 4:20 2Mile Region and Keyhole to EPZ Boundary R06 4:25 4:25 4:25 4:25 4:25 4:25 4:25 4:55 4:25 4:25 4:55 4:25 4:25 4:25 R07 4:15 4:15 4:15 4:15 4:15 4:15 4:15 4:45 4:15 4:15 4:45 4:15 4:15 4:15 R08 4:25 4:25 4:25 4:25 4:25 4:25 4:25 4:55 4:25 4:25 4:55 4:25 6:05 4:25 R09 4:25 4:25 4:25 4:25 4:25 4:25 4:25 4:55 4:25 4:25 4:55 4:25 6:05 4:25 R10 4:25 4:25 4:25 4:25 4:25 4:25 4:25 4:55 4:25 4:25 4:55 4:25 6:05 4:25 R11 4:25 4:25 4:25 4:25 4:25 4:25 4:25 4:55 4:25 4:25 4:55 4:25 4:25 4:25 Staged Evacuation 2Mile Region and Keyhole to 5 Miles R12 4:20 4:20 4:20 4:20 4:20 4:20 4:20 4:50 4:20 4:20 4:50 4:20 4:20 4:20 R13 4:20 4:20 4:20 4:20 4:20 4:20 4:20 4:50 4:20 4:20 4:50 4:20 4:20 4:20 R14 4:20 4:20 4:20 4:20 4:20 4:20 4:20 4:50 4:20 4:20 4:50 4:20 4:20 4:20 Donald C. Cook Nuclear Plant ES11 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

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

Midday Midday Evening Midday Midday Evening Evening Midday Region Good Good Good Good Rain/Light Heavy Good Rain/Light Heavy Good Special Roadway Rain Rain Weather Weather Weather Weather Snow Snow Weather Snow Snow Weather Event Impact Entire 2Mile Region and 5Mile Region R01 2:05 2:10 2:05 2:10 2:05 2:05 2:10 2:15 2:05 2:10 2:15 2:05 2:05 2:05 R02 2:05 2:10 2:05 2:10 2:05 2:05 2:10 2:15 2:05 2:10 2:15 2:05 2:05 2:05 Unstaged Evacuation 2Mile Region and Keyhole to 5Miles R04 2:05 2:10 2:05 2:10 2:05 2:05 2:10 2:15 2:05 2:10 2:15 2:05 2:05 2:05 R05 2:05 2:10 2:05 2:10 2:05 2:05 2:10 2:15 2:05 2:10 2:15 2:05 2:05 2:05 Staged Evacuation 2Mile Region and Keyhole to 5Miles R12 2:05 2:10 2:05 2:10 2:05 2:05 2:10 2:15 2:05 2:10 2:15 2:05 2:05 2:05 R13 2:05 2:10 2:05 2:10 2:05 2:05 2:10 2:15 2:05 2:10 2:15 2:05 2:05 2:05 R14 2:05 2:10 2:05 2:10 2:05 2:05 2:10 2:15 2:05 2:10 2:15 2:05 2:05 2:05 Donald C. Cook Nuclear Plant ES12 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

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

Midday Midday Evening Midday Midday Evening Evening Midday Region Good Good Good Good Rain/Light Heavy Good Rain/Light Heavy Good Special Roadway Rain Rain Weather Weather Weather Weather Snow Snow Weather Snow Snow Weather Event Impact Entire 2Mile Region and 5Mile Region R01 4:15 4:15 4:15 4:15 4:15 4:15 4:15 4:45 4:15 4:15 4:45 4:15 4:15 4:15 R02 4:15 4:15 4:15 4:15 4:15 4:15 4:15 4:45 4:15 4:15 4:45 4:15 4:15 4:15 Unstaged Evacuation 2Mile Region and Keyhole to 5Miles R04 4:15 4:15 4:15 4:15 4:15 4:15 4:15 4:45 4:15 4:15 4:45 4:15 4:15 4:15 R05 4:15 4:15 4:15 4:15 4:15 4:15 4:15 4:45 4:15 4:15 4:45 4:15 4:15 4:15 Staged Evacuation 2Mile Region and Keyhole to 5Miles R12 4:15 4:15 4:15 4:15 4:15 4:15 4:15 4:45 4:15 4:15 4:45 4:15 4:15 4:15 R13 4:15 4:15 4:15 4:15 4:15 4:15 4:15 4:45 4:15 4:15 4:45 4:15 4:15 4:15 R14 4:15 4:15 4:15 4:15 4:15 4:15 4:15 4:45 4:15 4:15 4:45 4:15 4:15 4:15 Donald C. Cook Nuclear Plant ES13 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

Table 82. School Evacuation Time Estimates Good Weather Dist. Travel Dist.

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

School Time (min) (min) (mi) (mph) (min) (hr:min) (mi.) S.R.C. (min) (hr:min)

Berrien County Schools Bridgman Elementary School 90 15 11.8 51.7 14 2:00 5.1 5 2:05 St. Pauls Lutheran School 90 15 7.4 62.3 7 1:55 2.2 2 2:00 Roosevelt Elementary School 90 15 8.4 43.9 11 2:00 2.2 2 2:05 Lakeshore High School 90 15 8.5 42.5 12 2:00 2.2 2 2:05 Lakeshore Middle School 90 15 8.9 42.5 13 2:00 2.2 2 2:05 Stewart Elementary School 90 15 7.7 62.7 7 1:55 2.2 2 2:00 Christ Lutheran Church and School 90 15 6.5 8.0 49 2:35 2.2 2 2:40 Upton Middle School 90 15 4.2 38.9 6 1:55 2.2 2 2:00 Bridgman High School 90 15 11.8 51.7 14 2:00 5.5 5 2:05 F.C. Reed Middle School 90 15 11.4 47.2 15 2:00 4.7 4 2:05 Hollywood Elementary School 90 15 5.8 34.9 10 1:55 2.2 2 2:00 Brown Elementary School 90 15 7.0 6.3 67 2:55 2.2 2 3:00 Lighthouse Education Center 90 15 9.4 8.3 68 2:55 0.1 1 3:00 Lake Michigan Catholic Elementary School 90 15 5.6 11.0 30 2:15 2.1 2 2:20 Michigan Lutheran High School 90 15 4.7 6.3 45 2:30 2.2 2 2:35 Special Education/Admin Building 90 15 5.1 20.8 15 2:00 2.2 2 2:05 Grace Lutheran Church and School 90 15 4.5 6.8 40 2:25 2.2 2 2:30 E. P. Clark Elementary School 90 15 4.3 23.5 11 2:00 2.2 2 2:05 Great Lakes Montessori 90 15 3.4 34.2 6 1:55 2.2 2 2:00 St Joseph's High School 90 15 4.1 22.1 11 2:00 2.1 2 2:05 Brookview School 90 15 3.1 32.2 6 1:55 0.4 1 2:00 Lincoln Elementary School 90 15 3.4 33.7 6 1:55 2.1 2 2:00 Arts & Communications Academy at Fair Plain School 90 15 0.8 32.7 1 1:50 0.4 1 1:55 River School 90 15 3.8 49.4 5 1:50 3.6 3 1:55 Fair Plain East Elementary School 90 15 1.9 40.7 3 1:50 0.4 1 1:55 Donald C. Cook Nuclear Plant ES14 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

Dist. Travel Dist.

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

School Time (min) (min) (mi) (mph) (min) (hr:min) (mi.) S.R.C. (min) (hr:min)

Chikaming Elementary School 90 15 5.5 46.8 7 1:55 3.1 3 2:00 River Valley Middle/High School 90 15 0.8 48.5 1 1:50 8.4 8 2:00 Andrews Academy 90 15 0.8 34.4 1 1:50 0.8 1 1:55 Ruth Murdoch Elementary School 90 15 0.7 34.4 1 1:50 0.8 1 1:55 Maximum for EPZ: 2:55 Maximum: 3:00 Average for EPZ: 2:05 Average: 2:10 Donald C. Cook Nuclear Plant ES15 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

Table 85. TransitDependent Evacuation Time Estimates Good Weather OneWave TwoWave Route Travel Route Route Travel Pickup Distance Time to Driver Travel Pickup UNITES PAA(s) Mobilization Length Speed Time Time ETE to C.C.C. C.C.C. Unload Rest Time Time ETE Route Route # Serviced (min) (miles) (mph) (min) (min) (hr:min) (miles) (min) (min) (min) (min) (min) (hr:min) 1 42 2&4 120 8.1 8.9 54 30 3:25 12.3 11 5 10 30 30 4:55 2 43 3&5 120 8.7 49.0 11 30 2:45 3.0 3 5 10 22 30 3:55 3 44 4 120 4.5 5.6 49 30 3:20 12.3 11 5 10 22 30 4:40 4 15 4 120 12.2 11.5 64 30 3:35 10.2 9 5 10 35 30 5:05 5 46 5 120 7.1 50.2 8 30 2:40 3.0 3 5 10 17 30 3:45 6 41 1&3 120 16.7 51.0 20 30 2:50 12.3 11 5 10 45 30 4:35 7 47 5 120 5.5 46.6 7 30 2:40 13.9 13 5 10 24 30 4:05 Maximum ETE: 3:35 Maximum ETE: 5:05 Average ETE: 3:05 Average ETE: 4:25 Donald C. Cook Nuclear Plant ES16 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

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

Ambulatory 90 1 63 30 11.8 11 2:15 Woodland Terrace of Wheelchair bound 90 5 20 75 11.8 11 3:00 Bridgman Bedridden 90 15 1 15 11.8 11 2:00 Ambulatory 90 1 72 30 8.2 8 2:10 Pine Ridge Rehabilitation And Wheelchair bound 90 5 26 75 8.2 8 2:55 Nursing Center Bedridden 90 15 1 15 8.2 8 1:55 Ambulatory 90 1 62 30 10.3 10 2:10 West Woods of Bridgman Wheelchair bound 90 5 32 75 10.3 10 2:55 Nursing Center Bedridden 90 15 2 30 10.3 10 2:10 Ambulatory 90 1 9 9 10.2 11 1:50 Kevelin Care Wheelchair bound 90 5 2 10 10.2 11 1:55 Ambulatory 90 1 113 30 4.1 6 2:10 Caring Circle of Lakeland Wheelchair bound 90 5 41 75 4.1 4 2:50 Bedridden 90 15 2 30 4.1 6 2:10 Ambulatory 90 1 138 30 3.8 5 2:05 Caretel Inns St. Joseph Wheelchair bound 90 5 48 75 3.8 4 2:50 Bedridden 90 15 2 30 3.8 5 2:05 Ambulatory 90 1 14 14 4.8 50 2:35 Royalton Manor LLC Wheelchair bound 90 5 46 75 4.8 23 3:10 Bedridden 90 15 5 30 4.8 51 2:55 Ambulatory 90 1 179 30 1.4 13 2:15 Lakeland Hospital, St. Joseph Wheelchair bound 90 5 66 75 1.4 9 2:55 Bedridden 90 15 3 30 1.4 13 2:15 Maximum ETE: 3:10 Average ETE: 2:25 Donald C. Cook Nuclear Plant ES17 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

Figure 61. DCCNP EPZ Protective Action Areas Donald C. Cook Nuclear Plant ES18 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

Figure H8. Region R08 Donald C. Cook Nuclear Plant ES19 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

Table M3. ETE Variation with Population Change EPZ and 20% Population Change Base Shadow Resident 24% 25% 26%

Population 72,065 89,361 90,081 90,802 ETE for 90th Percentile Population Change Region Base 24% 25% 26%

2MILE 2:15 2:15 2:15 2:15 5MILE 2:40 2:45 2:45 2:45 FULL EPZ 3:40 4:00 4:10 4:10 ETE for 100th Percentile Population Change Region Base 24% 25% 26%

2MILE 4:45 4:45 4:45 4:50 5MILE 4:50 4:50 4:50 4:50 FULL EPZ 4:55 5:35 5:35 5:35 Donald C. Cook Nuclear Plant ES20 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

1 INTRODUCTION This report describes the analyses undertaken and the results obtained by a study to develop Evacuation Time Estimates (ETE) for the D.C. Cook Nuclear Plant, located in Berrien County, Michigan. This ETE study provides American Electric Power (AEP) and state and local governments with sitespecific information needed for Protective Action decisionmaking.

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

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

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

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

December 2019.

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

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

1. Information Gathering:

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

b. Attended meetings with emergency planners from Berrien County Emergency Management and Michigan Emergency Management to discuss methodology and project assumptions.

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

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

e. Conducted an online demographic survey of EPZ residents.

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

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

Donald C. Cook Nuclear Plant 11 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

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

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

5. Used existing Protective Action Areas (PAA) to define Evacuation Areas or Regions. The EPZ is partitioned into 7 PAA along jurisdictional and geographic boundaries. Regions are groups of contiguous PAAs for which ETE are calculated. The configurations of these Regions reflect wind direction and the radial extent of the impacted area. Each Region, other than those that approximate circular areas, approximates a keyhole section within the EPZ as recommended by NUREG/CR7002, Rev. 1.

6. Estimated demand for transit services for persons at special facilities and for transit dependent persons at home.

7. Prepared the input streams for the DYNEV II.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Donald C. Cook Nuclear Plant 12 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

1.2 The Donald C. Cook Nuclear Plant Location The D.C. Cook Nuclear Plant is located on the eastern bank of Lake Michigan in Bridgman Township, Berrien County, Michigan. The site is approximately 25 miles northwest of South Bend, Indiana and 55 miles east of Chicago, Illinois. The Emergency Planning Zone (EPZ) is completely contained within Berrien County. Figure 11 displays the area surrounding DCCNP.

This map identifies the communities in the area and the major roads.

1.3 Preliminary Activities These activities are described below.

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

These characteristics are shown in Table 12.

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

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

Freeway: limited access highway, 2 or more lanes in each direction, high free flow speeds Freeway ramp: ramp on to or off of a limited access highway Major arterial: 3 or more lanes in each direction Minor arterial: 2 or more lanes in each direction Collector: single lane in each direction Local roadway: single lane in each direction, local road with low free flow speeds As documented on page 156 of the HCM 2016, the capacity of a twolane highway is 1,700 passenger cars per hour in one direction. For freeway sections, a value of 2,250 vehicles per hour per lane is assigned, as per Exhibit 1237 of the HCM 2016. The road survey has identified several segments which are characterized by adverse geometrics on twolane highways which Donald C. Cook Nuclear Plant 13 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

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

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

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

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

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

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

Appendix F presents the survey instrument, the procedures used, and tabulations of data compiled from the survey returns along with discussion validating the use of the survey results in this study.

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

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

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

Analytical Tools The DYNEV II System that was employed for this study is comprised of several integrated computer models. One of these is the DYNEV (DYnamic Network EVacuation) macroscopic simulation model, a new version of the IDYNEV model that was developed by KLD under Donald C. Cook Nuclear Plant 14 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

contract with the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA).

DYNEV II consists of four submodels:

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

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

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

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

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

The dynamics of traffic flow over the network are graphically animated using the software product, EVAN (EVacuation ANimator), developed by KLD. EVAN is GIS based, and displays statistics such as LOS, vehicles discharged, average speed, and percent of vehicles evacuated, output by the DYNEV II System. The use of a GIS framework enables the user to zoom in on areas of congestion and query road name, town name and other geographical information.

The procedure for applying the DYNEV II System within the framework of developing ETE is outlined in Appendix D. Appendix A is a glossary of terms.

For the reader interested in an evaluation of the original model, IDYNEV, the following references are suggested:

NUREG/CR4873 - Benchmark Study of the IDYNEV Evacuation Time Estimate Computer Code NUREG/CR4874 - The Sensitivity of Evacuation Time Estimates to Changes in Input Parameters for the IDYNEV Computer Code The evacuation analysis procedures are based upon the need to:

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

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

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

DYNEV II provides a detailed description of traffic operations on the evacuation network. This description enables the analyst to identify bottlenecks and to develop countermeasures that Donald C. Cook Nuclear Plant 15 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

are designed to represent the behavioral responses of evacuees. The effects of these countermeasures may then be tested with the model.

1.4 Comparison with Prior ETE Study Table 13 presents a comparison of the present ETE study with the previous ETE study (KLD TR 488, dated November 2012). The 90th percentile ETE for the full EPZ increases by 35 minutes for a winter, midweek, midday, good weather scenario and by 30 minutes for a summer, weekend, midday, good weather scenario when compared with the 2012 study. The 100th percentile ETE decreases by 20 minutes and 15 minutes for the same scenarios, respectively. The major factors contributing to the similarities between the ETE values obtained in this study and those of the previous study are:

Trip generations times decreased by 15 minutes for both residents with and without returning commuters based on data collected from the demographic survey. This is directly correlated with the decrease of the 100th percentile ETE for this site. Since all congestion clears prior to the end of trip generation time, the 100th percentile ETE is dictated by the time needed to mobilize (plus a 10minute travel time out of the EPZ).

The number of employees commuting into the EPZ decreased significantly (55.41%)

which results in a decrease in vehicular demand that can decrease the 100th percentile ETE. This decrease in quickly mobilizing employees can increase the 90th percentile ETE as it will take longer to reach an evacuation of 90% of the population. This is due to the NRCs change in criteria for major employers (from 50+ employees to 200+ employees) and has the biggest impact on midweek, midday scenarios. Since employees are present at lower rates on weekends and evenings, this has less of an impact on those scenarios.

Transient population increased by 8%. This results in approximately 1,100 more vehicles evacuating and can increase the ETE. This has the biggest impact on summer and evening scenarios. Since transients are present at lower rates on weekdays and during the winter, this has less of an impact on those scenarios.

Donald C. Cook Nuclear Plant 16 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

Table 11. Stakeholder Interaction Stakeholder Nature of Stakeholder Interaction Meetings to define data requirements and set up contacts with local government agencies.

American Electric Power (AEP) emergency Reviewed and approved all project assumptions.

planning personnel Attended final meeting where the ETE study results were presented.

Met to discuss project methodology, key project assumptions and to define data needs. Provided county emergency plans, special facility data and Berrien County Emergency Management existing traffic management plans. Reviewed and approved all project assumptions. Attended final meeting where the ETE study results were presented.

Met to discuss project methodology, key project assumptions and to define data needs. Provided county emergency plans, special facility data and Michigan Emergency Management and Homeland existing traffic management plans. Reviewed and Security Division of the Michigan State Police approved all project assumptions. Attended final meeting where the ETE study results were presented.

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

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

Donald C. Cook Nuclear Plant 17 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

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

Basis Population = 67,858 Population = 64,414 2.47 persons/household, 1.32 2.36 persons/household, 1.50 Resident Population evacuating vehicles/household evacuating vehicles/household Vehicle Occupancy yielding: 1.87 persons/vehicle. yielding: 1.57 persons/vehicle.

Employee estimates based on Employee estimates based on information provided about major information provided about major Employee employers in EPZ. 1.03 employees per employers in EPZ. 1.06 employees per Population vehicle based on telephone survey vehicle based on demographic survey results. results.

Employees = 2,427 Employees = 1,082 Estimates based upon U.S. Census data and the results of the 2020 demographic survey. Includes TransitDependent population households with 0 vehicles and estimated using population estimates households with 1 or 2 vehicles which and results of telephone survey. are used by a commuter who would Homebound special needs population not return home and an 85% rideshare Transit Dependent was provided by Berrien County percentage. A total of 224 people who Population Emergency Management do not have access to a vehicle, requiring 10 buses to evacuate. An TransitDependent population = 2,206 additional 124 access and/or functional Access and/or Functional Needs needs persons need special Population = 162 transportation to evacuate (45 require a bus, 78 require a wheelchair accessible vehicle, and 1 require an ambulance).

Transient estimates based upon Transient estimates based upon information provided by Berrien information provided about transient County, by contacting attractions in EPZ, supplemented by each transient facility, internet Transient observations of the facilities during the searches, and satellite imagery, Population/Seasonal road survey and from aerial supplemented by data from the Population photography.

previous ETE study.

Transients = 8,215 Transients = 9,112 Seasonal Residents = 3,551 Seasonal Residents = 3,676 Total = 11,766 Total = 12,788 Donald C. Cook Nuclear Plant 18 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

Topic Previous ETE Study Current ETE Study Special facility population based on Special facility population based on information provided by internet information provided by Berrien searches and supplemented by data County.

from the previous ETE study.

Medical Facility Current census = 639 Population Medical Facility Population = 947 Ambulatory residents = 463 Ambulatory residents = 650 Wheelchair bound residents = 169 Wheelchair bound residents = 281 Residents requiring ambulance = 7 Residents requiring ambulance = 16 School population based on School population based on information provided by Berrien information provided by Berrien School Population County. County and internet searches.

School enrollment = 13,776 School enrollment = 12,074 ArcGIS software using 2010 US Census ArcGIS software using 2020 US Census Shadow Population blocks; area ratio method used. blocks; area ratio method used.

Population = 36,905 Population = 32,714 Voluntary evacuation from 20 percent of the population within the 20 percent of the population within the within EPZ in areas EPZ, but not within the Evacuation EPZ, but not within the Evacuation outside region to be Region Region evacuated 20% of people outside of the EPZ 20% of people outside of the EPZ Shadow Evacuation within the Shadow Region within the Shadow Region Network Size 1,462 Links; 819 Nodes 1,722 Links; 1,005 Nodes Field surveys conducted in May, 2011.

Major intersections were video Field surveys conducted in November Roadway Geometric archived. GIS shapefiles of signal 2020. Roads and intersections were Data locations and roadway characteristics video archived.

created during road survey. Road capacities based on 2016 HCM.

Road capacities based on 2010 HCM Direct evacuation to designated Direct evacuation to designated School School Evacuation Reception Center/Host School. Reception Center.

85 percent of transitdependent Ridesharing Not considered persons will evacuate with a neighbor or friend.

Donald C. Cook Nuclear Plant 19 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

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

Residents with commuters returning Residents with commuters returning leave between 30 and 270 minutes. leave between 45 and 255 minutes.

Trip Generation for Residents without commuters Residents without commuters Evacuation returning leave between 15 and 240 returning leave between 30 and 225 minutes. minutes.

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

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

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

Modeling DYNEV II System - Version 4.0.0.0 DYNEV II System - Version 4.0.21.0 Special Events Fourth of July Fireworks at Silver Beach Fourth of July Fireworks at Silver Beach 10 Regions (central sector wind 14 Regions (central sector wind direction and each adjacent sector direction and each adjacent sector Evacuation Cases technique used) and 14 Scenarios technique used) and 14 Scenarios producing 140 unique cases. producing 196 unique cases.

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

Evacuation Time Winter Weekday Midday, Winter Weekday Midday, Estimates for the Good Weather: 2:25 Good Weather: 3:00 entire EPZ, 90th Summer Weekend, Midday, Summer Weekend, Midday, percentile Good Weather: 2:20 Good Weather: 2:50 Evacuation Time Winter Weekday Midday, Winter Weekday Midday, Estimates for the Good Weather: 4:45 Good Weather: 4:25 entire EPZ, 100th Summer Weekend, Midday, Summer Weekend, Midday, percentile Good Weather: 4:40 Good Weather: 4:25 Donald C. Cook Nuclear Plant 110 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

Figure 11. DCCNP Location Donald C. Cook Nuclear Plant 111 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

Figure 12. DCCNP LinkNode Analysis Network Donald C. Cook Nuclear Plant 112 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

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

2.1 Data Estimates

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

2. Estimates of employees who reside outside the Emergency Planning Zone (EPZ) and commute to work within the EPZ are based upon data from the US Census Longitudinal EmployerHousehold Dynamics from the OnTheMap Census analysis tool2. Employment data for the site is based upon data provided by AEP. (See Section 3.4.)

3. Population estimates at transient and special facilities are based on the data received from Berrien County, the National Center for Education Statistics website3, the National Application Center website4, the Health Resources and Services Administration website5, satellite imagery of the facilities, and the previous ETE study, supplemented by internet searches and phone calls to individual facilities where data was missing.

4. The relationship between permanent resident population and evacuating vehicles is based on Census data and the results of the demographic survey (see Appendix F). Values of 2.36 persons per household and 1.50 evacuating vehicles per household are used for the permanent resident population.

5. Where data was not provided, the average household size is assumed to be the vehicle occupancy rate for transient facilities and the special event. On average, the relationship between persons and vehicles for transients and the special event is as follows:

a. Parks and other recreational facilities: about 2.22 people per vehicle

b. Marinas: 2.00 people per vehicle

c. Campgrounds: 2.24 people per vehicle

d. Lodging facilities: 2.00 people per vehicle

e. Golf Courses: 1.88 people per vehicle

f. Special event: 2.36 people per vehicle

6. Employee vehicle occupancies are based on the results of the demographic survey; 1.06 employees per vehicle is used in the study. (See Figure F7.)

7. The maximum bus speed assumed within the EPZ is 65 mph based on Michigan state laws for buses and average posted speed limits on roadways within the EPZ.

1 www.census.gov 2

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

3 https://nces.ed.gov/ccd/schoolsearch/index.asp 4

https://www.nationalapplicationcenter.com/

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

Donald C. Cook Nuclear Plant 21 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

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

2.2 Methodological Assumptions

1. The Planning Basis Assumption for the calculation of ETE is a rapidly escalating accident that requires evacuation, and includes the following6 (as per NRC guidance):

a. Advisory to Evacuate (ATE) is announced coincident with the Integrated Public Alert and Warning System (IPAWS) notification.

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

c. ETE are measured relative to the ATE.

2. The centerpoint of the plant is located at the center of the containment building 41° 58' 32.31" N, 86° 33' 54.86" W.

3. The DYNEV II7 system is used to compute ETE in this study.

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

5. The existing EPZ and Protective Action Area (PAA) boundaries are used. See Figure 31.

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

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

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

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

Twenty percent (20%) of the population within the Shadow Region and within PAAs of the EPZ not advised to evacuate will voluntarily evacuate, as shown in Figure 21, as per NRC 6

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

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

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

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

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

Donald C. Cook Nuclear Plant 22 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

guidance. Sensitivity studies explore the effect on ETE of increasing the percentage of voluntary evacuees in the Shadow Region (see Appendix M).

10. This study does not assume that roadways are empty at the start of the first time period.

Rather, there is a 45minute initialization period (often referred to as fill time in traffic simulation) wherein the traffic volumes from the first time period are loaded onto roadways in the study area. The amount of initialization/fill traffic that is on the roadways in the study area at the start of the first time period depends on the scenario and the region being evacuated. See Section 3.11.

11. To account for boundary conditions beyond the study area, this study assumes a 25%

reduction in capacity on twolane roads and multilane highways for roadways that have traffic signals downstream. The 25% reduction in capacity is based on the prevalence of actuated traffic signals in the study area and the fact that the evacuating traffic volume will be more significant than the competing traffic volume at any downstream signalized intersections, thereby warranting a more significant percentage (75% in this case) of the signal green time. There is no reduction in capacity for freeways due to boundary conditions.

12. The ETE also includes consideration of through (ExternalExternal traffic that originates its trip outside of the study area and has its destination outside of the study area) trips during the time that such traffic is permitted to enter the evacuated Region. See Section 3.10.

2.3 Assumptions on Mobilization Times

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

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

3. Commuter percentages (and percentage of residents awaiting the return of a commuter) are based on the results of the demographic survey. According to the survey results, 84%

of the households in the EPZ have at least 1 commuter (see Section F.3.1.); 66% of those households with commuters will await the return of a commuter before beginning their evacuation trip (see Section F.3.2.). Therefore, 55 percent (84% x 66% = 55%) of EPZ households will await the return of a commuter, prior to beginning their evacuation trip.

2.4 Transit Dependent Assumptions

1. The percentage of transitdependent people who will rideshare with a neighbor or friend are based on the results of the demographic survey. According to the survey results, 85%

of the transitdependent population will rideshare.

Donald C. Cook Nuclear Plant 23 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

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

a. Schools and daycare centers

i. If schools are in session, buses will evacuate students directly to the school reception centers.

ii. It is assumed that parents will pick up children at small daycare centers prior to evacuation.

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

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

b. Medical Facilities

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

ii. The percent breakdown of ambulatory, wheelchair bound and bedridden patients from the previous study is used to determine the number of ambulatory, wheelchair bound and bedridden patients at the medical facilities wherein data was not provided.

c. Transitdependent permanent residents:

i. Transitdependent general population are evacuated to congregate care centers.

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

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

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

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

3. Transit vehicle capacities:

a. School buses = 70 students per bus for elementary schools/daycare centers and 50 students per bus for middle/high schools

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

c. Vans = 5 persons

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

e. Wheelchair vans = 4 wheelchair bound persons

f. Wheelchair buses = 15 wheelchair bound persons Donald C. Cook Nuclear Plant 24 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

4. Transit vehicles mobilization times:

a. School and transit buses will arrive at schools and facilities to be evacuated within 90 minutes of the ATE.

b. Transit dependent buses are mobilized when approximately 85% of residents with no commuters have completed their mobilization at 120 minutes after the ATE. If necessary, multiple waves of buses will be utilized to gather transit dependent people who mobilize more slowly.

c. Vehicles will arrive at hospitals, medical facilities, and senior living facilities to be evacuated within 90 minutes of the ATE.

5. Transit Vehicle loading times:

a. School buses are loaded in 15 minutes.

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

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

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

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

6. It is assumed that drivers for all transit vehicles are available.

2.5 Traffic and Access Control Assumptions

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

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

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

2.6 Scenarios and Regions

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

a. Silver Beach Fireworks Show, located in PAA 4, is considered as the special event (single or multiday event that attracts a significant population into the EPZ; recommended by NRC guidance) for Scenario 13.

b. As per NRC guidance, one of the top 5 highest volume roadways must be closed or one lane outbound on a freeway must be closed for a roadway impact scenario.

This study considers the closure of one lane on I94 eastbound (EB) from the plant to the interchange with I196 for the roadway impact scenario - Scenario 14.

Donald C. Cook Nuclear Plant 25 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

2. Two types of adverse weather scenarios are considered. Rain may occur for either winter or summer scenarios; snow occurs in winter scenarios only. It is assumed that the rain or snow begins earlier or at about the same time the evacuation advisory is issued. No weatherrelated reduction in the number of transients who may be present in the EPZ is assumed. It is further assumed that snow removal equipment is available, the appropriate agencies are clearing/treating the roads as they would normally during snow, and the roads are passable albeit at lower speeds and capacities.

3. Adverse weather affects roadway capacity and free flow speeds. Transportation research indicates capacity and speed reductions of about 10% for rain and a range of 10% to 25%

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

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

5. Employment is reduced slightly in the summer for vacations.

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

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

8. Due to the irregular shapes of the PAAs, there are instances where a small portion of a PAA (a sliver) is within the keyhole and the population within that small portion is low (less than 500 people or 10% of the PAA population, whichever is less). Under those circumstances, the PAA is not included in the Region so as to not evacuate large numbers of people outside of the keyhole for a small number of people that are actually in the keyhole, unless otherwise stated in the PAR document.

Donald C. Cook Nuclear Plant 26 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

9. Staged evacuation is considered as defined in NUREG/CR7002, Rev. 1 - those people between 2 and 5 miles will shelterinplace until 90% of the 2mile region has evacuated, then they will evacuate. See Regions R12 through R14 in Table 61.

Table 21. Evacuation Scenario Definitions Day of Time of Scenario Season8 Week Day Weather Special 1 Summer Midweek Midday Good None 2 Summer Midweek Midday Rain None 3 Summer Weekend Midday Good None 4 Summer Weekend Midday Rain None Midweek, 5 Summer Evening Good None Weekend 6 Winter Midweek Midday Good None 7 Winter Midweek Midday Rain/Light Snow None 8 Winter Midweek Midday Heavy Snow None 9 Winter Weekend Midday Good None 10 Winter Weekend Midday Rain/Light Snow None 11 Winter Weekend Midday Heavy Snow None Midweek, 12 Winter Evening Good None Weekend Silver Beach Fireworks 13 Summer Weekend Evening Good Show Roadway Impact - Single 14 Summer Midweek Midday Good Lane Closure on I94 Eastbound 8

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

Donald C. Cook Nuclear Plant 27 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

Table 22. Model Adjustment for Adverse Weather Free Mobilization Highway Flow Time for General Mobilization Time for Loading Time for Loading Time for Scenario Capacity* Speed* Population Transit Vehicles School Buses Transit Buses9 Rain/Light 90% 90% No Effect 10minute increase 5minute increase 10minute increase Snow Heavy 75% 85% See Section 5 20minute increase 10minute increase 20minute increase Snow

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

9 Does not apply to medical facilities and those with access and/or functional needs as loading times for these people are already conservative Donald C. Cook Nuclear Plant 28 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

Figure 21. Voluntary Evacuation Methodology Donald C. Cook Nuclear Plant 29 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

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

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

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

3. An estimate of potential doublecounting of vehicles.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Permanent residents people who are year round residents of the EPZ.

Transients people who reside outside of the EPZ who enter the area for a specific purpose (shopping, recreation) and then leave the area.

Seasonal Transients people who reside outside of the EPZ and enter the area and stay in accommodations other than hotels.

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

Estimates of the population and number of evacuating vehicles for each of the population groups are presented for each PAA and by polar coordinate representation (population rose).

Donald C. Cook Nuclear Plant 31 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

The DCCNP EPZ has been subdivided into 7 PAAs. The PAAs comprising the EPZ are shown in Figure 31.

3.1 Permanent Residents The primary source for estimating permanent population is the latest U.S. Census data with an availability date of September 16, 2021. The average household size (2.36 persons/household was estimated using the U.S. Census data - See Appendix F, Subsection F.3.1). The number of evacuating vehicles per household (1.50 vehicles/household - See Appendix F, Subsection F.3.2) was adapted from the demographic survey.

The permanent resident population is estimated by cutting the census block polygons by PAA and EPZ boundaries using GIS software. A ratio of the original area of each census block and the updated area (after cutting) is multiplied by the total block population to estimate the population within the EPZ. The methodology (referred to as the area ratio method) assumes that the population is evenly distributed across a census block. Table 31 provides the permanent resident population within the EPZ, by PAA, for 2010 and 2020 (based on the methodology above). As indicated, the permanent resident population within the EPZ has decreased by 5.08% since the 2010 Census.

To estimate the number of vehicles, the year 2020 permanent resident population is divided by the average household size and then multiplied by the average number of evacuating vehicles per household. Permanent resident population and vehicle estimates are presented in Table 32. Figure 32 and Figure 33 present the permanent resident population and permanent resident vehicle estimates by sector and distance from DCCNP. This rose was constructed using GIS software. Note, the 2020 Census includes residents living in group quarters, such as skilled nursing facilities, group homes, college/university student housing, etc.

These people are transit dependent (will not evacuate in personal vehicles) and are included in the special facility evacuation demand estimates. To avoid double counting vehicles, the vehicle estimates for these people have been removed. The resident vehicles in Table 32 and Figure 33 have been adjusted accordingly.

3.1.1 University Andrews University is the only university in the EPZ. It is located in PAA 5, approximately 10.7 miles east of DCCNP. According to the National Application Center1 (as of December 2019),

Andrews University has a total of 2,307 fulltime students, 51% of the students live on campus, and 97% of oncampus students own private vehicles. As such, there are 1,177 (2,307 x 51%)

oncampus students and 1,130 (2,307 - 1,177) offcampus students. Of the 1,177 oncampus students, 1,142 (1,177 x 97%) students own private vehicles. Using the average number of commuter vehicle occupancy rate (1.06 - see Appendix F, Subsection F.3.1) from the demographic survey, the 1,142 private vehicles can transport a 1,211 (1,142 x 1.06) students, 1

https://www.nationalapplicationcenter.com/

Donald C. Cook Nuclear Plant 32 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

greater than the total number of oncampus students. Thus, all the oncampus students without private vehicles can be evacuated by ridesharing with fellow students, and no buses are need for this university. Applying the same commuter vehicle occupancy rate above, there are 1,066 (1,130 ÷ 1.06) commuter vehicles for offcampus students. In Summary, all the 2,307 fulltime students will be evacuated in 2,208 (1,142 + 1,066) vehicles.

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

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

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

Transients may spend less than one day or stay overnight at camping facilities, hotels and motels. Surveys of transient facilities were conducted to verify that the data from the previous study was still applicable. The transient facilities with the DCCNP EPZ are as follows:

Campgrounds Golf Courses Marinas State and Local Parks Lodging Facilities There is one campground - Weko Beach Campground within the EPZ. Data from the previous study included the number of campsites, peak occupancy, and the number of vehicles and people per campsite. This data was used to estimate the number of evacuating vehicles for transients at this facility. A total of 877 transients and 392 vehicles are assigned to this campground - an average of 2.24 transients per vehicle.

There are three golf courses within the EPZ. Data from the previous study included the number of golfers and vehicles at each facility on a typical peak day, and the number of golfers that travel from outside the area. A total of 180 transients and 96 vehicles are assigned to golf courses within the EPZ - an average of 1.88 transients per vehicle.

Donald C. Cook Nuclear Plant 33 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

There are two marinas in the EPZ. Data from the previous study included the number of boat slips, peak occupancy, and number of vehicles per boater. This data was used to estimate the number of evacuating vehicles for transients at each of these facilities. A total of 190 transients and 95 vehicles are assigned to marinas within the EPZ - an average of 2.00 transients per vehicle.

There are five state and county/township parks within the EPZ. Data from the previous study included the number of transients visiting each of those places on a typical day and to determine peak season. A total of 3,657 transients and 1,644 vehicles have been assigned to parks and recreational areas within the EPZ - an average of 2.22 transients per vehicle.

There are several lodging facilities within the EPZ as well. Surveys were conducted to confirm or update the data from the previous study, including the number of rooms, percentage of occupied rooms, and the number of people and vehicles per room for each facility. These data were used to estimate the number of transients and evacuating vehicles at each of these facilities. A total of 4,208 transients in 2,106 vehicles are assigned to lodging facilities in the EPZ

- an average of 2.00 transients per vehicle.

Appendix E summarizes the transient data that was estimated for the EPZ. Table E4 presents the number of transients visiting recreational areas, while Table E5 includes the number of transients at lodging facilities within the EPZ.

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

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

The methodology behind calculating the seasonal population involves using 2020 census block data. Each census block includes information regarding the number of vacant and occupied households. Using this Census data, an average vacant household percentage was calculated for the entire EPZ (15.8%).

It is assumed that seasonal residents will be renting homes near the Lake Michigan shoreline.

Using only those census blocks that are within one mile of the shoreline, the number of seasonal homes will be calculated. It is further assumed that 15.8% of the vacant homes within these census blocks are not rental homes. To determine the seasonal population, the remaining households from the analysis are considered to be seasonal households. An average household size of 2.36 persons per household is used to determine the seasonal transient population, and 1.50 evacuating vehicles per seasonal household is used to determine the number of seasonal transient vehicles. These numbers are adapted from the 2020 Census and the demographic survey results (see Appendix F, Subsections F.3.1 and F.3.2).

It is estimated that there is a seasonal population of 3,676 transients and 2,396 transient vehicles within the EPZ at peak times, as displayed in Table E5.

Donald C. Cook Nuclear Plant 34 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

In total, there are 12,788 transients evacuating in 6,729 vehicles (an average of 1.90 transients per vehicle) in the EPZ.

Table 34 presents the transient population and transient vehicle estimates by PAA. Figure 36 and Figure 37 present these data by sector and distance from the plant.

3.4 Employees The estimate of employees commuting into the EPZ is based on the employment data from the previous study extrapolated to 2020 using the shortterm employment projection for the State of Michigan2, and the data from OnTheMap Census analysis tool3.

Michigan Bureau of Labor Market provides statewide shortterm employment projections by industry using North American Industry Classification System (NAICS) code. It was confirmed the employment data (during the maximum shift) from the previous study was still applicable.

This data was extrapolated to 2020 based on the NAICS code. As per NUREG/CR7002, Rev. 1, employers with 200 or more employees working in a single shift are considered as the major employers. As such, the employers with less than 200 extrapolated employees (during the maximum shift) are not considered in this study.

Employees who work within the EPZ fall into two categories:

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

Those of the first category are already counted as part of the permanent resident population. To avoid double counting, we focus only on those employees commuting from outside the EPZ who will evacuate along with the permanent resident population. The 2018 LEHD (Longitudinal EmployerHousehold Dynamics) OriginDestination Employment Statistics (LODES) data4 from OnTheMap website was then used to estimate the percent of employees that work within the EPZ but live outside. This value, 55.8%, was applied to the maximum shift employees to compute the number of people commuting into the EPZ to work at peak times.

Plant employment data and percent of employees commuting into the EPZ was provided by AEP. As such, the plant employment data is reflected in Table E3.

To estimate the evacuating employee vehicles, a vehicle occupancy of 1.06 employees per vehicle obtained from the demographic survey (see Appendix F, Subsection F.3.1) was used for all major employers. Table 35 presents employee and vehicle estimates by PAA. Figure 38 and Figure 39 present these data by sector.

2 https://www.milmi.org/DataSearch/Employment-Projections-Excel-Files 3

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

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

Donald C. Cook Nuclear Plant 35 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

3.5 Medical Facilities The data of medical facilities was obtained by internet searches and supplemented by data from the from previous ETE study. The data for additional medical facilities identified within the EPZ were found on the respective website for each facility. Table E2 and Table 36 present the census of medical facilities in the EPZ. A total of 947 persons have been identified as living in, or being treated in, these facilities. Since the average number of patients at the medical facilities fluctuates daily, the percent breakdown of ambulatory, wheelchair bound, and bedridden patients from the previous study was used to estimate the number of ambulatory, wheelchair bound and bedridden patients at all medical facilities.

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

36. The number of ambulance runs is determined by assuming that 2 patients can be accommodated per ambulance trip; the number of wheelchair bus runs assumes 15 wheelchairs per trip, and the number of bus runs estimated assumes 30 ambulatory patients per trip.

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

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

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

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

Table 37 presents estimates of transitdependent people. Note:

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

• It is reasonable and appropriate to consider that many transitdependent persons will evacuate by ridesharing with neighbors, friends or family. For example, nearly 80 percent of those who evacuated from Mississauga, Ontario who did not use their own cars, shared a ride with neighbors or friends. Other documents report that approximately 70 percent of transit dependent persons were evacuated via ride sharing. Based on the results of the demographic survey, 85 percent of the transit dependent population will rideshare.

The estimated number of bus trips needed to service transitdependent persons is based on an estimate of average bus occupancy of 30 persons at the conclusion of the bus run. Transit vehicle seating capacities typically equal or exceed 60 children on average (roughly equivalent Donald C. Cook Nuclear Plant 36 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

to 40 adults). If transit vehicle evacuees are two thirds adults and one third children, then the number of adult seats taken by 30 persons is 20 + (2/3 x10) = 27. On this basis, the average load factor anticipated is (27/40) x 100 = 68 percent. Thus, if the actual demand for service exceeds the estimates of Table 37 by 50 percent, the demand for service can still be accommodated by the available bus seating capacity.

2 20 10 40 1.5 1.00 3

Table 37 indicates that transportation must be provided for 230 people. Therefore, a total of 8 bus runs are required from a capacity standpoint. In order to service all of the transit dependent population and have at least one bus drive through each of the PAAs to pick up transit dependent people, 10 buses are used in the ETE calculations, see Section 8.1 for further discussion.

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

Where, A = Percent of households with commuters C = Percent of households who will not await the return of a commuter 27,294 0.00 0.086 1.61 1 0.84 0.34 0.552 2.88 2 0.84 0.34 1,490 1 0.85 30 0.15 1,490 30 8 These calculations, based on the demographic survey results, are explained as follows:

• The number of households (HH) is computed by dividing the EPZ population by the average household size (64,414 2.36) and is 27,294.

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

• The members of HH with 1 vehicle away (8.6%), who are at home, equal (1.611).

The number of HH where the commuter will not return home is equal to (27,294 x 0.086 x 0.61 x 0.84 x 0.34), as 84% of EPZ households have a commuter, 34% of which would not return home in the event of an emergency. The number of persons who will evacuate by public transit or rideshare is equal to the product of these two terms.

• The members of HH with 2 vehicles that are away (55.2%), who are at home, equal (2.88 - 2). The number of HH where neither commuter will return home is equal to 27,294 x 0.552 x 0.88 x (0.84 x 0.34)2. The number of persons who will evacuate by public transit or rideshare is equal to the product of these two terms (the last term is squared to represent the probability that neither commuter will return).

Donald C. Cook Nuclear Plant 37 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

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

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

The estimate of transitdependent population in Table 37 exceeds the number of registered transitdependent persons in the EPZ as provided by the counties (discussed below in Section 3.9). This is consistent with the findings of NUREG/CR6953, Volume 2, in that a large majority of the transitdependent population within the EPZs of U.S. nuclear plants does not register with their local emergency response agency.

3.7 School Population Demand Table 38 presents the school population and transportation requirements for the direct evacuation of all schools and daycare centers within the EPZ for the 2020 to 2021 school year.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Implementation of a process to confirm individual school transportation needs prior to bus dispatch may improve bus utilization. In this way, the number of buses dispatched to the schools will reflect the actual number needed. The need for buses would be reduced by any high school students who have evacuated using private automobiles (if permitted by school authorities). Those buses originally allocated to evacuate schoolchildren that are not needed due to children being picked up by their parents, can be gainfully assigned to service other facilities or those persons who do not have access to private vehicles or to ridesharing.

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

3.8 Special Event One special event (Scenario 13) is considered for the ETE study - 4th of July Fireworks at Silver Beach in St Joseph. Data for the event was provided by Berrien County. Attendance at the event is approximately 60,000, where 65% were considered transients, resulting in an additional 39,000 transients present for the special event. The average household size was used to Donald C. Cook Nuclear Plant 38 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

determine the vehicle occupancy - 2.36 transients per vehicle. Transients park their vehicles in the Silver Beach and surrounding beach parking lots as well as nearby on the streets of St.

Joseph. An additional 16,525 vehicles were distributed over several links near Silver Beach, Jean Klock Park, and Lions Beach for the special event. Since these areas straddle the EPZ boundary, some special event vehicles were loaded in the EPZ while others were loaded in the Shadow Region. The special event vehicle trips were generated utilizing the same mobilization distributions for transients. Public transportation is not provided for this event and was not considered in the special event analysis.

3.9 Access and/or Functional Needs Population The Berrien County Emergency Management agency has a registration for access and/or functional needs persons. The current number of access and/or functional needs people was provided by the county. There are an estimated 124 access and/or functional needs people within the EPZ. To determine the class of transportation needed for the access and/or functional residents, the same distribution as the medical facilities was used. Based on the medical facility percent distribution, of the 124 people, 45 are ambulatory, 78 are wheelchair bound, and 1 is bedridden. Table 39 shows the total number of people registered for access and/or functional needs by type of need. The table also estimates the number of transportation resources needed to evacuate these people in a timely manner.

3.10 External Traffic Vehicles will be traveling through the EPZ (externalexternal trips) at the time of an emergency event. After the Advisory to Evacuate (ATE) is announced, these throughtravelers will also evacuate. These through vehicles are assumed to travel on the major routes traversing the study area - I94, I196, and US31. Emergency management agencies indicated that this traffic will continue to enter the study during the first 120 minutes following the ATE.

Average Annual Daily Traffic (AADT) data was obtained from the Michigan Department of Transportation (MDOT) to estimate the number of vehicles per hour on the aforementioned routes. The AADT was multiplied by the KFactor, which is the proportion of the AADT on a roadway segment or link during the design hour, resulting in the design hour volume (DHV). The design hour is usually the 30th highest hourly traffic volume of the year, measured in vehicles per hour (vph). The DHV is then multiplied by the DFactor, which is the proportion of the DHV occurring in the peak direction of travel (also known as the directional split). The resulting values are the directional design hourly volumes (DDHV) and are presented in Table 310, for each of the routes considered. The DDHV is then multiplied by 2 hours2.314815e-5 days <br />5.555556e-4 hours <br />3.306878e-6 weeks <br />7.61e-7 months <br /> (Traffic and Access Control Points - TACP - are assumed to be activated at 120 minutes after the ATE based upon information provided by emergency management agencies) to estimate the total number of external vehicles loaded on the analysis network. As indicated, there are 13,088 vehicles entering the study area as externalexternal trips prior to the activation of the TACP and the diversion of this traffic. This number is reduced by 60% for evening scenarios (Scenarios 5 and

12) as discussed in Section 6.

Donald C. Cook Nuclear Plant 39 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

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

This study does not assume that roadways are empty at the start of Time Period 1. Rather, there is a 45minute initialization time period (often referred to as fill time in traffic simulation) wherein the traffic volumes from Time Period 1 are loaded onto roadways in the study area. The amount of initialization/fill traffic that is on the roadways in the study area at the start of Time Period 1 depends on the scenario and the region being evacuated (see Section 6). There are 3,450 vehicles on the roadways in the study area at the end of fill time for an evacuation of the entire EPZ (Region R03) under Scenario 1 (summer, midweek, midday, good weather) conditions.

3.12 Summary of Demand A summary of population and vehicle demand is provided in Table 311 and Table 312, respectively. This summary includes all population groups described in this section. A total of 138,180 people and 84,789 vehicles are considered in this study.

Donald C. Cook Nuclear Plant 310 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

Table 31. EPZ Permanent Resident Population PAA 2010 Population5 2020 Population 1 2,239 2,155 2 14,350 14,681 3 6,079 6,344 4 30,819 29,206 5 14,371 12,028 6 0 0 7 0 0 EPZ TOTAL: 67,858 64,414 EPZ Population Growth (20102020): 5.08%

Table 32. Permanent Resident Population and Vehicles by PAA 2020 PAA 2020 Population Resident Vehicles 1 2,155 1,369 2 14,681 9,211 3 6,344 3,988 4 29,206 18,443 5 12,028 6,884 6 0 0 7 0 0 EPZ TOTAL: 64,414 39,895 5

The PAA boundaries have changed slightly since the previous ETE study (KLD TR-488, Rev. 1, dated November 2012). The 2010 numbers in Table 3-1 present the population in the old PAAs, while the 2020 numbers present the population in the latest PAAs.

Donald C. Cook Nuclear Plant 311 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

Table 33. Shadow Population and Vehicles by Sector Sector 2020 Population Evacuating Vehicles N 0 0 NNE 5,870 3,690 NE 12,155 7,681 ENE 1,792 1,142 E 3,689 2,321 ESE 3,354 2,136 SE 6,053 3,849 SSE 1,559 990 S 990 632 SSW 2,068 1,315 SW 723 462 WSW 0 0 W 0 0 WNW 0 0 NW 0 0 NNW 0 0 TOTAL: 38,253 24,218 Table 34. Summary of Transients and Transient Vehicles Seasonal Total Transient Seasonal Resident Total Transient PAA Transients Vehicles Residents Vehicles Transients Vehicles 1 1,725 816 129 85 1,854 901 2 1,751 930 330 211 2,081 1,141 3 860 436 110 74 970 510 4 3,620 1,597 543 366 4,163 1,963 5 1,156 554 2,564 1,660 3,720 2,214 6 0 0 0 0 0 0 7 0 0 0 0 0 0 EPZ TOTAL: 9,112 4,333 3,676 2,396 12,788 6,729 Table 35. Summary of Employees and Employee Vehicles Commuting into the EPZ PAA Employees Employee Vehicles 1 315 297 2 0 0 3 0 0 4 767 723 5 0 0 6 0 0 7 0 0 EPZ TOTAL: 1,082 1,020 Donald C. Cook Nuclear Plant 312 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

Table 36. Medical Facility Transit Demand Wheel Wheel Current Ambu Bed Bus Ambulance PAA Facility Name Municipality Capacity chair chair Bus Census latory ridden Runs Runs Bound Runs 1 Woodland Terrace of Bridgman Berrien County 90 84 63 20 1 3 2 1 Pine Ridge Rehabilitation and 2 Berrien County 111 99 72 26 1 3 2 1 Nursing Center West Woods of Bridgman 3 Berrien County 105 96 62 32 2 3 3 1 Nursing Center 3 Kevelin Care Berrien County 20 11 9 2 0 1 1 0 4 Caring Circle of Lakeland Berrien County 176 156 113 41 2 4 3 1 4 Royalton Manor LLC Berrien County 123 65 14 46 5 1 4 3 4 Caretel Inns St. Joseph Berrien County 196 188 138 48 2 5 4 1 4 Lakeland Hospital, St. Joseph Berrien County 279 248 179 66 3 6 5 2 EPZ TOTAL: 1,100 947 650 281 16 26 24 10 Table 37. TransitDependent Population Estimates Survey Average HH Survey Percent Size Survey Percent HH Survey Percent HH Total People Population with Indicated No. of with Indicated No. of 2020 Study Estimated Percent HH with Non People Estimated Requiring Requiring Vehicles Vehicles Area No. of with Returning Requiring Ridesharing Public Public Population 0 1 2 Households 0 1 2 Commuters Commuters Transport Percentage Transit Transit 64,414 0.00 1.61 2.88 27,294 0.0% 8.6% 55.2% 84% 34% 1,490 85% 224 0.4%

Donald C. Cook Nuclear Plant 313 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

Table 38. School Population Demand Estimates Buses PAA School Name Enrollment Required 1 Bridgman Elementary School 371 6 2 St. Paul's Lutheran School 116 2 2 Roosevelt Elementary School 430 7 2 Lakeshore High School 889 18 2 Lakeshore Middle School 674 14 2 Stewart Elementary School 443 7 2 Christ Lutheran Church and School 125 2 2 Upton Middle School 645 13 3 Bridgman High School 320 7 3 F.C. Reed Middle School 289 6 4 Hollywood Elementary School 399 6 4 Brown Elementary School 346 5 4 Lighthouse Education Center 126 3 4 Lake Michigan Catholic Elementary School 300 5 4 Michigan Lutheran High School 110 3 4 Special Education/Admin Bldg. 190 4 4 Grace Lutheran Church and School 157 3 4 E.P. Clarke Elementary School 435 7 4 Great Lakes Montessori 75 2 4 St. Joseph High School 970 20 4 Brookview School 120 2 4 Lincoln Elementary School 404 6 Arts & Communications Academy at Fair 4 350 7 Plain School 4 River School 78 2 4 Fair Plain East Elementary School 240 4 Trinity Lutheran School & Early Childhood 4 180 0 Center6 5 Chikaming Elementary School 160 3 5 River Valley Middle/High School 335 7 5 Andrews University7 2307 0 5 Andrews Academy 247 5 5 Ruth Murdoch Elementary School 243 4 TOTAL: 12,074 180 6

Trinity Lutheran School & Early Childhood Center is a day care center. It was confirmed by Berrien County that students at day care centers will be picked up by their parents. Therefore, no buses are required.

7 Andrews University Students will not evacuate by bus. See section 3.1.1 for more details.

Donald C. Cook Nuclear Plant 314 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

Table 39. Access and/or Functional Needs Demand Summary Population Transportation Vehicles Population Group Needed deployed Ambulatory Bus 45 4 Wheelchair 6

Wheelchair Van 78 bound Wheelchair 6

Bus Bedridden Ambulance 1 1 Total: 124 17 Donald C. Cook Nuclear Plant 315 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

Table 310. DCCNP EPZ External Traffic Upstream Downstream Hourly External Node Node Road Name Direction AADT1 KFactor2 DFactor2 Volume Traffic 8003 3 I94 NB 43,814 0.107 0.5 2,344 4,688 8062 62 I94 SB 43,814 0.107 0.5 2,344 4,688 8116 116 I196 SB 20,913 0.107 0.5 1,119 2,238 8016 814 US31 NB 12,708 0.116 0.5 737 1,474 TOTAL 13,088 1

MDOT 2020 Annual Average Daily Traffic (AADT) Map 2

HCM 2016 Table 311. Summary of Population Demand8 Transit Seasonal Medical Andrews Special Shadow External PAA Residents Dependent Transients Residents Employees Facilities University Schools Event Population Traffic Total 1 2,155 7 1,725 129 315 84 0 371 0 0 0 4,786 2 14,681 51 1,751 330 0 99 0 3,322 0 0 0 20,234 3 6,344 22 860 110 0 107 0 609 0 0 0 8,052 4 29,206 102 3,620 543 767 657 0 4,480 7,800 0 0 47,175 5 12,028 42 1,156 2,564 0 0 2,307 985 0 0 0 19,082 6 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 7 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Shadow 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 31,200 7,651 0 38,851 Region TOTAL: 64,414 224 9,112 3,676 1,082 947 2,307 9,767 39,000 7,651 0 138,180 8

Access and Functional Needs Population was not included in Table 3-11 as the spatial distribution of these people is unknown.

Donald C. Cook Nuclear Plant 316 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

Table 312. Summary of Vehicle Demand Transit Seasonal Medical Andrews Special Shadow External PAA Residents Dependent9 Transients Residents Employees Facilities University Schools10 Event Population Traffic Total 1 1,369 1 816 85 297 11 0 12 0 0 0 2,591 2 9,211 2 930 211 0 11 0 126 0 0 0 10,491 3 3,988 1 436 74 0 17 0 26 0 0 0 4,542 4 18,443 4 1,597 366 723 71 0 158 3,305 0 0 24,667 5 6,884 2 554 1,660 0 0 2,208 38 0 0 0 11,346 6 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 7 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Shadow 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 13,220 4,844 13,088 31,152 Region TOTAL: 39,895 10 4,333 2,396 1,020 110 2,208 360 16,525 4,844 13,088 84,789 9

Buses evacuating transit-dependent residents are represented as two passenger vehicles. Refer to Section 3.6 and Section 8 for additional information.

10 Buses evacuating children from schools are represented as two passenger vehicles. Refer to Section 3.7 and Section 8 for additional information.

Donald C. Cook Nuclear Plant 317 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

Figure 31. PAAs Comprising the DCCNP EPZ Donald C. Cook Nuclear Plant 318 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

Figure 32. Permanent Resident Population by Sector Donald C. Cook Nuclear Plant 319 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

Figure 33. Permanent Resident Vehicles by Sector Donald C. Cook Nuclear Plant 320 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

Figure 34. Shadow Population by Sector Donald C. Cook Nuclear Plant 321 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

Figure 35. Shadow Vehicles by Sector Donald C. Cook Nuclear Plant 322 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

Figure 36. Transient Population by Sector Donald C. Cook Nuclear Plant 323 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

Figure 37. Transient Vehicles by Sector Donald C. Cook Nuclear Plant 324 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

Figure 38. Employee Population by Sector Donald C. Cook Nuclear Plant 325 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

Figure 39. Employee Vehicles by Sector Donald C. Cook Nuclear Plant 326 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Donald C. Cook Nuclear Plant 41 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

shoulder width were taken. Horizontal and vertical alignment can influence both FFS and capacity. The estimated FFS were measured using the survey vehicles speedometer and observing local traffic, under free flow conditions. Free flow speeds ranged from 15 to 75 mph in the study area. Capacity is estimated from the procedures of the 2016 HCM. For example, HCM Exhibit 71(b) shows the sensitivity of SV at the upper bound of LOS D to grade (capacity is the SV at the upper bound of LOS E).

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

As discussed in Section 2.6, it is necessary to adjust capacity figures to represent the prevailing conditions. Adverse conditions like inclement weather, construction, and other incidents tend to slow traffic down and often, also increase vehicletovehicles separation, thus decreasing the amount of traffic flow. Based on limited empirical data, conditions such as rain reduce the values of freeflow speed and of highway capacity by approximately 10 percent. Over the last decade new studies have been made on the effects of rain on traffic capacity. These studies indicate a range of effects between 5 and 20 percent depending on wind speed and precipitation rates. As indicated in Section 2.6, we employ a reduction in free speed and in highway capacity of 10 percent for rain/light snow. During heavy snow conditions the free speed and highway capacity reductions are 15 percent and 25 percent, respectively.

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

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

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

Donald C. Cook Nuclear Plant 42 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

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

3600 3600 where:

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

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

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

Formally, we can write, where:

hsat = Saturation discharge headway for through vehicles; seconds per vehicle F1,F2 = The various known factors influencing hm fm( ) = Complex function relating hm to the known (or estimated) values of hsat

, F1, F2, Donald C. Cook Nuclear Plant 43 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Donald C. Cook Nuclear Plant 44 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

The value of VF can be expressed as:

where:

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

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

Rural roads, like freeways, are classified as uninterrupted flow facilities. (This is in contrast with urban street systems which have closely spaced signalized intersections and are classified as interrupted flow facilities.) As such, traffic flow along rural roads is subject to the same effects as freeways in the event traffic demand exceeds the nominal capacity, resulting in queuing and lower QDF rates. As a practical matter, rural roads rarely break down at locations away from intersections. Any breakdowns on rural roads are generally experienced at intersections where other model logic applies, or at lane drops which reduce capacity there. Therefore, the application of a factor of 0.90 is appropriate on rural roads, but rarely, if ever, activated.

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

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

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

Donald C. Cook Nuclear Plant 45 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

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

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

2016 Highway Capacity Manual (HCM)

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

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

TwoLane roads: Local, State Multilane Highways (atgrade)

Freeways Each of these classifications will be discussed.

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

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

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

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

4.3.2 Multilane Highway Ref: HCM Chapter 12 Exhibit 128 of the HCM 2016 presents a set of curves that indicate a perlane capacity ranging from approximately 1,900 to 2,300 pc/h, for freespeeds of 45 to 60 mph, respectively. Based on observation, the multilane highways outside of urban areas within the study area, service traffic with freespeeds in this range. The actual timevarying speeds computed by the simulation model Donald C. Cook Nuclear Plant 46 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

reflect the demand and capacity relationship and the impact of control at intersections. A conservative estimate of perlane capacity of 1,900 pc/h is adopted for this study for multilane highways outside of urban areas.

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

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

Free Speed (mph): 55 60 65 70+

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

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

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

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

Donald C. Cook Nuclear Plant 47 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

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

4.5 Boundary Conditions As illustrated in Figure 12 and in Appendix K, the linknode analysis network used for this study is finite. The analysis network extends well beyond the 15mile radial study area in some locations in order to model intersections with other major evacuation routes beyond the study area.

However, the network does have an end at the destination (exit) nodes as discussed in Appendix C. Beyond these destination nodes, there may be signalized intersections or merge points that impact the capacity of the evacuation routes leaving the study area. Rather than neglect these boundary conditions, this study assumes a 25% reduction in capacity on twolane roads (Section 4.3.1 above) and multilane highways (Section 4.3.2 above). There is no reduction in capacity for freeways due to boundary conditions. The 25% reduction in capacity is based on the prevalence of actuated traffic signals in the study area (see Table K2) and the fact that the evacuating traffic volume will be more significant than the competing traffic volume at any downstream signalized intersections, thereby warranting a more significant percentage (75% in this case) of the signal green time.

Donald C. Cook Nuclear Plant 49 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

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

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

5 ESTIMATION OF TRIP GENERATION TIME Federal guidance (see NUREG CR/7002, Rev. 1) specify that the planner estimate the distributions of elapsed times associated with mobilization activities undertaken by the public to prepare for the evacuation trip. The elapsed time associated with each activity is represented as a statistical distribution reflecting differences between members of the public.

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

5.1 Background

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

1. Unusual Event

2. Alert

3. Site Area Emergency

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

1. The Advisory to Evacuate (ATE) will be announced coincident with the Integrated Public Alert and Warning System (IPAWS) notification.

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

3. ETE are measured relative to the ATE.

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

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

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

It is likely that a longer time will elapse between the various classes of an emergency.

For example, suppose onehour elapses from the IPAWS alert to the ATE. In this case, it is reasonable to expect some degree of spontaneous evacuation by the public during this one hour period. As a result, the population within the EPZ will be lower when the ATE is announced, than at the time of the IPAWS alert. In addition, many will engage in preparation activities to evacuate, in anticipation that an Advisory will be broadcast. Thus, the time needed to complete the mobilization activities and the number of people remaining to evacuate the Donald C. Cook Nuclear Plant 51 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

EPZ after the ATE, will both be somewhat less than the estimates presented in this report.

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

The notification process consists of two events:

1. Transmitting information using the alert and notification systems available within the EPZ.

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

The population within the EPZ is dispersed over an area of approximately 340 square miles and is engaged in a wide variety of activities. It must be anticipated that some time will elapse between the transmission and receipt of the information advising the public of an event.

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

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

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

As indicated in Section 4.3 of NUREG/CR7002, Rev. 1, the information required to compute trip generation times is typically obtained from a demographic survey of EPZ residents. Such a survey was conducted in support of this ETE study. Appendix F presents the survey sampling plan, number of results obtained (including statistical confidence bounds), survey instrument, and survey results. The remaining discussion will focus on the application of the trip generation data obtained from the online demographic survey to the development of the ETE documented in this report.

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

Donald C. Cook Nuclear Plant 52 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

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

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

These relationships are shown graphically in Figure 51.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

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

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

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

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

Given the federal regulations and guidance it is assumed that 100 percent of those within the EPZ will be aware of the accident within 45 minutes. The assumed distribution for notifying the EPZ population is provided in Table 52.

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

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

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

Distribution No. 5, Snow Clearance Time Distribution Inclement weather scenarios involving snowfall must address the time lags associated with snow clearance. It is assumed that snow equipment is mobilized and deployed during the snowfall to maintain passable roads. The general consensus is that the snowplowing efforts are generally successful for all but the most extreme blizzards when the rate of snow accumulation Donald C. Cook Nuclear Plant 54 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

exceeds that of snow clearance over a period of many hours. (Note - evacuation may not be a prudent protective action under such blizzard conditions).

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

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

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

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

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

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

In assessing outliers, there are three alternates to consider:

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

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

Donald C. Cook Nuclear Plant 55 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

special needs, transit dependent) or lack of realism, because the purpose is to estimate trip generation patterns for personal vehicles;

4) To eliminate outliers, a) the mean and standard deviation of the specific activity are estimated from the responses, b) the median of the same data is estimated, with its position relative to the mean noted, c) the histogram of the data is inspected, and d) all values greater than 3.5 standard deviations are flagged for attention, taking special note of whether there are gaps (categories with zero entries) in the histogram display.

In general, only flagged values more than 4 standard deviations from the mean are allowed to be considered outliers, with gaps in the histogram expected.

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

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

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

Most of the real data is to the left of the normal curve above, indicating that the network loads faster for the first 8085% of the vehicles, potentially causing more (and earlier) congestion than otherwise modeled; Donald C. Cook Nuclear Plant 56 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

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

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

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

This is done by using the data sets and distributions under different scenarios (e.g., commuter returning, no commuter returning, no snow or snow in each). In general, these are additive, using weighting based upon the probability distributions of each element; Figure 54 presents the combined trip generation distributions designated for each population group considered. These distributions are presented on the same time scale. (As discussed earlier, the use of strictly additive activities is a conservative approach, because it makes all activities sequential -

preparation for departure follows the return of the commuter; snow clearance follows the preparation for departure, and so forth. In practice, it is reasonable that some of these activities are done in parallel, at least to some extent - for instance, preparation to depart begins by a household member at home while the commuter is still on the road.)

The mobilization distributions that result are used in their tabular/graphical form as direct inputs to later computations that lead to the ETE.

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

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

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

1. PAAs comprising the 2mile region are advised to evacuate immediately

2. PAAs comprising regions extending from 2 to 5 miles downwind are advised to shelter inplace while the 2mile region is cleared

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

4. The population sheltering in the 2 to 5mile region are advised to begin evacuating when approximately 90% of those originally within the 2 mile region evacuate across the 2 mile region boundary Donald C. Cook Nuclear Plant 57 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

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

Assumptions

1. The EPZ population in PAAs beyond 5 miles will react as does the population in the 2 to 5mile region; that is they will first shelter, then evacuate after the 90th percentile ETE for the 2 mile region

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

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

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

Procedure

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

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

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

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

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

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

ii. No additional trips are generated until time TScen*

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

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

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

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

The value of TScen* is 2:00 for nonsnow scenarios and 2:15 for snow scenarios.

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

a. Residents with returning commuters

b. Residents without returning commuters

c. Residents with returning commuters while snowing Donald C. Cook Nuclear Plant 58 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

d. Residents without returning commuters while snowing Figure 55 presents the staged trip generation distributions for both residents with and without returning commuters; the 90th percentile twomile evacuation time is about 120 minutes for nonsnow scenarios and 135 minutes for snow scenarios. At TScen*, approximately 20% of the population (who normally would have completed their mobilization activities for an unstaged evacuation) advised to shelter has nevertheless departed the area. These people do not comply with the shelter advisory. Also included on the plot are the trip generation distributions for these groups as applied to the regions advised to evacuate immediately.

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

Table 510 provides the trip generation histograms for staged evacuation.

5.4.3 Trip Generation for Waterways The Berrien County Emergency Operations Plan, dated April 2019, indicates that weather permitting, the Berrien County Sheriffs Marine Division will provide a warning to the marine traffic on Lake Michigan as indicated by a precautionary or protective action order. Marine radio notifications would also be utilized to warn and direct the public in the Lake Michigan portion of the ten mile radius around the DCCNP.

As indicated in Table 52, this study assumes 100% notification in 45 minutes. Table 59 indicates that all transients will have mobilized within 1 hour1.157407e-5 days <br />2.777778e-4 hours <br />1.653439e-6 weeks <br />3.805e-7 months <br /> and 30 minutes. It is assumed that this timeframe is sufficient time for boaters, campers and other transients to return to their vehicles and begin their evacuation trip.

Donald C. Cook Nuclear Plant 59 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

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

5 7%

10 13%

15 27%

20 47%

25 66%

30 87%

35 92%

40 97%

45 100%

Donald C. Cook Nuclear Plant 510 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

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

5 30.8%

10 57.7%

15 73.8%

20 82.4%

25 86.7%

30 95.3%

35 96.3%

40 97.7%

45 99.4%

50 100.0%

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

Donald C. Cook Nuclear Plant 511 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

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

5 11.4%

10 35.6%

15 63.3%

20 75.8%

25 84.2%

30 90.2%

35 93.4%

40 95.5%

45 97.7%

50 99.7%

55 100.0%

NOTE: The survey data was normalized to distribute the "Decline to State" response Donald C. Cook Nuclear Plant 512 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

Table 55. Time Distribution for Population to Prepare to Evacuate Cumulative Percent Ready Elapsed Time (Minutes) to Evacuate 0 0.0%

15 3.4%

30 24.3%

45 43.3%

60 66.4%

75 82.0%

90 85.4%

105 87.4%

120 91.1%

135 97.4%

150 99.0%

165 99.0%

180 99.2%

195 100.0%

NOTE: The survey data was normalized to distribute the "Decline to State" response Table 56. Time Distribution for Population to clear 6 8 of Snow Cumulative Percent Ready Elapsed Time (Minutes) to Evacuate 0 35.1%

15 62.4%

30 78.5%

45 87.1%

60 94.2%

75 97.0%

90 97.6%

105 98.2%

120 98.8%

135 100.0%

NOTE: The survey data was normalized to distribute the "Decline to State" response Donald C. Cook Nuclear Plant 513 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

Table 57. Mapping Distributions to Events Apply Summing Algorithm To: Distribution Obtained Event Defined Distributions 1 and 2 Distribution A Event 3 Distributions A and 3 Distribution B Event 4 Distributions B and 4 Distribution C Event 5 Distributions 1 and 4 Distribution D Event 5 Distributions C and 5 Distribution E Event 5 Distributions D and 5 Distribution F Event 5 Table 58. Description of the Distributions Distribution Description Time distribution of commuters departing place of work (Event 3). Also applies A to employees who work within the EPZ who live outside, and to Transients within the EPZ.

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

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

to begin the evacuation trip (Event 5).

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

to begin the evacuation trip (Event 5).

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

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

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

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

Donald C. Cook Nuclear Plant 514 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

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

2 15 33% 33% 0% 3% 0% 1%

3 15 40% 40% 1% 11% 0% 6%

4 15 16% 16% 4% 19% 2% 11%

5 15 4% 4% 11% 21% 6% 15%

6 15 1% 1% 16% 18% 11% 17%

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

8 15 0% 0% 17% 4% 15% 10%

9 15 0% 0% 10% 3% 13% 7%

10 30 0% 0% 11% 9% 18% 10%

11 30 0% 0% 7% 1% 11% 6%

12 30 0% 0% 3% 1% 6% 2%

13 30 0% 0% 1% 0% 3% 1%

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

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

NOTE:

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

Special event vehicles are loaded using Distribution A.

Donald C. Cook Nuclear Plant 515 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

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

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

2 15 0% 1% 0% 0%

3 15 0% 2% 0% 1%

4 15 1% 4% 0% 3%

5 15 2% 4% 2% 3%

6 15 3% 3% 2% 3%

7 15 4% 2% 3% 3%

8 15 4% 1% 3% 2%

9 15 64% 72% 2% 1%

10 30 11% 9% 67% 75%

11 30 7% 1% 11% 6%

12 30 3% 1% 6% 2%

13 30 1% 0% 3% 1%

14 30 0% 0% 1% 0%

15 600 0% 0% 0% 0%

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

Donald C. Cook Nuclear Plant 516 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

1 2 3 4 5 Residents Households wait 1

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

5. Depart on evacuation trip Activities Consume Time 1

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

2 Applies throughout the year for transients.

Figure 51. Events and Activities Preceding the Evacuation Trip Donald C. Cook Nuclear Plant 517 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

Mobilization Activities 100%

Percent of Population Completing Mobilization Activity 80%

60%

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

0%

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

Figure 52. Time Distributions for Evacuation Mobilization Activities Donald C. Cook Nuclear Plant 518 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

100.0%

90.0%

80.0%

70.0%

Cumulative Percentage (%)

60.0%

50.0%

40.0%

30.0%

20.0%

10.0%

0.0%

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

Cumulative Data Cumulative Normal Figure 53. Comparison of Data Distribution and Normal Distribution Donald C. Cook Nuclear Plant 519 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

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

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

Figure 54. Comparison of Trip Generation Distributions Donald C. Cook Nuclear Plant 520 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

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

Staged Residents with no Commuters (Snow) 100 80 Percent of Population Evacuating 60 40 20 0

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

Figure 55. Comparison of Staged and Unstaged Trip Generation Distributions in the 2 to 5 Mile Region Donald C. Cook Nuclear Plant 521 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

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

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

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

A total of 14 Regions were defined which encompass all the groupings of PAAs considered. These Regions are defined in Table 61. The PAA configurations are identified in Figure 61. Each keyhole sectorbased area consists of a central circle centered at the power plant, and three adjoining sectors, each with a central angle of 22.5 degrees, as per NUREG/CR7002, Rev. 1 guidance. The central sector coincides with the wind direction. These sectors extend to 5 miles from the plant (Regions R04 and R05) or to the EPZ boundary (Regions R06 through R11).

Regions R01, R02 and R03 represent evacuations of circular areas with radii of 2, 5 and 10 miles, respectively. Regions R12 through R14 are identical to Regions R02, R04, and R05, respectively; however, those PAAs between 2 miles and 5 miles are staged until 90% of the 2mile region (Region R01) has evacuated.

A total of 14 Scenarios were evaluated for all Regions. Thus, there are a total of 14 x 14 = 196 evacuation cases. Table 62 provides a description of all Scenarios.

Each combination of region and scenario implies a specific population to be evacuated. The population and vehicle estimates presented in Section 3 and in Appendix E are peak values. These peak values are adjusted depending on the scenario and region being considered, using scenario and regionspecific percentages, such that the average population is considered for each evacuation case. The scenario percentages are presented in Table 63, while the regional percentages are provided in Table H1.

The number of residents with commuters during the week (when workforce is at its peak) is equal to 55%, which is the product of 84% (the number of households with at least one commuter) and 66% (the number of households with a commuter that would await the return of the commuter prior to evacuating). See assumption 3 in Section 2.3. It is estimated for weekend and evening scenarios that 10% of households with returning commuters will have a commuter at work during those times.

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

Donald C. Cook Nuclear Plant 61 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

A rough estimate of this reduction can be obtained as follows:

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

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

Assume half of these vacationers leave the area.

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

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

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

Transient activity is estimated to be at its peak (100%) during summer weekends and less (70%)

during the week due to the large number of parks that are at reduced occupancy during the week.

As shown in Appendix E, there are a large number of lodging and campground facilities offering overnight accommodations in the EPZ; thus, transient activity is assumed to be high during evening hours as well - 100% in the summer, and 85% in the winter. Transient activity on winter weekends is assumed to be 45% and less (35%) during the week because some facilities are closed in the winter.

As noted in the shadow footnote to Table 63, the shadow percentages are computed using a base of 20% (see assumption 9 in Section 2.2); to include the employees within the Shadow Region who may choose to evacuate, the voluntary evacuation is multiplied by a scenariospecific proportion of employees to permanent residents in the Shadow Region. For example, using the values provided in Table 64 for Scenario 6, the shadow percentage is computed as follows:

1,020 20% 1 20.5%

22,132 17,763 One special event - Silver Beach Fireworks Show - was considered as Scenario 13. Thus, the special event traffic is 100% evacuated for Scenario 13, and 0% for all other scenarios.

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. It is estimated that summer school enrollment is approximately 10% of enrollment during the regular school year for summer, midweek, midday scenarios. School is not in session during weekends and evenings, thus no buses for school children are needed under those circumstances.

Donald C. Cook Nuclear Plant 62 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

Both oncampus students and commuter students at Andrews University share the same evacuation percentage by scenario as the school population.

Seasonal residents share the same evacuation percentage by scenario as transients.

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

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

Donald C. Cook Nuclear Plant 63 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

Table 61. Description of Evacuation Regions Radial Regions Wind From Protective Action Area Region Description (in Degrees) 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 R01 2Mile Region N/A X X R02 5Mile Region N/A X X X X R03 Full EPZ N/A X X X X X X X Evacuate 2Mile Region and Downwind to 5 Miles Wind Direction Wind From Protective Action Area Region From (in Degrees) 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 NW, NNW N, NNE, R04 303.7556.25 X X X NE ENE, E, ESE, SE, SSE 56.25168.75 Refer to Region R01 R05 S, SSW 168.75213.75 X X X SW, WSW, W, 213.75303.75 Refer to Region R02 WNW Evacuate 2Mile Region and Downwind to the EPZ Boundary Wind Direction Wind From Protective Action Area Region From (in Degrees) 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 R06 N, NNE, NE 348.7556.25 X X X X X R07 ENE, E, ESE, SE, SSE 56.25168.75 X X X R08 S, SSW 168.75213.75 X X X X X R09 SW 213.75236.25 X X X X X X R10 WSW, W, WNW 236.25303.75 X X X X X X R11 NW, NNW 303.75348.75 X X X X Staged Evacuation 2Mile Region Evacuates, then Evacuate Downwind to 5 Miles Wind Direction Wind From Protective Action Area Region From (in Degrees) 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 R12 N/A 5Mile Region X X X X NW, NNW N, NNE, R13 303.7556.25 X X X NE ENE, E, ESE, SE, SSE 56.25168.75 Refer to Region R01 R14 S, SSW 168.75213.75 X X X SW, WSW, W, 213.75303.75 Refer to Region R12 WNW PAA(s) ShelterinPlace until PAA(s) Shelterin PAA(s) Evacuate 90% ETE for R01, then Place Evacuate Donald C. Cook Nuclear Plant 64 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

Table 62. Evacuation Scenario Definitions Scenario Season1 Day of Week Time of Day Weather Special 1 Summer Midweek Midday Good None 2 Summer Midweek Midday Rain None 3 Summer Weekend Midday Good None 4 Summer Weekend Midday Rain None Midweek, 5 Summer Evening Good None Weekend 6 Winter Midweek Midday Good None Rain/Light 7 Winter Midweek Midday None Snow Heavy 8 Winter Midweek Midday None Snow 9 Winter Weekend Midday Good None Rain/Light 10 Winter Weekend Midday None Snow Heavy 11 Winter Weekend Midday None Snow Midweek, 12 Winter Evening Good None Weekend Silver Beach 13 Summer Weekend Evening Good Fireworks Show Roadway Impact -

14 Summer Midweek Midday Good Single Lane Closure on I94 Eastbound 1

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

Donald C. Cook Nuclear Plant 65 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

Table 63. Percent of Population Groups Evacuating for Various Scenarios Households Households OnCampus Commuter With Without Students at Students at External Returning Returning Special Andrews Andrews Medical Seasonal School Transit Through Scenario Commuters Commuters Employees Transients Shadow Event University University Facilities Residents Buses Buses Traffic 1 55% 45% 96% 70% 20% 0% 10% 10% 100% 70% 10% 100% 100%

2 55% 45% 96% 70% 20% 0% 10% 10% 100% 70% 10% 100% 100%

3 6% 94% 10% 100% 20% 0% 0% 0% 100% 100% 0% 100% 100%

4 6% 94% 10% 100% 20% 0% 0% 0% 100% 100% 0% 100% 100%

5 6% 94% 10% 100% 20% 0% 0% 0% 100% 100% 0% 100% 40%

6 55% 45% 100% 35% 21% 0% 100% 100% 100% 35% 100% 100% 100%

7 55% 45% 100% 35% 21% 0% 100% 100% 100% 35% 100% 100% 100%

8 55% 45% 100% 35% 21% 0% 100% 100% 100% 35% 100% 100% 100%

9 6% 94% 10% 45% 20% 0% 0% 0% 100% 45% 0% 100% 100%

10 6% 94% 10% 45% 20% 0% 0% 0% 100% 45% 0% 100% 100%

11 6% 94% 10% 45% 20% 0% 0% 0% 100% 45% 0% 100% 100%

12 6% 94% 10% 85% 20% 0% 0% 0% 100% 85% 0% 100% 40%

13 6% 94% 10% 100% 20% 100% 0% 0% 100% 100% 0% 100% 40%

14 55% 45% 96% 70% 20% 0% 10% 10% 100% 70% 10% 100% 100%

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

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

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

Shadow................................................................ Residents and employees in the shadow region (outside of the EPZ) who will spontaneously decide to relocate during the evacuation. The basis for the values shown is a 20%

relocation of shadow residents along with a proportional percentage of shadow employees. These values are rounded to the nearest whole number for this table. The actual values computed by the formula shown on page 62 are used to compute the values shown in Table 64.

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

OnCampus Students at Andrews University........ Students who live on the campus of Andrews University.

Commuter Students at Andrews University ......... Students who commute to Andrews University.

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

Seasonal Residents .............................................. Residents who only reside in the EPZ seasonally.

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

Donald C. Cook Nuclear Plant 66 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

Table 64. Vehicle Estimates by Scenario Households Households OnCampus Commuter With Without Students at Students at External Total Returning Returning Special Andrews Andrews Medical Seasonal School Transit Through Scenario Scenario Commuters Commuters Employees Transients Shadow Event University University Facilities Residents Buses Buses Traffic Vehicles2 1 22,132 17,763 979 3,033 4,962 0 114 107 110 1,677 36 20 13,088 64,021 2 22,132 17,763 979 3,033 4,962 0 114 107 110 1,677 36 20 13,088 64,021 3 2,213 37,682 102 4,333 4,856 0 0 0 110 2,396 0 20 13,088 64,800 4 2,213 37,682 102 4,333 4,856 0 0 0 110 2,396 0 20 13,088 64,800 5 2,213 37,682 102 4,333 4,856 0 0 0 110 2,396 0 20 5,235 56,947 6 22,132 17,763 1,020 1,517 4,967 0 1,142 1,066 110 839 360 20 13,088 64,024 7 22,132 17,763 1,020 1,517 4,967 0 1,142 1,066 110 839 360 20 13,088 64,024 8 22,132 17,763 1,020 1,517 4,967 0 1,142 1,066 110 839 360 20 13,088 64,024 9 2,213 37,682 102 1,950 4,856 0 0 0 110 1,078 0 20 13,088 61,099 10 2,213 37,682 102 1,950 4,856 0 0 0 110 1,078 0 20 13,088 61,099 11 2,213 37,682 102 1,950 4,856 0 0 0 110 1,078 0 20 13,088 61,099 12 2,213 37,682 102 3,683 4,856 0 0 0 110 2,037 0 20 5,235 55,938 13 2,213 37,682 102 4,333 4,856 16,525 0 0 110 2,396 0 20 5,235 73,472 14 22,132 17,763 979 3,033 4,962 0 114 107 110 1,677 36 20 13,088 64,021 2

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

Donald C. Cook Nuclear Plant 67 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

Figure 61. EPZ PAAs Donald C. Cook Nuclear Plant 68 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

7 GENERAL POPULATION EVACUATION TIME ESTIMATES (ETE)

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

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

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

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

The ETE for the DCCNP EPZ addresses the issue of voluntary evacuees in the manner shown in Figure 71. Within the EPZ, 20 percent of permanent residents located in PAAs outside of the evacuation region who are not advised to evacuate, are assumed to elect to evacuate. Similarly, it is assumed that 20 percent of those permanent residents in the Shadow Region will choose to leave the area.

Figure 72 presents the area identified as the Shadow Region. This region extends radially from the plant to cover a region between the EPZ boundary and 15 miles radially from DCCNP. The population and number of evacuating vehicles in the Shadow Region were estimated using the same methodology that was used for permanent residents within the EPZ (see Section 3.1). As discussed in Section 3.2, it is estimated that a total of 38,253 people reside in the Shadow Region; 20 percent of them would evacuate. See Table 64 for the number of evacuating vehicles from the Shadow Region.

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

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

1. PAAs comprising the 2 mile region are advised to evacuate immediately.

Donald C. Cook Nuclear Plant 71 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

2. PAAs comprising regions extending from 2 to 5 miles downwind are advised to shelter in place while the 2 mile region is cleared.

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

4. The populations sheltering in the 2 to 5 mile region are advised to begin evacuating when approximately 90 percent of those originally within the 2 mile region evacuate across the 2 mile region boundary.

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

See Section 5.4.2 for additional information on staged evacuation.

7.3 Patterns of Traffic Congestion during Evacuation Figure 73 through Figure 79 illustrate the patterns of traffic congestion that arise for the case when the entire EPZ (Region R03) is advised to evacuate during the summer, midweek, midday period under good weather conditions (Scenario 1).

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Figure 73 displays congestion patterns within the study area at 45 minutes after the ATE when evacuees have begun to mobilize. The majority of the visible congestion at this point is within St.

Joseph and Benton Harbor. Lakeshore Drive, SR63 and Main St are experiencing LOS F conditions. The congestion is already backing up into the 5mile region (PAA 2). Parts of I94 are Donald C. Cook Nuclear Plant 72 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

exhibiting LOS F conditions in the Shadow Region and LOS C or better within the EPZ.

experiencing at least LOS B throughout the entire study area. In the south, a section of Red Arrow Hwy at the boundary of the EPZ and State Park Rd leaving Warren Dunes State Park and beach exhibit LOS F conditions; other than that, the southern portion of the EPZ only experiences slight congestion with LOS C conditions or better. At this time, about 20% of vehicles have mobilized and 13% of vehicles have successfully evacuated the EPZ.

At 2 hours2.314815e-5 days <br />5.555556e-4 hours <br />3.306878e-6 weeks <br />7.61e-7 months <br /> and 15 minutes after the ATE, congestion has fully developed in the EPZ and Shadow Region, as shown in Figure 74. Since TACPs were established at 2 hours2.314815e-5 days <br />5.555556e-4 hours <br />3.306878e-6 weeks <br />7.61e-7 months <br />, all of the capacity I94 and US31 is now fully available to evacuees and is no longer being shared with traffic entering the EPZ. Slight congestion (LOS B and C) is present on I94 south of DCCNP. However, severe congestion is observed in Benton Harbor, St Joseph, and the surrounding areas. In this area, all major evacuation routes (I94, US31, SR63, Red Arrow Hwy, Riverside Rd and E Main St) are exhibiting LOS F conditions. As a result, many of the collectors and smaller roadways that feed these roadways are also congested. The three roundabouts on Main St have low speeds and limited capacity; as a result, severe congestion develops on Main St and vehicles reroute to parallel roadways (Territorial Rd, Highland Rd, and Britain Ave) to access I94 and I196 via other ramps in the area. Cleveland Ave, State St, and Lakeshore Dr northbound in St. Joseph are experiencing LOS F conditions as many vehicles are evacuating to the north towards I94 via Main St in Benton Harbor. Many of the ramps giving access to I94 and I196 have limited capacity and, therefore, exhibit LOS F conditions as well. US31 northbound is also severely congested due to the limited capacity of the merge with I94. At this time, 88% of vehicles have mobilized and 74%

of vehicles have successfully evacuated the EPZ. At this time, slight congestion exists in the 2 mile region on I94. All congestion in the 2mile region clears 5 minutes later, at 2 hours2.314815e-5 days <br />5.555556e-4 hours <br />3.306878e-6 weeks <br />7.61e-7 months <br /> and 20 minutes after the ATE.

Figure 75 shows the point at which congestion clears from the 5mile region at 3 hours3.472222e-5 days <br />8.333333e-4 hours <br />4.960317e-6 weeks <br />1.1415e-6 months <br /> after the ATE. No congestions is observed south of the intersection of SR139 and US31. However, significant congestion in the St Joseph and Benton Harbor area is sill observed. SR63 and Riverside Rd northbound still experiencing LOS F conditions. Congestion along SR139 southbound has dissipated somewhat but still has sections that experience LOS E and F conditions as many vehicles are choosing to evacuate to the south due to the congestion to the north and to access US31. Congestion along I196 has worsend to LOS D as vehicles queue switch between I196 and I94. At this time, about 97% of vehicles have mobilized and 90% of vehicles have successfully evacuated the EPZ.

Figure 76 displays the congestion patterns at 3 hours3.472222e-5 days <br />8.333333e-4 hours <br />4.960317e-6 weeks <br />1.1415e-6 months <br /> and 30 minutes after the ATE. As shown in the figure, congestion has disspated in many areas of the EPZ. Slight congestion can still be observed on SR139 near the US31 interchange (and along Hinchman Rd due to the heavy flow of traffic on SR139) as well as on SR63 near the interchange with I94. The roads in the northern portion of St. Joseph (including State St and SR63) are still experiencing LOS F conditions. There is still significant congestion in the shadow region, specifically the Benton Harbor area. Main St and Territorial Rd are still exhibiting LOS F conditions. Congestion along US31 is now limited to the Shadow Region. At this time, about 99% of vehicles have mobilized and 98% of vehicles have successfully evacuated the EPZ.

Donald C. Cook Nuclear Plant 73 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

Figure 77 displays the patterns of congestion at 4 hours4.62963e-5 days <br />0.00111 hours <br />6.613757e-6 weeks <br />1.522e-6 months <br /> after the ATE. All congestion within the EPZ has cleared. Congestion in Benton Harbor has dissipated and now only exists north of Britain Ave and east of Pipestone St. Main St and Territorial Rd are still congested as vehicles attempt to access I94/I196 in this area. SR63 northbound and Riverside Rd northbound are still congested as vehicles approach Coloma Rd to gain access to I196 or I94 in Coloma. At this time, almost all vehicles in the EPZ (99%) have mobilized and evacuated the EPZ. The remaining evacuees are completing their mobilization activities and have not yet begun or are just beginning their evacuation trip since at this point, congestion is clear within the EPZ.

Figure 78 displays the congestion patterns at 4 hours4.62963e-5 days <br />0.00111 hours <br />6.613757e-6 weeks <br />1.522e-6 months <br /> and 30 minutes after the ATE. At this point, everyone has mobilized and evacuated the EPZ. Congestion within the Shadow Region remains on Main St, Territorial Rd, Euclid Ave, and Benton Center Rd. Congestion also persists outside of the Shadow Region as vehicles continue to gain access to I196 and I94.

At 5 hours5.787037e-5 days <br />0.00139 hours <br />8.267196e-6 weeks <br />1.9025e-6 months <br /> and 15 minutes after the ATE, congestion has cleared within the Shadow Region, as shown in Figure 79. Outside of the study area, Riverside Rd exhibits LOS D to LOS F conditions approaching the stopcontrolled intersection with Coloma Rd. There is also slight congestion (LOS C or better) observed along Red Arrow Hwy in Watervliet.

7.4 Evacuation Rates Evacuation is a continuous process, as implied by Figure 710 through Figure 723. These figures display the rate at which traffic flows out of the indicated areas for the case of an evacuation of the full EPZ (Region R03) under the indicated conditions. One figure is presented for each scenario considered.

As indicated in Figure 710, there is typically a long "tail" to these distributions. Vehicles begin to evacuate an area slowly at first, as people respond to the ATE at different rates. Then traffic demand builds rapidly (slopes of curves increase). When the system becomes congested, traffic exits the EPZ at rates somewhat below capacity until some evacuation routes have cleared. As more routes clear, the aggregate rate of egress slows since many vehicles have already left the EPZ. Towards the end of the process, relatively few evacuation routes service the remaining demand.

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

7.5 Evacuation Time Estimate (ETE) Results Table 71 through Table 72 present the ETE values for all 14 Evacuation Regions and all 14 Evacuation Scenarios. Table 73 through Table 74 present the ETE values for the 2mile region Donald C. Cook Nuclear Plant 74 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

for both staged and unstaged keyhole regions downwind to 5 miles. They are organized as follows:

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

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

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

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

The animation snapshots described above reflect the ETE statistics for the concurrent (unstaged) evacuation scenarios and regions, which are displayed in Figure 73 through Figure 79. Most of the traffic congestion is located beyond the 2mile radius; this is reflected in the ETE statistics:

There is no congestion within the 2Mile Region (R01) when it evacuates alone. Since I 94 runs through PAA 1, the ETE for R01 (PAA 1) is dictated by the time it takes to establish TACPs along I94. TACPs are established at 2 hours2.314815e-5 days <br />5.555556e-4 hours <br />3.306878e-6 weeks <br />7.61e-7 months <br /> after the ATE, it then takes about 15 minutes, or less, for the last bit of external traffic to flow through the 2mile region. As such, the 90th percentile ETE for this region is between 2:05 (hr:min) and 2:15 for all scenarios.

Similarly, I94 runs through PAAs 2 and 3, as well as PAA 1 (Region R02), so in the absence of traffic congestion within the 5mile region, the ETE for Region R02 are also dictated by the time neeed to establish TACPs and the time to traverse the 5 mile region once stopped. As a result, the 90th percentile ETE for Region R02 ranges between 2:10 and 2:20 (longer for snow and special scenarios) and is dictated by the clearance of the external traffic through the region.

The full EPZ (Region R03), however, does experience congestion, specifically in St. Joseph.

As a result, the 90th percentile ETE for Region R03 are at most 1 hour1.157407e-5 days <br />2.777778e-4 hours <br />1.653439e-6 weeks <br />3.805e-7 months <br /> longer than the 90th percentile ETE for Region R02 for nonspecial scenarios. The 90th percentile ETE range between 2:50 and 3:10 (longer for snow and special scenarios).

The 100th percentile ETE for all nonspecial cases are equal to trip mobilization time plus a 5 or 10 minute travel time to the region boundary for all scenarios and range from 4:15 Donald C. Cook Nuclear Plant 75 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

to 4:25 for nonsnow scenarios. Snow scenarios range from 4:45 to 4:55 due to the longer time to mobilize as a result of the time needed to clear snow from driveways.

Comparison of Scenarios 5 and 13 in Table 71 indicates that the Special Event - the Silver Beach fireworks show - has a significant impact on the 90th and 100th percentile ETE for Regions that contain PAA 4 (R03, R08, R09 and R10). The 90th percentile ETE increases by at most 1 hour1.157407e-5 days <br />2.777778e-4 hours <br />1.653439e-6 weeks <br />3.805e-7 months <br /> and 5 minutes and the 100th percentile ETE increases by at most 1 hour1.157407e-5 days <br />2.777778e-4 hours <br />1.653439e-6 weeks <br />3.805e-7 months <br /> and 40 minutes. The fireworks show occurs during a summer, weekend, evening scenario. As discussed in Section 3.8, an additional 16,525 vehicles are brought into the areas surrounding Silver Beach (located in St.

Joseph in PAA 4). St. Joseph is also the most densely populated area of the EPZ. The extra transient vehicles in the area during the special event in addition to the rest of the population groups who are evacuating from within this area causes significant congestion. As a result, the ETE for this case is longer.

Comparison of Scenarios 1 and 14 in Table 71 indicates that the roadway closure - one lane on I94 eastbound from DCCNP to the I196 interchange - causes at most a 10 minute increase for the 90th percentile ETE and has no impact on the 100th percentile ETE. Impacts to ETE are only present for Regions that involve the evacuation of PAA 4. Although I94 is a major evacuation route, the residents of PAA 4 have other options (Red Arrow Hwy, SR63, SR139, etc.) to evacuate the EPZ. Therefore, the single lane closure on I94 has a minimal impact on the ETE.

7.6 Staged Evacuation Results Table 73 and Table 74 present a comparison of the ETE compiled for the concurrent (unstaged) and staged evacuation studies. Note that Regions R12 through R14 are the same geographic areas as Regions R02, R04, and R05, respectively. The times shown in Table 73 and Table 74 are when the 2mile region is 90 percent clear and 100 percent clear, respectively.

The objective of a staged evacuation is to show that the ETE for the 2mile region can be reduced without significantly impacting the region between 2 miles and 5 miles. In all cases, as shown in these tables, the ETE for the 2mile region is unchanged in the 90th and 100th percentile ETE when a staged evacuation is implemented for all scenarios.

As discussed in Section 7.3, there is no congestion within the 2mile region. Any congestion within the 5mile region is not significant enough to back up into 2 miles of DCCNP, so evacuees from within the 2mile region are not impeded. Therefore, staging the evacuation provides no benefits to evacuees from within the 2mile region.

To determine the effect of staged evacuation on residents beyond the 2mile region, the ETE for Regions R02, R04, and R05 are compared to Regions R12 through R14, respectively, in Table 71 and Table 72. A comparison of ETE between these similar regions reveals that staging increases the 90th percentile ETE for those in the 2 to 5mile area by at most 40 minutes (see Table 71).

Staging has no impact on 100th percentile ETE beyond the 2mile region.

The increase in the 90th percentile ETE is due to evacuating vehicles, beyond the 2mile region, sheltering and delaying the start of their evacuation. As shown in Figure 55, staging the evacuation causes a significant spike (sharp increase) in mobilization (tripgeneration rate) of Donald C. Cook Nuclear Plant 76 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

evacuating vehicles - nearly 80% of vehicles get on the road at once, rather than over time. This overwhelms the roadway system, creates congestion, and, therefore, prolongs ETE.

In summary, the staged evacuation option provides no benefits to evacuees from within the 2 mile region, and adversely impacts some evacuees located beyond 2 miles from the plant.

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

1. Identify the applicable Scenario:

• Season Summer Winter (also Autumn and Spring)

• Day of Week Midweek Weekend

• Time of Day Midday Evening

• Weather Condition Good Weather Rain Snow

• Special Event Silver Beach Fireworks Show

• Roadway Impact - Lane Closure on I94 EB

• Evacuation Staging No, Staged Evacuation is not considered Yes, Staged Evacuation is considered While these Scenarios are designed, in aggregate, to represent conditions throughout the year, some further clarification is warranted:

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

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

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

• The seasons are defined as follows:

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

Donald C. Cook Nuclear Plant 77 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

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

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

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

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

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

2 Miles (Region R01)

To 5 Miles (Region R02, R04 and R05)

To EPZ Boundary (Regions R03, R06 through R11)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

• Sunday, August 10th at 10:00 PM.

• It is raining.

• Wind direction is from the NE.

• Wind speed is such that the distance to be evacuated is judged to be a 2Mile radius and downwind to 10 miles (to EPZ boundary).

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

• A staged evacuation is not desired.

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

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

Donald C. Cook Nuclear Plant 78 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

2. Enter Table 75 and locate the Region described as Evacuate 2Mile Radius and Downwind to the EPZ Boundary for wind direction from NE and read Region R06 in the first column of that row.

3. Enter Table 71 to locate the data cell containing the value of ETE for Scenario 4 and Region R06. This data cell is in column (4) and in the row for Region R06; it contains the ETE value of 2:15.

Donald C. Cook Nuclear Plant 79 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

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

Midday Midday Evening Midday Midday Evening Evening Midday Region Good Good Good Good Rain/Light Heavy Good Rain/Light Heavy Good Special Roadway Rain Rain Weather Weather Weather Weather Snow Snow Weather Snow Snow Weather Event Impact Entire 2Mile Region, 5Mile Region, and EPZ R01 2:05 2:10 2:05 2:10 2:05 2:05 2:10 2:15 2:05 2:10 2:15 2:05 2:05 2:05 R02 2:20 2:20 2:10 2:15 2:15 2:20 2:20 2:40 2:10 2:15 2:25 2:15 2:15 2:20 R03 3:00 3:05 2:50 2:55 2:55 3:00 3:10 3:40 2:50 2:55 3:25 2:50 3:35 3:10 2Mile Region and Keyhole to 5 Miles R04 2:10 2:15 2:10 2:10 2:10 2:15 2:15 2:25 2:10 2:10 2:20 2:10 2:10 2:10 R05 2:15 2:15 2:10 2:10 2:10 2:15 2:15 2:35 2:10 2:10 2:20 2:10 2:10 2:15 2Mile Region and Keyhole to EPZ Boundary R06 2:20 2:20 2:15 2:15 2:15 2:20 2:20 2:40 2:15 2:15 2:30 2:15 2:15 2:20 R07 2:05 2:10 2:05 2:10 2:05 2:05 2:10 2:15 2:05 2:10 2:15 2:05 2:05 2:05 R08 3:10 3:20 2:55 3:05 3:05 3:10 3:20 3:40 2:55 3:00 3:30 3:05 4:10 3:15 R09 3:00 3:15 2:50 3:00 2:55 3:00 3:10 3:35 2:50 2:55 3:30 3:00 3:45 3:10 R10 3:00 3:05 2:50 2:55 2:55 3:00 3:10 3:40 2:50 2:55 3:25 2:50 3:35 3:10 R11 2:20 2:20 2:15 2:15 2:15 2:20 2:20 2:40 2:15 2:15 2:30 2:15 2:15 2:20 Staged Evacuation 2Mile Region and Keyhole to 5 Miles R12 2:40 2:40 2:35 2:40 2:40 2:40 2:40 3:05 2:35 2:40 3:00 2:40 2:40 2:40 R13 2:20 2:20 2:20 2:20 2:25 2:20 2:20 2:40 2:20 2:20 2:40 2:25 2:25 2:20 R14 2:40 2:40 2:40 2:40 2:45 2:40 2:40 3:05 2:35 2:40 3:00 2:45 2:45 2:40 Donald C. Cook Nuclear Plant 710 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

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

Midday Midday Evening Midday Midday Evening Evening Midday Region Good Good Good Good Rain/Light Heavy Good Rain/Light Heavy Good Special Roadway Rain Rain Weather Weather Weather Weather Snow Snow Weather Snow Snow Weather Event Impact Entire 2Mile Region, 5Mile Region, and EPZ R01 4:15 4:15 4:15 4:15 4:15 4:15 4:15 4:45 4:15 4:15 4:45 4:15 4:15 4:15 R02 4:20 4:20 4:20 4:20 4:20 4:20 4:20 4:50 4:20 4:20 4:50 4:20 4:20 4:20 R03 4:25 4:25 4:25 4:25 4:25 4:25 4:25 4:55 4:25 4:25 4:55 4:25 6:05 4:25 2Mile Region and Keyhole to 5 Miles R04 4:20 4:20 4:20 4:20 4:20 4:20 4:20 4:50 4:20 4:20 4:50 4:20 4:20 4:20 R05 4:20 4:20 4:20 4:20 4:20 4:20 4:20 4:50 4:20 4:20 4:50 4:20 4:20 4:20 2Mile Region and Keyhole to EPZ Boundary R06 4:25 4:25 4:25 4:25 4:25 4:25 4:25 4:55 4:25 4:25 4:55 4:25 4:25 4:25 R07 4:15 4:15 4:15 4:15 4:15 4:15 4:15 4:45 4:15 4:15 4:45 4:15 4:15 4:15 R08 4:25 4:25 4:25 4:25 4:25 4:25 4:25 4:55 4:25 4:25 4:55 4:25 6:05 4:25 R09 4:25 4:25 4:25 4:25 4:25 4:25 4:25 4:55 4:25 4:25 4:55 4:25 6:05 4:25 R10 4:25 4:25 4:25 4:25 4:25 4:25 4:25 4:55 4:25 4:25 4:55 4:25 6:05 4:25 R11 4:25 4:25 4:25 4:25 4:25 4:25 4:25 4:55 4:25 4:25 4:55 4:25 4:25 4:25 Staged Evacuation 2Mile Region and Keyhole to 5 Miles R12 4:20 4:20 4:20 4:20 4:20 4:20 4:20 4:50 4:20 4:20 4:50 4:20 4:20 4:20 R13 4:20 4:20 4:20 4:20 4:20 4:20 4:20 4:50 4:20 4:20 4:50 4:20 4:20 4:20 R14 4:20 4:20 4:20 4:20 4:20 4:20 4:20 4:50 4:20 4:20 4:50 4:20 4:20 4:20 Donald C. Cook Nuclear Plant 711 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

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

Midday Midday Evening Midday Midday Evening Evening Midday Region Good Good Good Good Rain/Light Heavy Good Rain/Light Heavy Good Special Roadway Rain Rain Weather Weather Weather Weather Snow Snow Weather Snow Snow Weather Event Impact Entire 2Mile Region and 5Mile Region R01 2:05 2:10 2:05 2:10 2:05 2:05 2:10 2:15 2:05 2:10 2:15 2:05 2:05 2:05 R02 2:05 2:10 2:05 2:10 2:05 2:05 2:10 2:15 2:05 2:10 2:15 2:05 2:05 2:05 Unstaged Evacuation 2Mile Region and Keyhole to 5Miles R04 2:05 2:10 2:05 2:10 2:05 2:05 2:10 2:15 2:05 2:10 2:15 2:05 2:05 2:05 R05 2:05 2:10 2:05 2:10 2:05 2:05 2:10 2:15 2:05 2:10 2:15 2:05 2:05 2:05 Staged Evacuation 2Mile Region and Keyhole to 5Miles R12 2:05 2:10 2:05 2:10 2:05 2:05 2:10 2:15 2:05 2:10 2:15 2:05 2:05 2:05 R13 2:05 2:10 2:05 2:10 2:05 2:05 2:10 2:15 2:05 2:10 2:15 2:05 2:05 2:05 R14 2:05 2:10 2:05 2:10 2:05 2:05 2:10 2:15 2:05 2:10 2:15 2:05 2:05 2:05 Donald C. Cook Nuclear Plant 712 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

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

Midday Midday Evening Midday Midday Evening Evening Midday Region Good Good Good Good Rain/Light Heavy Good Rain/Light Heavy Good Special Roadway Rain Rain Weather Weather Weather Weather Snow Snow Weather Snow Snow Weather Event Impact Entire 2Mile Region and 5Mile Region R01 4:15 4:15 4:15 4:15 4:15 4:15 4:15 4:45 4:15 4:15 4:45 4:15 4:15 4:15 R02 4:15 4:15 4:15 4:15 4:15 4:15 4:15 4:45 4:15 4:15 4:45 4:15 4:15 4:15 Unstaged Evacuation 2Mile Region and Keyhole to 5Miles R04 4:15 4:15 4:15 4:15 4:15 4:15 4:15 4:45 4:15 4:15 4:45 4:15 4:15 4:15 R05 4:15 4:15 4:15 4:15 4:15 4:15 4:15 4:45 4:15 4:15 4:45 4:15 4:15 4:15 Staged Evacuation 2Mile Region and Keyhole to 5Miles R12 4:15 4:15 4:15 4:15 4:15 4:15 4:15 4:45 4:15 4:15 4:45 4:15 4:15 4:15 R13 4:15 4:15 4:15 4:15 4:15 4:15 4:15 4:45 4:15 4:15 4:45 4:15 4:15 4:15 R14 4:15 4:15 4:15 4:15 4:15 4:15 4:15 4:45 4:15 4:15 4:45 4:15 4:15 4:15 Donald C. Cook Nuclear Plant 713 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

Table 75. Description of Evacuation Regions Radial Regions Wind From Protective Action Area Region Description (in Degrees) 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 R01 2Mile Region N/A X X R02 5Mile Region N/A X X X X R03 Full EPZ N/A X X X X X X X Evacuate 2Mile Region and Downwind to 5 Miles Wind From Protective Action Area Region Wind Direction From (in Degrees) 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 R04 NW, NNW N, NNE, NE 303.7556.25 X X X ENE, E, ESE, SE, SSE 56.25168.75 Refer to Region R01 R05 S, SSW 168.75213.75 X X X SW, WSW, W, WNW 213.75303.75 Refer to Region R02 Evacuate 2Mile Region and Downwind to the EPZ Boundary Wind From Protective Action Area Region Wind Direction From (in Degrees) 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 R06 N, NNE, NE 348.7556.25 X X X X X R07 ENE, E, ESE, SE, SSE 56.25168.75 X X X R08 S, SSW 168.75213.75 X X X X X R09 SW 213.75236.25 X X X X X X R10 WSW, W, WNW 236.25303.75 X X X X X X R11 NW, NNW 303.75348.75 X X X X Staged Evacuation 2Mile Region Evacuates, then Evacuate Downwind to 5 Miles Wind From Protective Action Area Region Wind Direction From (in Degrees) 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 R12 N/A 5Mile Region X X X X R13 NW, NNW N, NNE, NE 303.7556.25 X X X ENE, E, ESE, SE, SSE 56.25168.75 Refer to Region R01 R14 S, SSW 168.75213.75 X X X SW, WSW, W, WNW 213.75303.75 Refer to Region R12 PAA(s) ShelterinPlace until PAA(s) Evacuate PAA(s) ShelterinPlace 90% ETE for R01, then Evacuate Donald C. Cook Nuclear Plant 714 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

Figure 71. Voluntary Evacuation Methodology Donald C. Cook Nuclear Plant 715 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

Figure 72. DCCNP Shadow Region Donald C. Cook Nuclear Plant 716 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

Figure 73. Congestion Patterns at 45 Minutes after the Advisory to Evacuate Donald C. Cook Nuclear Plant 717 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

Figure 74. Congestion Patterns at 2 Hours and 15 Minutes after the Advisory to Evacuate Donald C. Cook Nuclear Plant 718 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

Figure 75. Congestion Patterns at 3 Hours after the Advisory to Evacuate Donald C. Cook Nuclear Plant 719 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

Figure 76. Congestion Patterns at 3 Hours and 30 Minutes after the Advisory to Evacuate Donald C. Cook Nuclear Plant 720 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

Figure 77. Congestion Patterns at 4 Hours after the Advisory to Evacuate Donald C. Cook Nuclear Plant 721 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

Figure 78. Congestion Patterns at 4 Hours 30 Minutes after the Advisory to Evacuate Donald C. Cook Nuclear Plant 722 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

Figure 79. Congestion Patterns at 5 Hours 15 Minutes after the Advisory to Evacuate Donald C. Cook Nuclear Plant 723 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

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

70 60 Vehicles Evacuating 50 40 (Thousands) 30 20 10 0

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

Figure 710. Evacuation Time Estimates Scenario 1 for Region R03 Evacuation Time Estimates Summer, Midweek, Midday, Rain (Scenario 2) 2Mile Region 5Mile Region Entire EPZ 90% 100%

70 60 Vehicles Evacuating 50 40 (Thousands) 30 20 10 0

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

Figure 711. Evacuation Time Estimates Scenario 2 for Region R03 Donald C. Cook Nuclear Plant 724 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

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

70 60 Vehicles Evacuating 50 40 (Thousands) 30 20 10 0

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

Figure 712. Evacuation Time Estimates Scenario 3 for Region R03 Evacuation Time Estimates Summer, Weekend, Midday, Rain (Scenario 4) 2Mile Region 5Mile Region Entire EPZ 90% 100%

70 60 Vehicles Evacuating 50 40 (Thousands) 30 20 10 0

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

Figure 713. Evacuation Time Estimates Scenario 4 for Region R03 Donald C. Cook Nuclear Plant 725 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

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

60 50 Vehicles Evacuating 40 30 (Thousands) 20 10 0

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

Figure 714. Evacuation Time Estimates Scenario 5 for Region R03 Evacuation Time Estimates Winter, Midweek, Midday, Good (Scenario 6) 2Mile Region 5Mile Region Entire EPZ 90% 100%

70 60 Vehicles Evacuating 50 40 (Thousands) 30 20 10 0

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

Figure 715. Evacuation Time Estimates Scenario 6 for Region R03 Donald C. Cook Nuclear Plant 726 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

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

70 60 Vehicles Evacuating 50 40 (Thousands) 30 20 10 0

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

Figure 716. Evacuation Time Estimates Scenario 7 for Region R03 Evacuation Time Estimates Winter, Midweek, Midday, Heavy Snow (Scenario 8) 2Mile Region 5Mile Region Entire EPZ 90% 100%

70 60 Vehicles Evacuating 50 40 (Thousands) 30 20 10 0

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

Figure 717. Evacuation Time Estimates Scenario 8 for Region R03 Donald C. Cook Nuclear Plant 727 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

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

70 60 Vehicles Evacuating 50 40 (Thousands) 30 20 10 0

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

Figure 718. Evacuation Time Estimates Scenario 9 for Region R03 Evacuation Time Estimates Winter, Weekend, Midday, Rain/Light Snow (Scenario 10) 2Mile Region 5Mile Region Entire EPZ 90% 100%

70 60 Vehicles Evacuating 50 40 (Thousands) 30 20 10 0

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

Figure 719. Evacuation Time Estimates Scenario 10 for Region R03 Donald C. Cook Nuclear Plant 728 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

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

70 60 Vehicles Evacuating 50 40 (Thousands) 30 20 10 0

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

Figure 720. Evacuation Time Estimates Scenario 11 for Region R03 Evacuation Time Estimates Winter, Midweek, Weekend, Evening, Good (Scenario 12) 2Mile Region 5Mile Region Entire EPZ 90% 100%

60 50 Vehicles Evacuating 40 30 (Thousands) 20 10 0

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

Figure 721. Evacuation Time Estimates Scenario 12 for Region R03 Donald C. Cook Nuclear Plant 729 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

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

60 50 Vehicles Evacuating 40 30 (Thousands) 20 10 0

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

Figure 722. Evacuation Time Estimates Scenario 13 for Region R03 Evacuation Time Estimates Summer, Midweek, Midday, Good, Roadway Impact (Scenario 14) 2Mile Region 5Mile Region Entire EPZ 90% 100%

70 60 Vehicles Evacuating 50 40 (Thousands) 30 20 10 0

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

Figure 723. Evacuation Time Estimates Scenario 14 for Region R03 Donald C. Cook Nuclear Plant 730 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

8 TRANSITDEPENDENT AND SPECIAL FACILITY EVACUATION TIME ESTIMATES This section details the analyses applied and the results obtained in the form of evacuation time estimates for transit vehicles (buses, ambulances, and wheelchair transport vehicles). The demand for transit service reflects the needs of three population groups: (1) residents with no vehicles available; (2) residents of special facilities such as schools, childcare centers, and medical facilities; and (3) access and/or functional needs population.

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

This equivalence factor represents the longer size and more sluggish operating characteristics of a transit vehicle, relative to those of a pc.

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

Specifically:

• Bus drivers must be alerted

• They must travel to the bus depot

• They must be briefed there and assigned to a route or facility These activities consume time. The location of bus depots impacts the time to travel from the bus depots to the facilities being evacuated. Locations of bus depots were not identified in this study. Rather, the offsite agencies were asked to factor the location of the depots and the distance to the EPZ into the estimate of mobilization time.

During this mobilization period, other mobilization activities are taking place. One of these is the action taken by parents, neighbors, relatives and friends to pick up children from school or childcare prior to the arrival of buses, so that they may join their families. Virtually all studies of evacuations have concluded that this bonding process of uniting families is universally prevalent during emergencies and should be anticipated in the planning process. The current public information disseminated to residents of the DCCNP EPZ indicates that school children will be evacuated to school reception centers where they can be picked up by their parents. As such, it is assumed no school children will be picked up by their parents prior to the arrival of the buses.

It is assumed that children at small day care centers will be picked up by their parents and the time needed to do so is included in the time for residents to mobilize.

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

Therefore, children are evacuated to school reception centers. Picking up children at school could add to traffic congestion at the schools, delaying the departure of the buses evacuating schoolchildren, which may have to return in a subsequent wave to the EPZ to evacuate the transitdependent population. This report provides estimates of buses under the assumption that no students, with the exception of small day care centers that do not provide transportation, will be picked up by their parents (in accordance with NUREG/CR7002, Rev. 1), to present an upper bound estimate of buses required.

Donald C. Cook Nuclear Plant 81 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

The procedure for computing transitdependent ETE is to:

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

• Estimate time to perform all transit functions

• Estimate route travel times to the EPZ boundary and to the congregate care centers and school reception centers 8.1 ETEs for Schools, Transit Dependent People, and Medical Facilities EPZ bus resources are assigned to evacuating schoolchildren (if school is in session at the time of the ATE) as the first priority in the event of an emergency. In the event that the allocation of buses dispatched from the depots to the various facilities and to the bus routes is somewhat inefficient, or if there is a shortfall of available drivers, then there may be a need for some buses to return to the EPZ from the congregate care centers and school reception center after completing their first evacuation trip, to complete a second wave of providing transport service to evacuees. For this reason, the ETE for the transitdependent population will be calculated for both a one wave transit evacuation and for two waves. Of course, if the impacted Evacuation Region is other than R03 (the entire EPZ), then there will likely be ample transit resources relative to demand in the impacted Region and this discussion of a second wave would likely not apply.

A list of available transportation resources was provided by each county and is shown in Table 8

1. Also included in the table are the number of buses needed to evacuate schools, medical facilities, transitdependent population and access and/or functional needs persons (discussed below in Section 8.2). These numbers indicate there are insufficient resources for all transport types except wheelchair accessible vehicles to evacuate everyone in a single wave. As discussed in Section 2, it is assumed that there are enough drivers available to man all resources listed in Table 81.

When school evacuation needs are satisfied, subsequent assignments of buses to service the transitdependent should be sensitive to their mobilization time. Clearly, the buses should be dispatched after people have completed their mobilization activities and are in a position to board the buses when they arrive at the various routes shown in Table 101.

Evacuation Time Estimates for transit trips were developed using both good weather and adverse weather conditions. Figure 81 presents the chronology of events relevant to transit operations.

The elapsed time for each activity will now be discussed with reference to Figure 81.

School Evacuation Activity: Mobilize Drivers (ABC)

Mobilization is the elapsed time from the Advisory to Evacuate until the time the buses arrive at the school to be evacuated. It is assumed school bus drivers would require 90 minutes to be contacted, to travel to the depot, be briefed, and to travel to the schools for a rapidly escalating radiological emergency with no observable indication before the fact. Mobilization time is slightly longer in adverse weather - 100 minutes when raining, 110 minutes with snow.

Donald C. Cook Nuclear Plant 82 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

Activity: Board Passengers (CD)

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

Activity: Travel to EPZ Boundary (DE)

The buses servicing the schools are ready to begin their evacuation trips at 105 minutes after the advisory to evacuate - 90 minutes mobilization time plus 15 minutes loading time - in good weather. The UNITES software discussed in Section 1.3 was used to define bus routes along the most likely path from a school being evacuated to the EPZ boundary, traveling toward the appropriate school reception center. This is done in UNITES by interactively selecting the series of nodes from the school to the EPZ boundary. Each bus route is given an identification number and is written to the DYNEV II input stream. DYNEV computes the route length and outputs the average speed for each 5minute interval, for each bus route. The specified bus routes are documented in Table 102 (refer to the maps of the linknode analysis network in Appendix K for node locations). Data provided by DYNEV during the appropriate timeframe depending on the mobilization and loading times (i.e., 100 to 105 minutes after the advisory to evacuate for good weather) were used to compute the average speed for each route, as follows:

60 .

1 .

. 60 .

. . 1 .

The average speed computed (using this methodology) for the buses servicing each of the schools in the EPZ is shown in Table 82 through Table 84 for good weather, rain and snow, respectively.

The travel time to the EPZ boundary was computed for each bus using the computed average speed and the distance to the EPZ boundary along the most likely route out of the EPZ. The travel time from the EPZ boundary to the school reception center was computed assuming an average speed of 65 mph, 60 mph, and 55 mph for good weather, rain and snow, respectively. Speeds were reduced in Table 82 through Table 84 to 65 mph (60 mph for rain - 10% decrease, rounded

- and 55 mph for snow - 20% decrease, rounded) for those calculated bus speeds which exceed 65 mph, as the school bus speed limit in Michigan is 65 mph.

Table 82 (good weather), Table 83 (rain) and Table 84 (snow) present the following evacuation time estimates (rounded up to the nearest 5 minutes) for schools in the EPZ: (1) The elapsed time from the Advisory to Evacuate until the bus exits the EPZ; and (2) The elapsed time until the bus reaches the school reception center.

Donald C. Cook Nuclear Plant 83 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

The evacuation time out of the EPZ can be computed as the sum of times associated with Activities ABC, CD, and DE (For example: 90 min. + 15 + 14 = 2:00, for Bridgman Elementary School, in good weather, rounded up to the nearest 5 minutes). The average single wave ETE for schools is 55 minutes less than the 90th percentile ETE for Region R03 for the general population during Scenario 6 conditions (3:00 - 2:05 = 0:55).

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

Activity: Travel to School Reception Centers (EF)

The distances from the EPZ boundary to the school reception centers are measured using GIS software along the most likely route from the EPZ exit point to the facility. The school reception centers are mapped in Figure 103. For a onewave evacuation, this travel time outside the EPZ does not contribute to the ETE. Assumed bus speeds of 65 mph, 60 mph, and 55 mph for good weather, rain, and snow, respectively, will be applied for this activity for buses servicing the schools in the EPZ. Table 82 (good weather), Table 83 (rain) and Table 84 (snow) present the elapsed time until the bus reaches the school reception center.

Activity: Passengers Leave Bus (FG)

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

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

As shown in Table 81, there is a shortfall of buses for evacuation of children in a single wave, if entire EPZ is evacuated at once (a highly unlikely event). As such, a twowave evacuation may be needed for some schools. A second wave ETE were not computed for each school. Rather, the following representative ETE is provided to estimate the additional time needed for a second wave evacuation of schools. The travel time from the school reception center back to the EPZ boundary and then back to the school was computed assuming an average speed of 65 mph (good weather), 60 mph (rain) and 55 mph (snow) as buses will be traveling counter to evacuating traffic. Times and distances are based on averages for all schools in the EPZ for good weather:

• Buses arrive at the school reception center at 2:10 (see average value in Table 82)

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

• Bus returns to facility: 7 minutes (average distance to school reception center (2.4 miles) + average distance to EPZ boundary (5.6 miles) at 65 mph)

• Loading Time: 15 minutes

• Bus completes second wave of service along route: 28 minutes (average distance to EPZ boundary (5.6 miles) at network wide average speed at 2:45 (12 mph))

• Bus exits EPZ at time 2:10 + 0:15 + 0:07 + 0:15 + 0:28 = 3:15 (rounded up to nearest 5 minutes) after the ATE.

Given the average singlewave ETE for schools is 2:05 (see Table 82); a second wave evacuation would require an additional 1 hour1.157407e-5 days <br />2.777778e-4 hours <br />1.653439e-6 weeks <br />3.805e-7 months <br /> and 10 minutes on average. The average twowave ETE of schools is 15 minutes longer than the 90th percentile ETE of the full EPZ during a winter, midweek, midday scenario (Scenario 6).

Donald C. Cook Nuclear Plant 84 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

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

A detailed computation of transit dependent population was done and is discussed in Section 3.6. The total number of transit dependent people per PAA was determined using a weighted distribution based on population. See Table 311 for the distribution used. The number of buses required to evacuate this population was determined by the capacity of 30 people per bus. KLD designed 7 bus routes to service the major evacuation routes in each PAA, for the purposes of this study to compute the ETE for the transitdependent population. The predefined bus routes (as discussed in Section 10) are shown graphically in Figure 102 and described in Table 101.

Those buses servicing the transitdependent evacuees will first travel along these routes, then proceed out of the EPZ.

Activity: Mobilize Drivers (ABC)

The buses dispatched from the depots to service the transitdependent evacuees will be scheduled so that they arrive at their respective routes after their passengers have completed their mobilization. As shown in Figure 54 (Residents with no Commuters), approximately 85 percent of the evacuees will complete their mobilization at approximately 120 minutes after the Advisory to Evacuate. As such, mobilization time for the first buses to arrive at each route will be 120 minutes during good weather, 130 minutes in rain and 140 minutes in snow, to account for slower travel speeds and reduced roadway capacity in adverse weather.

Activity: Board Passengers (CD)

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

2 ,

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

Assigning reasonable estimates:

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

• v = 25 mph = 37 ft/sec

• a = 4 ft/sec/sec, a moderate average rate Then, P 1 minute per stop. Allowing 30 minutes pickup time per bus run implies 30 stops per run, for good weather. It is assumed that bus acceleration and speed will be less in rain and snow; total loading time is 35 minutes per bus in rain, 40 minutes in snow.

Donald C. Cook Nuclear Plant 85 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

Activity: Travel to EPZ Boundary (DE)

The travel distance along the respective pickup routes within the EPZ is estimated using the UNITES software. Bus travel times within the EPZ are computed using average speeds computed by DYNEV, using the aforementioned methodology that was used for school evacuation.

Table 85 through Table 87 present the transitdependent population evacuation time estimates for each bus route calculated using the above procedures for good weather, rain and snow, respectively.

For example, the ETE for the first bus servicing PAA 2 & 4 (Route 1) is computed as 120 + 54 + 30

= 3:25 for good weather (rounded up to nearest 5 minutes). Here, 54 minutes is the time to travel 8.1 miles at 8.9 mph, the average speed output by the model for this route starting at 120 minutes.

The average single wave ETE for the transit dependent population is 5 minutes longer than the 90th percentile ETE for the general population for a winter, midweek, midday, good weather scenario.

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

Activity: Travel to Congregate Care Centers (EF)

The distances from the EPZ boundary to the congregate care centers are measured using GIS software along the most likely route from the EPZ exit point to the facility. The congregate care centers are mapped in Figure 103. For a onewave evacuation, this travel time outside the EPZ does not contribute to the ETE. For a twowave evacuation, the ETE for buses must be considered separately, since it could exceed the ETE for the general population. Assumed bus speeds of 65 mph, 60 mph, and 55 mph for good weather, rain, and snow, respectively, will be applied for this activity for buses servicing the transitdependent population.

Activity: Passengers Leave Bus (FG)

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

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

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

The secondwave ETE for the bus route servicing PAA 2 & 4 (Route 1) is computed as follows for good weather:

• Bus arrives at congregate care center at 3:36 in good weather (3:25 to exit EPZ + 11 minute travel time to congregate care center, rounded up to the nearest 5).

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

Donald C. Cook Nuclear Plant 86 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

• Bus returns to EPZ, drives to the start of the route and completes second route: 11 minutes (equal to travel time to congregate care center) + 11 minutes (equal to travel time to start of route, i.e., 8.1 miles @ 65 mph) + 11 minutes (equal to travel time for second route, i.e., 8.1 miles @ 42.5 mph) = 30 minutes

• Bus completes pickups along route: 30 minutes.

• Bus exits EPZ at time 3:25 + 0:11 + 0:15 + 0:30 + 0:30 = 4:55 (rounded to nearest 5 minutes) after the Advisory to Evacuate.

The ETE for the completion of the second wave for all transitdependent bus routes are provided in Table 85 through Table 87.

The average ETE for a twowave evacuation of transitdependent people exceeds the ETE for the general population at the 90th percentile by 1 hour1.157407e-5 days <br />2.777778e-4 hours <br />1.653439e-6 weeks <br />3.805e-7 months <br /> and 25 minutes and could impact protective action decision making.

Evacuation of Medical Facilities Activity: Mobilize Drivers (ABC)

As is done for the schools, it is estimated that mobilization time averages 90 minutes in good weather (100 in rain, 110 in snow). Specially trained medical support staff (working their regular shift) will be on site to assist in the evacuation of patients. Additional staff (if needed) could be mobilized over this same 90minute timeframe.

Activity: Board Passengers (CD)

Item 5 of Section 2.4 discusses transit vehicle loading times for medical facilities. Loading times are assumed to be 1 minute per ambulatory passenger, 5 minutes per wheelchair bound passenger, and 15 minutes per bedridden passenger for buses, wheelchair buses/vans, and ambulances, respectively. No reduction was made to loading times for adverse weather to keep the computation of ETE simple and clear for medical facilities. Item 3 of Section 2.4 discusses transit vehicle capacities to cap loading times per vehicle type.

As shown in Table 81, there is a shortfall of buses and ambulances in the EPZ. It is assumed the ambulances listed in Table 81 would be used to evacuate the bedridden population at medical facilities before evacuating the access and/or functional needs population in the EPZ. As such, there are sufficient ambulance resources to evacuate the bedridden population at medical facilities within the EPZ in a single wave. Two waves will be needed to evacuate the ambulatory population at medical facilities within the EPZ in the event of a full EPZ evacuation.

Activity: Travel to EPZ Boundary (DE)

The travel distance along the respective pickup routes within the EPZ is estimated using the UNITES software. Bus travel times within the EPZ are computed using average speeds computed by DYNEV, using the aforementioned methodology that was used for school evacuation.

Table 88 through Table 810 summarize the ETE for medical facilities within the EPZ for good weather, rain, and snow, respectively. The distances from the medical facilities to the EPZ boundary were estimated using GIS software. Average speeds output by the model for Scenario Donald C. Cook Nuclear Plant 87 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

6 (Scenario 7 for rain and Scenario 8 for snow) Region 3, capped at 65 mph (60 mph for rain and 55 mph for snow), are used to compute travel time to EPZ boundary. The travel time to the EPZ boundary is computed by dividing the distance to the EPZ boundary by the average travel speed.

The ETE is the sum of the mobilization time, total passenger loading time, and travel time out of the EPZ. Concurrent loading on multiple buses, wheelchair buses/vans, and ambulances at capacity is assumed such that the maximum loading times for buses (maximum capacity of 30 times 1 minute per passenger), wheelchair buses (15 times 5), wheelchair vans (4 times 5), and ambulances (2 times 15) are 30, 75, 20 and 30 minutes, respectively. All ETE are rounded to the nearest 5 minutes.

For example, the calculation of ETE for Woodland Terrace of Bridgman with 63 ambulatory residents during good weather is:

ETE: 90 + 30 (max capacity per bus with concurrent loading on multiple buses) x 1 + 11 =

131 minutes or 2:15 (rounded up to the nearest 5 minutes.)

It is assumed that the medical facility population is directly evacuated congregate care centers or appropriate host facilities that are at approximately the same distances to the EPZ boundary as the congregate care centers.

Average single wave ETE for medical facilities are 35 minutes less than the 90th percentile ETE for the evacuation of the general population from Region R03 during Scenario 6 conditions and will not impact protective action decision making.

Activity: Travel to Congregate Care Centers (EF), Passengers Leave Bus (FG), Bus Returns to Route for Second Wave Evacuation (GC)

A second wave ETE was not computed for each medical facility. Rather, the following representative ETE is provided to estimate the additional time needed for a second wave evacuation using school buses after the schools have been evacuated. Times and distances are based on facilitywide averages:

• Buses arrive at congregate care centers at 2:10 (average travel time to school reception centers in Table 821).

• Bus discharges passengers 25 minutes (average bus loading time from Table 88) and driver takes a 10minute rest: 35 minutes.

• Bus returns to EPZ and completes second route: 9 minutes to travel back to the EPZ boundary (equal to travel time to congregate care center in Table 85) + 6 minutes to travel back to the facility (6.8 miles @ 65 mph) and then back to the EPZ boundary (6.8 miles @ 11 mph = 37 minutes) = 52 minutes. The average distance to EPZ boundary is approximately 6.8 miles in Table 88. 11 mph is the network wide average speed at 3:00 for Scenario 6.

• Loading Time: 25 minutes (average from Table 88) 1 In the absence of data on the location and capacity of host medical facilities, the average travel time to school reception centers was utilized as an estimate of the time required to travel from the congregate care center back to the medical facility for a second wave evacuation for ambulances.

Donald C. Cook Nuclear Plant 88 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

Bus exits EPZ at time 2:10 + 0:35 + 0:52 + 0:25 = 4:05 (rounded to nearest 5 minutes) after the Advisory to Evacuate.

Thus, the second wave evacuation requires an additional 1 hour1.157407e-5 days <br />2.777778e-4 hours <br />1.653439e-6 weeks <br />3.805e-7 months <br /> and 40 minutes, on average. The average ETE for a twowave evacuation of medical facilities exceeds the ETE for the general population at the 90th percentile (3:00) and will impact protective action decision making.

A second wave ETE was not computed for the bedridden population since it is assumed the ambulances listed in Table 81 would be used to evacuate the bedridden population at medical facilities before evacuating the access and/or functional needs population in the EPZ. There are sufficient ambulance resources if that is the case.

8.2 ETE for Access and/or Functional Needs Population Table 811 summarizes the ETE for access and/or functional needs population. The table is categorized by type of vehicle required and then broken down by weather condition. The table takes into consideration the deployment of multiple vehicles (not filled to capacity) to reduce the number of stops per vehicle. Due to the limitations on driving for access and/or functional needs persons, it assumed they will be picked up from their homes. Furthermore, it is conservatively assumed that ambulatory and wheelchair bound access and/or functional needs households are spaced 3 miles apart and bedridden households are spaced 5 miles apart. Van and bus speeds approximate 20 mph between households and ambulance speeds approximate 30 mph in good weather (10% slower in rain, 20% slower in snow). Mobilization times of 90 minutes were used (100 minutes for rain, and 110 minutes for snow). Loading times of 1 minute per person are assumed for ambulatory people, 5 minutes for wheelchair bound people and 15 minutes per person are assumed for bedridden people. The last household is assumed to be 5 miles from the EPZ boundary, and the networkwide average speed, capped at 65 mph (60 mph for rain and 55 mph for snow), after the last pickup is used to compute travel time. ETE is computed by summing mobilization time, loading time at first household, travel to subsequent households, loading time at subsequent households, and travel time to EPZ boundary. All ETE are rounded to the nearest 5 minutes.

For example, assuming no more than one access and/or functional needs person per household implies that 45 ambulatory households need to be serviced. While only 2 buses are needed from a capacity perspective, if 4 buses are deployed to service these household, then each bus would require at most 12 stops. The following outlines the ETE calculations:

1. Assume 4 buses are deployed, each with at most 12 stops, to service a total of 45 households.

2. The ETE is calculated as follows:

a. Buses arrive at the first pickup location: 120 minutes

b. Load household members at first pickup: 1 minute

c. Travel to subsequent pickup locations: 11 @ 9 minutes = 99 minutes

d. Load household members at subsequent pickup locations: 11 @ 1 minute = 11 minutes

e. Travel to EPZ boundary: 28 minutes (5 miles @ 10.8 mph - network wide average Donald C. Cook Nuclear Plant 89 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

speed at this time).

ETE: 120 + 1 + 99 + 11 + 28 = 4:20 rounded to the nearest 5 minutes.

The average ETE for a single wave evacuation of the access and/or functional needs population is 40 minutes longer than the general population ETE at the 90th percentile for an evacuation of the entire EPZ (Region R03), during Scenario 6 conditions. Therefore, the evacuation of transit dependents could potentially impact protective action decision making.

The following outlines the ETE calculations if a second wave is needed using school buses after the schools have been evacuated (see Table 82):

a. School buses arrive at school reception centers: 2:10 on average

b. Unload patients at pickup point: 5 minutes.

c. Driver takes 10minute rest: 10 minutes.

d. Travel time back to EPZ: 2 minutes (average time of Travel Time from EPZ Bdry to S.R.C.

from Table 82)

e. Travel to first household: 9 minutes (3 miles x 20 mph)

f. Loading time at first household: 1 minute

g. Travel to subsequent pickup locations: 11 @ 9 minutes = 99 minutes

h. Loading time at subsequent households: 11 stops @ 1 minutes = 11 minutes

i. Travel time to EPZ boundary at 5 miles @ 11.5 mph = 26 minutes Good Weather ETE: 2:10 + 5 + 10 + 2 + 9 + 1 + 99 + 11 + 26 = 5:00 rounded to the nearest 5 minutes Rain ETE: 2:25 + 5 + 10 + 2 + 10 + 1 + 110 + 11 + 30 = 5:30 rounded to the nearest 5 minutes Snow ETE: 2:45 + 5 + 10 + 2 + 11 + 1 + 121 + 11 + 32 = 6:05 rounded to the nearest 5 minutes Donald C. Cook Nuclear Plant 810 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

Table 81. Summary of Transportation Resources Transportation Wheelchair Wheelchair Cars Buses Vans Ambulances Resource Buses Vans Resources Available Benton Harbor Schools (FST) 0 30 3 2 0 0 Berrien County Public Transportation 0 0 1 18 0 1 Berrien RESA (FST) 0 0 24 20 0 0 Berrien Springs Public Schools 0 20 8 0 0 0 Brandywine Community Schools 1 10 1 0 2 0 Bridgman Public Schools 0 8 4 1 0 0 Buchanan Community Schools 0 12 9 0 0 0 Coloma Community Schools 0 11 4 0 0 0 Eau Claire Public School 0 12 4 0 0 0 Medic 1 0 0 0 0 0 6 New Buffalo Schools 0 10 6 0 0 0 Niles Community Schools (FST) 0 35 3 3 2 0 Pine Ridge 1 0 1 0 0 0 Resource Transportation Group 25 0 25 10 0 0 SHAES 0 0 0 0 0 1 St Joseph Public Schools 0 14 7 0 0 0 Twin Cities Area Transportation 2 0 2 0 2 2 Authority Watervliet Public Schools 0 8 3 1 0 0 West Woods of Bridgman 0 0 0 1 0 0 TOTAL: 29 170 105 56 6 10 Resources Needed Medical Facilities (Table 36): 0 26 0 24 0 10 TransitDependent Population 0 8 0 0 0 0 (Section 3.6):

Schools (Table 38): 0 180 0 0 0 0 Access and/or Functional Needs 0 4 0 6 6 1 Population (Table 39):

TOTAL TRANSPORTATION NEEDS: 0 218 0 30 6 11 Donald C. Cook Nuclear Plant 811 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

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

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

Berrien County Schools Bridgman Elementary School 90 15 11.8 51.7 14 2:00 5.1 5 2:05 St. Pauls Lutheran School 90 15 7.4 62.3 7 1:55 2.2 2 2:00 Roosevelt Elementary School 90 15 8.4 43.9 11 2:00 2.2 2 2:05 Lakeshore High School 90 15 8.5 42.5 12 2:00 2.2 2 2:05 Lakeshore Middle School 90 15 8.9 42.5 13 2:00 2.2 2 2:05 Stewart Elementary School 90 15 7.7 62.7 7 1:55 2.2 2 2:00 Christ Lutheran Church and School 90 15 6.5 8.0 49 2:35 2.2 2 2:40 Upton Middle School 90 15 4.2 38.9 6 1:55 2.2 2 2:00 Bridgman High School 90 15 11.8 51.7 14 2:00 5.5 5 2:05 F.C. Reed Middle School 90 15 11.4 47.2 15 2:00 4.7 4 2:05 Hollywood Elementary School 90 15 5.8 34.9 10 1:55 2.2 2 2:00 Brown Elementary School 90 15 7.0 6.3 67 2:55 2.2 2 3:00 Lighthouse Education Center 90 15 9.4 8.3 68 2:55 0.1 1 3:00 Lake Michigan Catholic Elementary School 90 15 5.6 11.0 30 2:15 2.1 2 2:20 Michigan Lutheran High School 90 15 4.7 6.3 45 2:30 2.2 2 2:35 Special Education/Admin Building 90 15 5.1 20.8 15 2:00 2.2 2 2:05 Grace Lutheran Church and School 90 15 4.5 6.8 40 2:25 2.2 2 2:30 E. P. Clark Elementary School 90 15 4.3 23.5 11 2:00 2.2 2 2:05 Great Lakes Montessori 90 15 3.4 34.2 6 1:55 2.2 2 2:00 St Joseph's High School 90 15 4.1 22.1 11 2:00 2.1 2 2:05 Brookview School 90 15 3.1 32.2 6 1:55 0.4 1 2:00 Lincoln Elementary School 90 15 3.4 33.7 6 1:55 2.1 2 2:00 Arts & Communications Academy at Fair Plain 90 15 0.8 32.7 1 1:50 0.4 1 1:55 School River School 90 15 3.8 49.4 5 1:50 3.6 3 1:55 Donald C. Cook Nuclear Plant 812 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

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

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

Fair Plain East Elementary School 90 15 1.9 40.7 3 1:50 0.4 1 1:55 Chikaming Elementary School 90 15 5.5 46.8 7 1:55 3.1 3 2:00 River Valley Middle/High School 90 15 0.8 48.5 1 1:50 8.4 8 2:00 Andrews Academy 90 15 0.8 34.4 1 1:50 0.8 1 1:55 Ruth Murdoch Elementary School 90 15 0.7 34.4 1 1:50 0.8 1 1:55 Maximum for EPZ: 2:55 Maximum: 3:00 Average for EPZ: 2:05 Average: 2:10 Donald C. Cook Nuclear Plant 813 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

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

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

Berrien County Schools Bridgman Elementary School 100 20 11.8 46.7 15 2:15 5.1 5 2:20 St. Pauls Lutheran School 100 20 7.4 59.3 7 2:10 2.2 2 2:15 Roosevelt Elementary School 100 20 8.4 51.3 10 2:10 2.2 2 2:15 Lakeshore High School 100 20 8.5 50.4 10 2:10 2.2 2 2:15 Lakeshore Middle School 100 20 8.9 50.4 11 2:15 2.2 2 2:20 Stewart Elementary School 100 20 7.7 58.8 8 2:10 2.2 2 2:15 Christ Lutheran Church and School 100 20 6.5 9.4 42 2:45 2.2 2 2:50 Upton Middle School 100 20 4.2 17.5 14 2:15 2.2 2 2:20 Bridgman High School 100 20 11.8 46.7 15 2:15 5.5 6 2:25 F.C. Reed Middle School 100 20 11.4 42.9 16 2:20 4.7 5 2:25 Hollywood Elementary School 100 20 5.8 29.6 12 2:15 2.2 2 2:20 Brown Elementary School 100 20 7.0 5.9 72 3:15 2.2 2 3:20 Lighthouse Education Center 100 20 9.4 8.8 64 3:05 0.1 1 3:10 Lake Michigan Catholic Elementary School 100 20 5.6 8.8 38 2:40 2.1 2 2:45 Michigan Lutheran High School 100 20 4.7 6.2 45 2:45 2.2 2 2:50 Special Education/Admin Building 100 20 5.1 13.8 22 2:25 2.2 2 2:30 Grace Lutheran Church and School 100 20 4.5 7.6 35 2:35 2.2 2 2:40 E. P. Clark Elementary School 100 20 4.3 18.6 14 2:15 2.2 2 2:20 Great Lakes Montessori 100 20 3.4 28.6 7 2:10 2.2 2 2:15 St Joseph's High School 100 20 4.1 19.4 13 2:15 2.1 2 2:20 Brookview School 100 20 3.1 32.6 6 2:10 0.4 1 2:15 Lincoln Elementary School 100 20 3.4 29.3 7 2:10 2.1 2 2:15 Arts & Communications Academy at Fair Plain School 100 20 0.8 8.7 6 2:10 0.4 1 2:15 River School 100 20 3.8 44.4 5 2:05 3.6 4 2:10 Fair Plain East Elementary School 100 20 1.9 39.0 3 2:05 0.4 1 2:10 Donald C. Cook Nuclear Plant 814 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

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

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

Chikaming Elementary School 100 20 5.5 47.8 7 2:10 3.1 3 2:15 River Valley Middle/High School 100 20 0.8 43.3 1 2:05 8.4 8 2:15 Andrews Academy 100 20 0.8 31.4 2 2:05 0.8 1 2:10 Ruth Murdoch Elementary School 100 20 0.7 31.4 1 2:05 0.8 1 2:10 Maximum for EPZ: 3:15 Maximum: 3:20 Average for EPZ: 2:20 Average: 2:25 Donald C. Cook Nuclear Plant 815 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

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

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

Berrien County Schools Bridgman Elementary School 110 25 11.8 43.7 16 2:35 5.1 6 2:45 St. Pauls Lutheran School 110 25 7.4 50.3 9 2:25 2.2 2 2:30 Roosevelt Elementary School 110 25 8.4 45.5 11 2:30 2.2 2 2:35 Lakeshore High School 110 25 8.5 44.8 11 2:30 2.2 2 2:35 Lakeshore Middle School 110 25 8.9 44.8 12 2:30 2.2 2 2:35 Stewart Elementary School 110 25 7.7 50.2 9 2:25 2.2 2 2:30 Christ Lutheran Church and School 110 25 6.5 8.4 46 3:05 2.2 2 3:10 Upton Middle School 110 25 4.2 21.2 12 2:30 2.2 2 2:35 Bridgman High School 110 25 11.8 43.7 16 2:35 5.5 6 2:45 F.C. Reed Middle School 110 25 11.4 40.2 17 2:35 4.7 5 2:40 Hollywood Elementary School 110 25 5.8 20.6 17 2:35 2.2 2 2:40 Brown Elementary School 110 25 7.0 5.3 80 3:35 2.2 2 3:40 Lighthouse Education Center 110 25 9.4 10.0 56 3:15 0.1 1 3:20 Lake Michigan Catholic Elementary School 110 25 5.6 7.3 46 3:05 2.1 2 3:10 Michigan Lutheran High School 110 25 4.7 6.5 44 3:00 2.2 2 3:05 Special Education/Admin Building 110 25 5.1 10.6 29 2:45 2.2 2 2:50 Grace Lutheran Church and School 110 25 4.5 6.2 43 3:00 2.2 2 3:05 E. P. Clark Elementary School 110 25 4.3 13.4 19 2:35 2.2 2 2:40 Great Lakes Montessori 110 25 3.4 21.1 10 2:25 2.2 2 2:30 St Joseph's High School 110 25 4.1 14.8 17 2:35 2.1 2 2:40 Brookview School 110 25 3.1 30.2 6 2:25 0.4 1 2:30 Lincoln Elementary School 110 25 3.4 18.4 11 2:30 2.1 2 2:35 Arts & Communications Academy at Fair Plain School 110 25 0.8 29.1 2 2:20 0.4 1 2:25 River School 110 25 3.8 42.0 5 2:20 3.6 4 2:25 Donald C. Cook Nuclear Plant 816 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

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

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

Fair Plain East Elementary School 110 25 1.9 37.5 3 2:20 0.4 1 2:25 Chikaming Elementary School 110 25 5.5 36.6 9 2:25 3.1 3 2:30 River Valley Middle/High School 110 25 0.8 41.0 1 2:20 8.4 9 2:30 Andrews Academy 110 25 0.8 31.5 2 2:20 0.8 1 2:25 Ruth Murdoch Elementary School 110 25 0.7 31.5 1 2:20 0.8 1 2:25 Maximum for EPZ: 3:35 Maximum: 3:40 Average for EPZ: 2:40 Average: 2:45 Donald C. Cook Nuclear Plant 817 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

Table 85. TransitDependent Evacuation Time Estimates Good Weather OneWave TwoWave Route Travel Route Route Travel Pickup Distance Time to Driver Travel Pickup UNITES PAA(s) Mobilization Length Speed Time Time ETE to C.C.C. C.C.C. Unload Rest Time Time ETE Route Route # Serviced (min) (miles) (mph) (min) (min) (hr:min) (miles) (min) (min) (min) (min) (min) (hr:min) 1 42 2&4 120 8.1 8.9 54 30 3:25 12.3 11 5 10 30 30 4:55 2 43 3&5 120 8.7 49.0 11 30 2:45 3.0 3 5 10 22 30 3:55 3 44 4 120 4.5 5.6 49 30 3:20 12.3 11 5 10 22 30 4:40 4 15 4 120 12.2 11.5 64 30 3:35 10.2 9 5 10 35 30 5:05 5 46 5 120 7.1 50.2 8 30 2:40 3.0 3 5 10 17 30 3:45 6 41 1&3 120 16.7 51.0 20 30 2:50 12.3 11 5 10 45 30 4:35 7 47 5 120 5.5 46.6 7 30 2:40 13.9 13 5 10 24 30 4:05 Maximum ETE: 3:35 Maximum ETE: 5:05 Average ETE: 3:05 Average ETE: 4:25 Donald C. Cook Nuclear Plant 818 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

Table 86. TransitDependent Evacuation Time Estimates Rain OneWave TwoWave Travel Route Time Route UNITES Route Travel Pickup Distance to Driver Travel Pickup Route PAA(s) Mobilization Length Speed Time Time ETE to C.C.C. C.C.C. Unload Rest Time Time ETE Route # Serviced (min) (miles) (mph) (min) (min) (hr:min) (miles) (min) (min) (min) (min) (min) (hr:min) 1 42 2&4 130 8.1 9.1 54 35 3:40 12.3 12 5 10 31 35 5:15 2 43 3&5 130 8.7 44.0 12 35 3:00 3.0 3 5 10 23 35 4:20 3 44 4 130 4.5 5.6 48 35 3:35 12.3 12 5 10 24 35 5:05 4 15 4 130 12.2 10.0 73 35 4:00 10.2 10 5 10 37 35 5:40 5 46 5 130 7.1 49.5 9 35 2:55 3.0 3 5 10 18 35 4:10 6 41 1&3 130 16.7 46.3 22 35 3:10 12.3 12 5 10 48 35 5:00 7 47 5 130 5.5 44.2 7 35 2:55 13.9 14 5 10 26 35 4:25 Maximum ETE: 4:00 Maximum ETE: 5:40 Average ETE: 3:20 Average ETE: 4:50 Donald C. Cook Nuclear Plant 819 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

Table 87. Transit Dependent Evacuation Time Estimates - Snow OneWave TwoWave Travel Route Time Route UNITES Route Travel Pickup Distance to Driver Travel Pickup Route Mobilization Length Speed Time Time ETE to C.C.C. C.C.C. Unload Rest Time Time ETE Route # PAA(s) Serviced (min) (miles) (mph) (min) (min) (hr:min) (miles) (min) (min) (min) (min) (min) (hr:min) 1 42 2&4 140 8.1 6.4 76 40 4:20 12.3 13 5 10 33 40 6:05 2 43 3&5 140 8.7 42.0 12 40 3:15 3.0 3 5 10 24 40 4:40 3 44 4 140 4.5 4.0 68 40 4:10 12.3 13 5 10 24 40 5:45 4 15 4 140 12.2 8.2 90 40 4:30 10.2 11 5 10 38 40 6:15 5 46 5 140 7.1 38.3 11 40 3:15 3.0 3 5 10 19 40 4:35 6 41 1&3 140 16.7 43.3 23 40 3:25 12.3 13 5 10 51 40 5:25 7 47 5 140 5.5 39.7 8 40 3:10 13.9 15 5 10 27 40 4:50 Maximum ETE: 4:30 Maximum ETE: 6:15 Average ETE: 3:45 Average ETE: 5:25 Donald C. Cook Nuclear Plant 820 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

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

Ambulatory 90 1 63 30 11.8 11 2:15 Woodland Terrace of Wheelchair bound 90 5 20 75 11.8 11 3:00 Bridgman Bedridden 90 15 1 15 11.8 11 2:00 Ambulatory 90 1 72 30 8.2 8 2:10 Pine Ridge Rehabilitation And Wheelchair bound 90 5 26 75 8.2 8 2:55 Nursing Center Bedridden 90 15 1 15 8.2 8 1:55 Ambulatory 90 1 62 30 10.3 10 2:10 West Woods of Bridgman Wheelchair bound 90 5 32 75 10.3 10 2:55 Nursing Center Bedridden 90 15 2 30 10.3 10 2:10 Ambulatory 90 1 9 9 10.2 11 1:50 Kevelin Care Wheelchair bound 90 5 2 10 10.2 11 1:55 Ambulatory 90 1 113 30 4.1 6 2:10 Caring Circle of Lakeland Wheelchair bound 90 5 41 75 4.1 4 2:50 Bedridden 90 15 2 30 4.1 6 2:10 Ambulatory 90 1 138 30 3.8 5 2:05 Caretel Inns St. Joseph Wheelchair bound 90 5 48 75 3.8 4 2:50 Bedridden 90 15 2 30 3.8 5 2:05 Ambulatory 90 1 14 14 4.8 50 2:35 Royalton Manor LLC Wheelchair bound 90 5 46 75 4.8 23 3:10 Bedridden 90 15 5 30 4.8 51 2:55 Ambulatory 90 1 179 30 1.4 13 2:15 Lakeland Hospital, St. Joseph Wheelchair bound 90 5 66 75 1.4 9 2:55 Bedridden 90 15 3 30 1.4 13 2:15 Maximum ETE: 3:10 Average ETE: 2:25 Donald C. Cook Nuclear Plant 821 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

Table 89. Medical Facility Evacuation Time Estimates - Rain Loading Rate Dist. To Travel Time to Mobilization (min per Total Loading EPZ Bdry EPZ Boundary ETE Medical Facility Patient (min) person) People Time (min) (mi) (min) (hr:min)

Ambulatory 100 1 63 30 11.8 12 2:25 Woodland Terrace of Wheelchair bound 100 5 20 75 11.8 12 3:10 Bridgman Bedridden 100 15 1 15 11.8 12 2:10 Ambulatory 100 1 72 30 8.2 8 2:20 Pine Ridge Rehabilitation And Wheelchair bound 100 5 26 75 8.2 8 3:05 Nursing Center Bedridden 100 15 1 15 8.2 8 2:05 Ambulatory 100 1 62 30 10.3 10 2:20 West Woods of Bridgman Wheelchair bound 100 5 32 75 10.3 10 3:05 Nursing Center Bedridden 100 15 2 30 10.3 10 2:20 Ambulatory 100 1 9 9 10.2 11 2:00 Kevelin Care Wheelchair bound 100 5 2 10 10.2 11 2:05 Ambulatory 100 1 113 30 4.1 8 2:20 Caring Circle of Lakeland Wheelchair bound 100 5 41 75 4.1 5 3:00 Bedridden 100 15 2 30 4.1 8 2:20 Ambulatory 100 1 138 30 3.8 9 2:20 Caretel Inns St. Joseph Wheelchair bound 100 5 48 75 3.8 4 3:00 Bedridden 100 15 2 30 3.8 9 2:20 Ambulatory 100 1 14 14 4.8 45 2:40 Royalton Manor LLC Wheelchair bound 100 5 46 75 4.8 13 3:10 Bedridden 100 15 5 30 4.8 43 2:55 Ambulatory 100 1 179 30 1.4 13 2:25 Lakeland Hospital, St. Joseph Wheelchair bound 100 5 66 75 1.4 13 3:10 Bedridden 100 15 3 30 1.4 13 2:25 Maximum ETE: 3:10 Average ETE: 2:35 Donald C. Cook Nuclear Plant 822 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

Table 810. Medical Facility Evacuation Time Estimates - Snow Loading Rate Dist. To Travel Time to Mobilization (min per Total Loading EPZ Bdry EPZ Boundary ETE Medical Facility Patient (min) person) People Time (min) (mi) (min) (hr:min)

Ambulatory 110 1 63 30 11.8 15 2:35 Woodland Terrace of Wheelchair bound 110 5 20 75 11.8 13 3:20 Bridgman Bedridden 110 15 1 15 11.8 15 2:20 Ambulatory 110 1 72 30 8.2 10 2:30 Pine Ridge Rehabilitation Wheelchair bound 110 5 26 75 8.2 9 3:15 And Nursing Center Bedridden 110 15 1 15 8.2 10 2:15 Ambulatory 110 1 62 30 10.3 13 2:35 West Woods of Bridgman Wheelchair bound 110 5 32 75 10.3 11 3:20 Nursing Center Bedridden 110 15 2 30 10.3 13 2:35 Ambulatory 110 1 9 9 10.2 13 2:15 Kevelin Care Wheelchair bound 110 5 2 10 10.2 13 2:15 Ambulatory 110 1 113 30 4.1 15 2:35 Caring Circle of Lakeland Wheelchair bound 110 5 41 75 4.1 9 3:15 Bedridden 110 15 2 30 4.1 15 2:35 Ambulatory 110 1 138 30 3.8 16 2:40 Caretel Inns St. Joseph Wheelchair bound 110 5 48 75 3.8 10 3:15 Bedridden 110 15 2 30 3.8 16 2:40 Ambulatory 110 1 14 14 4.8 53 3:00 Royalton Manor LLC Wheelchair bound 110 5 46 75 4.8 26 3:35 Bedridden 110 15 5 30 4.8 52 3:15 Ambulatory 110 1 179 30 1.4 9 2:30 Lakeland Hospital, St. Joseph Wheelchair bound 110 5 66 75 1.4 13 3:20 Bedridden 110 15 3 30 1.4 9 2:30 Maximum ETE: 3:35 Average ETE: 2:50 Donald C. Cook Nuclear Plant 823 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

Table 811. Access and/or Functional Needs Population Evacuation Time Estimates Total Travel Loading Loading Time to People Time at Travel to Time at EPZ Requiring Vehicles Weather Mobilization 1st Stop Subsequent Subsequent Boundary ETE Vehicle Type Vehicle deployed Stops Conditions Time (min) (min) Stops (min) Stops (min) (min) (hr:min)

Good 120 99 28 4:20 Buses 45 4 12 Rain 130 1 110 11 32 4:45 Snow 140 121 40 5:15 Good 120 27 27 3:15 Wheelchair Vans 6 4 Rain 130 5 30 15 31 3:35 Snow 140 33 32 3:45 78 Good 120 27 27 3:15 Wheelchair Buses 6 4 Rain 130 5 30 45 31 3:35 Snow 140 33 32 3:45 Good 115 0 20 2:30 Ambulances 1 1 1 Rain 125 15 0 0 26 2:45 Snow 135 0 26 2:55 Maximum ETE: 5:15 Average ETE: 3:40 Donald C. Cook Nuclear Plant 824 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

(Subsequent Wave)

A B C D E F G Time Event A Advisory to Evacuate B Bus Dispatched from Depot C Bus Arrives at Facility/Pickup Route D Bus Departs for Congregate Care Center/School Reception Center E Bus Exits Region F Bus Arrives at Congregate Care Center/School Reception Center G Bus Available for Second Wave Evacuation Service Activity AB Driver Mobilization BC Travel to Facility or to Pickup Route CD Passengers Board the Bus DE Bus Travels Towards Region Boundary EF Bus Travels Towards Congregate Care Center/School Reception Center Outside the EPZ FG Passengers Leave Bus; Driver Takes a Break Figure 81. Chronology of Transit Evacuation Operations Donald C. Cook Nuclear Plant 825 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

9 TRAFFIC MANAGEMENT STRATEGY This section discusses the suggested traffic control and management strategy that is designed to expedite the movement of evacuating traffic. The resources required to implement this strategy include:

• Personnel with the capabilities of performing the planned control functions of traffic guides (preferably, not necessarily, law enforcement officers).

• The Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD) published by the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) of the U.S.D.O.T. provides guidance for Traffic Control Devices to assist these personnel in the performance of their tasks. All state and most county transportation agencies have access to the MUTCD, which is available online:

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

• A written plan that defines all Traffic and Access Control Point (TACP) locations, provides necessary details and is documented in a format that is readily understood by those assigned to perform traffic control.

The functions to be performed in the field are:

1. Facilitate evacuating traffic movements that safely expedite travel out of the EPZ.

2. Discourage traffic movements that move evacuating vehicles in a direction which takes them significantly closer to the power plant, or which interferes with the efficient flow of other evacuees.

The terms "facilitate" and "discourage" are employed rather than "enforce" and "prohibit" to indicate the need for flexibility in performing the traffic control function. There are always legitimate reasons for a driver to prefer a direction other than that indicated. For example:

• A driver may be traveling home from work or from another location, to join other family members prior to evacuating.

• An evacuating driver may be travelling to pick up a relative, or other evacuees.

• The driver may be an emergency worker en route to perform an important activity.

The implementation of a plan must also be flexible enough for the application of sound judgment by the traffic guide.

The traffic management plan is the outcome of the following process:

1. The existing TACPs identified by the offsite agencies in their existing emergency plans serve as the basis of the traffic management plan, as per NUREG/CR7002, Rev. 1.

Appendix K identifies the number of intersections that were modeled as TACPs.

2. Evacuation simulations were run using DYNEV II to predict traffic congestion during evacuation (see Section 7.3 and Figures 73 through 79). These simulations help to identify the best routing and critical intersections that experience pronounced congestion during evacuation. Any critical intersections that would benefit from traffic or access control which are not already identified in the existing offsite plans are examined. No additional TACPs were identified as part of this study.

Donald C. Cook Nuclear Plant 91 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

3. Prioritization of TACPs. Application of traffic and access control at some TACPs will have a more pronounced influence on expediting traffic movements than at other TACPs. For example, TACPs controlling traffic originating from areas in close proximity to the power plant could have a more beneficial effect on minimizing potential exposure to radioactivity than those TACPs located far from the power plant. Key locations for manual traffic control (MTC) were analyzed and their impact to ETE was quantified, as per NUREG/CR7002, Rev. 1. See Appendix G for more detail.

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

9.1 Assumptions The ETE calculations documented in Sections 7 and 8 assume that the traffic management plan is implemented during evacuation.

The ETE calculations reflect the assumption that all externalexternal trips are interdicted and diverted after 2 hours2.314815e-5 days <br />5.555556e-4 hours <br />3.306878e-6 weeks <br />7.61e-7 months <br /> have elapsed from the Advisory to Evacuate (ATE).

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

Study assumptions 1 and 2 in Section 2.5 discuss TACP operations.

9.2 Additional Considerations The use of Intelligent Transportation Systems (ITS) technologies can reduce the manpower and equipment needs, while still facilitating the evacuation process. Dynamic Message Signs (DMS) can be placed within the EPZ to provide information to travelers regarding traffic conditions, route selection, and congregate care center information. DMS placed outside of the EPZ will warn motorists to avoid using routes that may conflict with the flow of evacuees away from the power plant. Highway Advisory Radio (HAR) can be used to broadcast information to evacuees during egress through their vehicles stereo systems. Automated Travel Information Systems (ATIS) can also be used to provide evacuees with information. Internet websites can provide traffic and evacuation route information before the evacuee begins their trip, while the onboard navigation systems (GPS units) and smartphones can be used to provide information during evacuation trip.

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

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

Donald C. Cook Nuclear Plant 92 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

10 EVACUATION ROUTES AND CONGREGATE CARE CENTERS 10.1 Evacuation Routes Evacuation routes are comprised of two distinct components:

• Routing from a PAA being evacuated to the boundary of the Evacuation Region and thence out of the EPZ.

• Routing of transitdependent evacuees from the EPZ boundary to congregate care centers.

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

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

The routing of transitdependent evacuees from the EPZ boundary to congregate care centers is designed to minimize the amount of travel outside the EPZ, from the points where these routes cross the EPZ boundary. The 7 bus routes shown graphically in Figure 102 and described in Table 101 were designed by KLD for this ETE study to service the major routes through each PAA. It is assumed that residents will walk to the nearest major roadway and flag down a passing bus, and that they can arrive at the roadway within the 120minute bus mobilization time (good weather).

The specified bus routes for all the transitdependent population are documented in Table 102 (refer to maps of the linknode analysis network in Appendix K for node locations).

Representative routes were developed for all schools and medical facilities within each PAA. It is assumed that all school and medical facility evacuees will be taken to their appropriate congregate care center. School evacuees will subsequently be picked up by parents or guardians.

Transitdependent evacuees are transported to the nearest congregate care center for each county. This study does not consider the transport of evacuees from congregate care centers to congregate care centers if the counties do make the decision to relocate evacuees.

10.2 Congregate Care Centers Figure 103 maps the general population congregate care centers for evacuees and school reception centers for schools/childcare centers. Table 103 presents a list of the school reception centers for each evacuating school and childcare center in the EPZ. Children will be transported to these school reception centers where they will be subsequently retrieved by their respective families.

Donald C. Cook Nuclear Plant 101 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

Table 101. Summary of TransitDependent Bus Routes UNITES Route No. of PAA(s) Length Route # Buses Route Description Serviced (mi.)

PAA 2 & 4: Red Arrow Hwy northbound to Lakeshore Dr northbound, then to Main St 1 42 2 2&4 8.1 northbound in St. Joseph to SR63 northbound, then out of the EPZ PAA 3 & 5: Picks up evacuees along Red Arrow Hwy southbound, then to Sawyer Rd 2 43 1 eastbound followed by a quick right turn to Three Oaks Rd southbound, then out of 3&5 8.7 the EPZ PAA 4: Lakeshore Dr northbound, then to Main St northbound in St. Joseph to SR63 3 44 2 4 4.5 northbound, then out of the EPZ PAA 4: Northbound on SR139, continues to SR63 northbound. Turns on to Napier 4 15 2 4 12.2 Ave eastbound, then out of the EPZ PAA 5: Picks up evacuees along Red Arrow Hwy southbound all the way through to 5 46 1 5 7.1 the EPZ boundary PAA 1 & 3: Red Arrow Hwy southbound to Lake St eastbound. Turns right onto Church St/California Rd southbound to Sawyer Rd eastbound. Then Glendora Rd westbound 6 41 1 1&3 16.7 by way of Pardee Rd. Continues onto Avery Rd and Mill Rd then to Warren Woods Rd eastbound. Turns right onto Pardee Rd southbound through the EPZ boundary PAA 5: Picks up evacuees along Shawnee Rd eastbound towards Berrien Springs all 7 47 1 5 5.5 the way through to the EPZ boundary Total: 10 Donald C. Cook Nuclear Plant 102 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

Table 102. Bus Route Descriptions Bus Route Number Description Nodes Traversed from Route Start to EPZ Boundary 2 Trinity Lutheran School 770, 199, 198, 200, 29, 28, 15, 586, 585, 16, 14, 148, 149 37 Caretel Inns of Royalton 47, 459, 460, 69, 70, 67, 76, 68, 41, 42, 87, 86, 88, 43, 83, 60 10 Bridgman Elementary School 216, 992, 217, 968, 219, 221, 970, 668, 224, 227, 597, 598, 332, 331, 330, 476, 323, 483, 322, 477, 453 195, 273, 275, 274, 165, 168, 167, 152, 36, 37, 40, 67, 76, 68, 41, 42, 87, 86, 88, 43, 83, 60, 282, 163, 17 St. Pauls Lutheran School 162 209, 269, 270, 275, 274, 165, 168, 167, 152, 36, 37, 40, 67, 76, 68, 41, 42, 87, 86, 88, 43, 83, 60, 282, 14 Roosevelt Elementary 163, 162 208, 209, 269, 270, 275, 274, 165, 168, 167, 152, 36, 37, 40, 67, 76, 68, 41, 42, 87, 86, 88, 43, 83, 60, 11 Lakeshore High School 282, 163, 162 208, 209, 269, 270, 275, 274, 165, 168, 167, 152, 36, 37, 40, 67, 76, 68, 41, 42, 87, 86, 88, 43, 83, 60, 12 Lakeshore Middle School 282, 163, 162 644, 174, 169, 729, 164, 165, 168, 167, 152, 36, 37, 40, 67, 76, 68, 41, 42, 87, 86, 88, 43, 83, 60, 282, 39 Stewart Elementary School 163, 162 16 Christ Lutheran Church and School 271, 522, 454, 457, 455, 47, 92, 94, 45, 153, 44, 82, 89, 91, 88, 43, 83, 60, 282, 163, 162 40 Upton Middle School 347, 734, 456, 460, 69, 70, 67, 76, 68, 41, 42, 87, 86, 88, 43, 83, 60, 282, 163, 162 8 Bridgman High School 216, 992, 217, 968, 219, 221, 970, 668, 224, 227, 597, 598, 332, 331, 330, 476, 323, 483, 322, 477, 453 9 F.C. Reed Middle School 769, 768, 971, 970, 668, 224, 227, 597, 598, 332, 331, 330, 476, 323, 483, 322, 475 13 Hollywood Elementary 512, 458, 457, 456, 460, 69, 70, 67, 76, 68, 41, 42, 87, 86, 88, 43, 83, 60, 282, 163, 162 440, 366, 437, 428, 461, 345, 735, 1013, 346, 66, 73, 69, 70, 67, 76, 68, 41, 42, 87, 86, 88, 43, 83, 60, 24 Brown Elementary 282, 163, 162 457, 455, 47, 92, 819, 643, 95, 48, 722, 96, 514, 49, 1033, 50, 574, 51, 97, 901, 106, 98, 902, 641, 985, 50 Lighthouse Education Center 52, 1048, 129 463, 461, 462, 828, 827, 338, 431, 344, 294, 898, 1015, 897, 285, 896, 403, 284, 277, 292, 291, 290, 31 Lake Michigan Catholic Elementary 283, 392, 280, 163, 162 30 Michigan Lutheran High School 458, 276, 643, 819, 94, 45, 153, 44, 82, 89, 91, 88, 43, 83, 60, 282, 163, 162 27 Special Education/Admin Building 742, 1008, 346, 66, 73, 69, 70, 67, 76, 68, 41, 42, 87, 86, 88, 43, 83, 60, 282, 163, 162 28 Grace Lutheran Church and School 457, 455, 47, 459, 460, 69, 70, 67, 76, 68, 41, 42, 87, 86, 88, 43, 83, 60, 282, 163, 162 25 E. P. Clark Elementary 455, 47, 459, 460, 69, 70, 67, 76, 68, 41, 42, 87, 86, 88, 43, 83, 60, 282, 163, 162 29 Great Lakes Montessori 66, 73, 69, 70, 67, 76, 68, 41, 42, 87, 86, 88, 43, 83, 60, 282, 163, 162 429, 430, 338, 431, 344, 294, 898, 1015, 897, 285, 896, 403, 284, 277, 292, 291, 290, 283, 392, 280, 22 St Joseph's High School 163, 162 Donald C. Cook Nuclear Plant 103 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

Bus Route Number Description Nodes Traversed from Route Start to EPZ Boundary 26 Lincoln Elementary 344, 294, 898, 1015, 897, 285, 896, 403, 284, 277, 292, 291, 290, 283, 392, 280, 163, 162 7 Brookview School 893, 279, 404, 286, 892, 285, 891, 1017, 1018, 335, 386 3 Fair Plain School 285, 891, 1017, 1018, 335, 386, 1025, 387 18 River School 413, 414, 415, 416, 507, 508, 417, 910, 484, 503, 755, 492 20 Chikaming Elementary School 232, 679, 681, 233, 235, 236, 974, 978, 237, 238, 914, 239, 240, 590 193, 194, 196, 996, 173, 170, 274, 165, 164, 729, 169, 174, 438, 362, 363, 441, 409, 364, 365, 1045, 42 PAA 2&4 436, 427, 883, 337, 884, 391 43 PAA 3&5 223, 175, 176, 186, 184, 177, 178, 179, 234, 704, 664, 231, 661, 202, 637, 246, 334, 247, 923, 248 44 PAA 4_1 438, 362, 363, 441, 409, 364, 365, 1045, 436, 427, 883, 337, 884, 391, 830, 343 50, 1033, 49, 514, 96, 722, 48, 95, 643, 819, 92, 47, 459, 460, 69, 73, 66, 346, 1013, 735, 345, 462, 15 PAA 4_2 828, 827, 338, 431, 344, 294, 898, 1015, 897, 285, 896, 403, 284, 277, 292, 291, 290 46 PAA 5_1 231, 661, 202, 230, 232, 679, 681, 233, 235, 236, 974, 978, 237, 238 193, 192, 638, 191, 190, 774, 180, 223, 214, 767, 769, 768, 665, 666, 228, 229, 630, 635, 631, 632, 41 PAA 1&3 633, 634, 333, 849 47 PAA 5_2 792, 741, 222, 451, 449, 1051, 765, 244, 760, 130, 245 1 River Valley Middle/High School 334, 247, 923, 248, 703, 993, 24, 23, 27, 143, 21, 22, 240, 590 34 Lakeland Medical Center 650, 344, 432, 351, 794, 405, 348 191, 190, 774, 180, 223, 175, 176, 186, 184, 879, 183, 185, 187, 31, 30, 38, 197, 205, 204, 29, 28, 15, 4 Woodland Terrace of Bridgman 586, 585, 16, 14, 148, 149 5 Pine Ridge Rehab and Nursing Center 271, 269, 270, 275, 274, 165, 168, 167, 152, 36, 37, 40, 67, 76, 68, 41, 42, 87, 86, 88, 43, 83, 60 6 West Woods of Bridgman 175, 176, 186, 184, 879, 183, 185, 187, 31, 30, 38, 197, 205, 204, 29, 28, 15, 586, 585, 16, 14, 148, 149 19 Kevelin Care 665, 666, 203, 770, 199, 198, 200, 29, 28, 15, 586, 585, 16, 14, 148, 149 21 Caring Circle of Lakeland 456, 460, 69, 70, 67, 76, 68, 41, 42, 87, 86, 88, 43, 83, 60 23 Royalton Manor LLC 457, 455, 47, 459, 460, 69, 70, 67, 76, 68, 41, 42, 87, 86, 88, 43, 83, 60 32 Fair Plain East Elementary 284, 403, 896, 285, 891, 1017, 1018, 335, 386 56 Andrews Academy 443, 52, 1048, 129, 1049, 130, 760 33 Ruth Murdoch Elementary 443, 52, 1048, 129, 1049, 130, 760 Donald C. Cook Nuclear Plant 104 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

Table 103. Reception Centers for Schools and Childcare Centers School/Childcare Center School Reception Center Bridgman Elementary School Ottawa Elementary School St. Paul's Lutheran School Roosevelt Elementary School Lakeshore High School Lakeshore Middle School Lake Michigan College Stewart Elementary School Christ Lutheran Church and School Hollywood Elementary School Upton Middle School Brown Elementary School Lake Michigan Catholic Elementary School Michigan Lutheran High School Special Education/Admin Bldg.

Lake Michigan College (Mendel Center)

Grace Lutheran Church and School E.P. Clarke Elementary School Great Lakes Montessori St. Joseph High School Lincoln Elementary School Bridgman High School Buchanan High School Gym F.C. Reed Middle School Buchanan Middle School Gym Lighthouse Education Center Blossomland Learning Center Arts & Communications Academy at Fair Plain School Brookview School Benton Harbor High School Fair Plain East Elementary School River School Lybrook Elementary School Chikaming Elementary School New Buffalo High School Cafeteria River Valley Middle/High School New Buffalo Middle/High School Gym Andrews Academy Mars Elementary School Ruth Murdoch Elementary School Donald C. Cook Nuclear Plant 105 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

Figure 101. Evacuation Routes Donald C. Cook Nuclear Plant 106 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

Figure 102. TransitDependent Bus Routes Donald C. Cook Nuclear Plant 107 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

Figure 103. Congregate Care Centers and School Reception Centers Donald C. Cook Nuclear Plant 108 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

APPENDIX A Glossary of Traffic Engineering Terms

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Service Volume is usually expressed as vehicles per hour (vph).

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

The cycle length is expressed in seconds.

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

Donald C. Cook Nuclear Plant A1 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

Term Definition Signal Phase A set of signal indications (and intervals) which services a particular combination of traffic movements on selected approaches to the intersection. The phase duration is expressed in seconds.

Traffic (Trip) Assignment A process of assigning traffic to paths of travel in such a way as to satisfy all trip objectives (i.e., the desire of each vehicle to travel from a specified origin in the network to a specified destination) and to optimize some stated objective or combination of objectives. In general, the objective is stated in terms of minimizing a generalized "cost". For example, "cost" may be expressed in terms of travel time.

Traffic Density The number of vehicles that occupy one lane of a roadway section of specified length at a point in time, expressed as vehicles per mile (vpm).

Traffic (Trip) Distribution A process for determining the destinations of all traffic generated at the origins. The result often takes the form of a Trip Table, which is a matrix of origindestination traffic volumes.

Traffic Simulation A computer model designed to replicate the realworld operation of vehicles on a roadway network, so as to provide statistics describing traffic performance. These statistics are called Measures of Effectiveness.

Traffic Volume The number of vehicles that pass over a section of roadway in one direction, expressed in vehicles per hour (vph). Where applicable, traffic volume may be stratified by turn movement.

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

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

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

Donald C. Cook Nuclear Plant A2 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

APPENDIX B DTRAD: Dynamic Traffic Assignment and Distribution Model

B. DYNAMIC TRAFFIC ASSIGNMENT AND DISTRIBUTION MODEL This section describes the integrated dynamic trip assignment and distribution model named DTRAD (Dynamic Traffic Assignment and Distribution) that is expressly designed for use in analyzing evacuation scenarios. DTRAD employs logitbased pathchoice principles and is one of the models of the DYNEV II System. The DTRAD module implements pathbased Dynamic Traffic Assignment (DTA) so that time dependent OriginDestination (OD) trips are assigned to routes over the network based on prevailing traffic conditions.

To apply the DYNEV II System, the analyst must specify the highway network, link capacity information, the timevarying volume of traffic generated at all origin centroids and, optionally, a set of accessible candidate destination nodes on the periphery of the EPZ for selected origins.

DTRAD calculates the optimal dynamic trip distribution (i.e., trip destinations) and the optimal dynamic trip assignment (i.e., trip routing) of the traffic generated at each origin node traveling to its set of candidate destination nodes, so as to minimize evacuee travel cost.

Overview of Integrated Distribution and Assignment Model The underlying premise is that the selection of destinations and routes is intrinsically coupled in an evacuation scenario. That is, people in vehicles seek to travel out of an area of potential risk as rapidly as possible by selecting the best routes. The model is designed to identify these best routes in a manner that realistically distributes vehicles from origins to destinations and routes them over the highway network, in a consistent and optimal manner, reflecting evacuee behavior.

For each origin, a set of candidate destination nodes is selected by the software logic and by the analyst to reflect the desire by evacuees to travel away from the power plant and to access major highways. The specific destination nodes within this set that are selected by travelers and the selection of the connecting paths of travel, are both determined by DTRAD. This determination is made by a logitbased path choice model in DTRAD, so as to minimize the trip cost, as discussed later.

The traffic loading on the network and the consequent operational traffic environment of the network (density, speed, throughput on each link) vary over time as the evacuation takes place.

The DTRAD model, which is interfaced with the DYNEV simulation model, executes a succession of sessions wherein it computes the optimal routing and selection of destination nodes for the conditions that exist at that time.

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

Donald C. Cook Nuclear Plant B1 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

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

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

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

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

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

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

Travel cost plays a crucial role in route choice. In DTRAD, path cost is a linear summation of the generalized cost of each link that comprises the path. The generalized cost for a link, a, is expressed as ca ta la sa ,

where ca is the generalized cost for link a, and , , and are cost coefficients for link travel time, distance, and supplemental cost, respectively. Distance and supplemental costs are defined as invariant properties of the network model, while travel time is a dynamic property dictated by prevailing traffic conditions. The DYNEV simulation model Donald C. Cook Nuclear Plant B2 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

computes travel times on all edges in the network and DTRAD uses that information to constantly update the costs of paths. The route choice decision model in the next simulation iteration uses these updated values to adjust the route choice behavior. This way, traffic demands are dynamically reassigned based on time dependent conditions.

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

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

sa = ln (p), 0 p l ; 0 p=

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

= Scaling factor The value of do = 10 miles, the outer distance of the EPZ. Note that the supplemental cost, sa, of link, a, is (high, low), if its downstream node, n, is (near, far from) the power plant.

Network Equilibrium In 1952, John Wardrop wrote:

Under equilibrium conditions traffic arranges itself in congested networks in such a way that no individual tripmaker can reduce his path costs by switching routes.

The above statement describes the User Equilibrium definition, also called the Selfish Driver Equilibrium. It is a hypothesis that represents a [hopeful] condition that evolves over time as drivers search out alternative routes to identify those routes that minimize their respective costs. It has been found that this equilibrium objective to minimize costs is largely realized by most drivers who routinely take the same trip over the same network at the same time (i.e.,

commuters). Effectively, such drivers learn which routes are best for them over time. Thus, the traffic environment settles down to a nearequilibrium state.

Clearly, since an emergency evacuation is a sudden, unique event, it does not constitute a long term learning experience which can achieve an equilibrium state. Consequently, DTRAD was not designed as an equilibrium solution, but to represent drivers in a new and unfamiliar situation, who respond in a flexible manner to realtime information (either broadcast or observed) in such a way as to minimize their respective costs of travel.

Donald C. Cook Nuclear Plant B3 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

Start of next DTRAD Session A

Set T0 Clock time.

Archive System State at T0 Define latest Link Turn Percentages Execute Simulation Model from B time, T0 to T1 (burn time)

Provide DTRAD with link MOE at time, T1 Execute DTRAD iteration; Get new Turn Percentages Retrieve System State at T0 ;

Apply new Link Turn Percents DTRAD iteration converges?

No Yes Next iteration Simulate from T0 to T2 (DTA session duration)

Set Clock to T2 B A Figure B1. Flow Diagram of SimulationDTRAD Interface Donald C. Cook Nuclear Plant B4 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

APPENDIX C DYNEV Traffic Simulation Model

C. DYNEV TRAFFIC SIMULATION MODEL The DYNEV traffic simulation model is a macroscopic model that describes the operations of traffic flow in terms of aggregate variables: vehicles, flow rate, mean speed, volume, density, queue length, on each link, for each turn movement, during each Time Interval (simulation time step). The model generates trips from sources and from Entry Links and introduces them onto the analysis network at rates specified by the analyst based on the mobilization time distributions. The model simulates the movements of all vehicles on all network links over time until the network is empty. At intervals, the model outputs Measures of Effectiveness (MOE) such as those listed in Table C1.

Model Features Include:

Explicit consideration is taken of the variation in density over the time step; an iterative procedure is employed to calculate an average density over the simulation time step for the purpose of computing a mean speed for moving vehicles.

Multiple turn movements can be serviced on one link; a separate algorithm is used to estimate the number of (fractional) lanes assigned to the vehicles performing each turn movement, based, in part, on the turn percentages provided by the DTRAD model.

At any point in time, traffic flow on a link is subdivided into two classifications: queued and moving vehicles. The number of vehicles in each classification is computed. Vehicle spillback, stratified by turn movement for each network link, is explicitly considered and quantified. The propagation of stopping waves from link to link is computed within each time step of the simulation. There is no vertical stacking of queues on a link.

Any link can accommodate source flow from zones via side streets and parking facilities that are not explicitly represented. This flow represents the evacuating trips that are generated at the source.

The relation between the number of vehicles occupying the link and its storage capacity is monitored every time step for every link and for every turn movement. If the available storage capacity on a link is exceeded by the demand for service, then the simulator applies a metering rate to the entering traffic from both the upstream feeders and source node to ensure that the available storage capacity is not exceeded.

A path network that represents the specified traffic movements from each network link is constructed by the model; this path network is utilized by the DTRAD model.

A twoway interface with DTRAD: (1) provides link travel times; (2) receives data that translates into link turn percentages.

Provides MOE to animation software, EVAN Calculates ETE statistics All traffic simulation models are dataintensive. Table C2 outlines the necessary input data elements.

Donald C. Cook Nuclear Plant C1 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

To provide an efficient framework for defining these specifications, the physical highway environment is represented as a network. The unidirectional links of the network represent roadway sections: rural, multilane, urban streets or freeways. The nodes of the network generally represent intersections or points along a section where a geometric property changes (e.g. a lane drop, change in grade or free flow speed).

Figure C1 is an example of a small network representation. The freeway is defined by the sequence of links, (20,21), (21,22), and (22,23). Links (8001, 19) and (3, 8011) are Entry and Exit links, respectively. An arterial extends from node 3 to node 19 and is partially subsumed within a grid network. Note that links (21,22) and (17,19) are gradeseparated.

C.1 Methodology C.1.1 The Fundamental Diagram It is necessary to define the fundamental diagram describing flowdensity and speeddensity relationships. Rather than settling for a triangular representation, a more realistic representation that includes a capacity drop, (IR)Qmax, at the critical density when flow conditions enter the forced flow regime, is developed and calibrated for each link. This representation, shown in Figure C2, asserts a constant free speed up to a density, k , and then a linear reduction in speed in the range, k k k 45 vpm, the density at capacity. In the flowdensity plane, a quadratic relationship is prescribed in the range, k k 95 vpm which roughly represents the stopandgo condition of severe congestion. The value of flow rate, Q , corresponding to k , is approximated at 0.7 RQ . A linear relationship between k and k completes the diagram shown in Figure C2. Table C3 is a glossary of terms.

The fundamental diagram is applied to moving traffic on every link. The specified calibration values for each link are: (1) Free speed, v ; (2) Capacity, Q  ; (3) Critical density, k 45 vpm ; (4) Capacity Drop Factor, R = 0.9 ; (5) Jam density, k . Then, v , k k

. Setting k k k , then Q RQ k for 0 k k 50 . It can be shown that Q 0.98 0.0056 k RQ for k k k , where k 50 and k 175.

C.1.2 The Simulation Model The simulation model solves a sequence of unit problems. Each unit problem computes the movement of traffic on a link, for each specified turn movement, over a specified time interval (TI) which serves as the simulation time step for all links. Figure C3 is a representation of the unit problem in the timedistance plane. Table C3 is a glossary of terms that are referenced in the following description of the unit problem procedure.

The formulation and the associated logic presented below are designed to solve the unit problem for each sweep over the network (discussed below), for each turn movement serviced on each link that comprises the evacuation network, and for each TI over the duration of the evacuation.

Given Q , M , L , TI , E , LN , G C , h , L , R , L , E , M Donald C. Cook Nuclear Plant C2 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

Compute O ,Q ,M Define O O O O ; E E E

1. For the first sweep, s = 1, of this TI, get initial estimates of mean density, k , the R - factor, R and entering traffic, E , using the values computed for the final sweep of the prior TI.

For each subsequent sweep, s 1 , calculate E P O S where P , O are the relevant turn percentages from feeder link, i , and its total outflow (possibly metered) over this TI; S is the total source flow (possibly metered) during the current TI.

Set iteration counter, n = 0, k k , and E E .

2. Calculate v k such that k 130 using the analytical representations of the fundamental diagram.

Q TI G Calculate Cap C LN , in vehicles, this value may be reduced 3600 due to metering Set R 1.0 if G C 1 or if k k ; Set R 0.9 only if G C 1 and k k L

Calculate queue length, L Q LN

3. Calculate t TI . If t 0 , set t E O 0 ; Else, E E .

4. Then E E E ; t TI t

5. If Q Cap , then O Cap , O O 0 If t 0 , then Q Q M E Cap Else Q Q Cap End if Calculate Q and M using Algorithm A below

6. Else Q Cap O Q , RCap Cap O

7. If M RCap , then t Cap

8. If t 0, O M ,O min RCap M , 0 TI Q E O If Q 0 , then Calculate Q , M with Algorithm A Else Donald C. Cook Nuclear Plant C3 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

Q 0, M E End if Else t 0 O M and O 0 M M O E; Q 0 End if

9. Else M O 0 If t 0 , then O RCap , Q M O E Calculate Q and M using Algorithm A

10. Else t 0 M M If M ,

O RCap Q M O Apply Algorithm A to calculate Q and M Else O M M M O E and Q 0 End if End if End if End if

11. Calculate a new estimate of average density, k k 2k k ,

where k = density at the beginning of the TI k = density at the end of the TI k = density at the midpoint of the TI All values of density apply only to the moving vehicles.

If k k and n N where N max number of iterations, and is a convergence criterion, then

12. set n n 1 , and return to step 2 to perform iteration, n, using k k .

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

13. If Q M , then Donald C. Cook Nuclear Plant C4 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

The number of excess vehicles that cause spillback is: SB Q M ,

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

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

Algorithm A This analysis addresses the flow environment over a TI during which moving vehicles can join a standing or discharging queue. For the case shown, Qb vQ Q Cap, with t 0 and a queue of length, Q ,

Q Qe formed by that portion of M and E that reaches the stopbar within the TI, but could not discharge due to v inadequate capacity. That is, Q M E .

Mb This queue length, Q Q M E Cap can be v L3 extended to Q by traffic entering the approach during the current TI, traveling at speed, v, and t1 t3 reaching the rear of the queue within the TI. A portion T of the entering vehicles, E E , will likely join the queue. This analysis calculates t , Q and M for the input values of L, TI, v, E, t, L , LN, Q .

When t 0 and Q Cap:

L L Define: L Q . From the sketch, L v TI t t L Q E .

LN LN Substituting E E yields: vt E L v TI t L . Recognizing that the first two terms on the right hand side cancel, solve for t to obtain:

L t such that 0 t TI t E L v

TI LN If the denominator, v 0, set t TI t .

t t t Then, Q Q E , M E 1 TI TI The complete Algorithm A considers all flow scenarios; space limitation precludes its inclusion, here.

Donald C. Cook Nuclear Plant C5 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

C.1.3 Lane Assignment The unit problem is solved for each turn movement on each link. Therefore it is necessary to calculate a value, LN , of allocated lanes for each movement, x. If in fact all lanes are specified by, say, arrows painted on the pavement, either as full lanes or as lanes within a turn bay, then the problem is fully defined. If however there remain unchannelized lanes on a link, then an analysis is undertaken to subdivide the number of these physical lanes into turn movement specific virtual lanes, LNx.

C.2 Implementation C.2.1 Computational Procedure The computational procedure for this model is shown in the form of a flow diagram as Figure C4.

As discussed earlier, the simulation model processes traffic flow for each link independently over TI that the analyst specifies; it is usually 60 seconds or longer. The first step is to execute an algorithm to define the sequence in which the network links are processed so that as many links as possible are processed after their feeder links are processed, within the same network sweep.

Since a general network will have many closed loops, it is not possible to guarantee that every link processed will have all of its feeder links processed earlier.

The processing then continues as a succession of time steps of duration, TI, until the simulation is completed. Within each time step, the processing performs a series of sweeps over all network links; this is necessary to ensure that the traffic flow is synchronous over the entire network. Specifically, the sweep ensures continuity of flow among all the network links; in the context of this model, this means that the values of E, M, and S are all defined for each link such that they represent the synchronous movement of traffic from each link to all of its outbound links. These sweeps also serve to compute the metering rates that control spillback.

Within each sweep, processing solves the unit problem for each turn movement on each link.

With the turn movement percentages for each link provided by the DTRAD model, an algorithm allocates the number of lanes to each movement serviced on each link. The timing at a signal, if any, applied at the downstream end of the link, is expressed as a G/C ratio, the signal timing needed to define this ratio is an input requirement for the model. The model also has the capability of representing, with macroscopic fidelity, the actions of actuated signals responding to the timevarying competing demands on the approaches to the intersection.

The solution of the unit problem yields the values of the number of vehicles, O, that discharge from the link over the time interval and the number of vehicles that remain on the link at the end of the time interval as stratified by queued and moving vehicles: Q and M . The procedure considers each movement separately (multipiping). After all network links are processed for a given network sweep, the updated consistent values of entering flows, E; metering rates, M; and source flows, S are defined so as to satisfy the no spillback condition. The procedure then performs the unit problem solutions for all network links during the following sweep.

Experience has shown that the system converges (i.e. the values of E, M and S settle down for Donald C. Cook Nuclear Plant C6 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

all network links) in just two sweeps if the network is entirely undersaturated or in four sweeps in the presence of extensive congestion with link spillback. (The initial sweep over each link uses the final values of E and M, of the prior TI). At the completion of the final sweep for a TI, the procedure computes and stores all measures of effectiveness for each link and turn movement for output purposes. It then prepares for the following time interval by defining the values of Q and M for the start of the next TI as being those values of Q and M at the end of the prior TI. In this manner, the simulation model processes the traffic flow over time until the end of the run. Note that there is no spacediscretization other than the specification of network links.

C.2.2 Interfacing with Dynamic Traffic Assignment (DTRAD)

The DYNEV II system reflects NRC guidance that evacuees will seek to travel in a general direction away from the location of the hazardous event. Thus, an algorithm was developed to identify an appropriate set of destination nodes for each origin based on its location and on the expected direction of travel. This algorithm also supports the DTRAD model in dynamically varying the Trip Table (OD matrix) over time from one DTRAD session to the next.

Figure B1 depicts the interaction of the simulation model with the DTRAD model in the DYNEV II system. As indicated, DYNEV II performs a succession of DTRAD sessions; each such session computes the turn link percentages for each link that remain constant for the session duration, T , T , specified by the analyst. The end product is the assignment of traffic volumes from each origin to paths connecting it with its destinations in such a way as to minimize the network wide cost function. The output of the DTRAD model is a set of updated link turn percentages which represent this assignment of traffic.

As indicated in Figure B1, the simulation model supports the DTRAD session by providing it with operational link MOE that are needed by the path choice model and included in the DTRAD cost function. These MOE represent the operational state of the network at a time, T T , which lies within the session duration, T , T . This burn time, T T , is selected by the analyst.

For each DTRAD iteration, the simulation model computes the change in network operations over this burn time using the latest set of link turn percentages computed by the DTRAD model. Upon convergence of the DTRAD iterative procedure, the simulation model accepts the latest turn percentages provided by the Dynamic Traffic Assignment (DTA) model, returns to the origin time, T , and executes until it arrives at the end of the DTRAD session duration at time, T . At this time the next DTA session is launched and the whole process repeats until the end of the DYNEV II run.

Additional details are presented in Appendix B.

Donald C. Cook Nuclear Plant C7 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

Table C1. Selected Measures of Effectiveness Output by DYNEV II Measure Units Applies To Vehicles Discharged Vehicles Link, Network, Exit Link Speed Miles/Hours (mph) Link, Network Density Vehicles/Mile/Lane Link Level of Service LOS Link Content Vehicles Network Travel Time Vehiclehours Network Evacuated Vehicles Vehicles Network, Exit Link Trip Travel Time Vehicleminutes/trip Network Capacity Utilization Percent Exit Link Attraction Percent of total evacuating vehicles Exit Link Max Queue Vehicles Node, Approach Time of Max Queue Hours:minutes Node, Approach Length (mi); Mean Speed (mph); Travel Route Statistics Route Time (min)

Mean Travel Time Minutes Evacuation Trips; Network Donald C. Cook Nuclear Plant C8 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

Table C2. Input Requirements for the DYNEV II Model HIGHWAY NETWORK Links defined by upstream and downstream node numbers Link lengths Number of lanes (up to 9) and channelization Turn bays (1 to 3 lanes)

Destination (exit) nodes Network topology defined in terms of downstream nodes for each receiving link Node Coordinates (X,Y)

Nuclear Power Plant Coordinates (X,Y)

GENERATED TRAFFIC VOLUMES On all entry links and source nodes (origins), by Time Period TRAFFIC CONTROL SPECIFICATIONS Traffic signals: linkspecific, turn movement specific Signal control treated as fixed time or actuated Location of traffic control points (these are represented as actuated signals)

Stop and Yield signs Rightturnonred (RTOR)

Route diversion specifications Turn restrictions Lane control (e.g. lane closure, movementspecific)

DRIVERS AND OPERATIONAL CHARACTERISTICS Drivers (vehiclespecific) response mechanisms: freeflow speed, discharge headway Bus route designation.

DYNAMIC TRAFFIC ASSIGNMENT Candidate destination nodes for each origin (optional)

Duration of DTA sessions Duration of simulation burn time Desired number of destination nodes per origin INCIDENTS Identify and Schedule of closed lanes Identify and Schedule of closed links Donald C. Cook Nuclear Plant C9 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

Table C3. Glossary The maximum number of vehicles, of a particular movement, that can discharge Cap from a link within a time interval.

The number of vehicles, of a particular movement, that enter the link over the E

time interval. The portion, ETI, can reach the stopbar within the TI.

The green time: cycle time ratio that services the vehicles of a particular turn G/C movement on a link.

h The mean queue discharge headway, seconds.

k Density in vehicles per lane per mile.

The average density of moving vehicles of a particular movement over a TI, on a k

link.

L The length of the link in feet.

The queue length in feet of a particular movement, at the [beginning, end] of a L ,L time interval.

The number of lanes, expressed as a floating point number, allocated to service LN a particular movement on a link.

L The mean effective length of a queued vehicle including the vehicle spacing, feet.

M Metering factor (Multiplier): 1.

The number of moving vehicles on the link, of a particular movement, that are M ,M moving at the [beginning, end] of the time interval. These vehicles are assumed to be of equal spacing, over the length of link upstream of the queue.

The total number of vehicles of a particular movement that are discharged from O

a link over a time interval.

The components of the vehicles of a particular movement that are discharged from a link within a time interval: vehicles that were Queued at the beginning of O ,O ,O the TI; vehicles that were Moving within the link at the beginning of the TI; vehicles that Entered the link during the TI.

The percentage, expressed as a fraction, of the total flow on the link that P

executes a particular turn movement, x.

Donald C. Cook Nuclear Plant C10 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

The number of queued vehicles on the link, of a particular turn movement, at Q ,Q the [beginning, end] of the time interval.

The maximum flow rate that can be serviced by a link for a particular movement Q in the absence of a control device. It is specified by the analyst as an estimate of link capacity, based upon a field survey, with reference to the HCM 2016.

R The factor that is applied to the capacity of a link to represent the capacity drop when the flow condition moves into the forced flow regime. The lower capacity at that point is equal to RQ .

RCap The remaining capacity available to service vehicles of a particular movement after that queue has been completely serviced, within a time interval, expressed as vehicles.

S Service rate for movement x, vehicles per hour (vph).

t Vehicles of a particular turn movement that enter a link over the first t seconds of a time interval, can reach the stopbar (in the absence of a queue down stream) within the same time interval.

TI The time interval, in seconds, which is used as the simulation time step.

v The mean speed of travel, in feet per second (fps) or miles per hour (mph), of moving vehicles on the link.

v The mean speed of the last vehicle in a queue that discharges from the link within the TI. This speed differs from the mean speed of moving vehicles, v.

W The width of the intersection in feet. This is the difference between the link length which extends from stopbar to stopbar and the block length.

Donald C. Cook Nuclear Plant C11 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

8011 8009 2 3 8104 8107 6 5 8008 8010 8 9 10 8007 8012 12 11 8006 8005 13 14 8014 15 25 8004 16 24 8024 17 8003 23 22 21 20 8002 Entry, Exit Nodes are 19 numbered 8xxx 8001 Figure C1. Representative Analysis Network Donald C. Cook Nuclear Plant C12 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

Volume, vph Capacity Drop Qmax R Qmax Qs Density, vpm Flow Regimes Speed, mph Free Forced vf R vc Density, vpm kf kc kj ks Figure C2. Fundamental Diagrams Distance OQ OM OE Down Qb vQ Qe v

v L

Mb Me Up t1 t2 Time E1 E2 TI Figure C3. A UNIT Problem Configuration with t1 > 0 Donald C. Cook Nuclear Plant C13 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

Sequence Network Links Next Timestep, of duration, TI A

Next sweep; Define E, M, S for all B

Links C Next Link D Next Turn Movement, x Get lanes, LNx Service Rate, Sx ; G/Cx Get inputs to Unit Problem:

Q b , Mb , E Solve Unit Problem: Q e , Me , O No D Last Movement ?

Yes No Last Link ? C Yes No B Last Sweep ?

Yes Calc., store all Link MOE Set up next TI :

No A Last Time - step ?

Yes DONE Figure C4. Flow of Simulation Processing (See Glossary: Table C3)

Donald C. Cook Nuclear Plant C14 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

APPENDIX D Detailed Description of Study Procedure

D. DETAILED DESCRIPTION OF STUDY PROCEDURE This appendix describes the activities that were performed to compute Evacuation Time Estimates (ETE). The individual steps of this effort are represented as a flow diagram in Figure D1. Each numbered step in the description that follows corresponds to the numbered element in the flow diagram.

Step 1 The first activity was to obtain Emergency Planning Zone (EPZ) boundary information and create a Geographic Information System (GIS) base map. The base map extends beyond the Shadow Region which extends approximately 15 miles (radially) from the power plant location.

The base map incorporates the local roadway topology, a suitable topographic background and the EPZ boundary.

Step 2 2020 Census block information was obtained in GIS format. This information was used to estimate the resident population within the EPZ and Shadow Region and to define the spatial distribution and demographic characteristics of the population within the study area. Employee data was estimated using the US Census Longitudinal EmployerHousehold Dynamics from the OnTheMap Census analysis tool1 and the plant employment data was provided by AEP. Data for employees, transients, schools, and other facilities were obtained from the county emergency management departments, satellite imagery of the facilities, and the previous ETE study, supplemented by internet searches and phone calls to individual facilities where data was missing.

Step 3 A kickoff meeting was conducted with major stakeholders (state and local emergency managers, and onsite and offsite utility emergency managers). The purpose of the kickoff meeting was to present an overview of the work effort, identify key agency personnel, and indicate the data requirements for the study. Specific requests for information were presented to the state and county emergency managers. Unique features of the study area were discussed to identify the local concerns that should be addressed by the ETE study.

Step 4 Next, a physical survey of the roadway system in the study area was conducted to determine any changes to the roadway network since the previous study. This survey included consideration of the geometric properties of the highway sections, the channelization of lanes on each section of roadway, whether there are any turn restrictions or special treatment of traffic at intersections, the type and functioning of traffic control devices, gathering signal timings for pretimed traffic signals, and to make the necessary observations needed to 1

https://onthemap.ces.census.gov/

Donald C. Cook Nuclear Plant D1 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

estimate realistic values of roadway capacity. Roadway characteristics were also verified using aerial imagery.

Step 5 A demographic survey of households within the EPZ was conducted to identify household dynamics, trip generation characteristics, and evacuationrelated demographic information of the EPZ population for this study. This information was used to determine important study factors including the average number of evacuating vehicles used by each household, and the time required to perform preevacuation mobilization activities.

Step 6 A computerized representation of the physical roadway system, called a linknode analysis network, was developed using the most recent UNITES software (see Section 1.3) developed by KLD. Once the geometry of the network was completed, the network was calibrated using the information gathered during the road survey (Step 4) and information obtained from aerial imagery. Estimates of highway capacity for each link and other linkspecific characteristics were introduced to the network description. Traffic signal timings were input accordingly. The link node analysis network was imported into a GIS map. The 2020 permanent resident population estimates (Step 2) were overlaid in the map, and origin centroids where trips would be generated during the evacuation process were assigned to appropriate links.

Step 7 The EPZ is subdivided into 7 Protective Action Areas (PAA). Based on wind direction and speed, Regions (groupings of PAA) that may be advised to evacuate, were developed.

The need for evacuation can occur over a range of timeofday, dayofweek, seasonal and weatherrelated conditions. Scenarios were developed to capture the variation in evacuation demand, highway capacity and mobilization time, for different time of day, day of the week, time of year, and weather conditions.

Step 8 The input stream for the DYNEV II model, which integrates the dynamic traffic assignment and distribution model, DTRAD, with the evacuation simulation model, was created for a prototype evacuation case - the evacuation of the entire EPZ for a representative scenario.

Step 9 After creating this input stream, the DYNEV II model was executed on the prototype evacuation case to compute evacuating traffic routing patterns consistent with the appropriate NRC guidelines. DYNEV II contains an extensive suite of data diagnostics which check the completeness and consistency of the input data specified. The analyst reviews all warning and error messages produced by the model and then corrects the database to create an input stream that properly executes to completion.

The model assigns destinations to all origin centroids consistent with a (general) radial evacuation of the EPZ and Shadow Region. The analyst may optionally supplement and/or Donald C. Cook Nuclear Plant D2 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

replace these modelassigned destinations, based on professional judgment, after studying the topology of the analysis highway network. The model produces link and networkwide measures of effectiveness as well as estimates of evacuation time.

Step 10 The results generated by the prototype evacuation case are critically examined. The examination includes observing the animated graphics (using the EVAN software - see Section 1.3) produced by DYNEV II and reviewing the statistics output by the model. This is a labor intensive activity, requiring the direct participation of skilled engineers who possess the necessary practical experience to interpret the results and to determine the causes of any problems reflected in the results.

Essentially, the approach is to identify those bottlenecks in the network that represent locations where congested conditions are pronounced and to identify the cause of this congestion. This cause can take many forms, either as excess demand due to high rates of trip generation, improper routing, a shortfall of capacity, or as a quantitative flaw in the way the physical system was represented in the input stream. This examination leads to one of two conclusions:

The results are satisfactory; or The input stream must be modified accordingly.

This decision requires, of course, the application of the user's judgment and experience based upon the results obtained in previous applications of the model and a comparison of the results of the latest prototype evacuation case iteration with the previous ones. If the results are satisfactory in the opinion of the user, then the process continues with Step 13. Otherwise, proceed to Step 11.

Step 11 There are many "treatments" available to the user in resolving apparent problems. These treatments range from decisions to reroute the traffic by assigning additional evacuation destinations for one or more sources, imposing turn restrictions where they can produce significant improvements in capacity, changing the control treatment at critical intersections so as to provide improved service for one or more movements, adding routes (which are paved and traversable) that were not previously modelled but may assist in an evacuation and increase the available roadway network capacity, or in prescribing specific treatments for channelizing the flow so as to expedite the movement of traffic along major roadway systems.

Such "treatments" take the form of modifications to the original prototype evacuation case input stream. All treatments are designed to improve the representation of evacuation behavior.

Donald C. Cook Nuclear Plant D3 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

Step 12 As noted above, the changes to the input stream must be implemented to reflect the modifications undertaken in Step 11. At the completion of this activity, the process returns to Step 9 where the DYNEV II model is again executed.

Step 13 Evacuation of transitdependent evacuees and special facilities are included in the evacuation analysis. Fixed routing for transit buses, school buses, ambulances, and other transit vehicles are introduced into the final prototype evacuation case data set. DYNEV II generates route specific speeds over time for use in the estimation of evacuation times for the transit dependent and special facility population groups.

Step 14 The prototype evacuation case was used as the basis for generating all region and scenario specific evacuation cases to be simulated. This process was automated through the UNITES user interface. For each specific case, the population to be evacuated, the trip generation distributions, the highway capacity and speeds, and other factors are adjusted to produce a customized casespecific data set.

Step 15 All evacuation cases were executed using the DYNEV II model to compute ETE. Once results were available, quality control procedures were used to assure the results were consistent, dynamic routing was reasonable, and traffic congestion/bottlenecks were addressed properly.

Step 16 Once vehicular evacuation results are accepted, average travel speeds for transit and special facility routes are used to compute ETE for transitdependent permanent residents, schools, hospitals, and other special facilities.

Step 17 The simulation results are analyzed, tabulated, and graphed. Traffic management plans are analyzed, and traffic control points are prioritized, if applicable. Additional analysis is conducted to identify the sensitivity of the ETE to changes in some base evacuation conditions and model assumptions. The results are then documented, as required by NUREG/CR7002, Rev. 1.

Step 18 Following the completion of documentation activities, the ETE criteria checklist (see Appendix N) is completed. An appropriate report reference is provided for each criterion provided in the checklist.

Donald C. Cook Nuclear Plant D4 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

A Step 1 Step 10 Create GIS Base Map Examine Prototype Evacuation Case using EVAN and DYNEV II Output Step 2 Gather Census Block and Demographic Data for Results Satisfactory Study Area.

Step 11 Step 3 Modify Evacuation Destinations and/or Develop Conduct Kickoff Meeting with Stakeholders Traffic Control Treatments Step 4 Step 12 Field Survey of Roadways within Study Area Modify Database to Reflect Changes to Prototype Evacuation Case Step 5 Conduct Demographic Survey and Develop Trip Generation Characteristics B

Step 13 Step 6 Establish Transit and Special Facility Evacuation Update LinkNode Analysis Network Routes and Update DYNEV II Database Step 14 Step 7 Generate DYNEV II Input Streams for All Evacuation Cases Develop Evacuation Regions and Scenarios Step 15 Step 8 Execute DYNEV II to Compute ETE for All Create and Debug DYNEV II Input Stream Evacuation Cases Step 16 Step 9 Use DYNEV II Average Speed Output to Compute ETE for Transit and Special Facility Routes B Execute DYNEV II for Prototype Evacuation Case Step 17 Documentation A Step 18 Complete ETE Criteria Checklist Figure D1. Flow Diagram of Activities Donald C. Cook Nuclear Plant D5 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

APPENDIX E Special Facility Data

E. SPECIAL FACILITY DATA The following tables list population information, as of November 2021, for special facilities that are located within the DCCNP EPZ. Special facilities are defined as schools and medical facilities.

Transient population data is included in the tables for recreational facilities (campgrounds, golf courses, marinas, parks) and lodging facilities. Employment data is included in the table for major employers. The location of the facility is defined by its straightline distance (miles) and direction (magnetic bearing) from the center point of the plant. Maps of each school, medical facility, recreational area, lodging facility, and major employer are also provided.

Donald C. Cook Nuclear Plant E1 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

Table E1. Schools within the EPZ Distance Dire Enroll PAA (miles) ction School Name Street Address Municipality ment 1 2.4 SSE Bridgman Elementary School 3891 Lake St Bridgman 371 2 3.6 NE St. Paul's Lutheran School 2673 W John Beers Rd Stevensville 116 2 4.4 NE Roosevelt Elementary School 2000 El Dorado Dr Stevensville 430 2 4.5 NE Lakeshore High School 5771 Cleveland Ave Stevensville 889 2 4.8 ENE Lakeshore Middle School 1459 W John Beers Rd Stevensville 674 2 5.1 NNE Stewart Elementary School 2750 Orchard Ln Stevensville 443 2 5.7 NE Christ Lutheran Church and School 4333 Cleveland Ave Stevensville 125 2 7.0 NE Upton Middle School 800 Maiden Ln St. Joseph 645 3 2.6 SSE Bridgman High School 9964 Gast Rd Bridgman 320 3 2.9 S F.C. Reed Middle School 10254 California Rd Bridgman 289 4 6.2 ENE Hollywood Elementary School 143 E John Beers Rd Stevensville 399 4 7.0 NNE Brown Elementary School 2027 Brown School Rd St. Joseph 346 4 7.1 NE Lighthouse Education Center 379 West Glenlord Rd St. Joseph 126 4 7.1 NE Lake Michigan Catholic Elementary School 3165 Washington Ave St. Joseph 300 4 7.3 ENE Michigan Lutheran High School 615 E Marquette Woods Rd St. Joseph 110 4 7.4 NE Special Education/Admin Bldg. 3275 Lincoln Ave St Joseph 190 4 7.6 NE Grace Lutheran Church and School 404 E Glenlord Rd St. Joseph 157 4 7.8 NE E.P. Clarke Elementary School 515 E Glenlord Rd St. Joseph 435 4 7.8 NE Great Lakes Montessori 3084 Niles Rd St. Joseph 75 4 8.8 NNE St. Joseph High School 2521 Stadium Dr St. Joseph 970 4 8.8 NE Brookview School 501 Zollar Dr Benton Harbor 120 4 9.3 NNE Lincoln Elementary School 1102 Orchard Ave St. Joseph 404 4 9.5 NE Arts & Communications Academy at Fair Plain School 120 E Napier Ave Benton Harbor 350 4 9.7 ENE River School 4439 River Rd Sodus 78 4 9.7 NE Fair Plain East Elementary School 1998 Union Ave Benton Harbor 240 4 10.0 NNE Trinity Lutheran School & Early Childhood Center 613 Court St St. Joseph 180 5 6.8 SSW Chikaming Elementary School 13742 Three Oaks Rd Sawyer 160 5 9.7 SSW River Valley Middle/High School 15480 Three Oaks Rd Three Oaks 335 5 10.7 E Andrews University 8975 Old 31 Berrien Springs 2,307 5 10.9 E Andrews Academy 8833 Garland Ave Berrien Springs 247 5 10.9 E Ruth Murdoch Elementary School 8885 Garland Ave Berrien Springs 243 EPZ TOTAL: 12,074 Donald C. Cook Nuclear Plant E2 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

Table E2. Medical Facilities within the EPZ Ambul Wheel Bed Distance Dire Cap Current atory chair ridden PAA (miles) ction Facility Name Street Address Municipality acity Census Patients Patients Patients 1 1.3 SSE Woodland Terrace of Bridgman 8850 Red Arrow Hwy Bridgman 90 84 63 20 1 2 5.6 NE Pine Ridge Rehabilitation And Nursing Center 4368 Cleveland Ave Stevensville 111 99 72 26 1 3 2.5 S West Woods of Bridgman Nursing Center 9935 Red Arrow Hwy Bridgman 105 96 62 32 2 3 5.1 S Kevelin Care 11880 Gast Rd Bridgman 20 11 9 2 0 4 7.3 NE Caring Circle of Lakeland 4025 Health Park Ln St. Joseph 176 156 113 41 2 4 7.7 NE Royalton Manor LLC 288 Peace Blvd St. Joseph 123 65 14 46 5 4 8.0 NE Caretel Inns St. Joseph 3905 Lorraine Path St. Joseph 196 188 138 48 2 4 9.1 NNE Lakeland Hospital, St. Joseph 1234 Napier Ave St. Joseph 279 248 179 66 3 EPZ TOTAL: 1,100 947 650 281 16 Table E3. Major Employers within the EPZ

% Employee Employees Employees Vehicles Distance Dire Employees Commuting Commuting Commuting PAA (miles) ction Facility Name Street Address Municipality (Max Shift) into the EPZ into the EPZ into the EPZ 1 DC Cook Nuclear Power Plant 1 Cook Place Bridgman 700 45% 315 297 4 7.9 NNE Whirlpool Corporation 213 Hilltop Rd St Joseph 294 56% 164 155 4 8.2 NNE Leco Corporation 3000 Lakeview Ave St. Joseph 463 56% 258 243 4 10.5 NE Meijer 1920 Pipestone Rd Benton Harbor 338 56% 189 178 4 10.6 NE Orchard's Mall 1800 Pipestone Rd # M2 Benton Harbor 280 56% 156 147 EPZ TOTAL: 2,075 1,082 1,020 Donald C. Cook Nuclear Plant E3 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

Table E4. Recreational Areas within the EPZ Distance Dire PAA (miles) ction Facility Name Street Address Municipality Facility Type Transients Vehicles 1 1.5 S Lost Dunes Country Club 9300 Red Arrow Hwy Bridgman Golf Course 48 24 1 2.1 NNE Grand Mere State Park Thornton Dr Stevensville Park 800 400 1 2.5 SSW Weko Beach Campground 5237 Lake St Bridgman Campground 877 392 3 2.8 SSE Pebblewood Country Club 9794 Jericho Rd Bridgman Golf Course 60 36 3 5.5 SSW Warren Dunes State Park State Park Rd Sawyer Park 800 400 4 8.3 NE Eagle Pointe Harbor 2351 Niles Rd St Joseph Marina 150 75 4 8.5 NE Benton Township Park 451 Zollar Drive Benton Harbor Park 150 75 4 9.9 NNE Pier 1000 Marina 1000 Riverview Dr Benton Harbor Marina 40 20 4 10.2 NNE Silver Beach County Park 101 Broad St St. Joseph Park 1,107 369 5 10.3 SSW Warren Woods State Park Elm Valley Rd Three Oaks Park 800 400 5 10.4 SSW Chikaming Country Club 15029 Lakeside Rd Lakeside Golf Course 72 36 EPZ TOTAL: 4,904 2,227 Donald C. Cook Nuclear Plant E4 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

Table E5. Lodging Facilities within the EPZ Distance Dire PAA (miles) ction Facility Name Street Address Municipality Transients Vehicles 2 3.5 NNE Chalet On the Lake 5340 Notre Dame Ave Stevensville 263 176 2 4.3 NE Hampton Inn St. Joseph I94 5050 Red Arrow Hwy Stevensville 300 150 2 4.6 NE Comfort Suites Stevensville St. Joseph 2633 W. Marquette Woods Rd Stevensville 260 130 2 4.6 NE Baymont by Wyndham St. Joseph/Stevensville 2601 West Marquettewood Rd Stevensville 364 182 2 4.7 NNE Candlewood Suites St. Joseph/Benton Harbor 2567 West Marquettewood Rd Stevensville 204 102 2 5.2 NNE Super 8 by Wyndham Stevensville 4290 Red Arrow Hwy Stevensville 340 170 2 5.2 NNE Ray's Motel 4277 Red Arrow Hwy Stevensville 20 20 4 8.0 NNE Holiday Inn Express & Suites St. Joseph 3019 Lakeshore Dr St. Joseph 328 164 4 9.1 NNE South Cliff Inn 1900 Lakeshore Dr St. Joseph 14 7 4 9.2 NE Americas Best Value Inn & Suites Benton Harbor 798 Ferguson Dr Benton Harbor 176 88 4 9.9 NNE Nancy's Lake View Rentals 801 Lions Park Dr St. Joseph 18 6 4 10.1 NNE Beach House Rentals 519 Lions Park Dr St. Joseph 22 8 4 10.1 NNE The Boulevard Inn & Bistro 521 Lake Blvd St. Joseph 340 170 4 10.3 NE Best Western Benton Harbor St. Joseph 1592 Mall Dr Benton Harbor 392 196 4 10.3 NE Holiday Inn Express & Suites Benton Harbor 2276 Pipestone Rd Benton Harbor 316 158 4 10.3 NE Days Inn & Suites by Wyndham Benton Harbor MI 1598 Mall Dr Benton Harbor 135 45 4 10.4 NE Red Roof Inn Benton Harbor St Joseph 1630 Mall Dr Benton Harbor 432 216 5 6.4 SSW Quality Inn 12850 Super Dr Sawyer 101 51 5 9.9 SSW The White Rabbit Inn B&B 14634 Red Arrow Hwy Lakeside 12 6 5 11.5 SW Firefly Resort 15657 Lakeshore Rd Union Pier 100 31 5 11.9 SW Gintaras Resort On The Lake 15860 Lakeshore Rd Union Pier 71 30 Seasonal Population: 3,676 2,396 EPZ TOTAL: 7,884 4,502 Donald C. Cook Nuclear Plant E5 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

Figure E1. Schools within the EPZ Donald C. Cook Nuclear Plant E6 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

Figure E2. Medical Facilities within the EPZ Donald C. Cook Nuclear Plant E7 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

Figure E3. Major Employers within the EPZ Donald C. Cook Nuclear Plant E8 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

Figure E4. Recreational Areas within the EPZ Donald C. Cook Nuclear Plant E9 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

Figure E5. Lodging Facilities within the EPZ Donald C. Cook Nuclear Plant E10 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

APPENDIX F Demographic Survey

F. DEMOGRAPHIC SURVEY F.1 Introduction The development of evacuation time estimates for the Emergency Planning Zone (EPZ) of the DCCNP requires the identification of travel patterns, car ownership and household size of the population within the EPZ. Demographic information can be obtained from Census data. The use of this data has several limitations when applied to emergency planning. First, the Census data do not encompass the range of information needed to identify the time required for preliminary activities (mobilization) that must be undertaken prior to evacuating the area. Secondly, Census data do not contain attitudinal responses needed from the population of the EPZ and consequently may not accurately represent the anticipated behavioral characteristics of the evacuating populace.

These concerns are addressed by conducting a demographic survey of a representative sample of the EPZ population. The survey is designed to elicit information from the public concerning family demographics and estimates of response times to well defined events. The design of the survey includes a limited number of questions of the form What would you do if ? and other questions regarding activities with which the respondent is familiar (How long does it take you to ?).

F.2 Survey Instrument and Sampling Plan Attachment A presents the final survey instrument used in this study. A draft of the instrument was submitted to stakeholders for comment. Comments were received and the survey instrument was modified accordingly, prior to conducting the survey.

Following the completion of the instrument, a sampling plan was developed. Since the demographic survey discussed herein was performed prior to the release of the 2020 Census data, 2010 Census data was used to develop the sampling plan.

A sample size of approximately 380 completed survey forms yields results with a sampling error of +/-5% at the 95% confidence level. The sample must be drawn from the EPZ population.

Consequently, a list of zip codes in the EPZ was developed using GIS software. This list is shown in Table F1. Along with each zip code, an estimate of the population and number of households in each area was determined by overlaying 2010 Census data and the EPZ boundary, again using GIS software. The proportional number of desired completed survey interviews for each area was identified, as shown in Table F1.

The results of the survey exceeded the sampling plan. A total of 524 completed samples were obtained corresponding to a sampling error of +/-4.24% at the 95% confidence level based on the 2020 Census data. The number of samples obtained within each zip code is also shown in Table F1.

Donald C. Cook Nuclear Plant F1 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

F.3 Survey Results The results of the survey fall into two categories. First, the household demographics of the area can be identified. Demographic information includes such factors as household size, automobile ownership, and automobile availability. The distributions of the time to perform certain pre evacuation activities are the second category of survey results. These data are processed to develop the trip generation distributions used in the evacuation modeling effort, as discussed in Section 5.

A review of the survey instrument reveals that several questions have a Dont know or Decline to State entry for a response. It is accepted practice in conducting surveys of this type to accept the answers of a respondent who offers a Dont know or who declines to answer a few questions. To address the issue of occasional Dont know/declined responses from a large sample, the practice is to assume that the distribution of these responses is the same as the underlying distribution of the positive responses. In effect, the Dont know/declined responses are ignored and the distributions are based upon the positive data that is acquired.

F.3.1 Household Demographic Results Household Size Figure F1 presents the distribution of household size within the EPZ based on the responses to the demographic survey. The average household contains 2.95 people. The estimated household size from the 2020 Census data is 2.36 people. The difference between the Census data and survey data is 20 percent, which exceeds the sampling error of 4.25 percent. Upon discussions with AEP, it was decided that the U.S. Census estimate of 2.36 people per household should be used for this study. This results in a more conservative estimate when determining the number of households and evacuating vehicles. A sensitivity study was conducted to determine the impact of the average household size on ETE, see Appendix M.

Seasonal Residents There are only 13 households with seasonal residents within the EPZ. Of the households that contain seasonal residents, 69 percent of the homes have one seasonal resident. The remaining 31 percent of homes have two seasonal residents. Thirty eight percent of seasonal residents reside within the EPZ in the Fall, Winter, or Spring. The remaining 62 percent live in the EPZ in the Summer only.

Automobile Ownership The average number of automobiles available per household in the EPZ is 2.47. All households in the study area have access to at least one vehicle. The distribution of automobile ownership is presented in Figure F2. Figure F3 and Figure F4 present the automobile availability by household size.

Donald C. Cook Nuclear Plant F2 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

Ridesharing A majority (85%) of the households surveyed responded that they would share a ride with a neighbor, relative, or friend if a car was not available to them when advised to evacuate in the event of an emergency, as shown in Figure F5.

Commuters Figure F6 presents the distribution of the number of commuters in each household.

Commuters are defined as household members who travel to work or college on a daily basis.

The data shows an average of 1.43 commuters in each household in the EPZ, and 84 percent of households have at least one commuter.

Commuter Travel Modes Figure F7 presents the mode of travel that commuters use on a daily basis. The vast majority of commuters use their private automobiles to travel to work. The data shows an average of 1.06 employees per vehicle, assuming 2 people per vehicle - on average - for carpools.

Impact of COVID19 on Commuters Figure F8 presents the distribution of the number of commuters in each household that were temporarily impacted by the COVID19 pandemic. On average, 49 percent of households indicated someone in their household had a work and/or school commute that was temporarily impacted by the COVID19 pandemic.

Functional or Transportation Needs The results of the survey indicate that about 1.5% of households have individuals with functional or transportation needs. Of those with functional or transportation needs, 69 percent require a bus, 8 percent require a wheelchair accessible vehicle, and 23 percent would require another type of vehicle that was not specified.

F.3.2 Evacuation Response Several questions were asked to gauge the populations response to an emergency. These are now discussed:

How many of the vehicles would your household use during an evacuation? The response is shown in Figure F9. On average, evacuating households would use 1.50 vehicles.

Would your family await the return of other family members prior to evacuating the area?

Of the survey participants who responded, 66 percent said they would await the return of other family members before evacuating and 34 percent indicated that they would not await the return of other family members.

If you had a household pet, would you take your pet with you if you were asked to evacuate the area? Based on responses from the survey, 79 percent of households have a family pet. Of the households with pets, 26 percent indicated that they would take their pets with them to a shelter, 69 percent indicated that they would take their pets somewhere else and 5 percent would leave their pet at home, as shown in Figure F10. Of the households that would evacuate Donald C. Cook Nuclear Plant F3 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

with their pets, 98 percent indicated that they have sufficient room in their vehicle to evacuate with their pet(s)/animal(s); the remainder will use a trailer.

What type of pet(s) and/or animal(s) do you have? Based on responses from the survey, 91 percent of households have a household pet (dog, cat, bird, reptile, or fish), 6 percent of households have farm animals (horse, chicken, goat, pig, etc.), and 3 percent have other small pets/animals.

Emergency officials advise you to shelterinplace in an emergency because you are not in the area of risk. Would you? This question is designed to elicit information regarding compliance with instructions to shelter in place. As shown in Figure F11, the results indicate that 90 percent of households who are advised to shelter in place would do so; the remaining 10 percent would choose to evacuate the area. Note the baseline ETE study assumes 20 percent of households will not comply with the shelter advisory, as per Section 2.5.2 of NUREG/CR7002, Rev. 1. Thus, the data obtained above is lower than the federal guidance. A sensitivity study was conducted to estimate the impact of shadow evacuation noncompliance of shelter advisory on ETE - see Table M2 in Appendix M.

Emergency officials advise you to shelterinplace now in an emergency and possibly evacuate later while people in other areas are advised to evacuate now. Would you? This question is designed to elicit information specifically related to the possibility of a staged evacuation. That is, asking a population to shelter in place now and then to evacuate after a specified period of time. As shown in Figure F12, 74 percent of households would follow instructions and delay the start of evacuation until so advised, while the other 26 percent would choose to begin evacuating immediately.

Emergency officials advise you to evacuate due to an emergency. Where would you evacuate to? This question is designed to elicit information regarding the destination of evacuees in case of an evacuation. Approximately 52 percent of households indicated that they would evacuate to a friend or relatives home, 1 percent to a reception center (congregate care center), 20 percent to a hotel, motel or campground, 6 percent to a second or seasonal home, and the remaining 21 percent answered other/dont know or would not evacuate to this question, as shown in Figure F13.

F.3.3 Time Distribution Results The survey asked several questions about the amount of time it takes to perform certain pre evacuation activities. These activities involve actions taken by residents during the course of their daytoday lives. Thus, the answers fall within the realm of the responders experience.

The mobilization distributions provided below are the result of having applied the analysis described in Section 5.4.1 on the component activities of the mobilization.

How long does it take the commuter to complete preparation for leaving work? Figure F14 presents the cumulative distribution. In all cases, the activity is completed within 50 minutes.

Approximately 95% can leave within 30 minutes.

Donald C. Cook Nuclear Plant F4 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

How long would it take the commuter to travel home? Figure F15 presents the work to home travel time for the EPZ. In all cases, the activity is completed by 55 minutes. Ninety percent can arrive home within 30 minutes.

How long would it take the family to pack clothing, secure the house, and load the car? Figure F16 presents the time required to prepare for leaving on an evacuation trip. In many ways this activity mimics a familys preparation for a short holiday or weekend away from home. Hence, the responses represent the experience of the responder in performing similar activities.

The distribution shown in has a long tail. 85 percent of households can be ready to leave home within 90 minutes; the remaining households require up to an additional 1 hour1.157407e-5 days <br />2.777778e-4 hours <br />1.653439e-6 weeks <br />3.805e-7 months <br /> and 45 minutes.

How long would it take you to clear 6 to 8 inches of snow from your driveway? During adverse, snowy weather conditions, an additional activity must be performed before residents can depart on the evacuation trip. Although snow scenarios assume that the roads and highways have been plowed and are passable (albeit at lower speeds and capacities), it may be necessary to clear a private driveway prior to leaving the home so that the vehicle can access the street. Figure F17 presents the time distribution for removing 6 to 8 inches of snow from a driveway. The time distribution for clearing the driveway has a longtail; about 98 percent of driveways are passable within 90 minutes. The last driveway is clear 2 hours2.314815e-5 days <br />5.555556e-4 hours <br />3.306878e-6 weeks <br />7.61e-7 months <br /> and 15 minutes after the start of this activity.

Note that those respondents (35%) who answered that they would not take time to clear their driveway were assumed to be ready immediately at the start of this activity. Essentially, they would drive through the snow on the driveway to access the roadway and begin their evacuation trip.

Donald C. Cook Nuclear Plant F5 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

Table F1. D.C. Cook Demographic Survey Sampling Plan and Results Population Population within EPZ Households within EPZ Households Required Samples Zip Code (2010) (2010) (2020) (2020) Samples Obtained 49022 11,462 4,646 9,543 4,302 66 21 49085 22,253 9,123 22,907 9,919 129 154 49101 3,104 1,339 3,177 1,300 19 46 49103 8,482 3,108 7,095 2,579 44 23 49104 868 01 380 14 0 0 49106 4,631 2,123 4,798 2,081 30 95 49107 1,119 373 987 402 5 21 49113 235 90 238 103 1 5 49115 291 144 275 183 2 0 49116 388 194 315 214 3 0 49119 136 53 114 44 1 0 49125 2,042 746 1,900 904 11 7 49126 834 338 653 298 5 3 49127 10,635 3,996 10,785 4,385 57 141 49128 1,118 492 975 448 7 5 49129 260 145 272 121 2 3 Total 67,858 26,910 64,414 27,297 382 524 Ave HH Size 2.52 2.36 1

Zip Code 49104 is Andrews University. No households are assigned to this zip code in the Census. Andrews University was not sampled in the survey.

Donald C. Cook Nuclear Plant F6 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

Household Size 50%

40%

Percent of Households 30%

20%

10%

0%

1 2 3 4 5 6+

People Figure F1. Household Size in the EPZ Vehicle Availability 60%

50%

Percent of Households 40%

30%

20%

10%

0%

0 1 2 3 4 5+

Vehicles Figure F2. Household Vehicle Availability Donald C. Cook Nuclear Plant F7 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

Distribution of Vehicles by HH Size 14 Person Households 1 Person 2 People 3 People 4 People 100%

Percent of Households 80%

60%

40%

20%

0%

0 1 2 3 4 5 Vehicles Figure F3. Vehicle Availability 1 to 4 Person Households Distribution of Vehicles by HH Size 57 Person Households 5 People 6 People 7 People 100%

Percent of Households 80%

60%

40%

20%

0%

0 1 2 3 4 5 Vehicles Figure F4. Vehicle Availability 5 to 7 Person Households Donald C. Cook Nuclear Plant F8 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

Rideshare with Neighbor/Friend 100%

80%

Percent of Households 60%

40%

20%

0%

Yes No Figure F5. Household Ridesharing Preference Commuters Per Household 50%

40%

Percent of Households 30%

20%

10%

0%

0 1 2 3 4+

Commuters Figure F6. Commuters in Households in the EPZ Donald C. Cook Nuclear Plant F9 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

Travel Mode to Work 100%

80%

Percent of Commuters 60%

40%

20%

0%

Bus Walk/Bike Drive Alone Carpool (2+)

Mode of Travel Figure F7. Modes of Travel in the EPZ Covid19 Impact to Commuters 60%

50%

Percent of Households 40%

30%

20%

10%

0%

0 1 2 3 4+

Commuters Figure F8. Impact to Commuters due to the COVID19 Pandemic Donald C. Cook Nuclear Plant F10 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

Evacuating Vehicles Per Household 100%

Percent of Households 80%

60%

40%

20%

0%

0 1 2 3+

Vehicles Figure F9. Number of Vehicles Used for Evacuation Households Evacuating with Pets/Animals 80%

Percent of Households 60%

40%

20%

0%

Take with me to a Shelter Take with me to Leave Pet at Home Somewhere Else Figure F10. Households Evacuating with Pets/Animals Donald C. Cook Nuclear Plant F11 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

Shelter in Place Characteristics 100%

Percent of Households 80%

60%

40%

20%

0%

Shelter Evacuate Figure F11. Shelter in Place Characteristics Shelter then Evacuate Characteristics 100%

80%

Percent of Households 60%

40%

20%

0%

Shelter, then Evacuate Evacuate Immediately Figure F12. Shelter Then Evacuate Characteristics Donald C. Cook Nuclear Plant F12 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

Evacuation Destinations 60%

Percent of Households 50%

40%

30%

20%

10%

0%

Figure F13. Evacuation Destinations TimeTime to Prepare to Leave to Commute Work/College Home From Work/College 100%

100%

PercentofofCommuters Commuters 80%

80%

Percent 60%

60%

40%

40%

20%

20%

0%

0% 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 0 10 20Preparation30Time (min) 40 50 60 Travel Time (min)

Figure F14. Time Required to Prepare to Leave Work/College Donald C. Cook Nuclear Plant F13 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

Time to Commute Home From Work/College 100%

Percent of Commuters 80%

60%

40%

20%

0%

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 Travel Time (min)

Figure F15. Time to Commute Home from Work/College Time to Prepare to Leave Home 100%

80%

Percent of Households 60%

40%

20%

0%

0 60 120 180 240 Preparation Time (min)

Figure F16. Time to Prepare Home for Evacuation Donald C. Cook Nuclear Plant F14 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

Time to Remove Snow from Driveway 100%

80%

Percent of Households 60%

40%

20%

0%

0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 Time (min)

Figure F17. Time to Remove Snow from Driveway Donald C. Cook Nuclear Plant F15 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

ATTACHMENT A Demographic Survey Instrument Donald C. Cook Nuclear Plant F16 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

Donald C. Cook Nuclear Plant Demographic Survey Purpose The purpose of this survey is to identify local behavior during emergency situations. The information gathered in this survey will be shared with AEP to enhance emergency response plans in your area. Your responses will greatly contribute to local emergency preparedness.

. ( ) . Do not provide your name or any personal information, and the survey will take less than 5 minutes to complete.

1. What is your gender?

Male Female Decline to State Other

2. What is your home zip code?

• 3A. In total, how many running cars, or other vehicles are usually available to the household?

One Two Three Four Five Six Seven Eight Nine or more Zero (None)

Decline to State 3B. In an emergency, could you get a ride out of the area with a neighbor or friend?

YES 1

NO DECLINE TO STATE 2

4. How many vehicles would your household use during an evacuation?

One Two Three Four Five Six Seven Eight Nine or more Zero (None)

I would evacuate by bicycle I would evacuate by bus Decline to State 5A. How many people usually live in this household?

One Two Three Four Five Six Seven Eight Nine Ten Eleven Twelve Thirteen Fourteen Fifteen Sixteen Seventeen Eighteen Nineteen or more Nine or more Zero (None)

Decline to State 3

5B. Of these people that live in this household, are any of them seasonal residents?

Yes No Decline to State 5C. How many of the household residents are seasonal?

One Two Three Four Five Six Seven Eight Nine Ten Eleven Twelve Thirteen Fourteen Fifteen Sixteen Seventeen Eighteen Nineteen or more Nine or more Zero (None)

Decline to State 5D. What season do they live in at another location away from your home for the most time?

Summer Fall / Winter / Spring Decline to State COVID-19

6. How many people in your household have a work and/or school commute that has been temporarily impacted due to the COVID-19 pandemic?

One Two Three Four or more Decline to State 4

Commuters

7. How many people in the household commute to a job, or to college on a daily basis?

• One Two Three Four or more Decline to State Mode of Travel

8. Thinking about each commuter, how does each person usually travel to work or college?

Rail Bus Walk/Bicycle Drive Alone Carpool-2 or more people Dont know Commuter 1

8. Thinking about each commuter, how does each person usually travel to work or college?

Rail Bus Walk/Bicycle Drive Alone Carpool-2 or more people Dont know Commuter 1 Commuter 2

8. Thinking about each commuter, how does each person usually travel to work or college?

Rail Bus Walk/Bicycle Drive Alone Carpool-2 or more people Dont know Commuter 1 Commuter 2 Commuter 3

8. Thinking about each commuter, how does each person usually travel to work or college?

Rail Bus Walk/Bicycle Drive Alone Carpool-2 or more people Dont know Commuter 1 5

Commuter 2 Commuter 3 Commuter 4 Travel Home From Work/College 9-1. How much time on average, would it take Commuter #1 to travel home from work or college?

5 minutes or less 6-10 minutes 11-15 minutes 16-20 minutes 21-25 minutes 26-30 minutes 31-35 minutes 36-40 minutes 41-45 minutes 46-50 minutes 51-55 minutes 56-1 hour Over 1 hour1.157407e-5 days <br />2.777778e-4 hours <br />1.653439e-6 weeks <br />3.805e-7 months <br /> but less than 1 hour1.157407e-5 days <br />2.777778e-4 hours <br />1.653439e-6 weeks <br />3.805e-7 months <br /> 15 minutes Between 1 hour1.157407e-5 days <br />2.777778e-4 hours <br />1.653439e-6 weeks <br />3.805e-7 months <br /> 16 minutes and 1 hour1.157407e-5 days <br />2.777778e-4 hours <br />1.653439e-6 weeks <br />3.805e-7 months <br /> 30 minutes Between 1 hour1.157407e-5 days <br />2.777778e-4 hours <br />1.653439e-6 weeks <br />3.805e-7 months <br /> 31 minutes and 1 hour1.157407e-5 days <br />2.777778e-4 hours <br />1.653439e-6 weeks <br />3.805e-7 months <br /> 45 minutes Between 1 hour1.157407e-5 days <br />2.777778e-4 hours <br />1.653439e-6 weeks <br />3.805e-7 months <br /> 46 minutes and 2 hours2.314815e-5 days <br />5.555556e-4 hours <br />3.306878e-6 weeks <br />7.61e-7 months <br /> Over 2 hours2.314815e-5 days <br />5.555556e-4 hours <br />3.306878e-6 weeks <br />7.61e-7 months <br /> Decline to State If Over 2 Hours for Question 9-1, Specify Here 9-2. How much time on average, would it take Commuter #2 to travel home from work or college?

5 minutes or less 6-10 minutes 11-15 minutes 16-20 minutes 21-25 minutes 26-30 minutes 31-35 minutes 36-40 minutes 41-45 minutes 46-50 minutes 51-55 minutes 56-1 hour Over 1 hour1.157407e-5 days <br />2.777778e-4 hours <br />1.653439e-6 weeks <br />3.805e-7 months <br /> but less than 1 hour1.157407e-5 days <br />2.777778e-4 hours <br />1.653439e-6 weeks <br />3.805e-7 months <br /> 15 minutes Between 1 hour1.157407e-5 days <br />2.777778e-4 hours <br />1.653439e-6 weeks <br />3.805e-7 months <br /> 16 minutes and 1 hour1.157407e-5 days <br />2.777778e-4 hours <br />1.653439e-6 weeks <br />3.805e-7 months <br /> 30 minutes Between 1 hour1.157407e-5 days <br />2.777778e-4 hours <br />1.653439e-6 weeks <br />3.805e-7 months <br /> 31 minutes and 1 hour1.157407e-5 days <br />2.777778e-4 hours <br />1.653439e-6 weeks <br />3.805e-7 months <br /> 45 minutes Between 1 hour1.157407e-5 days <br />2.777778e-4 hours <br />1.653439e-6 weeks <br />3.805e-7 months <br /> 46 minutes and 2 hours2.314815e-5 days <br />5.555556e-4 hours <br />3.306878e-6 weeks <br />7.61e-7 months <br /> Over 2 hours2.314815e-5 days <br />5.555556e-4 hours <br />3.306878e-6 weeks <br />7.61e-7 months <br /> 6

Decline to State

If Over 2 Hours for Question 9-2, Specify Here 9-3. How much time on average, would it take Commuter #3 to travel home from work or college?

5 minutes or less 6-10 minutes 11-15 minutes 16-20 minutes 21-25 minutes 26-30 minutes 31-35 minutes 36-40 minutes 41-45 minutes 46-50 minutes 51-55 minutes 56-1 hour Over 1 hour1.157407e-5 days <br />2.777778e-4 hours <br />1.653439e-6 weeks <br />3.805e-7 months <br /> but less than 1 hour1.157407e-5 days <br />2.777778e-4 hours <br />1.653439e-6 weeks <br />3.805e-7 months <br /> 15 minutes Between 1 hour1.157407e-5 days <br />2.777778e-4 hours <br />1.653439e-6 weeks <br />3.805e-7 months <br /> 16 minutes and 1 hour1.157407e-5 days <br />2.777778e-4 hours <br />1.653439e-6 weeks <br />3.805e-7 months <br /> 30 minutes Between 1 hour1.157407e-5 days <br />2.777778e-4 hours <br />1.653439e-6 weeks <br />3.805e-7 months <br /> 31 minutes and 1 hour1.157407e-5 days <br />2.777778e-4 hours <br />1.653439e-6 weeks <br />3.805e-7 months <br /> 45 minutes Between 1 hour1.157407e-5 days <br />2.777778e-4 hours <br />1.653439e-6 weeks <br />3.805e-7 months <br /> 46 minutes and 2 hours2.314815e-5 days <br />5.555556e-4 hours <br />3.306878e-6 weeks <br />7.61e-7 months <br /> Over 2 hours2.314815e-5 days <br />5.555556e-4 hours <br />3.306878e-6 weeks <br />7.61e-7 months <br /> Decline to State If Over 2 Hours for Question 9-3, Specify Here 9-4. How much time on average, would it take Commuter #4 to travel home from work or college?

5 minutes or less 6-10 minutes 11-15 minutes 16-20 minutes 21-25 minutes 26-30 minutes 31-35 minutes 36-40 minutes 41-45 minutes 46-50 minutes 51-55 minutes 56-1 hour Over 1 hour1.157407e-5 days <br />2.777778e-4 hours <br />1.653439e-6 weeks <br />3.805e-7 months <br /> but less than 1 hour1.157407e-5 days <br />2.777778e-4 hours <br />1.653439e-6 weeks <br />3.805e-7 months <br /> 15 minutes Between 1 hour1.157407e-5 days <br />2.777778e-4 hours <br />1.653439e-6 weeks <br />3.805e-7 months <br /> 16 minutes and 1 hour1.157407e-5 days <br />2.777778e-4 hours <br />1.653439e-6 weeks <br />3.805e-7 months <br /> 30 minutes Between 1 hour1.157407e-5 days <br />2.777778e-4 hours <br />1.653439e-6 weeks <br />3.805e-7 months <br /> 31 minutes and 1 hour1.157407e-5 days <br />2.777778e-4 hours <br />1.653439e-6 weeks <br />3.805e-7 months <br /> 45 minutes Between 1 hour1.157407e-5 days <br />2.777778e-4 hours <br />1.653439e-6 weeks <br />3.805e-7 months <br /> 46 minutes and 2 hours2.314815e-5 days <br />5.555556e-4 hours <br />3.306878e-6 weeks <br />7.61e-7 months <br /> Over 2 hours2.314815e-5 days <br />5.555556e-4 hours <br />3.306878e-6 weeks <br />7.61e-7 months <br /> Decline to State 7

If Over 2 Hours for Question 9-4, Specify Here Preparation to leave Work/College 10-1. Approximately how much time would it take Commuter #1 to complete preparation for leaving work or college prior to starting the trip home?

5 minutes or less 6-10 minutes 11-15 minutes 16-20 minutes 21-25 minutes 26-30 minutes 31-35 minutes 36-40 minutes 41-45 minutes 46-50 minutes 51-55 minutes 56-1 hour Over 1 hour1.157407e-5 days <br />2.777778e-4 hours <br />1.653439e-6 weeks <br />3.805e-7 months <br /> but less than 1 hour1.157407e-5 days <br />2.777778e-4 hours <br />1.653439e-6 weeks <br />3.805e-7 months <br /> 15 minutes Between 1 hour1.157407e-5 days <br />2.777778e-4 hours <br />1.653439e-6 weeks <br />3.805e-7 months <br /> 16 minutes and 1 hour1.157407e-5 days <br />2.777778e-4 hours <br />1.653439e-6 weeks <br />3.805e-7 months <br /> 30 minutes Between 1 hour1.157407e-5 days <br />2.777778e-4 hours <br />1.653439e-6 weeks <br />3.805e-7 months <br /> 31 minutes and 1 hour1.157407e-5 days <br />2.777778e-4 hours <br />1.653439e-6 weeks <br />3.805e-7 months <br /> 45 minutes Between 1 hour1.157407e-5 days <br />2.777778e-4 hours <br />1.653439e-6 weeks <br />3.805e-7 months <br /> 46 minutes and 2 hours2.314815e-5 days <br />5.555556e-4 hours <br />3.306878e-6 weeks <br />7.61e-7 months <br /> Over 2 hours2.314815e-5 days <br />5.555556e-4 hours <br />3.306878e-6 weeks <br />7.61e-7 months <br /> Decline to State If Over 2 Hours for Question 10-1, Specify Here 10-2. Approximately how much time would it take Commuter #2 to complete preparation for leaving work or college prior to starting the trip home?

5 minutes or less 6-10 minutes 11-15 minutes 16-20 minutes 21-25 minutes 26-30 minutes 31-35 minutes 36-40 minutes 41-45 minutes 46-50 minutes 51-55 minutes 56-1 hour Over 1 hour1.157407e-5 days <br />2.777778e-4 hours <br />1.653439e-6 weeks <br />3.805e-7 months <br /> but less than 1 hour1.157407e-5 days <br />2.777778e-4 hours <br />1.653439e-6 weeks <br />3.805e-7 months <br /> 15 minutes Between 1 hour1.157407e-5 days <br />2.777778e-4 hours <br />1.653439e-6 weeks <br />3.805e-7 months <br /> 16 minutes and 1 hour1.157407e-5 days <br />2.777778e-4 hours <br />1.653439e-6 weeks <br />3.805e-7 months <br /> 30 minutes Between 1 hour1.157407e-5 days <br />2.777778e-4 hours <br />1.653439e-6 weeks <br />3.805e-7 months <br /> 31 minutes and 1 hour1.157407e-5 days <br />2.777778e-4 hours <br />1.653439e-6 weeks <br />3.805e-7 months <br /> 45 minutes Between 1 hour1.157407e-5 days <br />2.777778e-4 hours <br />1.653439e-6 weeks <br />3.805e-7 months <br /> 46 minutes and 2 hours2.314815e-5 days <br />5.555556e-4 hours <br />3.306878e-6 weeks <br />7.61e-7 months <br /> Over 2 hours2.314815e-5 days <br />5.555556e-4 hours <br />3.306878e-6 weeks <br />7.61e-7 months <br /> Decline to State 8

If Over 2 Hours for Question 10-2, Specify Here 10-3. Approximately how much time would it take Commuter #3 to complete preparation for leaving work or college prior to starting the trip home?

5 minutes or less 6-10 minutes 11-15 minutes 16-20 minutes 21-25 minutes 26-30 minutes 31-35 minutes 36-40 minutes 41-45 minutes 46-50 minutes 51-55 minutes 56-1 hour Over 1 hour1.157407e-5 days <br />2.777778e-4 hours <br />1.653439e-6 weeks <br />3.805e-7 months <br /> but less than 1 hour1.157407e-5 days <br />2.777778e-4 hours <br />1.653439e-6 weeks <br />3.805e-7 months <br /> 15 minutes Between 1 hour1.157407e-5 days <br />2.777778e-4 hours <br />1.653439e-6 weeks <br />3.805e-7 months <br /> 16 minutes and 1 hour1.157407e-5 days <br />2.777778e-4 hours <br />1.653439e-6 weeks <br />3.805e-7 months <br /> 30 minutes Between 1 hour1.157407e-5 days <br />2.777778e-4 hours <br />1.653439e-6 weeks <br />3.805e-7 months <br /> 31 minutes and 1 hour1.157407e-5 days <br />2.777778e-4 hours <br />1.653439e-6 weeks <br />3.805e-7 months <br /> 45 minutes Between 1 hour1.157407e-5 days <br />2.777778e-4 hours <br />1.653439e-6 weeks <br />3.805e-7 months <br /> 46 minutes and 2 hours2.314815e-5 days <br />5.555556e-4 hours <br />3.306878e-6 weeks <br />7.61e-7 months <br /> Over 2 hours2.314815e-5 days <br />5.555556e-4 hours <br />3.306878e-6 weeks <br />7.61e-7 months <br /> Decline to State If Over 2 Hours for Question 10-3, Specify Here 10-4. Approximately how much time would it take Commuter #4 to complete preparation for leaving work or college prior to starting the trip home?

5 minutes or less 6-10 minutes 11-15 minutes 16-20 minutes 21-25 minutes 26-30 minutes 31-35 minutes 36-40 minutes 41-45 minutes 46-50 minutes 51-55 minutes 56-1 hour Over 1 hour1.157407e-5 days <br />2.777778e-4 hours <br />1.653439e-6 weeks <br />3.805e-7 months <br /> but less than 1 hour1.157407e-5 days <br />2.777778e-4 hours <br />1.653439e-6 weeks <br />3.805e-7 months <br /> 15 minutes Between 1 hour1.157407e-5 days <br />2.777778e-4 hours <br />1.653439e-6 weeks <br />3.805e-7 months <br /> 16 minutes and 1 hour1.157407e-5 days <br />2.777778e-4 hours <br />1.653439e-6 weeks <br />3.805e-7 months <br /> 30 minutes Between 1 hour1.157407e-5 days <br />2.777778e-4 hours <br />1.653439e-6 weeks <br />3.805e-7 months <br /> 31 minutes and 1 hour1.157407e-5 days <br />2.777778e-4 hours <br />1.653439e-6 weeks <br />3.805e-7 months <br /> 45 minutes Between 1 hour1.157407e-5 days <br />2.777778e-4 hours <br />1.653439e-6 weeks <br />3.805e-7 months <br /> 46 minutes and 2 hours2.314815e-5 days <br />5.555556e-4 hours <br />3.306878e-6 weeks <br />7.61e-7 months <br /> Over 2 hours2.314815e-5 days <br />5.555556e-4 hours <br />3.306878e-6 weeks <br />7.61e-7 months <br /> Decline to State 9

If Over 2 Hours for Question 10-4, Specify Here Additional Questions

11. If you were advised by local authorities to evacuate, how much time would it take the household to pack clothing, medications, secure the house, load the car, and complete preparations prior to evacuating the area?

Less than 15 minutes 15-30 minutes 31-45 minutes 46 muntes - 1 hour1.157407e-5 days <br />2.777778e-4 hours <br />1.653439e-6 weeks <br />3.805e-7 months <br /> 1 hour to 1 hour1.157407e-5 days <br />2.777778e-4 hours <br />1.653439e-6 weeks <br />3.805e-7 months <br /> 15 minutes 1 hour1.157407e-5 days <br />2.777778e-4 hours <br />1.653439e-6 weeks <br />3.805e-7 months <br /> 16 minutes to 1 hour1.157407e-5 days <br />2.777778e-4 hours <br />1.653439e-6 weeks <br />3.805e-7 months <br /> 30 minutes 1 hour1.157407e-5 days <br />2.777778e-4 hours <br />1.653439e-6 weeks <br />3.805e-7 months <br /> 31 minutes to 1 hour1.157407e-5 days <br />2.777778e-4 hours <br />1.653439e-6 weeks <br />3.805e-7 months <br /> 45 minutes 1 hour1.157407e-5 days <br />2.777778e-4 hours <br />1.653439e-6 weeks <br />3.805e-7 months <br /> 46 minutes to 2 hours2.314815e-5 days <br />5.555556e-4 hours <br />3.306878e-6 weeks <br />7.61e-7 months <br /> 2 hours to 2 hours2.314815e-5 days <br />5.555556e-4 hours <br />3.306878e-6 weeks <br />7.61e-7 months <br /> 15 minutes 2 hours2.314815e-5 days <br />5.555556e-4 hours <br />3.306878e-6 weeks <br />7.61e-7 months <br /> 16 minutes to 2 hours2.314815e-5 days <br />5.555556e-4 hours <br />3.306878e-6 weeks <br />7.61e-7 months <br /> 30 minutes 2 hours2.314815e-5 days <br />5.555556e-4 hours <br />3.306878e-6 weeks <br />7.61e-7 months <br /> 31 minutes to 2 hours2.314815e-5 days <br />5.555556e-4 hours <br />3.306878e-6 weeks <br />7.61e-7 months <br /> 45 minutes 2 hours2.314815e-5 days <br />5.555556e-4 hours <br />3.306878e-6 weeks <br />7.61e-7 months <br /> 46 minutes to 3 hours3.472222e-5 days <br />8.333333e-4 hours <br />4.960317e-6 weeks <br />1.1415e-6 months <br /> 3 hours to 3 hours3.472222e-5 days <br />8.333333e-4 hours <br />4.960317e-6 weeks <br />1.1415e-6 months <br /> 15 minutes 3 hours3.472222e-5 days <br />8.333333e-4 hours <br />4.960317e-6 weeks <br />1.1415e-6 months <br /> 16 minutes to 3 hours3.472222e-5 days <br />8.333333e-4 hours <br />4.960317e-6 weeks <br />1.1415e-6 months <br /> 30 minutes 3 hours3.472222e-5 days <br />8.333333e-4 hours <br />4.960317e-6 weeks <br />1.1415e-6 months <br /> 31 minutes to 3 hours3.472222e-5 days <br />8.333333e-4 hours <br />4.960317e-6 weeks <br />1.1415e-6 months <br /> 45 minutes 3 hours3.472222e-5 days <br />8.333333e-4 hours <br />4.960317e-6 weeks <br />1.1415e-6 months <br /> 46 minutes to 4 hours4.62963e-5 days <br />0.00111 hours <br />6.613757e-6 weeks <br />1.522e-6 months <br /> 4 hours to 4 hours4.62963e-5 days <br />0.00111 hours <br />6.613757e-6 weeks <br />1.522e-6 months <br /> 15 minutes 4 hours4.62963e-5 days <br />0.00111 hours <br />6.613757e-6 weeks <br />1.522e-6 months <br /> 16 minutes to 4 hours4.62963e-5 days <br />0.00111 hours <br />6.613757e-6 weeks <br />1.522e-6 months <br /> 30 minutes 4 hours4.62963e-5 days <br />0.00111 hours <br />6.613757e-6 weeks <br />1.522e-6 months <br /> 31 minutes to 4 hours4.62963e-5 days <br />0.00111 hours <br />6.613757e-6 weeks <br />1.522e-6 months <br /> 45 minutes 4 hours4.62963e-5 days <br />0.00111 hours <br />6.613757e-6 weeks <br />1.522e-6 months <br /> 46 minutes to 5 hours5.787037e-5 days <br />0.00139 hours <br />8.267196e-6 weeks <br />1.9025e-6 months <br /> 5 hours to 5 hours5.787037e-5 days <br />0.00139 hours <br />8.267196e-6 weeks <br />1.9025e-6 months <br /> 30 minutes 5 hours5.787037e-5 days <br />0.00139 hours <br />8.267196e-6 weeks <br />1.9025e-6 months <br /> 31 minutes to 6 hours6.944444e-5 days <br />0.00167 hours <br />9.920635e-6 weeks <br />2.283e-6 months <br /> Over 6 hours6.944444e-5 days <br />0.00167 hours <br />9.920635e-6 weeks <br />2.283e-6 months <br /> Decline to State If Over 6 Hours for Question 11, Specify Here 10

12. If there are 6-8 inches of snow on your driveway or curb, would you need to shovel out to evacuate? If yes, how much time, on average, would it take you to clear the 6-8 inches of snow to move the car from the driveway or curb to begin the evacuation trip? Assume the roads are passable.

Less than 15 minutes 15-30 minutes 31-45 minutes 46 muntes - 1 hour1.157407e-5 days <br />2.777778e-4 hours <br />1.653439e-6 weeks <br />3.805e-7 months <br /> 1 hour to 1 hour1.157407e-5 days <br />2.777778e-4 hours <br />1.653439e-6 weeks <br />3.805e-7 months <br /> 15 minutes 1 hour1.157407e-5 days <br />2.777778e-4 hours <br />1.653439e-6 weeks <br />3.805e-7 months <br /> 16 minutes to 1 hour1.157407e-5 days <br />2.777778e-4 hours <br />1.653439e-6 weeks <br />3.805e-7 months <br /> 30 minutes 1 hour1.157407e-5 days <br />2.777778e-4 hours <br />1.653439e-6 weeks <br />3.805e-7 months <br /> 31 minutes to 1 hour1.157407e-5 days <br />2.777778e-4 hours <br />1.653439e-6 weeks <br />3.805e-7 months <br /> 45 minutes 1 hour1.157407e-5 days <br />2.777778e-4 hours <br />1.653439e-6 weeks <br />3.805e-7 months <br /> 46 minutes to 2 hours2.314815e-5 days <br />5.555556e-4 hours <br />3.306878e-6 weeks <br />7.61e-7 months <br /> 2 hours to 2 hours2.314815e-5 days <br />5.555556e-4 hours <br />3.306878e-6 weeks <br />7.61e-7 months <br /> 15 minutes 2 hours2.314815e-5 days <br />5.555556e-4 hours <br />3.306878e-6 weeks <br />7.61e-7 months <br /> 16 minutes to 2 hours2.314815e-5 days <br />5.555556e-4 hours <br />3.306878e-6 weeks <br />7.61e-7 months <br /> 30 minutes 2 hours2.314815e-5 days <br />5.555556e-4 hours <br />3.306878e-6 weeks <br />7.61e-7 months <br /> 31 minutes to 2 hours2.314815e-5 days <br />5.555556e-4 hours <br />3.306878e-6 weeks <br />7.61e-7 months <br /> 45 minutes 2 hours2.314815e-5 days <br />5.555556e-4 hours <br />3.306878e-6 weeks <br />7.61e-7 months <br /> 46 minutes to 3 hours3.472222e-5 days <br />8.333333e-4 hours <br />4.960317e-6 weeks <br />1.1415e-6 months <br /> No, will not shovel out Over 3 hours3.472222e-5 days <br />8.333333e-4 hours <br />4.960317e-6 weeks <br />1.1415e-6 months <br /> Decline to State If Over 3 Hours for Question 12, Specify Here

13. Please specify the number of people in your household who require Functional or Transportation needs in an evacuation:

0 1 2 3 4 More than 4 Bus Medical Bus/Van Wheelchair Accessible Vehicle Ambulance Other Specify "Other" Transportation Need Below 11

14. Please choose one of the following:

I would await the return of household members to evacuate together.

I would evacuate independently and meet other household members later.

Decline to State 15A. Emergency officials advise you to shelter-in-place in an emergency because you are not in the area of risk. Would you:

SHELTER-IN-PLACE EVACUATE DECLINE TO STATE 15B. Emergency officials advise you to shelter-in-place now in an emergency and possibly evacuate later while people in other areas are advised to evacuate now. Would you:

SHELTER-IN-PLACE EVACUATE DECLINE TO STATE 15C. Emergency officials advise you to evacuate due to an emergency. Where would you evacuate to?

A relatives or friends home A reception center A hotel, motel, or campground A second/seasonal home Would not evacuate Dont know Other (Specify Below)

Decline to State Fill in OTHER answers for question 15C Pet Questions 16A. Do you have any pet(s) and/or animal(s)?

YES NO DECLINE TO STATE 12

16B. What type of pet(s) and/or animal(s) do you have?

DOG CAT BIRD REPTILE HORSE FISH CHICKEN GOAT PIG OTHER SMALL PETS/ANIMALS (Specify Below)

OTHER LARGE PETS/ANIMALS (Specify Below)

DECLINE TO STATE 16C. What would you do with your pet(s) and/or animal(s) if you had to evacuate?

TAKE PET WITH ME TO A SHELTER TAKE PET WITH ME SOMEWHERE ELSE LEAVE PET AT HOME DECLINE TO STATE 16D. Do you have sufficient room in your vehicle(s) to evacuate with your pet(s) and/or animal(s)?

YES NO WILL USE A TRAILER DECLINE TO STATE 13

APPENDIX G Traffic Management Plan

G. TRAFFIC MANAGEMENT PLAN NUREG/CR7002, Rev. 1 indicates that the existing Traffic and Access Control Points (TACP) identified by the offsite agencies should be used in the evacuation simulation modeling. The traffic control plans for the Emergency Planning Zone (EPZ) were provided by the offsite response organizations (OROs) within the EPZ.

These plans were reviewed and the TACPs were modeled accordingly. An analysis of the TACP locations was performed, and it was determined to model the Evacuation Time Estimate (ETE) simulations with existing TACPs that were provided in the approved county and state emergency plans, with no additional TACPs recommended.

The Berrien County Emergency Operations Plan (April 2019), states that if precautionary or protective measures, such as inplace sheltering or evacuation are to be issued within the 10 mile EPZ, the law enforcement organization would provide ingress and egress control around the perimeter of the affected area. Law Enforcement would coordinate with the Public Works and Engineering Group to ensure that proper barricades and signs are provided to ensure ingress and egress control.

G.1 Manual Traffic Control The TACPs are forms of manual traffic control (MTC). As discussed in Section 9, MTC at intersections (which are controlled) are modeled as actuated signals. If an intersection has a pre timed signal, stop, or yield control, and the intersection is identified as a traffic control point (or TACP), the control type was changed to an actuated signal in the DYNEV II system, in accordance with Section 3.3 of NUREG/CR7002, Rev. 1. MTCs at existing actuated traffic signalized intersections were essentially left alone. Table K1 provides the control type and node number for those nodes which are controlled. If the existing control was changed due to the point being a TACP, the control type is indicated as TACP in Table K1. These MTC points, as shown in the 2019 Berrien County emergency operations plan (Annex F Law Enforcement), are mapped as blue dots in Figure G1. No additional locations for MTC are suggested in this study.

It is assumed that the TACPs will be established within 120 minutes of the advisory to evacuate (ATE) to discourage through travelers from using major through routes which traverse the EPZ.

As discussed in Section 3.10, external traffic was considered on I94, I196 and US31 in this analysis.

G.2 Analysis of Key TACP Locations As discussed in Section 5.2 of NUREG/CR7002, Rev. 1, MTC at intersections could benefit from the ETE analysis. The MTC locations contained within the traffic management plans (TMPs) were analyzed to determine key locations where MTC would be most useful and can be readily implemented. As previously mentioned, signalized intersections that were actuated based on field data collection were essentially left as actuated traffic signals in the model, with modifications to green time allocation as needed. Other controlled intersections (pretimed Donald C. Cook Nuclear Plant G1 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

signals, stop signs and yield signs) were changed to actuated traffic signals to represent the MTC that would be implemented according to the TMPs.

Table G1 shows a list of the controlled intersections that were identified as MTC points in the TMPs that were not previously actuated signals, including the type of control that currently exists at each location. To determine the impact of MTC at these locations, a summer, midweek, midday, good weather scenario (Scenario 1) evacuation of the 2Mile, 5Mile and entire EPZ (Region R01, R02, R03) were simulated wherein these intersections were left as is (without MTC).

The results are shown in Table G2.

The ETE remained unchanged when compared to the cases wherein these controlled intersections were modeled as actuated signals (with MTC) presented in Section 7 for Scenario 1 Regions R01, R02, and R03. Although localized congestion worsened, there is no change in ETE at both the 90th and 100th percentile when MTC was not present at these intersections. The remaining TACPs at controlled intersections were left as actuated signals in the model and, therefore, had no impact to ETE.

As shown in Figure 73 through Figure 79, the southern half of the EPZ experiences very little congestion. As such, the TACPs in this portion of the EPZ do very little to help the ETE. However, the St. Joseph area experiences significant traffic congestion. Heavy traffic flows exist in both the northsouth and eastwest direction at many intersections as vehicles evacuate the area. When heavy traffic persists in competing directions, MTC provides little to no benefit since both approaches need equal amounts of green time. As a result, the TACPs within the EPZ do very little to reduce the ETE.

Although there is no reduction in ETE when MTC is implemented, traffic and access control can be beneficial in the reduction of localized congestion and driver confusion and can be extremely helpful for fixed point surveillance, amongst other things. Should there be a shortfall of personnel to staff the TACPs, the list of locations provided in Table G1 could be considered as priority locations when implementing the TMP.

Donald C. Cook Nuclear Plant G2 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

Table G1. List of Key Manual Traffic Control Locations TACP #1 Node # Previous Control 1 194 PreTimed Signal 2 800 Stop Sign 3 212 Stop Sign 10 216 Stop Sign 11 767 Stop Sign 12 223 PreTimed Signal 13 176 Stop Sign 14 438 PreTimed Signal 15 439 Stop Sign 16 520 No Control 17 347 Stop Sign 18 73 PreTimed Signal 19 457 Stop Sign 20 458 Stop Sign 21 512 Stop Sign 22 648 Stop Sign 23 516 Stop Sign 24 515 Stop Sign 26 210 Stop Sign 27 566 Stop Sign 28 915 Stop Sign 29 575 Stop Sign 30 736 Stop Sign 33 668 Stop Sign 38 665 Stop Sign 41 664 Stop Sign 42 199 Stop Sign 43b 806 No Control 43c 810 No Control 43e 391 PreTimed Signal 43h 405 No Control 44a 352 Stop Sign 44f 335 PreTimed Signal 44h 906 Stop Sign 44j 402 Stop Sign 44l 907 Stop Sign 44n 908 Stop Sign 44p 909 Stop Sign 44r 385 Stop Sign 45 395 PreTimed Signal 1

Source: Berrien County Emergency Operations Plan (2019), Attachment 1 (D.C. Cook 10 Mile EPZ TACP)/Annex F - Law Enforcement.

Donald C. Cook Nuclear Plant G3 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

TACP #1 Node # Previous Control 46 287 PreTimed Signal 47 290 PreTimed Signal 48 300 Stop Sign 50 303 PreTimed Signal 51 380 Stop Sign 52 421 Stop Sign 56 417 Stop Sign 57 486 No Control 58 50 Stop Sign 60 517 Stop Sign 61 517 Stop Sign 62 783 No Control 64 765 No Control 65 919 No Control 67 98 Stop Sign 68 616 No Control 72 625 No Control 75 330 No Control 76 921 Stop Sign 79 849 No Control 83 247 Stop Sign 84 254 Stop Sign 86 238 Stop Sign 88 109 No Control 90 494 Stop Sign 91 493 Stop Sign 92 504 Stop Sign 96 136 Stop Sign 97 326 Stop Sign 98 261 and 262 Stop Sign 99 250 Stop Sign 101a 27 No Control 101b 21 and 143 No Control Table G2. ETE with No MTC Scenario 1 th Region 90 Percentile ETE 100th Percentile ETE Base No MTC Difference Base No MTC Difference R01 (2Mile) 2:05 2:05 0:00 4:15 4:15 0:00 R02 (5Mile) 2:20 2:20 0:00 4:20 4:20 0:00 R03 (Full EPZ) 3:00 3:00 0:00 4:25 4:25 0:00 Donald C. Cook Nuclear Plant G4 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

Figure G1. Traffic and Access Control Points for the DCCNP EPZ Donald C. Cook Nuclear Plant G5 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

APPENDIX H Evacuation Regions

H. EVACUATION REGIONS This appendix presents the evacuation percentages for each Evacuation Region (Table H1) and maps of all Evacuation Regions (Figure H1 through Figure H14). The percentages presented in Table H1 are based on the methodology discussed in assumption 9 of Section 2.2 and shown in Figure 21.

Note the baseline ETE study assumes 20 percent of households will not comply with the shelter advisory, as per Section 2.5.2 of NUREG/CR7002, Rev. 1.

Donald C. Cook Nuclear Plant H1 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

Table H1. Percent of Protective Action Area Population Evacuating for Each Region Radial Regions Wind From Protective Action Area Region Description (in Degrees) 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 R01 2Mile Region N/A 100% 20% 20% 20% 20% 100% 20%

R02 5Mile Region N/A 100% 100% 100% 20% 20% 100% 20%

R03 Full EPZ N/A 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100%

Evacuate 2Mile Region and Downwind to 5 Miles Wind Direction Wind From Protective Action Area Region From (in Degrees) 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 NW, NNW N, NNE, R04 303.7556.25 100% 20% 100% 20% 20% 100% 20%

NE ENE, E, ESE, SE, SSE 56.25168.75 Refer to Region R01 R05 S, SSW 168.75213.75 100% 100% 20% 20% 20% 100% 20%

SW, WSW, W, 213.75303.75 Refer to Region R02 WNW Evacuate 2Mile Region and Downwind to the EPZ Boundary Wind Direction Wind From Protective Action Area Region From (in Degrees) 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 R06 N, NNE, NE 348.7556.25 100% 20% 100% 20% 100% 100% 100%

R07 ENE, E, ESE, SE, SSE 56.25168.75 100% 20% 20% 20% 20% 100% 100%

R08 S, SSW 168.75213.75 100% 100% 20% 100% 20% 100% 100%

R09 SW 213.75236.25 100% 100% 100% 100% 20% 100% 100%

R10 WSW, W, WNW 236.25303.75 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 20%

R11 NW, NNW 303.75348.75 100% 20% 100% 20% 100% 100% 20%

Staged Evacuation 2Mile Region Evacuates, then Evacuate Downwind to 5 Miles Wind Direction Wind From Protective Action Area Region From (in Degrees) 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 R12 N/A 5Mile Region 100% 100% 100% 20% 20% 100% 20%

NW, NNW N, NNE, R13 303.7556.25 100% 20% 100% 20% 20% 100% 20%

NE ENE, E, ESE, SE, SSE 56.25168.75 Refer to Region R01 R14 S, SSW 168.75213.75 100% 100% 20% 20% 20% 100% 20%

SW, WSW, W, 213.75303.75 Refer to Region R12 WNW PAA(s) ShelterinPlace until PAA(s) Shelterin PAA(s) Evacuate 90% ETE for R01, then Place Evacuate Donald C. Cook Nuclear Plant H2 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

Figure H1. Region R01 Donald C. Cook Nuclear Plant H3 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

Figure H2. Region R02 Donald C. Cook Nuclear Plant H4 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

Figure H3. Region R03 Donald C. Cook Nuclear Plant H5 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

Figure H4. Region R04 Donald C. Cook Nuclear Plant H6 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

Figure H5. Region R05 Donald C. Cook Nuclear Plant H7 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

Figure H6. Region R06 Donald C. Cook Nuclear Plant H8 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

Figure H7. Region R07 Donald C. Cook Nuclear Plant H9 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

Figure H8. Region R08 Donald C. Cook Nuclear Plant H10 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

Figure H9. Region R09 Donald C. Cook Nuclear Plant H11 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

Figure H10. Region R10 Donald C. Cook Nuclear Plant H12 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

Figure H11. Region R11 Donald C. Cook Nuclear Plant H13 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

Figure H12. Region R12 Donald C. Cook Nuclear Plant H14 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

Figure H13. Region R13 Donald C. Cook Nuclear Plant H15 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

Figure H14. Region R14 Donald C. Cook Nuclear Plant H16 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

APPENDIX J Representative Inputs to and Outputs from the DYNEV II System

J. REPRESENTATIVE INPUTS TO AND OUTPUTS FROM THE DYNEV II SYSTEM This appendix presents data input to and output from the DYNEV II System.

Table J1 provides source (vehicle loading) and destination information for several roadway segments (links) in the analysis network. In total, there are a total of 492 source links (origins) in the model. The source links are shown as centroid points in Figure J1. On average, evacuees travel a straightline distance of 6.6 miles to exit the network.

Table J2 provides network-wide statistics (average travel time, average delay time1, average speed and number of vehicles) for an evacuation of the entire EPZ (Region R03) for each scenario. Scenarios 7 and 8, and Scenarios 10 and 11, which are rain and snow scenarios, exhibit slower average speeds, higher delays, and longer average travel times than good weather scenarios. When comparing scenario 13 (special event) and scenario 5, the additional vehicles from the special event lowers the average speeds, causes higher delays and increases the travel time. When comparing scenario 14 (roadway closure) and scenario 1, the lane closed on I94 eastbound lowers the average speeds, causes higher delays and increases the travel time.

Table J3 provided statistics (average speed and travel time) for the major evacuation routes - I 94, I196, and US31 - for an evacuation of the entire EPZ (Region R03) under Scenario 1 conditions. As discussed in Section 7.3 and shown in Figures 73 through 79, I94 northbound and US31 northbound experience significant congestion for the majority of the evacuation. As such, the average speeds are comparably slower (and travel times longer) on the major roadways traveling in these directions than other major evacuation routes.

Table J4 provides the number of vehicles discharged and the cumulative percent of total vehicles discharged for each link exiting the analysis network, for an evacuation of the entire EPZ (Region R03) under Scenario 1 conditions. Refer to the figures in Appendix K for a map showing the geographic location of each link.

Figure J2 through Figure J15 plot the trip generation time versus the ETE for each of the 14 Scenarios considered. The distance between the trip generation and ETE curves is the travel time. Plots of trip generation versus ETE are indicative of the level of traffic congestion during evacuation. For low population density sites, the curves are close together, indicating short travel times and minimal traffic congestion. For higher population density sites, the curves are farther apart indicating longer travel times and the presence of traffic congestion. As seen in Figure J2 through Figure J15, the curves are spatially separated as a result of the traffic congestion in the EPZ, specifically in the St. Joseph area, which was discussed in detail in Section 7.3.

1 Computed as the difference of the average travel time and the average ideal travel time under free flow conditions.

Donald C. Cook Nuclear Plant J1 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

Table J1. Sample Simulation Model Input Vehicles Entering Link Upstream Downstream Network Directional Destination Destination Number Node Node on this Link Preference Nodes Capacity 8003 6,750 438 225 224 40 S 8035 1,700 8015 3,800 8116 4,500 603 307 278 196 NE 8062 4,500 8009 1,700 8062 4,500 728 388 350 20 NE 8009 1,700 8055 1,700 854 450 446 146 E 8016 4,500 8062 4,500 987 546 547 5 NE 8009 1,700 8055 1,700 8116 4,500 1120 644 174 150 NE 8062 4,500 8009 1,700 8062 4,500 1258 751 361 8 NE 8009 1,700 8055 1,700 8062 4,500 1380 844 890 64 NE 8009 1,700 8055 1,700 8016 4,500 1557 983 982 47 SE 8015 3,800 Donald C. Cook Nuclear Plant J2 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

Table J2. Selected Model Outputs for the Evacuation of the Entire EPZ (Region R03)

Scenario 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 NetworkWide Average 2.6 3.1 2.9 3.4 3.2 2.7 3.1 Travel Time (Min/VehMi)

NetworkWide Delay 1.5 2.0 1.8 2.3 2.1 1.6 2.0 Time (Min/VehMi)

NetworkWide Average 23.2 19.6 20.4 17.9 18.8 22.1 19.3 Speed (mph)

Total Vehicles 68,340 68,763 69,235 69,704 59,241 68,407 68,744 Exiting Network Scenario 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 NetworkWide Average 3.4 2.8 3.1 3.3 3.1 4.1 3.1 Travel Time (Min/VehMi)

NetworkWide Delay 2.3 1.7 2.0 2.2 2.0 3.0 2.0 Time (Min/VehMi)

NetworkWide Average 17.5 21.8 19.5 18.1 19.2 14.6 19.6 Speed (mph)

Total Vehicles 69,153 65,338 65,678 65,953 58,155 76,242 68,208 Exiting Network Donald C. Cook Nuclear Plant J3 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

Table J3. Average Speed (mph) and Travel Time (min) for Major Evacuation Routes (Region R03, Scenario 1)

Elapsed Time (hours) 1 2 3 4 5 Travel Length Speed Time Travel Travel Travel Travel Route Name (miles) (mph) (min) Speed Time Speed Time Speed Time Speed Time I94 Northbound 40.3 58.5 41.3 41.3 58.4 40.9 59.1 31.2 77.5 54.5 44.3 I94 Southbound 40.5 71.0 34.2 70.7 34.4 73.4 33.1 73.1 33.2 73.7 33.0 I196 Southbound 3.8 70.0 3.3 70.0 3.3 70.0 3.3 70.0 3.3 70.0 3.3 US31 Northbound 23.9 65.7 21.8 5.7 251.2 8.4 170.2 31.0 46.2 73.5 19.5 Donald C. Cook Nuclear Plant J4 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

Table J4. Simulation Model Outputs at Network Exit Links for Region R03, Scenario 1 Elapsed Time (hours) 1 2 3 4 5 Network Upstream Downstream Exit Link Node Node Cumulative Vehicles Discharged by the Indicated Time Cumulative Percent of Vehicles Discharged by the Indicated Time Interval 3,399 8,943 11,532 11,626 11,632 2 4 3 32% 27% 23% 19% 17%

369 3,000 5,002 6,273 6,311 228 127 814 3% 9% 10% 10% 9%

157 1,012 1,767 1,969 1,981 503 262 605 1% 3% 4% 3% 3%

725 2,417 3,415 3,657 3,666 883 464 465 7% 7% 7% 6% 5%

20 263 384 411 411 918 494 860 0% 1% 1% 1% 1%

80 259 372 388 389 1414 876 600 1% 1% 1% 1% 1%

168 682 930 987 992 1474 920 594 2% 2% 2% 2% 1%

1,181 4,670 7,631 11,278 13,032 1518 953 116 11% 14% 15% 18% 19%

3 40 57 62 63 1572 993 994 0% 0% 0% 0% 0%

3,808 7,990 12,078 16,230 18,216 1633 1036 62 36% 24% 24% 26% 27%

490 1,188 1,909 2,389 2,719 1646 1044 355 5% 4% 4% 4% 4%

38 253 996 1,679 1,800 1667 1056 873 0% 1% 2% 3% 3%

10 860 1,731 2,617 3,555 1679 1065 1066 0% 3% 3% 4% 5%

226 1,044 1,881 2,272 2,285 1689 1077 1074 2% 3% 4% 4% 3%

Donald C. Cook Nuclear Plant J5 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

Figure J1. Network Sources/Origins Donald C. Cook Nuclear Plant J6 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

ETE and Trip Generation Summer, Midweek, Midday, Good (Scenario 1)

Trip Generation ETE 100%

Percent of Total Vehicles 80%

60%

40%

20%

0%

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

Figure J2. ETE and Trip Generation: Summer, Midweek, Midday, Good Weather (Scenario 1)

ETE and Trip Generation Summer, Midweek, Midday, Rain (Scenario 2)

Trip Generation ETE 100%

Percent of Total Vehicles 80%

60%

40%

20%

0%

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

Figure J3. ETE and Trip Generation: Summer, Midweek, Midday, Rain (Scenario 2)

Donald C. Cook Nuclear Plant J7 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

ETE and Trip Generation Summer, Weekend, Midday, Good (Scenario 3)

Trip Generation ETE 100%

Percent of Total Vehicles 80%

60%

40%

20%

0%

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

Figure J4. ETE and Trip Generation: Summer, Weekend, Midday, Good Weather (Scenario 3)

ETE and Trip Generation Summer, Weekend, Midday, Rain (Scenario 4)

Trip Generation ETE 100%

Percent of Total Vehicles 80%

60%

40%

20%

0%

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

Figure J5. ETE and Trip Generation: Summer, Weekend, Midday, Rain (Scenario 4)

Donald C. Cook Nuclear Plant J8 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

ETE and Trip Generation Summer, Midweek, Weekend, Evening, Good (Scenario 5)

Trip Generation ETE 100%

Percent of Total Vehicles 80%

60%

40%

20%

0%

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

Figure J6. ETE and Trip Generation: Summer, Midweek, Weekend, Evening, Good Weather (Scenario 5)

ETE and Trip Generation Winter, Midweek, Midday, Good (Scenario 6)

Trip Generation ETE 100%

Percent of Total Vehicles 80%

60%

40%

20%

0%

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

Figure J7. ETE and Trip Generation: Winter, Midweek, Midday, Good Weather (Scenario 6)

Donald C. Cook Nuclear Plant J9 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

ETE and Trip Generation Winter, Midweek, Midday, Rain/Light Snow (Scenario 7)

Trip Generation ETE 100%

Percent of Total Vehicles 80%

60%

40%

20%

0%

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

Figure J8. ETE and Trip Generation: Winter, Midweek, Midday, Rain/Light Snow (Scenario 7)

ETE and Trip Generation Winter, Midweek, Midday, Heavy Snow (Scenario 8)

Trip Generation ETE 100%

Percent of Total Vehicles 80%

60%

40%

20%

0%

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

Figure J9. ETE and Trip Generation: Winter, Midweek, Midday, Heavy Snow (Scenario 8)

Donald C. Cook Nuclear Plant J10 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

ETE and Trip Generation Winter, Weekend, Midday, Good (Scenario 9)

Trip Generation ETE 100%

Percent of Total Vehicles 80%

60%

40%

20%

0%

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

Figure J10. ETE and Trip Generation: Winter, Weekend, Midday, Good Weather (Scenario 9)

ETE and Trip Generation Winter, Weekend, Midday, Rain/Light Snow (Scenario 10)

Trip Generation ETE 100%

Percent of Total Vehicles 80%

60%

40%

20%

0%

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

Figure J11. ETE and Trip Generation: Winter, Weekend, Midday, Rain/Light Snow (Scenario 10)

Donald C. Cook Nuclear Plant J11 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

ETE and Trip Generation Winter, Weekend, Midday, Heavy Snow (Scenario 11)

Trip Generation ETE 100%

Percent of Total Vehicles 80%

60%

40%

20%

0%

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

Figure J12. ETE and Trip Generation: Winter, Weekend, Midday, Heavy Snow (Scenario 11)

ETE and Trip Generation Winter, Midweek, Weekend, Evening, Good (Scenario 12)

Trip Generation ETE 100%

Percent of Total Vehicles 80%

60%

40%

20%

0%

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

Figure J13. ETE and Trip Generation: Winter, Midweek, Weekend, Evening, Good Weather (Scenario 12)

Donald C. Cook Nuclear Plant J12 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

ETE and Trip Generation Summer, Weekend, Evening, Good, Special Event (Scenario 13)

Trip Generation ETE 100%

Percent of Total Vehicles 80%

60%

40%

20%

0%

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

Figure J14. ETE and Trip Generation: Summer, Weekend, Evening, Good Weather, Special Event (Scenario 13)

ETE and Trip Generation Summer, Midweek, Midday, Good, Roadway Impact (Scenario 14)

Trip Generation ETE 100%

Percent of Total Vehicles 80%

60%

40%

20%

0%

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

Figure J15. ETE and Trip Generation: Summer, Midweek, Midday, Good Weather, Roadway Impact (Scenario 14)

Donald C. Cook Nuclear Plant J13 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

APPENDIX K Evacuation Roadway Network

K. EVACUATION ROADWAY NETWORK As discussed in Section 1.3, a linknode analysis network was constructed to model the roadway network within the study area. Figure K1 provides an overview of the linknode analysis network. The figure has been divided up into 43 more detailed figures (Figure K2 through Figure K44) which show each of the links and nodes in the network.

The analysis network was calibrated using the observations made during the field surveys conducted in November 2020. Construction plans obtained from the Michigan Department of Transportations website1 were utilized to model the US31/I94 connection.

Table K1 summarizes the number of nodes by the type of control (stop sign, yield sign, pre timed signal, actuated signal, traffic and access control point [TACP], uncontrolled).

Table K1. Summary of Nodes by the Type of Control Number of Control Type Nodes Uncontrolled 638 Intersection Pretimed Signal 3 Actuated Signal 62 Stop Sign 209 TACP 74 Yield Sign 19 Total: 1,005 1

https://storymaps.arcgis.com/stories/4dd9b036f10744bfabf061cf2c51eccb Donald C. Cook Nuclear Plant K1 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

Figure K1. DCCNP LinkNode Analysis Network Donald C. Cook Nuclear Plant K2 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

Figure K2. LinkNode Analysis Network - Grid 1 Donald C. Cook Nuclear Plant K3 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

Figure K3. LinkNode Analysis Network - Grid 2 Donald C. Cook Nuclear Plant K4 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

Figure K4. LinkNode Analysis Network - Grid 3 Donald C. Cook Nuclear Plant K5 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

Figure K5. LinkNode Analysis Network - Grid 4 Donald C. Cook Nuclear Plant K6 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

Figure K6. LinkNode Analysis Network - Grid 5 Donald C. Cook Nuclear Plant K7 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

Figure K7. LinkNode Analysis Network - Grid 6 Donald C. Cook Nuclear Plant K8 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

Figure K8. LinkNode Analysis Network - Grid 7 Donald C. Cook Nuclear Plant K9 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

Figure K9. LinkNode Analysis Network - Grid 8 Donald C. Cook Nuclear Plant K10 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

Figure K10. LinkNode Analysis Network - Grid 9 Donald C. Cook Nuclear Plant K11 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

Figure K11. LinkNode Analysis Network - Grid 10 Donald C. Cook Nuclear Plant K12 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

Figure K12. LinkNode Analysis Network - Grid 11 Donald C. Cook Nuclear Plant K13 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

Figure K13. LinkNode Analysis Network - Grid 12 Donald C. Cook Nuclear Plant K14 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

Figure K14. LinkNode Analysis Network - Grid 13 Donald C. Cook Nuclear Plant K15 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

Figure K15. LinkNode Analysis Network - Grid 14 Donald C. Cook Nuclear Plant K16 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

Figure K16. LinkNode Analysis Network - Grid 15 Donald C. Cook Nuclear Plant K17 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

Figure K17. LinkNode Analysis Network - Grid 16 Donald C. Cook Nuclear Plant K18 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

Figure K18. LinkNode Analysis Network - Grid 17 Donald C. Cook Nuclear Plant K19 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

Figure K19. LinkNode Analysis Network - Grid 18 Donald C. Cook Nuclear Plant K20 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

Figure K20. LinkNode Analysis Network - Grid 19 Donald C. Cook Nuclear Plant K21 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

Figure K21. LinkNode Analysis Network - Grid 20 Donald C. Cook Nuclear Plant K22 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

Figure K22. LinkNode Analysis Network - Grid 21 Donald C. Cook Nuclear Plant K23 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

Figure K23. LinkNode Analysis Network - Grid 22 Donald C. Cook Nuclear Plant K24 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

Figure K24. LinkNode Analysis Network - Grid 23 Donald C. Cook Nuclear Plant K25 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

Figure K25. LinkNode Analysis Network - Grid 24 Donald C. Cook Nuclear Plant K26 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

Figure K26. LinkNode Analysis Network - Grid 25 Donald C. Cook Nuclear Plant K27 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

Figure K27. LinkNode Analysis Network - Grid 26 Donald C. Cook Nuclear Plant K28 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

Figure K28. LinkNode Analysis Network - Grid 27 Donald C. Cook Nuclear Plant K29 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

Figure K29. LinkNode Analysis Network - Grid 28 Donald C. Cook Nuclear Plant K30 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

Figure K30. LinkNode Analysis Network - Grid 29 Donald C. Cook Nuclear Plant K31 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

Figure K31. LinkNode Analysis Network - Grid 30 Donald C. Cook Nuclear Plant K32 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

Figure K32. LinkNode Analysis Network - Grid 31 Donald C. Cook Nuclear Plant K33 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

Figure K33. LinkNode Analysis Network - Grid 32 Donald C. Cook Nuclear Plant K34 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

Figure K34. LinkNode Analysis Network - Grid 33 Donald C. Cook Nuclear Plant K35 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

Figure K35. LinkNode Analysis Network - Grid 34 Donald C. Cook Nuclear Plant K36 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

Figure K36. LinkNode Analysis Network - Grid 35 Donald C. Cook Nuclear Plant K37 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

Figure K37. LinkNode Analysis Network - Grid 36 Donald C. Cook Nuclear Plant K38 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

Figure K38. LinkNode Analysis Network - Grid 37 Donald C. Cook Nuclear Plant K39 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

Figure K39. LinkNode Analysis Network - Grid 38 Donald C. Cook Nuclear Plant K40 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

Figure K40. LinkNode Analysis Network - Grid 39 Donald C. Cook Nuclear Plant K41 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

Figure K41. LinkNode Analysis Network - Grid 40 Donald C. Cook Nuclear Plant K42 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

Figure K42. LinkNode Analysis Network - Grid 41 Donald C. Cook Nuclear Plant K43 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

Figure K43. LinkNode Analysis Network - Grid 42 Donald C. Cook Nuclear Plant K44 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

Figure K44. LinkNode Analysis Network - Grid 43 Donald C. Cook Nuclear Plant K45 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

APPENDIX L Protective Action Area Boundaries

L. PROTECTIVE ACTION AREA BOUNDARIES PAA 1 County: Berrien Defined as the area within the following boundary: the Grand Mere State Park driveway extended to the North; Jericho Rd/Date Rd to the East; W. Shawnee Rd/Lake St to the South; and Lake Michigan to the West.

PAA 2 County: Berrien Defined as the area within the following boundary: Maiden Ln to the North; Totzke Rd extended to the East; Linco Rd to the South; Jericho Rd and the Grand Mere State Park driveway extended to the Southwest; and Lake Michigan to the West.

PAA 3 County: Berrien Defined as the area within the following boundary: Linco Rd to the North; Hollywood Rd/Singer Lake Rd and Hartline Rd extended to the East; Browntown Rd extended to the South; Lake Michigan to the West; and W Shawnee Rd/Lake St and Date Rd to the Northwest.

PAA 4 County: Berrien Defined as the area within the following boundary: Broad St, Ann St, W Empire Ave/E Empire Ave to the North; Pipestone Rd to the Northeast; Hillandale Rd and S Pipestone Rd to the East; St. Joseph River and Linco Rd extended to the South; Totzke Rd extended and Maiden Ln to the Southwest; and Lake Michigan to the West.

PAA 5 County: Berrien Defined as the area within the following boundary: Linco Rd to the North; St.

Joseph River to the East; Little Glendora Rd/Garr Rd/E Glendora Rd/Burgoyne Rd/Madron Lake Rd/Coveney Rd/E Wagner Rd/Able Rd/Boyle Lake Rd to the Southeast; E Elm Valley Rd/W Elm Valley Rd/Union Pier Rd/Town Line Ave to the South; Lake Michigan to the West; and Browntown Rd, Hollywood Rd extended, and Hartline Rd extended to the Northwest.

PAA 6 County: Berrien Defined as the area within the following boundary: The portion of Lake Michigan extending 5 miles radially from the plant.

PAA 7 County: Berrien Defined as the area within the following boundary: The portion of Lake Michigan extending between 5 miles and 10 miles radially from the plant.

Donald C. Cook Nuclear Plant L1 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

APPENDIX M Evacuation Sensitivity Studies

M. EVACUATION SENSITIVITY STUDIES This appendix presents the results of a series of sensitivity analyses. These analyses are designed to identify the sensitivity of the ETE to changes in some base evacuation conditions.

M.1 Effect of Changes in Trip Generation Times A sensitivity study was performed to determine whether changes in the estimated trip generation time have an effect on the ETE for the entire Emergency Planning Zone (EPZ).

Specifically, if the tail of the mobilization distribution were truncated (i.e., if those who responded most slowly to the Advisory to Evacuate (ATE) could be persuaded to respond much more rapidly) or if the tail were elongated (i.e. spreading out the departure of evacuees to limit the demand during peak times), how would the ETE be affected? The case considered was Scenario 1, Region 3; a summer, midweek, midday, with good weather evacuation of the entire EPZ. Table M1 presents the results of this study.

If evacuees mobilize one hour quicker, the 90th percentile ETE is reduced by 10 minutes and the 100th percentile ETE is reduced by 25 minutes. An increase in mobilization time by 1 hour1.157407e-5 days <br />2.777778e-4 hours <br />1.653439e-6 weeks <br />3.805e-7 months <br /> increases the 90th percentile ETE by 25 minutes and the 100th percentile ETE by 1 hour1.157407e-5 days <br />2.777778e-4 hours <br />1.653439e-6 weeks <br />3.805e-7 months <br />.

As discussed in Section 7.3, traffic congestion persists within the EPZ for about 4 hours4.62963e-5 days <br />0.00111 hours <br />6.613757e-6 weeks <br />1.522e-6 months <br />. As such, the ETE at the 100th percentile are impacted by increases in trip generation times since the base trip generation time dictates the 100th percentile ETE beyond 4 hours4.62963e-5 days <br />0.00111 hours <br />6.613757e-6 weeks <br />1.522e-6 months <br />. Reductions in the trip generation time, however, that are less than 4 hours4.62963e-5 days <br />0.00111 hours <br />6.613757e-6 weeks <br />1.522e-6 months <br /> can impact ETE. In this case, the compression of trip generation time to 3 hours3.472222e-5 days <br />8.333333e-4 hours <br />4.960317e-6 weeks <br />1.1415e-6 months <br /> and 15 minutes reduces the 100th percentile ETE until the time that congestion clears since 3 hour3.472222e-5 days <br />8.333333e-4 hours <br />4.960317e-6 weeks <br />1.1415e-6 months <br /> and 15 minutes is less than 4 hours4.62963e-5 days <br />0.00111 hours <br />6.613757e-6 weeks <br />1.522e-6 months <br />. The 90th percentile ETE, however, are relatively insensitive to truncating or elongating the tail of the mobilization time distribution.

M.2 Effect of Changes in the Number of People in the Shadow Region Who Relocate A sensitivity study was conducted to determine the effect on ETE of changes in the percentage of people who decide to relocate from the Shadow Region. The case considered was Scenario 1, Region 3; a summer, midweek, midday, with good weather evacuation for the entire EPZ. The movement of people in the Shadow Region has the potential to impede vehicles evacuating from an Evacuation Region within the EPZ. Refer to Sections 3.2 and 7.1 for additional information on population within the Shadow Region.

Table M2 presents the ETE for each of the cases considered. The results show that an elimination of the shadow evacuation (0%) decreases the 90th percentile ETE by 5 minutes - not a significant change - and does not impact the 100th percentile ETE since it is dictated by trip generation time.

There is no impact to the 90th or 100th percentile ETE by increasing the shadow evacuation percentage by any interval. Congestion in the EPZ clears prior to the end of trip generation time.

As a result, trip generation dictates ETE, rather than congestion. Any additional congestion Donald C. Cook Nuclear Plant M1 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

generated by an increase in shadow evacuees also clears prior to the completion of trip generation time. As a result, ETE are unaffected by increases in shadow evacuees.

Note, the demographic survey results presented in Appendix F indicate that 20 percent of households would elect to evacuate if advised to shelter, which agrees with the assumption of 20 percent noncompliance as suggested in NUREG/CR7002, Rev. 1. Thus, the base assumption of 20% noncompliance suggested in NUREG/CR7002, Rev. 1 is valid.

M.3 Effect of Changes in EPZ Resident Population A sensitivity study was conducted to determine the effect on ETE due to changes in the permanent resident population within the study area (EPZ plus Shadow Region). As population in the study area changes over time, the time required to evacuate the public may increase, decrease, or remain the same. Since the ETE is related to the demand to capacity ratio present within the study area, changes in population will cause the demand side of the equation to change and could impact ETE.

As per the NRCs response to the Emergency Planning Frequently Asked Question (EPFAQ) 2013001, the ETE population sensitivity study must be conducted to determine what percentage increase in permanent resident population causes an increase in the 90th percentile ETE of 25% or 30 minutes, whichever is less. The sensitivity study must use the scenario with the longest 90th percentile ETE (excluding the roadway impact scenario and the special event scenario if it is a 1 day per year special event).

The sensitivity study was conducted using the following planning assumptions:

1. The percent change in population within the study area was increased by up to 26%.

Changes in population were applied to permanent residents only (as per federal guidance), in both the EPZ and the Shadow Region.

2. The transportation infrastructure remained fixed (as presented in Appendix K); the presence of future proposed roadway changes and/or highway capacity improvements were not considered.

3. The study was performed for the 2Mile Region (R01), the 5Mile Region (R02) and the entire EPZ (R03).

4. The scenario (excluding roadway impact and special event) which yielded the highest 90th percentile ETE values was selected as the case to be considered in this sensitivity study (Scenario 8 - Winter, Midweek, Midday, Snow Condition).

Table M3 presents the results of the sensitivity study.Section IV of Appendix E to 10 CFR Part 50, and NUREG/CR7002, Rev. 1, Section 5.4, require licensees to provide an updated ETE analysis to the NRC when a population increase within the EPZ causes the longest 90th percentile ETE values (for the 2Mile Region, 5Mile Region or entire EPZ) to increase by 25% or 30 minutes, whichever is less. Base ETE value for the 2Mile Region (R01), 5Mile Region (R02),

and entire EPZ (R03) are greater than 2 hours2.314815e-5 days <br />5.555556e-4 hours <br />3.306878e-6 weeks <br />7.61e-7 months <br />; 25 percent of the base ETE is always equal or greater than 30 minutes. Therefore 30 minutes is the lesser and is the criterion for updating ETE.

Donald C. Cook Nuclear Plant M2 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

Those percent population changes which result in a 90th percentile ETE change greater than or equal to 30 minutes are highlighted in red in Table M3 - a 25% or greater increase in the full EPZ population. AEP will have to estimate the EPZ population on an annual basis. If the study area population increases by 25% or more, an updated ETE analysis will be needed.

M.4 Effect of Changes in Average Household Size As discussed in Appendix F, the average household size obtained from the results of the demographic survey is 2.95 people per household. The 2020 census indicates an average household size of 2.36 people per household. The difference between the Census data and survey data is 20%, which exceeds the sampling error of 4.25%. Upon discussions with AEP, it was decided that the 2020 Census estimate of 2.36 people per household would be used in the study. A sensitivity study was performed to determine how sensitive the ETE is to changes in the average household size. It should be noted that only resident and shadow vehicles were changed for this sensitivity study. The case considered was Scenario 1, Region 3; a summer, midweek, midday, with good weather evacuation of the 2mile region, 5mile region, and entire EPZ. Table M4 presents the results of this study.

Increasing the average household size (decreasing the total number evacuating vehicles) to 2.95 people per household decreases in the 90th percentile ETE by 20 minutes at most and has no impact on the 100th percentile ETE. The difference in vehicles is about 14% of the total evacuating traffic (8,941 vehicles of 64,021 vehicles for this scenario - see Table 64). This 14% reduction in evacuating vehicles decreases congestion, and therefore ETE, but not substantially.

As previously mentioned, the ETE is dictated by trip mobilization time at the 100th percentile. As a result, regardless of the reduction in vehicles, the 100th percentile ETE will remain the same.

M.5 Enhancements in Evacuation Time This appendix documents sensitivity studies on critical variables that could potentially impact ETE.

Possible improvements to ETE are further discussed below:

Prolonging the trip generation time by an hour significantly impacts the 100th percentile ETE since the trip generation dictates ETE (Section M.1). Public outreach could be considered to inform people within the EPZ to mobilize in a timely manner.

Increasing the percent shadow evacuation has little to no impact on ETE (Section M.2).

Nonetheless, public outreach could be considered to inform those people within the EPZ (and potentially beyond the EPZ) that if they are not advised to evacuate, they should not.

Population growth results in more evacuating vehicles which could significantly increase ETE (Section M.3). Public outreach to inform people within the EPZ to evacuate as a family in a single vehicle would reduce the number of evacuating vehicles and could reduce ETE or offset the impact of population growth.

Donald C. Cook Nuclear Plant M3 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

Table M1. Evacuation Time Estimates for Trip Generation Sensitivity Study Trip Evacuation Time Estimate for Entire EPZ Generation Period 90th Percentile 100th Percentile 3 Hours 15 Minutes 2:50 4:00 4 Hours 15 Minutes (Base) 3:00 4:25 5 Hours 15 Minutes 3:25 5:25 Table M2. Evacuation Time Estimates for Shadow Sensitivity Study Evacuating Evacuation Time Estimate for Entire EPZ Percent Shadow Shadow Evacuation Vehicles1 90th Percentile 100th Percentile 0 0 2:55 4:25 20 (Base) 4,962 3:00 4:25 40 9,925 3:00 4:25 60 14,887 3:00 4:25 80 19,850 3:00 4:25 100 24,812 3:00 4:25 1

The Evacuating Shadow Vehicles, in Table M-2, represent the residents and employees who will spontaneously decide to relocate during the evacuation. The basis, for the base values shown, is a 20% relocation of shadow residents along with a proportional percentage of shadow employees. See Section 6 for further discussion.

Donald C. Cook Nuclear Plant M4 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

Table M3. ETE Variation with Population Change EPZ and 20% Population Change Base Shadow Resident 24% 25% 26%

Population 72,065 89,361 90,081 90,802 ETE for 90th Percentile Population Change Region Base 24% 25% 26%

2MILE 2:15 2:15 2:15 2:15 5MILE 2:40 2:45 2:45 2:45 FULL EPZ 3:40 4:00 4:10 4:10 ETE for 100th Percentile Population Change Region Base 24% 25% 26%

2MILE 4:45 4:45 4:45 4:50 5MILE 4:50 4:50 4:50 4:50 FULL EPZ 4:55 5:35 5:35 5:35 Table M4. ETE Results for Change in Average Household Size EPZ and 20% Base (Average HH Size Average HH Size of Shadow of 2.36 people per 2.95 people per Resident household) household Vehicles 44,739 35,798 ETE for 90th Percentile 2MILE 2:05 2:05 5MILE 2:20 2:15 FULL EPZ 3:00 2:40 ETE for 100th Percentile 2MILE 4:15 4:15 5MILE 4:20 4:20 FULL EPZ 4:25 4:25 Donald C. Cook Nuclear Plant M5 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

APPENDIX N ETE Criteria Checklist

N. ETE CRITERIA CHECKLIST Table N1. ETE Review Criteria Checklist Addressed in ETE NRC Review Criteria Comments Analysis (Yes/No/NA) 1.0 Introduction

a. The emergency planning zone (EPZ) and surrounding area is Yes Section 1 described.

b. A map is included that identifies primary features of the site Yes Figures 11, 31, 61 including major roadways, significant topographical features, boundaries of counties, and population centers within the EPZ.

c. A comparison of the current and previous ETE is provided Yes Table 13 including information similar to that identified in Table 11, ETE Comparison.

1.1 Approach

a. The general approach is described in the report as outlined Yes Section 1.1, Section 1.3, Appendix D, in Section 1.1, Approach. Table 11 1.2 Assumptions

a. Assumptions consistent with Table 12, General Yes Section 2 Assumptions, of NUREG/CR7002 are provided and include the basis to support use.

1.3 Scenario Development

a. The scenarios in Table 13, Evacuation Scenarios, are Yes Section 6, Table 62 developed for the ETE analysis. A reason is provided for use of other scenarios or for not evaluating specific scenarios.

Donald C. Cook Nuclear Plant N1 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

Addressed in ETE NRC Review Criteria Comments Analysis (Yes/No/NA) 1.4 Evacuation Planning Areas

a. A map of the EPZ with emergency response planning areas Yes Figure 31, Figure 61 (ERPAs) is included.

1.4.1 Keyhole Evacuation

a. A table similar to Table 14 Evacuation Areas for a Keyhole Yes Table 61, Table 75, Table H1 Evacuation, is provided identifying the ERPAs considered for each ETE calculation by downwind direction.

1.4.2 Staged Evacuation

a. The approach used in development of a staged evacuation is Yes Section 7.2 discussed.

b. A table similar to Table 15, Evacuation Areas for a Staged Yes Table 73, Table 74 Evacuation, is provided for staged evacuations identifying the ERPAs considered for each ETE calculation by downwind direction.

2.0 Demand Estimation

a. Demand estimation is developed for the four population Yes Section 3 groups (permanent residents of the EPZ, transients, special facilities, and schools).

2.1 Permanent Residents and Transient Population

a. The U.S. Census is the source of the population values, or Yes Section 3.1 another credible source is provided.

b. The availability date of the census data is provided. Yes Section 3.1

c. Population values are adjusted as necessary for growth to Yes N/A 2020 used as the base year of the reflect population estimates to the year of the ETE. analysis Donald C. Cook Nuclear Plant N2 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

Addressed in ETE NRC Review Criteria Comments Analysis (Yes/No/NA)

d. A sector diagram, similar to Figure 21, Population by Yes Figure 32 Sector, is included showing the population distribution for permanent residents.

2.1.1 Permanent Residents with Vehicles

a. The persons per vehicle value is between 1 and 3 or Yes Section 3.1 justification is provided for other values.

2.1.2 Transient Population

a. A list of facilities that attract transient populations is Yes Section 3.3, Table E4 through Table E5 included, and peak and average attendance for these facilities is listed. The source of information used to develop attendance values is provided.

b. Major employers are listed. Yes Section 3.4, Table E3

c. The average population during the season is used, itemized Yes Table 34, Table 35 and Appendix E and totaled for each scenario. itemize the peak transient population and employee estimates. These estimates are multiplied by the scenario specific percentages provided in Table 63 to estimate average transient population by scenario - see Table 64.

d. The percentage of permanent residents assumed to be at Yes Section 3.3 and Section 3.4 facilities is estimated.

e. The number of people per vehicle is provided. Numbers may Yes Section 3.3 and Section 3.4 vary by scenario, and if so, reasons for the variation are discussed.

Donald C. Cook Nuclear Plant N3 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

Addressed in ETE NRC Review Criteria Comments Analysis (Yes/No/NA)

f. A sector diagram is included, similar to Figure 21, Yes Figure 36 (transients) and Figure 38 Population by Sector, is included showing the population (employees) distribution for the transient population.

2.2 Transit Dependent Permanent Residents

a. The methodology (e.g., surveys, registration programs) used Yes Section 3.6 to determine the number of transit dependent residents is discussed.

b. The State and local evacuation plans for transit dependent Yes Section 8.1 residents are used in the analysis.

c. The methodology used to determine the number of people Yes Section 3.9 with disabilities and those with access and functional needs who may need assistance and do not reside in special facilities is provided. Data from local/county registration programs are used in the estimate.

d. Capacities are provided for all types of transportation Yes Item 3 of Section 2.4 resources. Bus seating capacity of 50 percent is used or justification is provided for higher values.

e. An estimate of the transit dependent population is provided. Yes Section 3.6, Table 37, Table 39

f. A summary table showing the total number of buses, Yes Table 39, Table 81 ambulances, or other transport assumed available to support evacuation is provided. The quantification of resources is detailed enough to ensure that double counting has not occurred.

Donald C. Cook Nuclear Plant N4 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

Addressed in ETE NRC Review Criteria Comments Analysis (Yes/No/NA) 2.3 Special Facility Residents

a. Special facilities, including the type of facility, location, and Yes Table E2 lists all medical facilities by average population, are listed. Special facility staff is facility name, location, and average included in the total special facility population. population. Staff estimates were not provided.

b. The method of obtaining special facility data is discussed. Yes Section 3.5

c. An estimate of the number and capacity of vehicles assumed Yes Table 36 available to support the evacuation of the facility is provided.

d. The logistics for mobilizing specially trained staff (e.g., Yes Section 8.1 - under Evacuation of medical support or security support for prisons, jails, and Medical Facilities other correctional facilities) are discussed when appropriate.

2.4 Schools

a. A list of schools including name, location, student Yes Table 38, Table E1, Section 3.7 population, and transportation resources required to support the evacuation, is provided. The source of this information should be identified.

b. Transportation resources for elementary and middle schools Yes Section 3.7 are based on 100 percent of the school capacity.

c. The estimate of high school students who will use personal Yes Section 3.7 vehicle to evacuate is provided and a basis for the values used is given.

d. The need for return trips is identified. Yes Section 8.1 Donald C. Cook Nuclear Plant N5 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

Addressed in ETE NRC Review Criteria Comments Analysis (Yes/No/NA) 2.5 Other Demand Estimate Considerations 2.5.1 Special Events

a. A complete list of special events is provided including Yes Section 3.8 information on the population, estimated duration, and season of the event.

b. The special event that encompasses the peak transient Yes Section 3.8 population is analyzed in the ETE.

c. The percentage of permanent residents attending the event Yes Section 3.8 is estimated.

2.5.2 Shadow Evacuation

a. A shadow evacuation of 20 percent is included consistent Yes Item 7 of Section 2.2, Figure 21 and with the approach outlined in Section 2.5.2, Shadow Figure 71, Section 3.2 Evacuation.

b. Population estimates for the shadow evacuation in the Yes Section 3.2, Table 33, Figure 34 shadow region beyond the EPZ are provided by sector.

c. The loading of the shadow evacuation onto the roadway Yes Section 5 - Table 59 (footnote) network is consistent with the trip generation time generated for the permanent resident population.

2.5.3 Background and Pass Through Traffic

a. The volume of background traffic and passthrough traffic is Yes Section 3.10 and Section 3.11 based on the average daytime traffic. Values may be reduced for nighttime scenarios.

Donald C. Cook Nuclear Plant N6 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

Addressed in ETE NRC Review Criteria Comments Analysis (Yes/No/NA)

b. The method of reducing background and passthrough traffic Yes Section 2.2 - Assumptions 10 and 12 is described. Section 2.5 Section 3.10 and Section 3.11 Table 63 - External Through Traffic footnote

c. Passthrough traffic is assumed to have stopped entering the Yes Section 2.5 EPZ about two (2) hours after the initial notification.

2.6 Summary of Demand Estimation

a. A summary table is provided that identifies the total Yes Table 311, Table 312, and Table 64 populations and total vehicles used in the analysis for permanent residents, transients, transit dependent residents, special facilities, schools, shadow population, and passthrough demand in each scenario.

3.0 Roadway Capacity

a. The method(s) used to assess roadway capacity is discussed. Yes Section 4 3.1 Roadway Characteristics

a. The process for gathering roadway characteristic data is Yes Section 1.3, Appendix D described including the types of information gathered and how it is used in the analysis.

b. Legible maps are provided that identify nodes and links of Yes Appendix K the modeled roadway network similar to Figure A1, Roadway Network Identifying Nodes and Links, and Figure A2, Grid Map Showing Detailed Nodes and Links.

Donald C. Cook Nuclear Plant N7 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

Addressed in ETE NRC Review Criteria Comments Analysis (Yes/No/NA) 3.2 Model Approach

a. The approach used to calculate the roadway capacity for the Yes Section 4 transportation network is described in detail, and the description identifies factors that are expressly used in the modeling.

b. Route assignment follows expected evacuation routes and Yes Appendix B and Appendix C traffic volumes.

c. A basis is provided for static route choices if used to assign N/A Static route choices are not used to evacuation routes. assign evacuation routes. Dynamic traffic assignment is used.

d. Dynamic traffic assignment models are described including Yes Appendix B and Appendix C calibration of the route assignment.

3.3 Intersection Control

a. A list that includes the total numbers of intersections Yes Table K1 modeled that are unsignalized, signalized, or manned by response personnel is provided.

b. The use of signal cycle timing, including adjustments for Yes Section 4, Appendix G manned traffic control, is discussed.

3.4 Adverse Weather

a. The adverse weather conditions are identified. Yes Assumption 2 and 3 of Section 2.6

b. The speed and capacity reduction factors identified in Table Yes Table 22 31, Weather Capacity Factors, are used or a basis is provided for other values, as applicable to the model.

c. The calibration and adjustment of driver behavior models for N/A Driver behavior is not adjusted for adverse weather conditions are described, if applicable. adverse weather conditions.

Donald C. Cook Nuclear Plant N8 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

Addressed in ETE NRC Review Criteria Comments Analysis (Yes/No/NA)

d. The effect of adverse weather on mobilization is considered Yes Table 22 and assumptions for snow removal on streets and driveways are identified, when applicable.

4.0 Development of Evacuation Times 4.1 Traffic Simulation Models

a. General information about the traffic simulation model used Yes Section 1.3, Table 13, Appendix B, in the analysis is provided. Appendix C

b. If a traffic simulation model is not used to perform the ETE N/A Not applicable since a traffic simulation calculation, sufficient detail is provided to validate the model was used.

analytical approach used.

4.2 Traffic Simulation Model Input

a. Traffic simulation model assumptions and a representative Yes Section 2, Appendix J set of model inputs are provided.

b. The number of origin nodes and method for distributing Yes Appendix J, Appendix C vehicles among the origin nodes are described.

c. A glossary of terms is provided for the key performance Yes Appendix A measures and parameters used in the analysis.

4.3 Trip Generation Time

a. The process used to develop trip generation times is Yes Section 5 identified.

b. When surveys are used, the scope of the survey, area of the Yes Appendix F survey, number of participants, and statistical relevance are provided.

c. Data used to develop trip generation times are summarized. Yes Appendix F, Section 5 Donald C. Cook Nuclear Plant N9 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

Addressed in ETE NRC Review Criteria Comments Analysis (Yes/No/NA)

d. The trip generation time for each population group is Yes Section 5 developed from sitespecific information.

e. The methods used to reduce uncertainty when developing Yes Section 5.4.1 trip generation times are discussed, if applicable.

4.3.1 Permanent Residents and Transient Population

a. Permanent residents are assumed to evacuate from their Yes Section 5 discusses trip generation for homes but are not assumed to be at home at all times. Trip households with and without returning generation time includes the assumption that a percentage commuters. Table 63 presents the of residents will need to return home before evacuating. percentage of households with returning commuters and the percentage of households either without returning commuters or with no commuters. Appendix F presents the percent households who will await the return of commuters. Section 2.3, Assumption 3

b. The trip generation time accounts for the time and method Yes Section 5 to notify transients at various locations.

c. The trip generation time accounts for transients potentially Yes Section 5, Figure 51 returning to hotels before evacuating.

d. The effect of public transportation resources used during Yes Section 3.8 special events where a large number of transients are expected is considered.

Donald C. Cook Nuclear Plant N10 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

Addressed in ETE NRC Review Criteria Comments Analysis (Yes/No/NA) 4.3.2 Transit Dependent Permanent Residents

a. If available, existing and approved plans and bus routes are N/A Established bus routes do not exist.

used in the ETE analysis. Section 8.1 under Evacuation of Transit Dependent Population

b. The means of evacuating ambulatory and nonambulatory Yes Section 8.1 under Evacuation of Transit residents are discussed. Dependent Population, Section 8.2

c. Logistical details, such as the time to obtain buses, brief Yes Section 8.1, Figure 81 drivers and initiate the bus route are used in the analysis.

d. The estimated time for transit dependent residents to Yes Section 8.1 under Evacuation of Transit prepare and then travel to a bus pickup point, including the Dependent Population expected means of travel to the pickup point, is described.

e. The number of bus stops and time needed to load Yes Section 8.1, Table 85 though Table 87 passengers are discussed.

f. A map of bus routes is included. Yes Figure 102

g. The trip generation time for nonambulatory persons Yes Section 8.2 including the time to mobilize ambulances or special vehicles, time to drive to the home of residents, time to load, and time to drive out of the EPZ, is provided.

h. Information is provided to support analysis of return trips, if Yes Section 8.1 and 8.2 necessary.

4.3.3 Special Facilities

a. Information on evacuation logistics and mobilization times is Yes Section 2.4, Section 8.1, Table 88 provided. through Table 810 Donald C. Cook Nuclear Plant N11 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

Addressed in ETE NRC Review Criteria Comments Analysis (Yes/No/NA)

b. The logistics of evacuating wheelchair and bed bound Yes Section 8.1, Table 88 through Table 8 residents are discussed. 10

c. Time for loading of residents is provided. Yes Section 2.4, Section 8.1, Table 88 through Table 810

d. Information is provided that indicates whether the Yes Section 8.1 evacuation can be completed in a single trip or if additional trips are needed.

e. Discussion is provided on whether special facility residents Yes Section 8.1 are expected to pass through the reception center before being evacuated to their final destination.

f. Supporting information is provided to quantify the time Yes Section 8.1 elements for each trip, including destinations if return trips are needed.

4.3.4 Schools

a. Information on evacuation logistics and mobilization times is Yes Section 2.4, Section 8.1, Table 82 provided. through Table 84

b. Time for loading of students is provided. Yes Section 2.4, Section 8.1, Table 82 through Table 84

c. Information is provided that indicates whether the Yes Section 8.1 evacuation can be completed in a single trip or if additional trips are needed.

d. If used, reception centers should be identified. A discussion Yes Section 8.1, Table 103 is provided on whether students are expected to pass through the reception center before being evacuated to their final destination.

Donald C. Cook Nuclear Plant N12 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

Addressed in ETE NRC Review Criteria Comments Analysis (Yes/No/NA)

e. Supporting information is provided to quantify the time Yes Section 8.1, Table 82 through Table 84 elements for each trip, including destinations if return trips are needed.

4.4 Stochastic Model Runs

a. The number of simulation runs needed to produce average N/A DYNEV does not rely on simulation results is discussed. averages or random seeds for statistical

b. If one run of a single random seed is used to produce each N/A confidence. For DYNEV/DTRAD, it is a ETE result, the report includes a sensitivity study on the 90 mesoscopic simulation and uses percent and 100 percent ETE using 10 different random dynamic traffic assignment model to seeds for evacuation of the full EPZ under Summer, obtain the "average" (stable) network Midweek, Daytime, Normal Weather conditions. work flow distribution. This is different from microscopic simulation, which is montecarlo random sampling by nature relying on different seeds to establish statistical confidence. Refer to Appendix B for more details.

4.5 Model Boundaries

a. The method used to establish the simulation model Yes Section 4.5 boundaries is discussed.

b. Significant capacity reductions or population centers that Yes Section 4.5 may influence the ETE and that are located beyond the evacuation area or shadow region are identified and included in the model, if needed.

Donald C. Cook Nuclear Plant N13 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

Addressed in ETE NRC Review Criteria Comments Analysis (Yes/No/NA) 4.6 Traffic Simulation Model Output

a. A discussion of whether the traffic simulation model used Yes Appendix B must be in equilibration prior to calculating the ETE is provided.

b. The minimum following model outputs for evacuation of the Yes 1. Appendix J, Table J2 entire EPZ are provided to support review: 2. Table J2

1. Evacuee average travel distance and time. 3. Table J4

2. Evacuee average delay time. 4. None and 0%. 100 percent ETE is

3. Number of vehicles arriving at each destination node. based on the time the last

4. Total number and percentage of evacuee vehicles not vehicle exits the evacuation area exiting the EPZ. 5. Figures J2 through J15 (one

5. A plot that provides both the mobilization curve and plot for each scenario evacuation curve identifying the cumulative percentage considered) of evacuees who have mobilized and exited the EPZ. 6. Table J3, Network wide average

6. Average speed for each major evacuation route that exits speed also provided in Table J2 the EPZ.

c. Color coded roadway maps are provided for various times Yes Figure 73 through Figure 79 (e.g., at 2, 4, 6 hrs.) during a full EPZ evacuation scenario, identifying areas where congestion exists.

4.7 Evacuation Time Estimates for the General Public

a. The ETE includes the time to evacuate 90 percent and 100 Yes Table 71 and Table 72 percent of the total permanent resident and transient population.

b. Termination criteria for the 100 percent ETE are discussed, if N/A 100 percent ETE is based on the time not based on the time the last vehicle exits the evacuation the last vehicle exits the evacuation zone. zone.

Donald C. Cook Nuclear Plant N14 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

Addressed in ETE NRC Review Criteria Comments Analysis (Yes/No/NA)

c. The ETE for 100 percent of the general public includes all Yes Section 5.4.1 - truncating survey data members of the general public. Any reductions or truncated to eliminate statistical outliers data is explained. Table 72 - 100th percentile ETE for general population

d. Tables are provided for the 90 and 100 percent ETEs similar Yes Table 73 and Table 74 to Table 43, ETEs for a Staged Evacuation, and Table 44, ETEs for a Keyhole Evacuation.

e. ETEs are provided for the 100 percent evacuation of special Yes Section 8 facilities, transit dependent, and school populations.

5.0 Other Considerations 5.1 Development of Traffic Control Plans

a. Information that responsible authorities have approved the Yes Section 9, Appendix G traffic control plan used in the analysis are discussed.

b. Adjustments or additions to the traffic control plan that Yes Section 9, Appendix G affect the ETE is provided.

5.2 Enhancements in Evacuation Time

a. The results of assessments for enhancing evacuations are Yes Appendix M provided.

5.3 State and Local Review

a. A list of agencies contacted is provided and the extent of Yes Table 11 interaction with these agencies is discussed.

Donald C. Cook Nuclear Plant N15 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

Addressed in ETE NRC Review Criteria Comments Analysis (Yes/No/NA)

b. Information is provided on any unresolved issues that may Yes Results of the ETE study were formally affect the ETE. presented to state and local agencies at the final project meeting. Comments on the draft report were provided and were addressed in the final report.

There are no unresolved issues.

5.4 Reviews and Updates

a. The criteria for when an updated ETE analysis is required to Yes Appendix M, Section M.3 be performed and submitted to the NRC is discussed.

5.4.1 Extreme Conditions

a. The updated ETE analysis reflects the impact of EPZ N/A This ETE is being updated as a result of conditions not adequately reflected in the scenario the availability of US Census Bureau variations. decennial census data.

5.5 Reception Centers and Congregate Care Center

a. A map of congregate care centers and reception centers is Yes Figure 103 provided.

Donald C. Cook Nuclear Plant N16 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0