Text

Kld TR-509, Revision 3, Turkey Point Nuclear Power Plant, Development of Evacuation Time Estimates.
	ML12363A169
Person / Time
Site:	Turkey Point
Issue date:	08/31/2012
From:	; KLD Engineering, PC
To:	; Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation, Florida Power & Light Co
References
	L-2012-398 KLD TR-509, Rev 3
	Download: ML12363A169 (442)
	v • d • e

Turkey Point Nuclear Power Plant Development of Evacuation Time Estimates Work performed under contract with Bechtel Power Corporation in support of Florida Power & Light Company, by:

KLD Engineering, P.C.

43 Corporate Drive Hauppauge, NY 11788 mailto:kweinisch@kldcompanies.com August 2012 Revision 3 KLD TR - 509

Turkey Point Evacuation Time Estimate Table of Contents 1 INTRODUCTION .................................................................................................................................. 11 1.1 Overview of the ETE Process...................................................................................................... 11 1.2 The Turkey Point Nuclear Power Plant ...................................................................................... 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 Study Methodological Assumptions .......................................................................................... 22 2.3 Study Assumptions ..................................................................................................................... 23 3 DEMAND ESTIMATION ....................................................................................................................... 31 3.1 Permanent Residents ................................................................................................................. 32 3.2 Shadow Population .................................................................................................................... 33 3.3 Transient Population .................................................................................................................. 33 3.4 Employees .................................................................................................................................. 37 3.5 Medical Facilities ........................................................................................................................ 39 3.6 Total Demand in Addition to Permanent Population ................................................................ 39 3.7 Special Event .............................................................................................................................. 39 3.8 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 Turkey Point Nuclear Power Plant 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 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 ...................................................................... 54 5.4.1 Statistical Outliers .............................................................................................................. 55 5.4.2 Staged Evacuation Trip Generation ................................................................................... 57 5.4.3 Trip Generation for Waterways and Recreational Areas ................................................... 59 6 DEMAND ESTIMATION FOR EVACUATION SCENARIOS ..................................................................... 61 7 GENERAL POPULATION EVACUATION TIME ESTIMATES (ETE) .......................................................... 71 7.1 Voluntary Evacuation and Shadow Evacuation ......................................................................... 71 7.2 Staged Evacuation ...................................................................................................................... 71 7.3 Patterns of Traffic Congestion during Evacuation ..................................................................... 72 KLD Engineering, P.C. i Revision 3

Turkey Point Evacuation Time Estimate 7.4 Evacuation Rates ........................................................................................................................ 73 7.5 Evacuation Time Estimate (ETE) Results .................................................................................... 74 7.6 Staged Evacuation Results ......................................................................................................... 75 7.7 Guidance on Using ETE Tables ................................................................................................... 77 8 TRANSITDEPENDENT AND SPECIAL FACILITY EVACUATION TIME ESTIMATES ................................. 81 8.1 Transit Dependent People Demand Estimate ............................................................................ 82 8.2 School Population - Transit Demand ......................................................................................... 84 8.3 Special Facility Demand ............................................................................................................. 84 8.4 Evacuation Time Estimates for Transit Dependent People ....................................................... 85 8.5 Special Needs Population......................................................................................................... 811 8.6 Correctional Facilities ............................................................................................................... 812 9 TRAFFIC MANAGEMENT STRATEGY ................................................................................................... 91 10 EVACUATION ROUTES .................................................................................................................. 101 11 SURVEILLANCE OF EVACUATION OPERATIONS ........................................................................... 111 12 CONFIRMATION TIME .................................................................................................................. 121 13 RECOMMENDATIONS................................................................................................................... 131 KLD Engineering, P.C. ii Revision 3

Turkey Point Evacuation Time Estimate List of Appendicies 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. TELEPHONE SURVEY ........................................................................................................................... F1 F.1 Introduction ............................................................................................................................... F1 F.2 Survey Instrument and Sampling Plan ....................................................................................... F2 F.3 Survey Results ............................................................................................................................ F2 F.3.1 Household Demographic Results ........................................................................................... F3 F.3.2 Evacuation Response ............................................................................................................. F3 F.3.3 Time Distribution Results ....................................................................................................... F4 F.4 Conclusions ................................................................................................................................ F4 G. TRAFFIC MANAGEMENT PLAN .......................................................................................................... G1 G.1 Traffic Control Points ................................................................................................................ G1 G.2 Access Control Points ................................................................................................................ G2 H EVACUATION REGIONS ..................................................................................................................... H1 J. REPRESENTATIVE INPUTS TO AND OUTPUTS FROM THE DYNEV II SYSTEM ..................................... J1 K. EVACUATION ROADWAY NETWORK .................................................................................................. K1 L. AREA BOUNDARIES ............................................................................................................................ L1 M. EVACUATION SENSITIVITY STUDIES ............................................................................................. M1 M.1 Effect of Changes in Trip Generation Times ............................................................................ M1 M.2 Effect of Changes in the Number of People in the Shadow Region Who Relocate ................. M2 M.3 Effect of Changes in EPZ Resident Population ......................................................................... M3 M.4 Effect of Construction of Units 6 & 7 ....................................................................................... M4 N. ETE CRITERIA CHECKLIST ................................................................................................................... N1 Note: Appendix I intentionally skipped KLD Engineering, P.C. iii Revision 3

Turkey Point Evacuation Time Estimate List of Tables Table 11. Stakeholder Interaction ........................................................................................................... 17 Table 12. Highway Characteristics ........................................................................................................... 17 Table 13. ETE Study Comparisons ............................................................................................................ 18 Table 21. Evacuation Scenario Definitions............................................................................................... 25 Table 22. Model Adjustment for Adverse Weather................................................................................. 26 Table 31. EPZ Permanent Resident Population ..................................................................................... 311 Table 32. Permanent Resident Population and Vehicles by Area ......................................................... 311 Table 33. Shadow Population and Vehicles by Sector ........................................................................... 312 Table 34. Summary of Transients and Transient Vehicles ..................................................................... 312 Table 35. Employment by Municipality ................................................................................................. 313 Table 36. Summary of NonEPZ Resident Employees and Employee Vehicles...................................... 314 Table 37. PTN EPZ External Traffic ......................................................................................................... 314 Table 38. HomesteadMiami Speedway Parking Lot Capacity PTN EPZ External Traffic ....................... 315 Table 39. Summary of Population Demand ........................................................................................... 316 Table 310. Summary of Vehicle Demand ............................................................................................... 316 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 ................................................................ 511 Table 55. Time Distribution for Population to Prepare to Evacuate ..................................................... 512 Table 56. Mapping Distribution to Events ............................................................................................. 512 Table 57. Description of the Distributions ............................................................................................. 513 Table 58. Trip Generation Histograms for the EPZ Population for Unstaged Evacuation ..................... 513 Table 59. Trip Generation Histograms for the EPZ Population for Staged Evacuation ......................... 514 Table 61. Description of Evacuation Regions........................................................................................... 63 Table 62. Evacuation Scenario Definitions............................................................................................... 64 Table 63. Percent of Population Groups Evacuating for Various Scenarios ............................................ 65 Table 64. Vehicle Estimates by Scenario.................................................................................................. 66 Table 71. Time to Clear the Indicated Area of 90 Percent of the Affected Population ......................... 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 5Mile Area within the Indicated Region ............................ 712 Table 74. Time to Clear 100 Percent of the 5Mile Area within the Indicated Region .......................... 713 Table 75. Description of Evacuation Regions......................................................................................... 714 Table 81. TransitDependent Population Estimates .............................................................................. 816 Table 82. School Population Demand Estimates ................................................................................... 817 Table 83. School Reception Centers ...................................................................................................... 819 Table 84. Special Facility Transit Demand ............................................................................................. 820 Table 85. Summary of Transportation Needs ........................................................................................ 824 Table 86. Bus Route Descriptions .......................................................................................................... 825 Table 87. School Evacuation Time Estimates Good Weather .............................................................. 828 Table 88. School Evacuation Time Estimates Rain............................................................................... 830 Table 89. Summary of TransitDependent Bus Routes .......................................................................... 832 Table 810. TransitDependent Evacuation Time Estimates Good Weather ........................................ 833 Table 811. TransitDependent Evacuation Time Estimates Rain ......................................................... 834 Table 812. Homebound Special Needs Population Evacuation Time Estimates ................................... 835 Table 121. Estimated Number of Telephone Calls Required for Confirmation of Evacuation .............. 122 KLD Engineering, P.C. iv Revision 3

Turkey Point Evacuation Time Estimate 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 .............................................................................................. E5 Table E3. Major Employers within the EPZ .............................................................................................. E9 Table E4. Parks/Recreational Attractions within the EPZ ...................................................................... E12 Table E5. Lodging Facilities within the EPZ ............................................................................................ E13 Table E6. Correctional Facilities within the EPZ ..................................................................................... E15 Table F1. Turkey Point Telephone Survey Sampling Plan ........................................................................ F5 Table H1. Percent of Area Population Evacuating for Each Region ........................................................ H2 Table J1. Characteristics of the Ten Highest Volume Signalized Intersections........................................ J2 Table J2. Sample Simulation Model Input ............................................................................................... J4 Table J3. Selected Model Outputs for the Evacuation of the Entire EPZ (Region R03) ........................... J5 Table J4. Average Speed (mph) and Travel Time (min) for Major Evacuation Routes (Region R03, Scenario 1) ............................................................................................................................ J6 Table J5. Simulation Model Outputs at Network Exit Links for Region R03, Scenario 1 ......................... J7 Table K1. Evacuation Roadway Network Characteristics ........................................................................ K2 Table K2. Nodes in the LinkNode Analysis Network which are Controlled .......................................... K65 Table M1. Evacuation Time Estimates for Trip Generation Sensitivity Study ....................................... M5 Table M2. Evacuation Time Estimates for Shadow Sensitivity Study .................................................... M5 Table M3. ETE Variation with Population Change ................................................................................. M5 Table M4. Evacuation Time Estimates for Construction Case ............................................................... M6 Table N1. ETE Review Criteria Checklist ................................................................................................. N1 KLD Engineering, P.C. v Revision 3

Turkey Point Evacuation Time Estimate List of Figures Figure 11. Turkey Point Location ........................................................................................................... 111 Figure 12. PTN LinkNode Analysis Network.......................................................................................... 112 Figure 21. Voluntary Evacuation Methodology ....................................................................................... 27 Figure 31. PTN EPZ ................................................................................................................................. 317 Figure 32. Permanent Resident Population by Sector ........................................................................... 318 Figure 33. Permanent Resident Vehicles by Sector ............................................................................... 319 Figure 34. Shadow Population by Sector ............................................................................................... 320 Figure 35. Shadow Vehicles by Sector ................................................................................................... 321 Figure 36. Transient Population by Sector............................................................................................. 322 Figure 37. Transient Vehicles by Sector ................................................................................................. 323 Figure 38. Employee Population by Sector ............................................................................................ 324 Figure 39. Employee Vehicles by Sector ................................................................................................ 325 Figure 41. Fundamental Diagrams ......................................................................................................... 410 Figure 51. Events and Activities Preceding the Evacuation Trip ............................................................ 515 Figure 52. Evacuation Mobilization Activities ........................................................................................ 516 Figure 53. Comparison of Data Distribution and Normal Distribution .................................................. 517 Figure 54. Comparison of Trip Generation Distributions....................................................................... 518 Figure 55. Comparison of Staged and Unstaged Trip Generation Distributions in the 5 to 10 Mile Region .................................................................................................................................. 519 Figure 61. PTN EPZ Areas ......................................................................................................................... 67 Figure 71. Voluntary Evacuation Methodology ..................................................................................... 715 Figure 72. PTN Shadow Region .............................................................................................................. 716 Figure 73. Congestion Patterns at 1 Hour after the Advisory to Evacuate ............................................ 717 Figure 74. Congestion Patterns at 3 Hours after the Advisory to Evacuate .......................................... 718 Figure 75. Congestion Patterns at 5 Hours after the Advisory to Evacuate .......................................... 719 Figure 76. Congestion Patterns at 7 Hours after the Advisory to Evacuate .......................................... 720 Figure 77. Congestion Patterns at10 Hours after the Advisory to Evacuate ......................................... 721 Figure 78. Evacuation Time Estimates Scenario 1 for Region R03 ...................................................... 722 Figure 79. Evacuation Time Estimates Scenario 2 for Region R03 ...................................................... 722 Figure 710. Evacuation Time Estimates Scenario 3 for Region R03 .................................................... 723 Figure 711. Evacuation Time Estimates Scenario 4 for Region R03 .................................................... 723 Figure 712. Evacuation Time Estimates Scenario 5 for Region R03 .................................................... 724 Figure 713. Evacuation Time Estimates Scenario 6 for Region R03 .................................................... 724 Figure 714. Evacuation Time Estimates Scenario 7 for Region R03 .................................................... 725 Figure 715. Evacuation Time Estimates Scenario 8 for Region R03 .................................................... 725 Figure 716. Evacuation Time Estimates Scenario 9 for Region R03 .................................................... 726 Figure 717. Evacuation Time Estimates Scenario 10 for Region R03 .................................................. 726 Figure 718. Evacuation Time Estimates Scenario 11 for Region R03 .................................................. 727 Figure 719. Evacuation Time Estimates Scenario 12 for Region R03 .................................................. 727 Figure 81. Chronology of Transit Evacuation Operations ...................................................................... 814 Figure 82. TransitDependent Bus Routes ............................................................................................. 815 Figure 101. General Population Reception Centers .............................................................................. 102 Figure 102. Host Schools ........................................................................................................................ 103 Figure 103. Evacuation Route Map ........................................................................................................ 104 Figure B1. Flow Diagram of SimulationDTRAD Interface........................................................................ B5 Figure C1. Representative Analysis Network ......................................................................................... C12 KLD Engineering, P.C. vi Revision 3

Turkey Point Evacuation Time Estimate Figure C2. Fundamental Diagrams ......................................................................................................... C13 Figure C3. A UNIT Problem Configurations 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 .......................................................................................................... E16 Figure E2. Schools within the EPZ .......................................................................................................... E17 Figure E3. Medical Facilities within the EPZ .......................................................................................... E18 Figure E4. Medical Facilities within the EPZ .......................................................................................... E19 Figure E5. Medical Facilities within the EPZ .......................................................................................... E20 Figure E6. Major Employers within the EPZ ........................................................................................... E21 Figure E7. Major Employers within the EPZ ........................................................................................... E22 Figure E8. Major Employers within the EPZ ........................................................................................... E23 Figure E9. Recreational Areas within the EPZ ........................................................................................ E24 Figure E10. Lodging Facilities within the EPZ ......................................................................................... E25 Figure E11. Lodging Facilities within the EPZ ......................................................................................... E26 Figure E12. Correctional Facilities with the EPZ .................................................................................... E27 Figure F1. Household Size in the EPZ ....................................................................................................... F6 Figure F2. Household Vehicle Availability ................................................................................................ F6 Figure F3. Vehicle Availability 1 to 5 Person Household ....................................................................... F7 Figure F4. Vehicle Availability 6 to 9+ Person Household ..................................................................... F7 Figure F5. Commuters in Households in the EPZ ..................................................................................... F8 Figure F6. Modes of Travel in the EPZ ..................................................................................................... F8 Figure F7. Number of Vehicles Used for Evacuation ............................................................................... F9 Figure F8. Households Evacuating with Pets ........................................................................................... F9 Figure F9. Time Required to Prepare to Leave Work/School ................................................................ F10 Figure F10. Work to Home Travel Time ................................................................................................. F10 Figure F11. Time to Prepare Home for Evacuation................................................................................ F11 Figure G1. Traffic Control Points for the PTN Site .................................................................................. G3 Figure H1. Region R01 ............................................................................................................................. H3 Figure H2. Region R02 ............................................................................................................................. H4 Figure H3. Region R03 ............................................................................................................................. H5 Figure H4. Region R04 ............................................................................................................................. H6 Figure H5. Region R05 ............................................................................................................................. H7 Figure H6. Region R06 ............................................................................................................................. H8 Figure H7. Region R07 ............................................................................................................................. H9 Figure H8. Region R08 ........................................................................................................................... H10 Figure H9. Region R09 ........................................................................................................................... H11 Figure H10. Region R10 ......................................................................................................................... H12 Figure H11. Region R11 ......................................................................................................................... H13 Figure H12. Region R12 ......................................................................................................................... H14 Figure H13. Region R13 ......................................................................................................................... H15 Figure H14. Region R14 ......................................................................................................................... H16 Figure H15. Region R15 ......................................................................................................................... H17 Figure H16. Region R16 ......................................................................................................................... H18 Figure H17. Region R17 ......................................................................................................................... H19 Figure H18. Region R18 ......................................................................................................................... H20 Figure H19. Region R19 ......................................................................................................................... H21 KLD Engineering, P.C. vii Revision 3

Turkey Point Evacuation Time Estimate Figure H20. Region R20 ......................................................................................................................... H22 Figure J2. ETE and Trip Generation: Summer, Midweek, Midday, Rain (Scenario 2) .............................. J8 Figure J3. ETE and Trip Generation: Summer, Weekend, Midday, Good Weather (Scenario 3) ............. J9 Figure J4. ETE and Trip Generation: Summer, Weekend, Midday, Rain (Scenario 4).............................. J9 Figure J5. ETE and Trip Generation: Summer, Midweek, Weekend, Evening, Good Weather (Scenario 5) ..................................................................................................................... J10 Figure J6. ETE and Trip Generation: Winter, Midweek, Midday, Good Weather (Scenario 6).............. J10 Figure J7. ETE and Trip Generation: Winter, Midweek, Midday, Rain (Scenario 7) .............................. J11 Figure J8. ETE and Trip Generation: Winter, Weekend, Midday, Good Weather (Scenario 8) ............. J11 Figure J9. ETE and Trip Generation: Winter, Weekend, Midday, Rain (Scenario 9) .............................. J12 Figure J10. ETE and Trip Generation: Winter, Midweek, Evening, Good Weather (Scenario 10) ......... J12 Figure J11. ETE and Trip Generation: Winter, Weekend, Midday, Good Weather, Special Event (Scenario 11) ...................................................................................................................... J13 Figure J12. ETE and Trip Generation: Summer, Midweek, Midday, Good Weather, Roadway Impact (Scenario 12) ................................................................................................................ J13 Figure K1. Turkey Point LinkNode Analysis Network............................................................................ K77 Figure K2. LinkNode Analysis Network Grid 1 .................................................................................... K78 Figure K3. LinkNode Analysis Network Grid 2 .................................................................................... K79 Figure K4. LinkNode Analysis Network Grid 3 .................................................................................... K80 Figure K5. LinkNode Analysis Network Grid 4 .................................................................................... K81 Figure K6. LinkNode Analysis Network Grid 5 .................................................................................... K82 Figure K7. LinkNode Analysis Network Grid 6 .................................................................................... K83 Figure K8. LinkNode Analysis Network Grid 7 .................................................................................... K84 Figure K9. LinkNode Analysis Network Grid 8 .................................................................................... K85 Figure K10. LinkNode Analysis Network Grid 9 .................................................................................. K86 Figure K11. LinkNode Analysis Network Grid 10 ................................................................................ K87 Figure K12. LinkNode Analysis Network Grid 11 ................................................................................ K88 Figure K13. LinkNode Analysis Network Grid 12 ................................................................................ K89 Figure K14. LinkNode Analysis Network Grid 13 ................................................................................ K90 Figure K15. LinkNode Analysis Network Grid 14 ................................................................................ K91 Figure K16. LinkNode Analysis Network Grid 15 ................................................................................ K92 Figure K17. LinkNode Analysis Network Grid 16 ................................................................................ K93 Figure K18. LinkNode Analysis Network Grid 17 ................................................................................ K94 Figure K19. LinkNode Analysis Network Grid 18 ................................................................................ K95 Figure K20. LinkNode Analysis Network Grid 19 ................................................................................ K96 Figure K21. LinkNode Analysis Network Grid 20 ................................................................................ K97 Figure K22. LinkNode Analysis Network Grid 21 ................................................................................ K98 Figure K23. LinkNode Analysis Network Grid 22 ................................................................................ K99 Figure K24. LinkNode Analysis Network Grid 23 .............................................................................. K100 Figure K25. LinkNode Analysis Network Grid 24 .............................................................................. K101 Figure K26. LinkNode Analysis Network Grid 25 .............................................................................. K102 Figure K27. LinkNode Analysis Network Grid 26 .............................................................................. K103 Figure K28. LinkNode Analysis Network Grid 27 .............................................................................. K104 KLD Engineering, P.C. viii Revision 3

Turkey Point Evacuation Time Estimate Figure K29. LinkNode Analysis Network Grid 28 .............................................................................. K105 Figure K30. LinkNode Analysis Network Grid 29 .............................................................................. K106 Figure K31. LinkNode Analysis Network Grid 30 .............................................................................. K107 Figure K32. LinkNode Analysis Network Grid 31 .............................................................................. K108 Figure K33. LinkNode Analysis Network Grid 32 .............................................................................. K109 KLD Engineering, P.C. ix Revision 3

Turkey Point Evacuation Time Estimate EXECUTIVE

SUMMARY

This report describes the analyses undertaken and the results obtained by a study to develop Evacuation Time Estimates (ETE) for the Turkey Point Nuclear Power Plant (PTN) located approximately 25 miles south of Miami, Florida. ETE are part of the required planning basis and provide Florida Power & Light Company (FPL) 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:

Criteria for Development of Evacuation Time Estimate Studies, NUREG/CR7002, December 2011.

Criteria for Preparation and Evaluation of Radiological Emergency Response Plans and Preparedness in Support of Nuclear Power Plants, NUREG0654/FEMAREP1, Rev. 1, November 1980.

Development of Evacuation Time Estimates for Nuclear Power Plants, NUREG/CR6863, January 2005.

10CFR50, Appendix E - Emergency Planning and Preparedness for Production and Utilization Facilities Overview of Project Activities This project began in April 2008 with Revision 0 of the ETE report (KLD Technical Report 428) completed in April 2009. Requests for additional information (RAIs) were generated by the NRC during their review of Revision 0. Responses to the RAIs were submitted to the NRC and incorporated into Revision 1 of the ETE report completed in September 2010. This study (began in February 2012) addresses the new NRC emergency planning rule and ETE guidance published in December 2011. While this report incorporates data from the previous studies, it is a new report (Technical Report 509) which is applicable for the operational Units 3 & 4 and the proposed Units 6 & 7. The major activities performed during this study are briefly described in chronological sequence:

Attended kickoff meetings with FPL personnel and emergency management personnel representing state and county governments.

Accessed U.S. Census Bureau data files for the year 2010. Studied Geographical Information Systems (GIS) maps of the area in the vicinity of the PTN, then conducted a detailed field survey of the highway network.

Synthesized this information to create an 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 PTN.

KLD Engineering, P.C. ES1 Revision 3

Turkey Point Evacuation Time Estimate Designed and sponsored a telephone survey of residents within the EPZ to gather focused data needed for this ETE study that were not contained within the census database. The survey instrument was reviewed and modified by the licensee and offsite response organization (ORO) personnel prior to the survey.

In 2009, a comprehensive data gathering was undertaken with the assistance of the emergency management agencies (EMAs) for MiamiDade and Monroe Counties to identify employee, transient and special facility data for the EPZ in support of the ETE study for the combined license application (COLA). The data gathered were reviewed and updated accordingly by the county EMAs. Telephone calls to specific facilities supplemented the data provided.

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

Following federal guidelines, the EPZ is subdivided into 10 areas. These areas are then grouped within circular areas or keyhole configurations (circles plus radial sectors) that define a total of 20 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 or Rain). One special event scenario - NASCAR championship race at the Homestead Miami Speedway - was considered. One roadway impact scenario was considered wherein a single lane was closed on the Florida Turnpike northbound for the duration of the evacuation.

Staged evacuation was considered for those regions wherein the 5 mile radius and sectors downwind to the EPZ boundary were evacuated.

As per NUREG/CR7002, the planning basis for the calculation of ETE is:

A rapidly escalating accident at the PTN that quickly assumes the status of General Emergency such that the advisory to evacuate (ATE) is virtually coincident with the siren alert, and no early protective actions have been implemented.

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

KLD Engineering, P.C. ES2 Revision 3

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

Computation of ETE A total of 240 ETEs were computed for the evacuation of the general public. Each ETE quantifies the aggregate evacuation time estimated for the population within one of the 20 evacuation regions to evacuate from that Region, under the circumstances defined for one of the 12 evacuation scenarios (20 x 12 = 240). 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% of the population within the EPZ but outside the impacted region, will elect to voluntarily evacuate. In addition, 20% of the population in the shadow region will also elect to evacuate. These voluntary evacuees could impede those who are evacuating from within the impacted region. The impedance that could be caused by voluntary evacuees is considered in the computation of ETE for the impacted region.

Staged evacuation is considered wherein those people within the 5mile region evacuate immediately, while those beyond 5 miles, but within the EPZ, shelterinplace. Once 90% of the 5mile region is evacuated, those people beyond 5 miles begin to evacuate. Note that the federal guidance suggests staged evacuation of the 2mile regions and sectors downwind to 5 miles. However, MiamiDade and Monroe Counties only consider keyhole evacuations wherein the 5mile region and sectors downwind to the EPZ boundary evacuate. As per federal guidance, 20% of people beyond 5 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 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.

KLD Engineering, P.C. ES3 Revision 3

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

The ETE statistics provide the elapsed times for 90 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.

The use of a public outreach (information) program to emphasize the need for evacuees to minimize the time needed to prepare to evacuate (secure the home, assemble needed clothes, medicines, etc.) should also be considered.

Traffic Management This study references the comprehensive traffic management plans provided by MiamiDade and Monroe Counties, and identifies critical intersections.

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.

Figure 61 displays a map of the PTN EPZ showing the layout of the 10 areas that comprise, in aggregate, the EPZ.

Table 31 presents the estimates of permanent resident population in each Area based on the 2010 Census data.

Table 61 defines each of the 20 evacuation regions in terms of their respective groups of Areas.

Table 62 lists the evacuation scenarios considered.

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 5mile region for unstaged and staged evacuations for the 90th and 100th percentiles, respectively.

Table 87 presents ETE for the schoolchildren in good weather.

Table 810 presents ETE for the transitdependent population in good weather.

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.

KLD Engineering, P.C. ES4 Revision 3

Turkey Point Evacuation Time Estimate Conclusions General population ETE were computed for 240 unique cases - a combination of 20 unique Evacuation Regions and 12 unique evacuation scenarios. Table 71 and Table 72 document these ETE for the 90th and 100th percentiles. These ETE range from 1:20 (hr:min) to 8:20 at the 90th percentile.

Inspection of Table 71 and Table 72 indicates that the ETE for the 100th percentile are significantly longer than those for the 90th percentile. This is the result of the congestion within the EPZ. When the roadway 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. See Figures 78 through 719.

Inspection of Tables 71 through 74 indicates that staged evacuation would be beneficial for evacuating the population within the 5mile region of PTN. The ETE for the 5mile region are significantly longer when evacuating additional areas beyond 5 miles due to the routing of vehicles from beyond 5 miles into the 5mile region to access the Florida Turnpike. Although staged evacuation is disadvantageous to those beyond 5 miles, it does expedite the evacuation of those evacuees from within the 5mile region.

Comparison of scenarios 8 (winter, weekend, midday) and 11 (winter, weekend, midday, NASCAR race) in Table 72 indicates that the special event has a material effect (increases of as much as 3 hours3.472222e-5 days 8.333333e-4 hours 4.960317e-6 weeks 1.1415e-6 months ) on the 100th percentile ETE for regions that evacuate beyond 5 miles from the plant. See Section 7.5 for additional discussion.

Comparison of scenarios 1 and 12 in Table 71 indicates that the roadway closure - one lane northbound on the Florida Turnpike from the interchange with US 1 to the interchange with the Don Shula Expressway - does have a material impact on 90th percentile ETE for keyhole regions with wind toward the north and west (Regions R07 through R11) and for the full EPZ (Region R03), with up to 1 hour1.157407e-5 days 2.777778e-4 hours 1.653439e-6 weeks 3.805e-7 months increases in ETE. See Section 7.5 for additional discussion.

U.S. Highway 1, Krome Ave, and the Florida Turnpike northbound are the most congested evacuation routes. The last location in the EPZ to exhibit traffic congestion is Krome Ave. All congestion within the EPZ clears by 10 hours1.157407e-4 days 0.00278 hours 1.653439e-5 weeks 3.805e-6 months after the ATE. See Section 7.3 and Figures 73 through 77.

Separate ETE were computed for schools, medical facilities, transitdependent persons, homebound special needs persons and correctional facilities. The average singlewave ETE for these facilities are comparable to the general population ETE at the 90th percentile. See Section 8.

Table 85 summarizes the transportation resources that are required to evacuate the transitdependent population. If a second wave of transportation resources is required, the average twowave ETE for buses do exceed the general population ETE for region R03 at the 90th percentile. See Sections 8.4 and 8.5.

The current traffic management plans for MiamiDade and Monroe Counties are sufficient and this study has not identified any necessary changes to the plans.

KLD Engineering, P.C. ES5 Revision 3

Turkey Point Evacuation Time Estimate The general population ETE at the 90th and 100th percentiles are insensitive to reductions in the base trip generation time of 8 hours9.259259e-5 days 0.00222 hours 1.322751e-5 weeks 3.044e-6 months due to the traffic congestion within the EPZ. See Table M1.

The general population ETE is sensitive to increased shadow evacuation. Tripling the shadow evacuation percentage increases 90th percentile and 100th percentile ETE by 30 minutes and 1 hour1.157407e-5 days 2.777778e-4 hours 1.653439e-6 weeks 3.805e-7 months and 20 minutes, respectively. See Table M2.

The ETE for the full EPZ (Region R03) is sensitive to changes in population growth. A full ETE update would be needed for population growth of 9% or more, or a reduction of 10% or more, between decennial Censuses. See Table M3.

Because of the planned traffic treatments to be implemented during the construction of Units 6 and 7, the ETE for the twomile region is not materially impacted - 15 minute decreases for the 90th percentile ETE. However, the 90th and 100th percentile ETE for the full EPZ increases by 2:20 and 2:50, respectively, due to the significant increase in permanent resident and shadow populations due to the extrapolation to year 2019. See Table M4.

KLD Engineering, P.C. ES6 Revision 3

Turkey Point Evacuation Time Estimate Figure 61. PTN EPZ Areas KLD Engineering, P.C. ES7 Revision 3

Turkey Point Evacuation Time Estimate Table 31. EPZ Permanent Resident Population Area 2000 Population 2010 Population 1 0 0 2 0 0 3 0 0 4 5,217 7,506 5 33,753 44,816 6 29087 43,313 7 15,288 20,153 8 55,982 89,322 9 409 116 10 932 1,103 TOTAL 140,668 206,329 EPZ Population Growth: 46.68%

KLD Engineering, P.C. ES8 Revision 3

Turkey Point Evacuation Time Estimate Table 61. Description of Evacuation Regions EAS Area Message Region Description 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 R01 2Mile Ring x x 4 R02 5Mile Ring x x x x 5&9 R03 Full EPZ x x x x x x x x x x 6 Evacuate 5Mile Radius and Downwind to EPZ Boundary Area Region Wind Direction Towards: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 EAS Message R04 N x x x x x x x 16 R05 NNE x x x x x x 7 N/A NE, ENE, E, ESE, SE, SSE, S Refer to Region R02 5&9 R06 SSW x x x x x 11 R07 SW, WSW x x x x x x 12 R08 W x x x x x x x 13 R09 WNW, NW x x x x x x x 14 R10 NNW x x x x x x x x 15 Site Specific Regions Area Region Wind Direction Towards: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 EAS Message R11 x x x x x x x x 8 Staged Evacuation 5Mile Radius Evacuates, then Evacuate Downwind to EPZ Boundary Area Region Wind Direction Towards: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 EAS Message R12 Full EPZ x x x x x x x x x x N/A R13 N x x x x x x x N/A R14 NNE x x x x x x N/A N/A NE, ENE, E, ESE, SE, SSE, S Refer to Region R02 N/A R15 SSW x x x x x N/A R16 SW, WSW x x x x x x N/A R17 W x x x x x x x N/A R18 WNW, NW x x x x x x x N/A R19 NNW x x x x x x x x N/A R20 x x x x x x x x N/A ShelterinPlace until 90% ETE for R02, then Evacuate Area(s) ShelterinPlace Area(s) Evacuate KLD Engineering, P.C. ES9 Revision 3

Turkey Point Evacuation Time Estimate Table 62. Evacuation Scenario Definitions Day of Time of Scenario Season1 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 Weekend Evening Good None 6 Winter Midweek Midday Good None 7 Winter Midweek Midday Rain None 8 Winter Weekend Midday Good None 9 Winter Weekend Midday Rain None Midweek, 10 Winter Weekend Evening Good None NASCAR Race at HomesteadMiami 11 Winter Weekend Midday Good Speedway Roadway Impact - Lane Closure on Florida 12 Summer Midweek Midday Good Turnpike NB 1

Winter assumes that school is in session (also applies to spring and autumn). Summer assumes that school is not in session.

KLD Engineering, P.C. ES10 Revision 3

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

Midday Midday Evening Midday Midday Evening Midday Midday Region Good Good Good Good Good Good Special Roadway Rain Rain Rain Rain Weather Weather Weather Weather Weather Weather Event Impact Entire 2Mile Region, 5Mile Region, and EPZ R01 1:35 1:35 1:20 1:20 1:20 1:35 1:35 1:20 1:20 1:20 1:20 1:35 R02 3:25 3:25 3:15 3:15 3:20 3:25 3:25 3:15 3:15 3:20 2:25 3:25 R03 6:55 7:20 6:00 6:15 5:40 6:55 7:15 6:10 6:10 5:45 8:15 7:30 5Mile Region and Keyhole to EPZ Boundary R04 4:10 4:25 3:50 4:10 3:40 4:10 4:35 3:50 4:05 3:40 4:20 4:15 R05 3:45 4:00 3:20 3:40 3:25 3:45 4:00 3:30 3:45 3:25 3:45 3:45 R06 2:35 2:35 2:25 2:25 2:45 2:30 2:30 2:20 2:25 2:45 2:15 2:35 R07 5:20 5:40 4:55 5:00 5:05 5:30 5:40 4:45 5:00 4:55 6:35 5:40 R08 6:00 6:20 5:35 5:35 5:20 6:00 6:35 5:30 5:55 5:20 7:25 6:55 R09 6:30 6:50 5:40 6:05 5:25 6:35 7:05 5:45 6:05 5:35 8:00 7:15 R10 6:50 7:20 6:05 6:30 5:25 7:00 7:15 6:10 6:20 5:25 8:20 7:25 Site Specific Regions R11 6:25 6:50 5:40 6:10 5:25 6:35 7:10 5:40 6:05 5:30 8:00 7:25 Staged Evacuation 5Mile Region and Keyhole to EPZ Boundary R12 7:25 7:55 7:30 7:30 7:20 7:25 7:40 7:20 7:30 7:25 8:00 R13 5:45 5:55 5:45 6:00 5:50 5:45 6:00 5:45 5:55 5:45 5:45 R14 5:35 5:45 5:40 5:50 5:40 5:35 5:50 5:40 5:45 5:35 5:35 R15 4:00 4:00 4:00 4:00 4:15 4:00 4:00 4:00 4:00 4:15 4:00 R16 6:20 6:25 6:15 6:20 6:15 6:15 6:25 6:20 6:25 6:15 N/A 6:30 R17 6:55 7:20 6:55 7:15 6:50 6:55 7:10 6:50 7:10 6:55 7:20 R18 7:15 7:30 7:05 7:35 7:00 7:15 7:35 7:05 7:20 6:55 7:40 R19 7:30 7:35 7:25 7:45 7:20 7:10 7:50 7:35 7:45 7:20 7:55 R20 7:15 7:30 7:10 7:30 7:05 7:20 7:35 7:05 7:25 7:00 7:45 KLD Engineering, P.C. ES11 Revision 3

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

Midday Midday Evening Midday Midday Evening Midday Midday Region Good Good Good Good Good Good Special Roadway Rain Rain Rain Rain Weather Weather Weather Weather Weather Weather Event Impact Entire 2Mile Region, 5Mile Region, and EPZ R01 2:10 2:10 2:00 2:05 2:00 2:10 2:10 2:00 2:05 2:00 2:00 2:10 R02 8:05 8:05 8:05 8:05 8:05 8:05 8:05 8:05 8:05 8:05 8:05 8:05 R03 9:40 10:30 9:05 9:40 8:35 10:05 10:50 9:15 9:30 8:15 12:15 10:15 5Mile Region and Keyhole to EPZ Boundary R04 8:10 8:10 8:10 8:10 8:10 8:10 8:10 8:10 8:10 8:10 8:10 8:10 R05 8:10 8:10 8:10 8:10 8:10 8:10 8:10 8:10 8:10 8:10 8:10 8:10 R06 8:10 8:10 8:10 8:10 8:10 8:10 8:10 8:10 8:10 8:10 8:10 8:10 R07 8:35 9:25 8:10 8:40 8:10 8:30 9:30 8:10 8:20 8:10 10:35 9:10 R08 9:25 9:35 8:25 8:50 8:10 9:05 10:25 8:20 9:45 8:35 11:00 9:45 R09 9:25 10:30 9:00 9:30 8:50 9:40 10:30 8:25 9:40 8:55 11:30 10:00 R10 9:55 10:45 9:35 10:00 8:35 9:50 10:45 9:20 9:50 8:45 12:05 10:30 Site Specific Regions R11 9:20 10:15 8:55 9:40 8:45 9:50 10:55 8:50 9:30 8:45 11:00 10:20 Staged Evacuation 5Mile Region and Keyhole to EPZ Boundary R12 10:05 11:05 10:35 10:35 9:45 10:15 11:25 10:05 10:25 9:40 10:50 R13 8:10 8:10 8:10 8:10 8:10 8:10 8:10 8:10 8:10 8:10 8:10 R14 8:10 8:10 8:10 8:10 8:10 8:10 8:10 8:10 8:10 8:10 8:10 R15 8:10 8:10 8:10 8:10 8:10 8:10 8:10 8:10 8:10 8:10 8:10 R16 9:20 10:00 9:20 9:50 9:20 9:35 10:00 9:00 9:55 8:55 N/A 10:10 R17 9:50 10:30 9:40 10:35 9:20 10:15 10:15 9:30 10:25 9:15 10:05 R18 10:15 10:45 9:40 10:55 9:10 10:20 11:05 10:10 10:35 9:45 10:40 R19 10:10 11:20 10:30 10:50 9:55 10:10 11:20 10:40 10:55 9:50 11:00 R20 10:15 10:55 9:35 11:00 9:45 10:25 11:00 9:55 10:35 9:55 10:35 KLD Engineering, P.C. ES12 Revision 3

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

Midday Midday Evening Midday Midday Evening Midday Midday Region Good Good Good Good Good Good Special Roadway Rain Rain Rain Rain Weather Weather Weather Weather Weather Weather Event Impact Unstaged Evacuation 5Mile Region and Keyhole to EPZ Boundary R02 3:25 3:25 3:15 3:15 3:20 3:25 3:25 3:15 3:15 3:20 2:25 3:25 R03 5:40 5:55 4:40 5:05 4:20 5:40 6:00 4:50 5:00 4:25 7:45 6:50 R04 3:35 3:35 3:20 3:20 3:25 3:35 3:35 3:20 3:20 3:25 2:55 3:35 R05 3:35 3:35 3:20 3:20 3:25 3:30 3:30 3:20 3:20 3:25 2:45 3:35 R06 3:25 3:25 3:20 3:20 3:20 3:25 3:25 3:15 3:15 3:20 2:30 3:25 R07 4:15 4:10 3:40 3:40 3:30 4:30 4:40 3:30 3:40 3:25 6:25 5:00 R08 4:35 4:45 4:00 4:10 3:35 4:25 4:40 4:00 4:10 3:45 6:55 5:50 R09 5:20 5:25 4:20 4:35 4:00 4:55 5:40 4:20 4:45 4:05 7:10 6:30 R10 5:25 5:55 4:40 5:05 4:05 5:45 5:50 4:55 4:55 4:15 7:50 6:35 R11 4:55 5:20 4:15 4:45 4:05 5:05 5:50 4:25 4:35 4:00 7:25 6:25 Staged Evacuation 5Mile Region and Keyhole to EPZ Boundary R12 6:15 6:35 6:20 6:20 6:10 6:15 6:25 6:10 6:25 6:20 7:05 R13 4:35 4:40 4:35 4:40 4:35 4:35 4:35 4:35 4:35 4:35 4:35 R14 4:30 4:30 4:30 4:30 4:30 4:25 4:30 4:30 4:30 4:30 4:30 R15 4:25 4:25 4:25 4:25 4:25 4:20 4:20 4:25 4:25 4:25 4:25 R16 5:30 5:45 5:45 5:45 5:35 5:35 5:40 5:40 6:00 5:40 N/A 6:10 R17 5:40 5:45 5:40 6:10 5:45 5:40 5:45 5:45 5:55 5:50 6:30 R18 6:00 6:10 6:05 6:10 6:00 6:00 6:15 6:00 6:10 5:55 6:45 R19 6:10 6:25 6:10 6:25 6:10 6:05 6:35 6:20 6:30 6:15 6:45 R20 6:05 6:20 6:00 6:10 6:05 6:05 6:15 6:00 6:10 6:00 6:50 KLD Engineering, P.C. ES13 Revision 3

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

Midday Midday Evening Midday Midday Evening Midday Midday Region Good Good Good Good Good Good Special Roadway Rain Rain Rain Rain Weather Weather Weather Weather Weather Weather Event Impact Unstaged Evacuation 5Mile Region and Keyhole to EPZ Boundary R02 8:05 8:05 8:05 8:05 8:05 8:05 8:05 8:05 8:05 8:05 8:05 8:05 R03 8:05 8:05 8:05 8:05 8:05 8:05 8:05 8:05 8:05 8:05 9:35 8:05 R04 8:05 8:05 8:05 8:05 8:05 8:05 8:05 8:05 8:05 8:05 8:05 8:05 R05 8:05 8:05 8:05 8:05 8:05 8:05 8:05 8:05 8:05 8:05 8:05 8:05 R06 8:05 8:05 8:05 8:05 8:05 8:05 8:05 8:05 8:05 8:05 8:05 8:05 R07 8:05 8:05 8:05 8:05 8:05 8:05 8:05 8:05 8:05 8:05 8:40 8:05 R08 8:05 8:05 8:05 8:05 8:05 8:05 8:05 8:05 8:05 8:05 8:25 8:05 R09 8:05 8:05 8:05 8:05 8:05 8:05 8:05 8:05 8:05 8:05 9:20 8:05 R10 8:05 8:05 8:05 8:05 8:05 8:05 8:05 8:05 8:05 8:05 9:45 8:05 R11 8:05 8:05 8:05 8:05 8:05 8:05 8:05 8:05 8:05 8:05 10:10 8:05 Staged Evacuation 5Mile Region and Keyhole to EPZ Boundary R12 8:05 8:05 8:05 8:05 8:05 8:05 8:05 8:05 8:05 8:05 8:20 R13 8:05 8:05 8:05 8:05 8:05 8:05 8:05 8:05 8:05 8:05 8:05 R14 8:05 8:05 8:05 8:05 8:05 8:05 8:05 8:05 8:05 8:05 8:05 R15 8:05 8:05 8:05 8:05 8:05 8:05 8:05 8:05 8:05 8:05 8:05 R16 8:05 8:05 8:05 8:05 8:05 8:20 8:05 8:05 8:05 8:05 N/A 8:05 R17 8:05 8:05 8:05 8:05 8:05 8:05 8:05 8:05 8:05 8:05 8:05 R18 8:05 8:05 8:05 8:05 8:05 8:05 8:05 8:05 8:05 8:05 8:05 R19 8:05 8:05 8:05 8:05 8:05 8:05 8:05 8:05 8:05 8:05 8:20 R20 8:05 8:05 8:05 8:05 8:05 8:05 8:05 8:05 8:05 8:05 8:10 KLD Engineering, P.C. ES14 Revision 3

Turkey Point Evacuation Time Estimate Table 87. School Evacuation Time Estimates - Good Weather Travel Time Travel Dist. from Dist. Time to EPZ EPZ Driver Loading To EPZ Average EPZ Bdry to Bdry to ETE to Mobilization Time Bdry Speed Bdry ETE H.S. H.S. H.S.

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

MIAMIDADE COUNTY SCHOOLS Air Base Elementary 105 15 10.4 6.3 99 3:40 3.5 5 3:45 Aspira South Youth Leadership Charter 105 15 7.9 8.5 56 3:00 12.3 17 3:15 School Avocado Elementary School 105 15 11.3 2.6 262 6:25 2.9 4 6:30 Balere Language Academy 105 15 0.9 2.5 22 2:25 12.3 17 2:40 Barrington Academy 105 15 2.9 1.5 117 4:00 25.5 34 4:35 BelAire Elementary School 105 15 1 14.8 5 2:05 6.9 10 2:15 Campbell Drive Elementary School 105 15 10.8 3.7 178 5:00 5.4 8 5:10 Campbell Drive Middle School 105 15 12.1 2.8 264 6:25 5.4 8 6:35 Caribbean Elementary School 105 15 2.7 5.8 28 2:30 8.1 11 2:40 Centennial Middle School 105 15 2.5 10.5 15 2:15 5.2 7 2:25 Chapman Elementary School 105 15 7.6 19.5 24 2:25 1.4 2 2:30 Coconut Palm K8 Academy 105 15 4.8 2.4 119 4:00 2.3 4 4:05 Cooper, Neva King Educational Center 105 15 4.3 2.7 95 3:35 13.4 18 3:55 Coral Reef Montessori Academy Charter 105 15 1.5 1.6 58 3:00 12.3 17 3:15 School Corporate Academy South 105 15 13.8 5.1 164 4:45 2.3 4 4:50 Cutler Ridge Elementary School 105 15 1.9 3.2 37 2:40 2.3 4 2:45 Cutler Ridge Middle School 105 15 1.2 6.7 11 2:15 2.3 4 2:15 Florida City Elementary 105 15 3.7 2.5 89 3:30 20.3 28 4:00 Gateway Environmental K8 105 15 12.5 2.7 284 6:45 5.4 8 6:55 Goulds Elementary School 105 15 3.8 1.5 150 4:30 2.6 4 4:35 Gulfstream Elementary School 105 15 2.5 3.3 46 2:50 2.3 4 2:50 Homestead Middle 105 15 2.9 1.5 117 4:00 15.5 21 4:20 Homestead Senior 105 15 12.3 2.7 0 2:00 12.2 17 2:20 KLD Engineering, P.C. ES15 Revision 3

Turkey Point Evacuation Time Estimate Travel Time Travel Dist. from Dist. Time to EPZ EPZ Driver Loading To EPZ Average EPZ Bdry to Bdry to ETE to Mobilization Time Bdry Speed Bdry ETE H.S. H.S. H.S.

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

Keys Gate Charter School 105 15 11.2 8.0 84 3:25 12.3 17 3:45 Lawrence Academy 105 15 5.3 2.8 115 3:55 23.0 31 4:30 Leisure City K8 Center 105 15 9.1 1.8 312 7:15 2.4 4 7:20 Mandarin Lakes K8 Academy 105 15 7.8 5.6 84 3:25 8.4 12 3:40 MAST @ Homestead 105 15 10.2 2.8 223 5:45 12.3 17 6:00 Mays Middle School 105 15 1.8 1.6 69 3:10 2.3 4 3:15 Miami Community Charter School 105 15 3.6 2.5 86 3:30 25.0 34 4:00 Migrant Educational Program 105 15 10.8 2.8 229 5:50 5.3 8 6:00 Naranja Elementary School 105 15 7.3 2.0 224 5:45 5.3 8 5:55 Peskoe Elementary School 105 15 8.7 8.3 63 3:05 4.6 7 3:10 Pine Villa Elementary School 105 15 2.3 2.3 60 3:00 2.3 4 3:05 (a)

Redland Elementary 105 15 10.3 2.4 261 6:25 20.8 28 6:50 Redland Middle 105 15 0.0 4.9 1 2:05 20.2 27 2:30 (a)

Redondo Elementary 105 15 12.3 2.7 274 6:35 2.3 4 6:40 Saunders, Laura C. Elementary 105 15 3.8 1.5 150 4:30 15.3 21 4:55 South Dade Senior High School 105 15 2.3 1.5 93 3:35 16.3 22 3:55 (a)

West Homestead Elementary 105 15 13.7 2.0 414 8:55 3.3 5 9:00 Whigham, Dr. E.L. Elementary 105 15 2.8 10.3 17 2:20 6.3 9 2:30 Whispering Pines Elementary 105 15 0.8 5.3 10 2:10 5.1 7 2:20 Maximum for EPZ: 8:55 Maximum: 9:00 Average for EPZ: 4:00 Average: 4:15 (a) According to MiamiDade County, Redland Elementary, Redondo Elementary, and West Homestead Elementary are outside of the EPZ, but are nonetheless evacuated because they are close to the EPZ boundary.

KLD Engineering, P.C. ES16 Revision 3

Turkey Point Evacuation Time Estimate Table 810. TransitDependent Evacuation Time Estimates - Good Weather OneWave TwoWave Route Travel Route Route Travel Pickup Distance Time to Driver Travel Pickup Route Bus Mobilization Length Speed Time Time ETE to R. C. R. C. Unload Rest Time Time ETE Number Number (min) (miles) (mph) (min) (min) (hr:min) (miles) (min) (min) (min) (min) (min) (hr:min) 116 180 18.8 28.1 40 30 4:15 7.8 10 5 10 41 30 5:50 33030 1732 200 18.8 28.9 39 30 4:30 7.8 10 5 10 38 30 6:05 3348 220 18.8 29.9 38 30 4:50 7.8 10 5 10 36 30 6:20 133 180 14.0 16.3 52 30 4:25 7.8 10 5 10 89 30 6:50 33032 3367 200 14.0 18.7 45 30 4:35 7.8 10 5 10 77 30 6:50 119 160 19.3 23.8 49 30 4:00 7.8 10 5 10 51 30 5:45 2039 180 19.3 26.2 44 30 4:15 7.8 10 5 10 50 30 6:00 33033 4059 200 19.3 26.9 43 30 4:35 7.8 10 5 10 49 30 6:20 6079 220 19.3 27.3 42 30 4:55 7.8 10 5 10 48 30 6:40 8095 240 19.3 27.5 42 30 5:15 7.8 10 5 10 46 30 6:55 33034 113 180 19.9 40.1 30 30 4:00 7.8 10 5 10 37 30 5:35

1 1426 200 19.9 42.7 28 30 4:20 7.8 10 5 10 37 30 5:55 33034 113 180 16.6 47.0 21 30 3:55 7.8 10 5 10 31 30 5:20

2 1426 200 16.6 47.3 21 30 4:15 7.8 10 5 10 31 30 5:40 115 180 9.7 18.0 32 30 4:05 7.8 10 5 10 40 30 5:40 33157 1631 200 9.7 18.2 32 30 4:25 7.8 10 5 10 39 30 6:00 3248 220 9.7 18.5 31 30 4:45 7.8 10 5 10 39 30 6:20 Maximum ETE: 5:15 Maximum ETE: 6:55 Average ETE: 4:25 Average ETE: 6:10 KLD Engineering, P.C. ES17 Revision 3

Turkey Point Evacuation Time Estimate Figure H8. Region R08 KLD Engineering, P.C. ES18 Revision 3

Turkey Point Evacuation Time Estimate 1 INTRODUCTION This report describes the analyses undertaken and the results obtained by a study to develop evacuation time estimates (ETE) for the Turkey Point Nuclear Power Plant (PTN), located in MiamiDade County, Florida. ETE provide 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:

Criteria for Development of Evacuation Time Estimate Studies, NUREG/CR7002, December 2011.

Criteria for Preparation and Evaluation of Radiological Emergency Response Plans and Preparedness in Support of Nuclear Power Plants, NUREG0654/FEMA REP 1, Rev. 1, November 1980.

Analysis of Techniques for Estimating Evacuation Times for Emergency Planning Zones, NUREG/CR1745, November 1980.

Development of Evacuation Time Estimates for Nuclear Power Plants, NUREG/CR 6863, January 2005.

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 Florida Power & Light Company (FPL) and Bechtel Power Corporation (Bechtel).

b. Attended meetings with emergency planners from MiamiDade County, Monroe County, and the Florida Division of Emergency Management to identify issues to be addressed and resources available.

c. Conducted a detailed field survey of the highway system and of area traffic conditions within the EPZ and shadow region.

d. Obtained demographic data from the 2010 census, and state and local agencies.

e. Conducted a random sample telephone 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.

KLD Engineering, P.C. 11 Revision 3

Turkey Point Evacuation Time Estimate

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

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

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

5. Used existing areas to define evacuation regions. The EPZ is partitioned into 10 areas along jurisdictional and geographic boundaries. Regions are groups of contiguous areas for which ETE are calculated. The configurations of these regions reflect wind direction and the radial extent of the impacted area. Each region, other than those that approximate circular areas, approximates a keyhole section within the EPZ as recommended by NUREG/CR7002.

6. Estimated demand for transit services for persons at Special Facilities and for transit dependent persons at home.

7. Prepared the input streams for the DYNEV II system.

a. Estimated the evacuation traffic demand, based on the available information derived from Census data, and from data provided by local and state agencies, Florida Power & Light Company and from the telephone survey.

b. Applied the procedures specified in the 2010 Highway Capacity Manual1 (HCM) to the data acquired during the field survey, to estimate the capacity of all highway segments comprising the evacuation routes.

c. Developed 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 Turkey Point Nuclear Power Plant.

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.

1 Highway Capacity Manual (HCM 2010), Transportation Research Board, National Research Council, 2010.

KLD Engineering, P.C. 12 Revision 3

Turkey Point Evacuation Time Estimate

10. Calculated the ETE for all transit activities including those for special facilities (schools, medical facilities, etc.), for the transitdependent population and for homebound special needs population.

1.2 The Turkey Point Nuclear Power Plant The Turkey Point Nuclear Power Plant is located along the shores of Biscayne Bay in Miami Dade County, Florida. The site is approximately 25 miles south of Miami, FL. The EPZ consists of parts of MiamiDade and Monroe Counties in Florida. Figure 11 displays the area surrounding the PTN. 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 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 2010 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 1530 in the HCM 2010 shows little sensitivity for the estimates of service volumes at level of service (LOS) E (near capacity), with respect to FFS, for twolane highways.

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

As documented on page 155 of the HCM 2010, the capacity of a twolane highway is 1700 passenger cars per hour in one direction. For freeway sections, a value of 2250 vehicles per hour per lane is assigned, as per Exhibit 1117 of the HCM 2010. The road survey has identified several segments which are characterized by adverse geometrics on twolane highways which are reflected in reduced values for both capacity and speed. These estimates are consistent with the service volumes for LOS E presented in HCM 2010 Exhibit 1530. These links may be identified by reviewing Appendix K. 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 KLD Engineering, P.C. 13 Revision 3

Turkey Point Evacuation Time Estimate based on the changing traffic volumes on competing approaches). Actuated signals require detectors to provide the traffic data used by the signal controller to adjust the signal timings.

These detectors are typically magnetic loops in the roadway, or video cameras mounted on the signal masts and pointed toward the intersection approaches. If detectors were observed on the approaches to a signalized intersection during the road survey, detailed signal timings were not collected as the timings vary with traffic volume. TCPs 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 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.

Telephone Survey A telephone survey was undertaken to gather information needed for the evacuation study.

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

These data were utilized to develop estimates of vehicle occupancy to estimate the number 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 contract with the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA).

KLD Engineering, P.C. 14 Revision 3

Turkey Point Evacuation Time Estimate 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 Turkey Point Nuclear Power 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 KLD Engineering, P.C. 15 Revision 3

Turkey Point Evacuation Time Estimate 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 2011 study. The major factors contributing to the differences between the ETE values obtained in this study and those of the previous study can be summarized as follows:

An increase in permanent resident population.

Tripgeneration rates are based on a new methodology.

Dynamic evacuation modeling.

KLD Engineering, P.C. 16 Revision 3

Turkey Point Evacuation Time Estimate Table 11. Stakeholder Interaction Stakeholder Nature of Stakeholder Interaction Meetings to define data requirements and set up Florida Power & Light Company contacts with local government agencies Meetings to define data requirements and set up MiamiDade County and Monroe County Offices of contacts with local government agencies. Obtain Emergency Management local emergency plans, special facility data, major employment data The State of Florida Radiological Emergency Florida Division of Emergency Management Preparedness Annex Local and State Police Agencies Obtain existing traffic management plans Table 12. Highway Characteristics Number of lanes Posted speed Lane width Actual free speed Shoulder type & width Abutting land use Interchange geometries Control devices Lane channelization & queuing Intersection configuration (including capacity (including turn bays/lanes) roundabouts where applicable)

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

KLD Engineering, P.C. 17 Revision 3

Turkey Point Evacuation Time Estimate Table 13. ETE Study Comparisons Topic Previous ETE Study Current ETE Study ArcGIS software using 2010 US Resident Population 2000 US Census Data; Census blocks; area ratio method Basis Population = 187,374 used.

Population = 206,329 3.13 persons/household, 1.37 evacuating 3.13 persons/household, 1.37 Resident Population vehicles/household yielding: 2.28 evacuating vehicles/household Vehicle Occupancy persons/vehicle yielding: 2.28 persons/vehicle.

Total employees commuting into the EPZ obtained from the journeytowork Florida edition website, based on analysis of 1.09 employees per vehicle Employee commuter travel patterns from the 2000 based on telephone survey Population census. Employees extrapolated to 2009 results.

using MiamiDade County employment Employees = 20,472 growth rate.

20,367 employees commuting into the EPZ.

Estimates based upon U.S.

Census data used to provide an estimate of Census data and the results of the number of people without access to the telephone survey. A total of personal transportation. 8,732 people who do not have access to a vehicle, requiring 291 TransientDependents = 7,789 TransitDependent buses to evacuate. An additional Population An additional 135 homebound special needs 135 homebound special needs persons needed special transportation to persons needed special evacuate (59 required a bus, 49 required a transportation to evacuate (59 wheelchairaccessible vehicle, and 27 required a bus, 49 required a required an ambulance). wheelchairaccessible vehicle, and 27 required an ambulance).

Transient estimates based upon Transient estimates based upon information information provided about provided about transient attractions in EPZ, transient attractions in EPZ, Transient supplemented by observations of the supplemented by observations Population facilities during the road survey and from of the facilities during the road aerial photography. survey and from aerial Transients = 26,007 photography.

Transients = 33,075 KLD Engineering, P.C. 18 Revision 3

Turkey Point Evacuation Time Estimate Topic Previous ETE Study Current ETE Study Special facility population based on Special facility population based information provided by MiamiDade County on information provided by each Office of Emergency Management & county within the EPZ.

Special Facilities Homeland Security, from internet searches, Current census = 1,360 Population and from direct phone calls to the facilities.

Buses Required = 50 Special Facility Population = 1,208 Wheelchair Bus Required = 45 Vehicles originating at special facilities =

1,070 Ambulances Required = 11 School population based on information provided by each county within the EPZ. School population based on information provided by each Public School enrollment = 32,219 School Population county within the EPZ.

Vehicles originating at public schools = 724 School enrollment = 38,108 Private School enrollment = 5,432 Buses required = 615 Vehicles originating at private schools = 63 Voluntary 20 percent of the population evacuation from 3550% voluntary evacuation within the EPZ, within the EPZ, but not within within EPZ in areas but not within the evacuation region. the evacuation region (see outside region to be Figure 21) evacuated Defined as the area to the north between Coral Reef Drive (152nd Street) and the EPZ 20% of people outside of the EPZ Shadow Evacuation boundary and the area to the west between within the shadow region the eastern boundary of the Everglades (see Figure 72)

National Park and the EPZ boundary.

Network Size Not Defined. 1,577 links; 824 nodes Field surveys conducted in February 2012. Roads and Roadway Geometric Field surveys conducted in 2008. intersections were video Data Road capacities based on 2000 HCM. archived.

Road capacities based on 2010 HCM.

Direct evacuation to designated reception Direct evacuation to designated School Evacuation center/host school. reception center/host school.

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

neighbor or friend.

KLD Engineering, P.C. 19 Revision 3

Turkey Point Evacuation Time Estimate Topic Previous ETE Study Current ETE Study Based on residential telephone survey of specific pretrip Based on residential telephone survey of mobilization activities:

specific pretrip mobilization activities within the Turkey Point EPZ: Residents with commuters returning leave between 30 and Residents with commuters returning leave 8 hours9.259259e-5 days 0.00222 hours 1.322751e-5 weeks 3.044e-6 months .

between 30 minutes and 6 hours6.944444e-5 days 0.00167 hours 9.920635e-6 weeks 2.283e-6 months .

Trip Generation for Residents without commuters Residents without commuters in household Evacuation returning leave between 15 and leave between 15 minutes and 4 hours4.62963e-5 days 0.00111 hours 6.613757e-6 weeks 1.522e-6 months .

6 hours6.944444e-5 days 0.00167 hours 9.920635e-6 weeks 2.283e-6 months , 30 minutes.

Employees and transients leave between 15 Employees and transients leave minutes and 2 hours2.314815e-5 days 5.555556e-4 hours 3.306878e-6 weeks 7.61e-7 months .

between 15 minutes and 2 hours2.314815e-5 days 5.555556e-4 hours 3.306878e-6 weeks 7.61e-7 months All times measured from the advisory to and 15 minutes.

evacuate.

All times measured from the advisory to evacuate.

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

by 10% in the event of rain.

in the event of rain.

DYNEV II System - Version Modeling IDYNEV 4.0.6.0 Construction Special event population = 3,983 additional HomesteadMiami Speedway employees Special Events Special event population =

HomesteadMiami Speedway 100,000 additional transients Special Event Population = 100,000 additional transients 20 regions (central sector wind direction and each adjacent 12 regions and 11 scenarios producing 132 Evacuation Cases sector technique used) and 12 unique cases.

scenarios producing 240 unique cases.

ETE reported for 90th and 100th ETE reported for 50th, 90th, 95th, and 100th Evacuation Time percentile population. Results percentile. Results presented by region and Estimates Reporting presented by region and scenario.

scenario.

Winter Midweek Midday, Winter Midweek Midday, Evacuation Time Good Weather: 9:30 Good Weather: 10:05 Estimates for the entire EPZ Summer Midweek, Midday, Summer Midweek, Midday, Good Weather: 9:15 Good Weather: 9:40 KLD Engineering, P.C. 110 Revision 3

Turkey Point Evacuation Time Estimate Figure 11. Turkey Point Location KLD Engineering, P.C. 111 Revision 3

Turkey Point Evacuation Time Estimate Figure 12. PTN LinkNode Analysis Network KLD Engineering, P.C. 112 Revision 3

Turkey Point Evacuation Time Estimate 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. Population estimates are based upon Census 2010 data.

2. Estimates of employees who reside outside the EPZ and commute to work within the EPZ are based upon data obtained from the journeytowork Florida Edition website1, supplemented by data provided by MiamiDade County and through direct phone calls to facilities. Considering that nearly all employers (excluding the Turkey Point Nuclear Power Plant) are along the US Highway 1 corridor, and therefore in close proximity to other major employers in their respective municipality, it was assumed that employment for each municipality would be evenly divided among the major employers, unless specific data was provided by a major employer.

3. Population estimates at special facilities are based on available data from MiamiDade and Monroe County emergency management offices and from phone calls to specific facilities.

4. Roadway capacity estimates are based on field surveys and the application of the Highway Capacity Manual 2010.

5. Population mobilization times are based on a statistical analysis of data acquired from a random sample telephone survey of EPZ residents (see Section 5 and Appendix F).

6. The relationship between resident population and evacuating vehicles is developed from the telephone survey. Average values of 3.13 persons per household and 1.37 evacuating vehicles per household are used. The relationship between persons and vehicles for special facilities is as follows:

a. Employees: 1.09 employees per vehicle (telephone survey results) for all major employers.

b. Parks: Vehicle occupancy varies based upon data gathered from local transient facilities.

c. Special Events: Assumed parking lots for the NASCAR Race at HomesteadMiami Speedway are filled to capacity.

1 http://www.j2w.usf.edu/default.asp?l=f KLD Engineering, P.C. 21 Revision 3

Turkey Point Evacuation Time Estimate 2.2 Study Methodological Assumptions

1. ETE are presented for the evacuation of the 90th and 100th percentiles of population for each region and for each scenario. 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. A region is defined as a group of areas that is issued an advisory to evacuate. A scenario is a combination of circumstances, including time of day, day of week, season, and weather conditions.

2. The ETE are computed and presented in tabular format and graphically, in a format compliant with NUREG/CR7002.

3. Evacuation movements (paths of travel) are generally outbound relative to the plant to the extent permitted by the highway network. All major evacuation routes are used in the analysis.

4. Regions are defined by the underlying keyhole or circular configurations as specified in Section 1.4 of NUREG/CR7002. These regions, as defined, display irregular boundaries reflecting the geography of the areas included within these underlying configurations.

5. As indicated in Figure 22 of NUREG/CR7002, 100% of people within the impacted keyhole evacuate. 20% of those people within the EPZ, not within the impacted keyhole, will voluntarily evacuate. 20% of those people within the shadow region will voluntarily evacuate. See Figure 21 for a graphical representation of these evacuation percentages. Sensitivity studies explore the effect on ETE of increasing the percentage of voluntary evacuees in the shadow region (see Appendix M).

6. A total of 12 scenarios representing different temporal variations (season, time of day, day of week) and weather conditions are considered. These scenarios are outlined in Table 21.

7. Scenario 12 considers the closure of a single lane northbound on the Florida Turnpike from the interchange with US 1 in Florida City to the end of the analysisnetwork at the interchange with the Don Shula Expressway.

8. The models of the IDYNEV 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; Urbanik2). The models have continuously been refined and extended since those hearings and were independently validated by a consultant retained by the NRC. The new DYNEV II model incorporates the latest technology in traffic simulation and in dynamic traffic assignment.

2 Urbanik, T., et. al. Benchmark Study of the IDYNEV Evacuation Time Estimate Computer Code, NUREG/CR4873, Nuclear Regulatory Commission, June, 1988.

KLD Engineering, P.C. 22 Revision 3

Turkey Point Evacuation Time Estimate 2.3 Study Assumptions

1. The planning basis assumption for the calculation of ETE is a rapidly escalating accident that requires evacuation, and includes the following:

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

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

c. ETE are measured relative to the advisory to evacuate.

2. It is assumed that everyone within the group of areas forming a region that is issued an advisory to evacuate will, in fact, respond and evacuate in general accord with the planned routes.

3. 68 percent of the households in the EPZ have at least 1 commuter; 71 percent of those households with commuters will await the return of a commuter before beginning their evacuation trip, based on the telephone survey results. Therefore 48 percent (68% x 71% = 48%) of EPZ households will await the return of a commuter, prior to beginning their evacuation trip.

4. The ETE will also include consideration of through (externalexternal) trips during the time that such traffic is permitted to enter the evacuated region. Normal traffic flow is assumed to be present within the EPZ at the start of the emergency.

5. Access control points (ACP) will be staffed within approximately 120 minutes following the siren notifications, to divert traffic attempting to enter the EPZ. Earlier activation of ACP locations could delay returning commuters. It is assumed that no through traffic will enter the EPZ after this 120 minute time period.

6. Traffic control points within the EPZ will be staffed over time, beginning at the advisory to evacuate. Their number and location will depend on the region to be evacuated and resources available. The objectives of these TCP are:

a. Facilitate the movements of all (mostly evacuating) vehicles at the location.

b. Discourage inadvertent vehicle movements towards the plant.

c. Provide assurance and guidance to any traveler who is unsure of the appropriate actions or routing.

d. Act as local surveillance and communications center.

e. Provide information to the emergency operations center (EOC) as needed, based on direct observation or on information provided by travelers.

In calculating ETE, it is assumed that evacuees will drive safely, travel in directions identified in the plan, and obey all control devices and traffic guides.

KLD Engineering, P.C. 23 Revision 3

Turkey Point Evacuation Time Estimate

7. Buses will be used to transport those without access to private vehicles:

a. If schools are in session, transport (buses) will evacuate students directly to the designated host schools.

b. It is assumed parents will pick up children at day care centers prior to evacuation.

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

d. Transitdependent general population will be evacuated to reception centers.

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

f. Bus mobilization time is considered in ETE calculations.

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

h. Transport of transitdependent evacuees from reception centers to permanent shelters is not considered in this study.

8. Provisions are made for evacuating the transitdependent portion of the general population to reception centers by bus, based on the assumption that some of these people will rideshare with family, neighbors, and friends, thus reducing the demand for buses. We assume that the percentage of people who rideshare is 50 percent. This assumption is based upon reported experience for other emergencies3, and on guidance in Section 2.2 of NUREG/CR7002.

9. One type of adverse weather scenarios is considered. Rain may occur for either winter or summer scenarios. It is assumed that the rain 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.

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

The factors applied for the ETE study are based on recent research on the effects of weather on roadway operations4; the factors are shown in Table 22.

3 Institute for Environmental Studies, University of Toronto, THE MISSISSAUGA EVACUATION FINAL REPORT, June 1981. The report indicates that 6,600 people of a transitdependent population of 8,600 people shared rides with other residents; a ride share rate of 76% (Page 510).

4 Agarwal, M. et. Al. Impacts of Weather on Urban Freeway Traffic Flow Characteristics and Facility Capacity, Proceedings of the 2005 MidContinent Transportation Research Symposium, August, 2005. The results of this paper are included as Exhibit 1015 in the HCM 2010.

KLD Engineering, P.C. 24 Revision 3

Turkey Point Evacuation Time Estimate

10. School buses used to transport students are assumed to transport 70 students per bus for elementary schools and 50 students per bus for middle and high schools, based on discussions with county offices of emergency management. Transit buses used to transport the transitdependent general population are assumed to transport 30 people per bus.

Table 21. Evacuation Scenario Definitions Day of Time of Scenario Season5 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 Weekend Evening Good None 6 Winter Midweek Midday Good None 7 Winter Midweek Midday Rain None 8 Winter Weekend Midday Good None 9 Winter Weekend Midday Rain None Midweek, 10 Winter Weekend Evening Good None NASCAR Race at HomesteadMiami 11 Winter Weekend Midday Good Speedway Roadway Impact - Lane Closure on Florida 12 Summer Midweek Midday Good Turnpike NB 5

Winter assumes that school is in session (also applies to spring and autumn). Summer assumes that school is not in session.

KLD Engineering, P.C. 25 Revision 3

Turkey Point Evacuation Time Estimate Table 22. Model Adjustment for Adverse Weather Highway Free Flow Scenario Capacity* Speed* Mobilization Time for General Population Rain 90% 90% No Effect

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

KLD Engineering, P.C. 26 Revision 3

Turkey Point Evacuation Time Estimate Figure 21. Voluntary Evacuation Methodology KLD Engineering, P.C. 27 Revision 3

Turkey Point Evacuation Time Estimate 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 2010 Census, however, is not adequate for directly estimating some transient groups.

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

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

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

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

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

Analysis of the population characteristics of the Turkey Point Nuclear Power Plant EPZ indicates the need to identify three distinct groups:

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

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

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

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

The PTN EPZ is subdivided into 10 areas. The EPZ is shown in Figure 31.

KLD Engineering, P.C. 31 Revision 3

Turkey Point Evacuation Time Estimate 3.1 Permanent Residents The primary source for estimating permanent population is the latest U.S. Census data. The average household size (3.13 persons/household - See Figure F1) and the number of evacuating vehicles per household (1.37 vehicles/household - See Appendix F, subsection F.3.2 and Figure F7) were adapted from the telephone survey results.

Population estimates are based upon Census 2010 data. Table 31 provides the permanent resident population within the EPZ, by area.

The year 2010 permanent resident population is divided by the average household size and then multiplied by the average number of evacuating vehicles per household in order to estimate number of vehicles. 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 Turkey Point. This rose was constructed using GIS software.

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

Assume 50 percent of all households vacation for a twoweek 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.

Homestead Air Reserve Base (HARB)

The base employs nearly 1,000 fulltime employees who live in the Homestead and South Dade communities, and another 1,200 Air Force reservists who drill monthly at the base 1. The 1,000 fulltime employees are already counted as permanent residents as the Homestead and South Dade communities are within the EPZ. The aforementioned website also indicates [t]he base also spends over $500,000 annually on local hotels. Most reservists stay off base in Homestead and Florida City during monthly unit training assemblies. As indicated in Table E5, approximately 12,000 transients (7,000 of which are in Monroe County at the Ocean Reef Club) 1 www.homestead.afrc.af.mil/library/factsheets/factsheet.asp?id=12386 KLD Engineering, P.C. 32 Revision 3

Turkey Point Evacuation Time Estimate have already been accounted for at lodging facilities within the EPZ. Therefore, the transient reservists training at HARB are also accounted for.

3.2 Shadow Population A portion of the population living outside the evacuation area extending to 15 miles radially from Turkey Point (in the shadow region) may elect to evacuate without having been instructed to do so. Based upon NUREG/CR7002 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, evacuation vehicles per household, mobilization time) are assumed to be the same as that for the EPZ permanent resident population. Table 33, Figure 34 and Figure 35 present estimates of the shadow population and vehicles, by sector.

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. The PTN EPZ has a number of areas and facilities that attract transients, including:

Lodging Facilities Marinas Campgrounds Golf Courses Shopping Centers Sports Facilities Museums and Arts Centers Surveys of lodging facilities within the EPZ were conducted to determine 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 12,021 transients in 6,327 vehicles are assigned to lodging facilities in the EPZ. This estimate includes visitors at Ocean Reef Community (ORC).

Ocean Reef Community is a private community which offers rental homes and lodging facilities for transients. The following data were provided by the Director of Public Safety for ORC:

o 5,000 seasonal residents (3,200 vehicles) during the peak season; 1.56 persons per vehicle KLD Engineering, P.C. 33 Revision 3

Turkey Point Evacuation Time Estimate o 2,800 transients (2,000 vehicles) during the peak season; 1.40 persons per vehicle o Peak season is from November to April o During the offpeak season, there are 500 seasonal residents and 1,800 transients As indicated in Table 32, the 2010 population in Zone 10 is 1,103 permanent (yearround) residents. Based on an analysis of Census data in GIS, 66 of these people do not live in the ORC.

Thus, there are 1,037 permanent residents in the ORC. These residents were subtracted from the seasonal resident data above in order to avoid double counting. This results in 3,963 seasonal residents evacuating in 2,540 vehicles (3,963 divided by the average occupancy of 1.56 persons per vehicle). Seasonal residents are treated as transients. Therefore, there are a total of 6,763 transients (3,963 +2,800) evacuating in 4,540 vehicles (2,540 + 2,000) from the ORC.

The Ocean Reef Club Marina offers 175 slips to residents and visitors. Those people using the marina are included in the total lodging transient estimate provided above.

Surveys of the parks and recreational areas within the EPZ were conducted to determine the number of transients visiting Biscayne National Park, Black Point Park, Black Point Marina, Larry and Penny Thompson Park, and Homestead Bayfront Marina/Herbert Hoover Marina and Park.

On a typical day, there are approximately 400 people and 70 vehicles at Biscayne National Park.

Campsites at the park are only accessible by boat2.

Black Point Park, located in Area 6, can have up to 8,000 visitors during special events. An average of 50 percent of these visitors are EPZ residents. Therefore, 4,000 transients are at the park during peak times. An estimate of three people per vehicle results in 1,333 vehicles evacuating from Black Point Park.

Black Point Marina has 425 regular parking spaces, 18 handicap parking spaces, and 2 strollers only parking for the 178 inwater slips and 10 floating docks at the facility. There are 203 parking spots for cars with trailers and 10 handicap parking spots for cars with trailers. A passenger car equivalent of two vehicles is used for trailers with three people per vehicle, resulting in 871 vehicles and 2,613 people evacuating from the marina.

Larry and Penny Thompson Memorial Park is located outside of the EPZ, north of Area 6, but will also be evacuated (based on county plans) in the event of an emergency at the plant because of its close proximity to the EPZ. The park is adjacent to the Miami Metrozoo and has 270 acres to offer visitors. The campground has 240 separate campsites for recreational 2

Vehicle occupancy is higher than normal because campsites at the park are only accessible by boat. The ETE Study only considers vehicles on roadways; waterborne vehicles are not considered in the ETE analysis.

KLD Engineering, P.C. 34 Revision 3

Turkey Point Evacuation Time Estimate vehicles. The campground is assumed to be fully occupied with nonEPZ residents as the Metrozoo and campground are significant attractions for transient persons. There are also 200 additional parking spaces available for daytrippers with two people per vehicle. Based on information gathered from a telephone conversation with park management, all daytrippers at the park are also transients. Based on the capacity of 240 campsites, 720 evacuating passenger cars were loaded for this site, assuming two passenger car equivalents for each recreational vehicle and one additional passenger car per campsite with four people per site. An additional 200 vehicles with two people per vehicle are used by daytrippers resulting in 920 transient vehicles and 1360 transient people.

Homestead Bayfront Marina/Herbert Hoover Marina and Park, located in Area 4, has 192 boat slips plus an additional 32 dry slips. During weekend peak times, there are about 2,000 people and 500 vehicles parked at the facility. The dock master confirmed that visitor numbers do not increase during significant events in the EPZ, such as lobster miniseason and the Regatta. It is assumed that all the people at the marina are transients.

Camp Owaissa Bauer is a childrens camp located just north of Area 7. It will be evacuated in the event of an emergency at the plant because of its close proximity to the EPZ. Internet searches indicate the camp can accommodate 150 overnight campers in dormitory style cabins and has separate staff quarters. Three buses, which hold 50 campers each, are provided by the facility. A bus is equivalent to two passenger vehicles. Therefore, six vehicles were counted at this facility.

A total of 10,523 transients and 3,700 vehicles have been assigned to parks, marinas and campgrounds within the EPZ.

Keys Gate Golf Club is the only golf course in the EPZ. Direct phone calls were made to the facility to determine the number of golfers and vehicles on site on a typical peak day, and the number of golfers that travel from outside the area. It was reported that 200 people and 80 vehicles are at the facility at peak times. Fifty percent of these visitors are local residents. Thus, a total of 100 transients and 40 vehicles are assigned to this facility.

Southland Mall and the Prime Outlets of Florida City are located within the EPZ. The Southland Mall (formerly Cutler Ridge Mall) is located in Area 6. Phone calls were made to the facility; however, detailed data was not available. Overhead photographs were used to estimate the parking lot capacity of the mall which was found to be roughly 5100 parking spaces. Based on discussions with MiamiDade County, the mall is not a significant attraction for nonEPZ residents because there are many other large malls located north of the EPZ. It is, therefore, conservatively estimated that 25 percent of the malls parking lot capacity will be occupied by KLD Engineering, P.C. 35 Revision 3

Turkey Point Evacuation Time Estimate nonEPZ residents during a peak day resulting in 1,275 transient vehicles and 3,825 transients (three people per vehicle).

The Prime Outlets of Florida City include 40 discount stores and a small food court. It is located in Area 8 on Palm Drive, just east of the junction of U.S. Highway 1 and the Florida Turnpike.

Phone calls made to the facility indicate that 3,500 vehicles are at the facility during peak times.

There are a maximum of 2 tour buses with an occupancy of 20 people at the facility at peak times. Buses are equivalent to two passenger vehicles; these two buses are represented as 4 vehicles. The office administrator indicated that 35 percent of the parking lot capacity will be used by nonEPZ residents resulting in 1,229 transient vehicles evacuating from this location.

An estimate of three people per vehicle plus the 2 tour buses with 20 people per bus results in a total of 3,715 transients.

A total of 7,540 transients and 2,504 vehicles have been assigned to shopping facilities within the EPZ.

Several sports complexes exist throughout the EPZ. Harris Field, located in Area 8, has a parking lot capacity of 788, estimated from aerial imagery. Assuming 25 percent of visitors are nonEPZ visitors and an occupancy rate of three people per vehicle, there are 197 vehicles and 591 people at this facility for a peak day.

Homestead Sports Complex is also located in Area 8. Information about the facility was obtained through a phone call to the facility. The peak times this facility is used are summer weekends. There are an estimated 1,000 people at the facility during peak times. Using three people per vehicle, a total of 333 vehicles originate from this facility. It is assumed all of these visitors are transients.

A total of 1,591 transients and 530 vehicles have been assigned to these sports complexes within the EPZ.

South MiamiDade Cultural Arts Center is located in Area 6 of the EPZ. Phone calls were made to the facility to collect information. The theater can accommodate 200 vehicles and 1,100 people. There is one festival per year that attracts 2,500 people. According to the operations manager at the facility, half of the visitors are local residents. Therefore a maximum of 1,250 transients and 313 transient vehicles are at the facility at any given time, based on an estimate of 4 people per vehicle provided by the facility.

The Coral Castle Museum is in Area 7 of the EPZ. Data gathered through a phone call to the museum indicates patrons of the museum are evenly split between local residents and KLD Engineering, P.C. 36 Revision 3

Turkey Point Evacuation Time Estimate transients. There are 100 visitors per day during the peak season, 50 of which are transients.

There are 40 vehicles at the facility on a peak day, 20 of which are used by transients.

A total of 1,300 transients and 333 vehicles have been assigned to these facilities. Table 34 presents transient population and transient vehicle estimates by Area. Figure 36 and Figure 37 present these data by sector and distance from the plant.

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

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

Those of the first category are already counted as part of the permanent resident population. To avoid double counting, we focus only on those employees commuting from outside the EPZ who will evacuate along with the permanent resident population.

Journeytowork employment data was obtained from 2000 census data (via the Florida journeytowork website3) with commuter patterns organized by destination. The data was collated for each municipality that is either completely or partially located in the EPZ. The data for all workers in these EPZ municipalities was then analyzed to estimate those workers originating from areas outside of the EPZ. Those who work in the EPZ and have origins outside of the EPZ were summed to get total employment figures for the EPZ. For municipalities that are partially located in the EPZ, the portion of the population living in the EPZ was applied to those workers who have origins in the municipality in order to estimate those who work in the EPZ but reside outside the EPZ. For example, South Miami Heights is partially within the EPZ, while Naranja is completely within the EPZ. There are 35 employees working in Naranja who originate from South Miami Heights. Twentyfive percent of the population within South Miami Heights resides in the EPZ. Thus, of the 35 employees who work in Naranja and live in South Miami Heights, 75 percent (10025 percent) are nonEPZ residents for a total of 26 employees in Naranja who are nonEPZ residents commuting from South Miami Heights. Differentiating between employees who are EPZ residents and those who are not is necessary to avoid double counting those people who both live and work in the EPZ. This data was compiled with phone calls made to facilities to determine the total employment within the EPZ. The results of the analysis are presented in Table 35 and Table 36 Land use was examined from overhead imagery using Google Earth to determine the percentage of employment located in the EPZ for those municipalities that are only partially within the EPZ. Overhead imagery was also used to distribute the employment for each municipality. Nearly all major employment centers are located on or close to U.S. Highway 1.

3 http://www.j2w.usf.edu/default.asp?l=f KLD Engineering, P.C. 37 Revision 3

Turkey Point Evacuation Time Estimate Employment figures for PTN were added to the journeytowork data to estimate the total employment for the EPZ. It is conservatively assumed that 100 percent of the employees at the plant live outside the EPZ. Yearly employment statistics for MiamiDade County were obtained from the U.S. Department of Labor website and used to estimate a yearly employment growth rate, which was in turn used to project employment data to the year 2009.

Based on discussions with representatives from MiamiDade and Monroe County Offices of Emergency Management (OEM), employment in the area has not significantly changed since the last ETE study done for PTN in 2009 in support of the combined license (COL) application.

Contact information for a few new major employers in the EPZ was provided by MiamiDade County OEM to supplement the employment estimates from 2009. These employers were contacted by telephone and the information gathered was used to supplement the 2009 data.

Considering that nearly all employers (excluding the Turkey Point Nuclear Power Plant) are along the US Highway 1 corridor, and therefore in close proximity to other major employers in their respective municipality, it was assumed that employment for each municipality would be evenly divided among the major employers.

A vehicle occupancy of 1.09 employees per vehicle obtained from the telephone survey (See Appendix F, subsection F.3.1 and Figure F6) was used to determine the number of evacuating employee vehicles for all major employers.

The ORC is also a major employer within the EPZ. The following data were provided from the Director of Public Safety for ORC:

3000 employees during the peak season 500 employees during the offpeak 80 percent of employees commute to ORC from the north in MiamiDade County within the EPZ Based on this data, there are 600 employees (3000 x 20%) commuting into ORC from outside the EPZ. These employees will evacuate in 550 vehicles based on the occupancy of 1.09 employees per vehicle.

Appendix E provides a map of the major employers within the EPZ. Total employment for each municipality was divided up evenly among the major employers within the municipality.

There are 20,472 employees commuting daily into the EPZ. These employees use 18,784 vehicles. Table 36 presents nonEPZ Resident employee and vehicle estimates by Area. Figure 38 and Figure 39 present these data by sector.

KLD Engineering, P.C. 38 Revision 3

Turkey Point Evacuation Time Estimate 3.5 Medical Facilities There are no inpatient medical facilities within the Monroe County portion of the EPZ. Data were provided by MiamiDade County for each of the medical facilities within the EPZ. Chapter 8 details the evacuation of medical facilities and their patients. The number and type of evacuating vehicles that need to be provided depend on the patients' state of health. It is estimated that buses can transport up to 30 people; wheelchair vans, up to 4 people; wheelchair buses up to 15 people; and ambulances, up to 2 people.

3.6 Total Demand in Addition to Permanent Population Vehicles will be traveling through the EPZ (externalexternal trips) at the time of an accident.

After the ATE is announced, these throughtravelers will also evacuate. These through vehicles are assumed to travel on the major routes traversing the EPZ - US 1, Florida Turnpike, and Don Shula Expressway. It is assumed that this traffic will continue to enter the EPZ during the first 120 minutes following the ATE.

Average annual daily traffic (AADT) data was obtained from Florida Department of Transportation to estimate the number of vehicles per hour on the aforementioned routes.

The AADT was multiplied by the KFactor, which is the proportion of the AADT on a roadway segment or link during the design hour, resulting in the design hour volume (DHV). The design hour is usually the 30th highest hourly traffic volume of the year, measured in vehicles per hour (vph). The DHV is then multiplied by the DFactor, which is the proportion of the DHV occurring in the peak direction of travel (also known as the directional split). The resulting values are the directional design hourly volumes (DDHV), and are presented in Table 37, for each of the routes considered. The DDHV is then multiplied by 120 minutes (access control points - ACP -

are assumed to be activated at 120 minutes after the ATE) to estimate the total number of external vehicles loaded on the analysis network. As indicated, there are 5,882 vehicles entering the EPZ as externalexternal trips prior to the activation of the ACP and the diversion of this traffic. This number is reduced by sixty percent for evening scenarios (scenarios 5 and

10) as discussed in Section 6.

3.7 Special Event One special event is considered for the ETE study - a NASCAR race at the HomesteadMiami Speedway. The special event occurs on a Sunday in November (winter, weekend, midday, good weather). Based on discussions with representatives of the speedway, the facility provides parking for approximately 30,000 vehicles and a separate capacity for 1,300 recreational vehicles. The current capacity of the grandstands is 65,000 people; however, as many as 100,000 people typically show up for the race. Overhead imagery was used to determine the boundaries of the parking lots for the speedway and GIS software was used to estimate the square footage of each parking lot. Table 38 estimates the capacity of each lot by multiplying the ratio of square footage of the lot to total square footage of all lots and the total capacity of 30,000 vehicles. A recreational vehicle is represented as two passenger car equivalents in the KLD Engineering, P.C. 39 Revision 3

Turkey Point Evacuation Time Estimate simulation model based on its larger size and more sluggish operating characteristics. A total of 32,600 vehicles would evacuate from the speedway during this event.

A detailed traffic control manual was created for the 1999 Winston Cup Race to help facilitate the flow of traffic to and from the speedway. The traffic management procedures outlined in the manual are used for the major events at the speedway. Fiftyfour intersections are identified as traffic control points in the plan. The control tactic at each of these intersections was input to the simulation model for this sensitivity study. Special lane treatments are also used on the roads surrounding the speedway, based on discussions with the county and local police:

Contraflow is used on Speedway Boulevard (SW 137th Avenue) to provide four lanes northbound after the race.

o One lane turns west on SW 288th Street to access the Florida Turnpike northbound.

o One lane accesses the turnpike northbound at the entrance ramp from SW 137th Avenue north of SW 288th Street o The remaining two northbound lanes continue through to the intersection with SW 268th Street. One lane turns left toward U.S. Highway 1, while the other lane can go through or turn right to access the turnpike via Allapatah Road.

The shoulder of the Florida Turnpike northbound is used as an additional lane from the entrance ramps from Campbell Drive to the toll booths north of Exit 9.

These lane treatments are not indicated in the 1999 manual; however they were used in this study. Traffic control should be established at the intersection of SW 137th Avenue and SW 268th Street to prevent southbound movement on SW 137th Avenue, which would conflict with the northbound contraflow. For details of the traffic control tactics at each intersection, refer to the Homestead Police Departments Operations Plan for the 1999 Winston Cup Race.

3.8 Summary of Demand A summary of total population and vehicle demand within the EPZ is provided in Table 39 and Table 310, respectively. This summary includes all population groups described in this section.

Additional population groups - transitdependent, special facility and school population demand - are described in greater detail in Section 8. A total of 342,880 people and 148,207 vehicles are considered in this study.

KLD Engineering, P.C. 310 Revision 3

Turkey Point Evacuation Time Estimate Table 31. EPZ Permanent Resident Population Area 2000 Population 2010 Population 1 0 0 2 0 0 3 0 0 4 5,217 7,506 5 33,753 44,816 6 29,087 43,313 7 15,288 20,153 8 55,982 89,322 9 409 116 10 932 1,103 TOTAL 140,668 206,329 EPZ Population Growth: 46.68%

Table 32. Permanent Resident Population and Vehicles by Area Area Residents Resident Vehicles 1 0 0 2 0 0 3 0 0 4 7,506 3,289 5 44,816 19,625 6 43,313 18,970 7 20,153 8,824 8 89,322 39,109 9 116 51 10 1,103 484 TOTAL 206,329 90,352 KLD Engineering, P.C. 311 Revision 3

Turkey Point Evacuation Time Estimate Table 33. Shadow Population and Vehicles by Sector Sector Population Evacuating Vehicles E 0 0 ENE 3 0 ESE 0 0 N 58,639 25,675 NE 15 0 NNE 13 6 NNW 93,119 40,796 NW 6,585 2,881 S 30 13 SE 0 0 SSE 2 1 SSW 3 1 SW 1 0 W 6,599 2,892 WNW 9,151 4,011 WSW 132 58 TOTAL 174,292 76,334 Note: Residents living on Elliot Key are assumed to evacuate by boat since there are no roads on the island.

Table 34. Summary of Transients and Transient Vehicles Area Transients Transient Vehicles 1 0 0 2 0 0 3 0 0 4 2,400 570 5 0 0 6 14,478 5,105 7 518 169 8 8,916 3,050 9 0 0 10 6,763 4,540 Total 33,075 13,434 KLD Engineering, P.C. 312 Revision 3

Turkey Point Evacuation Time Estimate Table 35. Employment by Municipality 2009 Data Supplemented 2000 Census Journey to Work Statistics Supplemented with Phone Call Data with Phone Call Data(a)

Employe Percent Percent Adjusted Employees es who Employees Municipality employees NonEPZ Total who are are not who reside Employment who are not resident Vehicles Employment EPZ EPZ outside Centers in EPZ employees(c) residents residents EPZ EPZ residents(b)

Cutler Bay 5242 3355 1887 64% 100% 3355 3814(d) 3500 South Miami Heights 4250 3325 925 78% 10% 333 376 345 Goulds 802 522 280 65% 100% 522 623(d) 572 Homestead 14,931 8576 6355 57% 100% 8576 9685 8886 Lakes by the Bay 875 466 409 53% 100% 466 526 483 Princeton 1253 650 603 52% 100% 650 734 673 Leisure City 1354 639 715 47% 100% 639 722 662 Naranja 954 456 498 48% 100% 456 515 472 Florida City 2286 1203 1083 53% 100% 1203 1410(d) 1295 Turkey Point Nuclear CURRENT EMPLOYMENT FIGURES PROVIDED BY FPL 1467 1,346 Power Plant Ocean Reef Community CURRENT EMPLOYMENT FIGURES PROVIDED BY ORC PUBLIC SAFETY 600 550 TOTAL EMPLOYMENT 31,947 19,192 12,755 60% N/A 16,200 20,472 18,784 (a) MiamiDade and Monroe County emergency management personnel confirmed that employment characteristics have not changed significantly since 2009. See discussion in Section 3.4 (b) Calculated as the product of Employees who are not EPZ Residents and % Municipality Employment Centers in EPZ.

(c) U.S. Department of Labor statistics indicate that MiamiDade County had 967,543 employees at the end of 2003 and 1,007,587 at the end of 2006, equivalent to an exponential growth rate of 1.35% per year. This growth rate was used to extrapolate employment data in 2009.

(d) Additional data provided directly from facilities through phone calls was added to this value.

KLD Engineering, P.C. 313 Revision 3

Turkey Point Evacuation Time Estimate Table 36. Summary of NonEPZ Resident Employees and Employee Vehicles Area Employees Employee Vehicles 1 1,467 1,346 2 0 0 3 0 0 4 0 0 5 2,523 2,317 6 3,353 3,077 7 696 638 8 11,783 10,810 9 50 46 10 600 550 TOTAL 20,472 18,784 Table 37. PTN EPZ External Traffic Up Dn FLDOT1 Hourly External Road Name Direction KFactor2 DFactor2 Node Node AADT Volume Traffic Florida 8474 474 Turnpike Southbound 490 980 Don Shula 27,500 0.107 0.167 8010 476 Expressway Southbound 490 980 8124 453 US 1 Southbound 490 980 8237 237 US 1 Northbound 27,500 0.107 0.500 1,471 2,942 TOTAL: 5,882

1. http://www.dot.state.fl.us/planning/statistics/gis/trafficdata.shtm

2. HCM 2012 KLD Engineering, P.C. 314 Revision 3

Turkey Point Evacuation Time Estimate Table 38. HomesteadMiami Speedway Parking Lot Capacity PTN EPZ External Traffic Square Footage Percent of Total Vehicle Capacity LOT of Lot Square Footage (PCE's)

A 1,236,457 11.2% 3,372 B 2,178,675 19.8% 5,942 C 1,106,421 10.1% 3,017 D 1,082,053 9.8% 2,951 E 1,230,875 11.2% 3,357 I 227,426 2.1% 620 J 77,128 0.7% 210 K 381,971 3.5% 1,042 L 1,841,352 16.7% 5,022 Blue 495,551 4.5% 1,351 Green/Red 1,142,457 10.4% 3,116 RV N/A N/A 2,600 Total 11,000,366 100% 32,600 1

http://www.dot.state.fl.us/planning/statistics/gis/trafficdata.shtm 2

HCM 2010 KLD Engineering, P.C. 315 Revision 3

Turkey Point Evacuation Time Estimate Table 39. Summary of Population Demand Transit Special Shadow External Area Residents Dependent Transients Employees Facilities Schools Population Traffic Total 1 0 0 0 1,467 0 0 0 0 1,467 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 7,506 320 2,400 0 27 2,069 0 0 12,322 5 44,816 1,908 0 2,523 314 6,540 0 0 56,101 6 43,313 1,844 14,478 3,353 256 4,392 0 0 67,636 7 20,153 858 518 696 46 6,375 0 0 28,646 8 89,322 3,802 8,916 11,783 717 16,203 0 0 130,743 9 116 0 0 50 55 12 0 0 233 10 1,103 0 6,763 600 0 0 0 0 8,466 Shadow 0 0 0 0 0 2,517 34,858 0 37,375 Total 206,329 8,732 33,075 20,472 1,415 38,108 34,858 0 342,989 NOTE: Shadow Population has been reduced to 20%. Refer to Figure 21 for additional information.

NOTE: Special Facilities include medical facilities.

Table 310. Summary of Vehicle Demand Transit Special Shadow External Area Residents Dependent Transients Employees Facilities Schools Population Traffic Total 1 0 0 0 1,346 0 0 0 0 1,346 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 3,289 20 570 0 54 62 0 0 3,995 5 19,625 128 0 2,317 617 198 0 0 22,885 6 18,970 124 5,105 3,077 507 136 0 0 27,919 7 8,824 56 169 638 91 248 0 0 10,026 8 39,109 254 3,050 10,810 1,404 512 0 0 55,139 9 51 0 0 46 4 0 0 0 101 10 484 0 4,540 550 0 0 0 0 5,574 Shadow 0 0 0 0 0 74 15,267 5,882 21,223 Total 90,352 582 13,434 18,784 2,677 1,230 15,267 5,882 148,208 NOTE: Buses represented as two passenger vehicles. Refer to Section 8 for additional information.

KLD Engineering, P.C. 316 Revision 3

Turkey Point Evacuation Time Estimate Figure 31. PTN EPZ KLD Engineering, P.C. 317 Revision 3

Turkey Point Evacuation Time Estimate Figure 32. Permanent Resident Population by Sector KLD Engineering, P.C. 318 Revision 3

Turkey Point Evacuation Time Estimate Figure 33. Permanent Resident Vehicles by Sector KLD Engineering, P.C. 319 Revision 3

Turkey Point Evacuation Time Estimate Figure 34. Shadow Population by Sector KLD Engineering, P.C. 320 Revision 3

Turkey Point Evacuation Time Estimate Figure 35. Shadow Vehicles by Sector KLD Engineering, P.C. 321 Revision 3

Turkey Point Evacuation Time Estimate Figure 36. Transient Population by Sector KLD Engineering, P.C. 322 Revision 3

Turkey Point Evacuation Time Estimate Figure 37. Transient Vehicles by Sector KLD Engineering, P.C. 323 Revision 3

Turkey Point Evacuation Time Estimate Figure 38. Employee Population by Sector KLD Engineering, P.C. 324 Revision 3

Turkey Point Evacuation Time Estimate Figure 39. Employee Vehicles by Sector KLD Engineering, P.C. 325 Revision 3

Turkey Point Evacuation Time Estimate 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 2010 Highway Capacity Manual (HCM 2010).

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". 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 (SV). Service volume 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 service volume at the upper bound of LOS E, only.

This distinction is illustrated in Exhibit 1117 of the HCM 2010. 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 speed1 (BFFS) 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 shoulder width were taken. Horizontal and vertical alignment can influence both FFS and capacity. The estimated FFS were measured using the survey vehicles speedometer and observing local traffic, under free flow conditions. Capacity is estimated from the procedures of 1

A very rough estimate of BFFS might be taken as the posted speed limit plus 10 mph (HCM 2010 Page 1515)

KLD Engineering, P.C. 41 Revision 3

Turkey Point Evacuation Time Estimate the 2010 HCM. For example, HCM Exhibit 71(b) shows the sensitivity of Service Volume at the upper bound of LOS D to grade (capacity is the Service Volume at the upper bound of LOS E).

As discussed in Section 2.3, it is necessary to adjust capacity figures to represent the prevailing conditions during inclement weather. Based on limited empirical data, weather conditions such as rain reduce the values of free 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 2.3, we employ a reduction in free speed and in highway capacity of 10 percent for rain.

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

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

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

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)

KLD Engineering, P.C. 42 Revision 3

Turkey Point Evacuation Time Estimate 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, 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 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 LargeScale Evacuation Planning, presented at the TRB 2012 Annual Meeting, January 2226, 2012 KLD Engineering, P.C. 43 Revision 3

Turkey Point Evacuation Time Estimate equivalent, saturation flow rate), may be determined by observation or using the procedures of the HCM 2010.

The above discussion is necessarily brief given the scope of this ETE report and the complexity of the subject of intersection capacity. In fact, Chapters 18, 19 and 20 in the HCM 2010 address this topic. The factors, F1, F2,, influencing saturation flow rate are identified in equation (185) of the HCM 2010.

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 service volume (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 service volume increases as demand volume and density increase, until the service volume 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 service volume) 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.

The value of VF can be expressed as:

where:

R = Reduction factor which is less than unity KLD Engineering, P.C. 44 Revision 3

Turkey Point Evacuation Time Estimate 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 and indicated in Appendix K for freeway links. The ratio of these two numbers is 0.896 which translates into a capacity reduction factor of 0.90.

Since the principal objective of evacuation time estimate analyses is to develop a realistic estimate of evacuation times, use of the representative value for this capacity reduction factor (R=0.90) is justified. This factor is applied only when flow breaks down, as determined by 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 1530 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 2010 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 capacity. For each link, the model selects the lower value of capacity.

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

KLD Engineering, P.C. 45 Revision 3

Turkey Point Evacuation Time Estimate 4.3 Application to the Turkey Point Nuclear Power Plant 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:

2010 Highway Capacity Manual 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 EPZ. The perlane capacity of a twolane highway is estimated at 1700 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 3200 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 EPZ are classified as Class I, with "level terrain"; some are rolling terrain.

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

4.3.2 MultiLane Highway Ref: HCM Chapter 14 Exhibit 142 of the HCM 2010 presents a set of curves that indicate a perlane capacity ranging from approximately 1900 to 2200 pc/h, for freespeeds of 45 to 60 mph, respectively. Based on observation, the multilane highways outside of urban areas within the EPZ service traffic with freespeeds in this range. The actual timevarying speeds computed by the simulation model reflect the demand: capacity relationship and the impact of control at intersections. A KLD Engineering, P.C. 46 Revision 3

Turkey Point Evacuation Time Estimate conservative estimate of perlane capacity of 1900 pc/h is adopted for this study for multilane highways outside of urban areas, as shown in Appendix K.

4.3.3 Freeways Ref: HCM Chapters 10, 11, 12, 13 Chapter 10 of the HCM 2010 describes a procedure for integrating the results obtained in Chapters 11, 12 and 13, 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 11 of the HCM 2010 presents procedures for estimating capacity and LOS for Basic Freeway Segments". Exhibit 1117 of the HCM 2010 presents capacity vs. free speed estimates, which are provided below.

Free Speed (mph): 55 60 65 70+

PerLane Capacity (pc/h): 2250 2300 2350 2400 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 2250 pc/h is adopted for this study for freeways, as shown in Appendix K.

Chapter 12 of the HCM 2010 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 12 depends on the "Type" and geometrics of the weaving segment and on the "volume ratio" (ratio of weaving volume to total volume).

Chapter 13 of the HCM 2010 presents procedures for estimating capacities of ramps and of "merge" areas. There are three significant factors to the determination of capacity of a ramp freeway junction: The capacity of the freeway immediately downstream of an 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 138 of the HCM 2010, and depend on the number of freeway lanes and on the freeway free speed. Ramp capacity is presented in Exhibit 1310 and is a function of the ramp free flow speed. The DYNEV II simulation model logic simulates the merging operations of the ramp and freeway traffic in accord with the procedures in Chapter 13 of the HCM 2010. 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).

KLD Engineering, P.C. 47 Revision 3

Turkey Point Evacuation Time Estimate 4.3.4 Intersections Ref: HCM Chapters 18, 19, 20, 21 Procedures for estimating capacity and LOS for approaches to intersections are presented in Chapter 18 (signalized intersections), Chapters 19, 20 (unsignalized intersections) and Chapter 21 (roundabouts). The complexity of these computations is indicated by the aggregate length of these chapters. The DYNEV II simulation logic is likewise complex.

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

The model is also capable of modeling the presence of manned traffic control. At specific locations where it is advisable or where existing plans call for overriding existing traffic control to implement manned control, the model will use actuated signal timings that reflect the presence of traffic guides. At locations where a special traffic control strategy (continuous left turns, contraflow lanes) is used, the strategy is modeled explicitly. Where applicable, the location and type of traffic control for nodes in the evacuation network are noted in Appendix K. The characteristics of the ten highest volume signalized intersections are detailed in Appendix J.

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

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

This statement succinctly describes the analyses required to determine traffic operations across an area encompassing an EPZ operating under evacuation conditions. The model utilized for this study, DYNEV II, is further described in Appendix C. It is essential to recognize that simulation models do not replicate the methodology and procedures of the HCM - 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 2010 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) free flow speed (FFS); and (2) saturation headway, hsat. The first of these is KLD Engineering, P.C. 48 Revision 3

Turkey Point Evacuation Time Estimate estimated by direct observation during the road survey; the second is estimated using the concepts of the HCM 2010, as described earlier. These parameters are listed in Appendix K, for each network link.

KLD Engineering, P.C. 49 Revision 3

Turkey Point Evacuation Time Estimate 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 KLD Engineering, P.C. 410 Revision 3

Turkey Point Evacuation Time Estimate 5 ESTIMATION OF TRIP GENERATION TIME Federal Government guidelines (see NUREG CR7002) 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 telephone 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 Action Levels (see Appendix 1 of NUREG 0654 for details):

1. Unusual Event

2. Alert

3. Site Area Emergency

4. General Emergency At each level, the Federal guidelines specify a set of Actions to be undertaken by the Licensee, and by State and Local offsite authorities. As a Planning Basis, we will adopt a conservative posture, in accordance with Section 1.2 of NUREG/CR7002, that a rapidly escalating accident will be considered in calculating the Trip Generation Time. We will assume:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

For example, suppose one hour elapses from the siren alert to the Advisory to Evacuate. In this case, it is reasonable to expect some degree of spontaneous evacuation by the public during this onehour period. As a result, the population within the EPZ will be lower when the Advisory to Evacuate is announced, than at the time of the siren alert. In addition, many will engage in preparation activities to evacuate, in anticipation that an Advisory will be broadcast.

Thus, the time needed to complete the mobilization activities and the number of people remaining to evacuate the EPZ after the Advisory to Evacuate, will both be somewhat less than the estimates presented in this report. Consequently, the ETE presented in this report are KLD Engineering, P.C. 51 Revision 3

Turkey Point Evacuation Time Estimate higher than the actual evacuation time, if this hypothetical situation were to take place.

The notification process consists of two events:

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

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

The population within the EPZ is dispersed over an area of approximately 190 square miles and is engaged in a wide variety of activities. It must be anticipated that some time will elapse between the transmission and receipt of the information advising the public of an accident.

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

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

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

As indicated in Section 4.1 of NUREG/CR7002, the information required to compute trip generation times is typically obtained from a telephone survey of EPZ residents. Such a survey was conducted in support of this ETE study. Appendix F presents the survey sampling plan, survey instrument, and raw survey results. The remaining discussion will focus on the application of the trip generation data obtained from the telephone 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.

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 KLD Engineering, P.C. 52 Revision 3

Turkey Point Evacuation Time Estimate 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) can result in rather conservative (that is, longer) estimates of mobilization times. It is reasonable to expect that at least some parts of these events will overlap for many households, but that assumption is not made in this study.

KLD Engineering, P.C. 53 Revision 3

Turkey Point Evacuation Time Estimate 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 It is assumed (based on the presence of sirens within the EPZ) that 87 percent of those within the EPZ will be aware of the accident within 30 minutes with the remainder notified within the following 15 minutes. The notification distribution is given 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 telephone survey. 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 telephone 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 telephone survey. This distribution is plotted in Figure 52 and listed in Table 55.

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 KLD Engineering, P.C. 54 Revision 3

Turkey Point Evacuation Time Estimate to these intermediate distributions to describe the procedure. Table 57 presents the summing procedure to arrive at each designated distribution.

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

5.4.1 Statistical Outliers As already mentioned, some portion of the survey respondents answer dont know to some questions or choose to not respond to a question. The mobilization activity distributions are based upon actual responses. But, it is the nature of surveys that a few numeric responses are inconsistent with the overall pattern of results. An example would be a case in which for 540 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 special needs;

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

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

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

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

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

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

2) The individual mobilization activities (prepare to leave work, travel home, prepare home are reviewed for outliers, and then the overall trip generation distributions are created (see Figure 51, Table 56, Table 57);

KLD Engineering, P.C. 55 Revision 3

Turkey Point Evacuation Time Estimate

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

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

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

This is done by using the data sets and distributions under different scenarios (e.g. commuter returning, no commuter returning). In general, these are additive, using weighting based upon the probability distributions of each element; Figure 54 presents the combined trip generation distributions designated A, C, and D. These distributions are presented on the same time scale.

(As discussed earlier, the use of strictly additive activities is a conservative approach, because it KLD Engineering, P.C. 56 Revision 3

Turkey Point Evacuation Time Estimate makes all activities sequential - preparation for departure follows the return of the commuter. 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, and D, properly displaced with respect to one another, are tabulated in Table 58 (Distribution B, Arrive Home, omitted for clarity).

The final time period (14) 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, staged evacuation consists of the prompt evacuation of the 2 mile region, while those beyond 2 miles shelterinplace. As discussed in Section 6, MiamiDade County does not consider the evacuation of the 2 mile radius and 5 miles downwind. Rather, MiamiDade considers evacuation of the 5 mile radius and downwind to the EPZ boundary.

Thus, this study considers staged evacuation based on a 5 mile prompt evacuation as discussed below:

1. Areas comprising the 5 mile region are advised to evacuate immediately

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

3. As vehicles evacuate the 5 mile region, sheltered people from 5 to 10 miles downwind continue preparation for evacuation

4. The population sheltering in the 5 to 10 mile region are advised to begin evacuating when approximately 90% of those originally within the 5 mile region evacuate across the 5 mile region boundary

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

Assumptions

1. 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.

KLD Engineering, P.C. 57 Revision 3

Turkey Point Evacuation Time Estimate

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

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

Procedure

1. Trip generation for population groups in the 5 mile region will be as computed based upon the results of the telephone survey and analysis.

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

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

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

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

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

ii. No additional trips are generated until time TScen*

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

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

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

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

The value of TScen* is 3:20.

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

a. Residents with returning commuters

b. Residents without returning commuters Figure 55 presents the staged trip generation distributions for both residents with and without returning commuters; the 90th percentile fivemile evacuation time is 200 minutes. At the 90th percentile evacuation time, 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 period, 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.

KLD Engineering, P.C. 58 Revision 3

Turkey Point Evacuation Time Estimate Table 59 provides the trip generation for staged evacuation.

5.4.3 Trip Generation for Waterways and Recreational Areas Appendix II of Annex A of the State of Florida Radiological Emergency Management Plan indicates that boaters in the waters within the 10mile EPZ will be notified of the emergency by VHF Radio and loudspeakers from boats and aircraft operated by Biscayne National Park Service, State Emergency Support Function 16, MiamiDade Police Marine Patrol, and the United States Coast Guard. The MiamiDade County and Monroe County Turkey Point Response Plans reiterate this point.

As indicated in Table 52, this study assumes 100% notification in 45 minutes. Table 58 indicates that all transients will have mobilized within 2 hours2.314815e-5 days 5.555556e-4 hours 3.306878e-6 weeks 7.61e-7 months and 15 minutes. It is assumed that this 2 hour2.314815e-5 days 5.555556e-4 hours 3.306878e-6 weeks 7.61e-7 months and 15 minute timeframe is sufficient time for boaters, campers and other transients to return to their vehicles and begin their evacuation trip.

KLD Engineering, P.C. 59 Revision 3

Turkey Point Evacuation Time Estimate 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 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%

KLD Engineering, P.C. 510 Revision 3

Turkey Point Evacuation Time Estimate Table 53. Time Distribution for Employees to Prepare to Leave Work Cumulative Cumulative Percent Percent Elapsed Time Employees Elapsed Time Employees (Minutes) Leaving Work (Minutes) Leaving Work 0 0% 40 82.2%

5 24.5% 45 87.3%

10 34.1% 50 88.2%

15 47.8% 55 88.4%

20 55.8% 60 97.2%

25 57.3% 75 99.1%

30 78.5% 90 99.8%

35 80.5% 105 100.0%

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

Table 54. Time Distribution for Commuters to Travel Home Cumulative Cumulative Elapsed Time Percent Elapsed Time Percent (Minutes) Returning Home (Minutes) Returning Home 0 0 45 81.4%

5 10.4% 50 82.3%

10 23.5% 55 82.6%

15 36.3% 60 91.1%

20 49.1% 75 95.2%

25 53.8% 90 98.6%

30 67.8% 105 99.1%

35 70.2% 120 100.0%

40 73.8%

NOTE: The survey data was normalized to distribute the Dont know response KLD Engineering, P.C. 511 Revision 3

Turkey Point Evacuation Time Estimate Table 55. Time Distribution for Population to Prepare to Evacuate Cumulative Cumulative Elapsed Time Percent Ready to Elapsed Time Percent Ready to (Minutes) Evacuate (Minutes)1 Evacuate 0 0% 195 92.2%

15 20.2% 210 92.2%

30 45.3% 225 92.2%

45 53.3% 240 92.6%

60 63.9% 255 93.6%

75 74.3% 270 93.6%

90 75.6% 285 93.6%

105 75.8% 300 94.0%

120 81.2% 315 94.8%

135 87.8% 330 94.8%

150 88.4% 345 94.8%

165 88.8% 360 100.0%

180 90.6%

1 PTN is located in a hurricaneprone area. As a result, many residents of the area are accustomed to emergency evacuations for hurricanes and other weather related events. Although the telephone survey was posed as response to a nonweather related event (see Appendix F), it appears many respondents gave unusually long response times to this question. As discussed in Section 7 and in Appendix M, the ETE for PTN is dictated by traffic congestion, not trip generation time. As a result, this unusually long preparation time does not impact the results of this study.

KLD Engineering, P.C. 512 Revision 3

Turkey Point Evacuation Time Estimate Table 56. Mapping Distribution 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 KLD Engineering, P.C. 513 Revision 3

Turkey Point Evacuation Time Estimate Table 57. 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).

Table 58. Trip Generation Histograms for the EPZ Population for Unstaged Evacuation Percent of Total Trips Generated Within Indicated Time Period Residents with Residents Without Time Duration Employees Transients Commuters Commuters Period (Min) (Distribution A) (Distribution A) (Distribution C) (Distribution D) 1 15 4% 4% 0% 1%

2 15 22% 22% 0% 10%

3 15 30% 30% 2% 20%

4 15 23% 23% 4% 17%

5 15 11% 11% 9% 10%

6 15 7% 7% 11% 10%

7 30 3% 3% 22% 8%

8 30 0% 0% 17% 8%

9 60 0% 0% 19% 7%

10 60 0% 0% 7% 2%

11 60 0% 0% 2% 1%

12 60 0% 0% 3% 6%

13 90 0% 0% 4% 0%

14 600 0% 0% 0% 0%

NOTE:

Shadow vehicles are loaded onto the analysis network (Figure 12) using Distribution C.

Special event vehicles are loaded using Distribution A.

KLD Engineering, P.C. 514 Revision 3

Turkey Point Evacuation Time Estimate Table 59. Trip Generation Histograms for the EPZ Population for Staged Evacuation Percent of Total Trips Generated Within Indicated Time Period*

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

2 15 0% 2%

3 15 0% 4%

4 15 1% 4%

5 15 2% 2%

6 15 2% 2%

7 30 5% 1%

8 30 3% 2%

9 60 4% 1%

10 60 74% 75%

11 60 2% 1%

12 60 3% 6%

13 90 4% 0%

14 600 0% 0%

Trip Generation for Employees and Transients (see Table 58) is the same for Unstaged and Staged Evacuation.

KLD Engineering, P.C. 515 Revision 3

Turkey Point Evacuation Time Estimate 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 KLD Engineering, P.C. 516 Revision 3

Turkey Point Evacuation Time Estimate Mobilization Activities 100%

Percent of Population Completing Mobilization Activity 80%

60%

Notification Prepare to Leave Work 40% Travel Home Prepare Home 20%

0%

0 30 60 90 120 150 180 210 240 270 300 330 360 390 Elapsed Time from Start of Mobilization Activity (min)

Figure 52. Evacuation Mobilization Activities KLD Engineering, P.C. 517 Revision 3

Turkey Point Evacuation Time Estimate 100.0%

90.0%

80.0%

Cumulative Percentage (%)

70.0%

60.0%

50.0%

40.0%

30.0%

20.0%

10.0%

0.0%

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

Cumulative Data Cumulative Normal Figure 53. Comparison of Data Distribution and Normal Distribution KLD Engineering, P.C. 518 Revision 3

Turkey Point Evacuation Time Estimate Mobilization Activities Employees/Transients Residents with Commuters Residents with no Commuters 100

% of Population Beginning Evacuation Trip 80 60 40 20 0

0 60 120 180 240 300 360 420 480 540 Elapsed Time from Advisory to Evacuate (min)

Figure 54. Comparison of Trip Generation Distributions KLD Engineering, P.C. 519 Revision 3

Turkey Point Evacuation Time Estimate Staged and Unstaged Evacuation Trip Generation Employees / Transients Residents with Commuters Residents with no Commuters Staged Residents with Commuters Staged Residents with no Commuters 100 90 80

% of Population Evacuating 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0

0 30 60 90 120 150 180 210 240 270 300 330 360 390 420 450 480 510 Elapsed Time from Evacuating Advisory (min)

Figure 55. Comparison of Staged and Unstaged Trip Generation Distributions in the 5 to 10 Mile Region KLD Engineering, P.C. 520 Revision 3

Turkey Point Evacuation Time Estimate 6 DEMAND ESTIMATION FOR EVACUATION SCENARIOS An evacuation case defines a combination of evacuation region and evacuation scenario. The definitions of region and scenario are as follows:

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

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

A total of 20 regions were defined which encompass all the groupings of areas considered.

These regions are defined in Table 61. The area configurations are identified in Figure 61.

These regions were identified based on the EPZ County protective action decision (PAD) standard operating procedures (pages 120122 in the Monroe County plan and Volume III, Chapter B, Subject 4 of the MiamiDade plan). Each keyhole sectorbased area generally consists of a central circle centered at the power plant, and three adjoining sectors (some regions use 4 sectors based on County PAD procedures), each with a central angle of 22.5 degrees, as per NUREG/CR7002 guidance. The central sector coincides with the wind direction. These sectors extend to the EPZ boundary (regions R04 through R11). Regions R01, R02 and R03 represent evacuations of circular areas with radii of 2, 5 and 10 miles, respectively.

Regions R12 through R20 are identical to regions R03 through R11, respectively; however, those areas between 5 miles and the EPZ boundary are staged until 90% of the 5mile region (region R02) has evacuated. Note that the EPZ Counties do not consider evacuation of the 2 mile region and downwind to 5 miles. Also, Monroe County only evacuates their portion of the EPZ when an evacuation of the entire EPZ is considered (regions R03 and R12). The corresponding Emergency Alert System (EAS) message numbers identified in the county plans for each wind direction/regional configuration are provided in the last column of Table 61.

A total of 12 scenarios were evaluated for all regions. Thus, there are a total of 20x12=240 evacuation cases. Table 62 is a description of all scenarios.

Each combination of region and scenario implies a specific population to be evacuated. Table 63 presents the percentage of each population group estimated to evacuate for each scenario.

Table 64 presents the vehicle counts for each scenario for an evacuation of region R03 - the entire EPZ.

The vehicle estimates presented in Section 3 are peak values. These peak values are adjusted depending on the scenario and region being considered, using scenario and region specific percentages; the scenario percentages are presented in Table 63, while the regional percentages are provided in Table H1. The percentages documented in Table 63 were determined as follows:

The number of residents with commuters during the week (when workforce is at its peak) is equal to the product of 68% (the number of households with at least one commuter) and 71%

KLD Engineering, P.C. 61 Revision 3

Turkey Point Evacuation Time Estimate (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 commuters will have a commuter at work during those times.

Employment is assumed to be at its peak 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 during winter weekends and less (50%) during the week. As shown in Appendix E, there is a significant amount of lodging and campgrounds offering overnight accommodations in the EPZ; thus, transient activity is estimated to be relatively high during evening hours - 25% for summer and 35% for winter. Transient activity on summer weekends is estimated to be 75%.

As noted in the shadow footnote to Table 63, the shadow percentages are computed using a base of 20% (see assumption 5 in Section 2.2); to include the employees within the shadow region who may choose to evacuate, the voluntary evacuation is multiplied by a scenario specific proportion of employees to permanent residents in the shadow region. For example, using the values provided in Table 64 for scenario 1, the shadow percentage is computed as follows:

18,033 20% 1 24%

43,784 46,568 One special event - a NASCAR race at HomesteadMiami Speedway - was considered as scenario 11. Thus, the special event traffic is 100% evacuated for scenario 11, and 0% for all other scenarios.

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. As discussed in Section 7, schools are in session during the winter season, midweek, midday and 100% of buses will be needed under those circumstances. Transit buses for the transitdependent population are set to 100% for all scenarios as it is assumed that the transitdependent population is present in the EPZ for all scenarios.

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

KLD Engineering, P.C. 62 Revision 3

Turkey Point Evacuation Time Estimate Table 61. Description of Evacuation Regions EAS Area Message Region Description 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 R01 2Mile Ring x x 4 R02 5Mile Ring x x x x 5&9 R03 Full EPZ x x x x x x x x x x 6 Evacuate 5Mile Radius and Downwind to EPZ Boundary Area Region Wind Direction Towards: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 EAS Message R04 N x x x x x x x 16 R05 NNE x x x x x x 7 N/A NE, ENE, E, ESE, SE, SSE, S Refer to Region R02 5&9 R06 SSW x x x x x 11 R07 SW, WSW x x x x x x 12 R08 W x x x x x x x 13 R09 WNW, NW x x x x x x x 14 R10 NNW x x x x x x x x 15 Site Specific Regions Area Region Wind Direction Towards: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 EAS Message R11 x x x x x x x x 8 Staged Evacuation 5Mile Radius Evacuates, then Evacuate Downwind to EPZ Boundary Area Region Wind Direction Towards: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 EAS Message R12 Full EPZ x x x x x x x x x x N/A R13 N x x x x x x x N/A R14 NNE x x x x x x N/A N/A NE, ENE, E, ESE, SE, SSE, S Refer to Region R02 N/A R15 SSW x x x x x N/A R16 SW, WSW x x x x x x N/A R17 W x x x x x x x N/A R18 WNW, NW x x x x x x x N/A R19 NNW x x x x x x x x N/A R20 x x x x x x x x N/A ShelterinPlace until 90% ETE for R02, then Evacuate Area(s) ShelterinPlace Area(s) Evacuate KLD Engineering, P.C. 63 Revision 3

Turkey Point Evacuation Time Estimate Table 62. Evacuation Scenario Definitions Day of Time of Scenario Season1 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 Weekend Evening Good None 6 Winter Midweek Midday Good None 7 Winter Midweek Midday Rain None 8 Winter Weekend Midday Good None 9 Winter Weekend Midday Rain None Midweek, 10 Winter Weekend Evening Good None NASCAR Race at HomesteadMiami 11 Winter Weekend Midday Good Speedway Roadway Impact - Lane Closure on Florida 12 Summer Midweek Midday Good Turnpike NB 1

Winter assumes that school is in session (also applies to spring and autumn). Summer assumes that school is not in session.

KLD Engineering, P.C. 64 Revision 3

Turkey Point Evacuation Time Estimate Table 63. Percent of Population Groups Evacuating for Various Scenarios Households Households With Without External Returning Returning Special School Transit Through Scenario Commuters Commuters Employees Transients Shadow Events Buses Buses Traffic 1 48% 52% 96% 50% 24% 0% 10% 100% 100%

2 48% 52% 96% 50% 24% 0% 10% 100% 100%

3 10% 90% 10% 75% 20% 0% 0% 100% 100%

4 10% 90% 10% 75% 20% 0% 0% 100% 100%

5 10% 90% 10% 25% 20% 0% 0% 100% 40%

6 48% 52% 100% 50% 24% 0% 100% 100% 100%

7 48% 52% 100% 50% 24% 0% 100% 100% 100%

8 10% 90% 10% 100% 20% 0% 0% 100% 100%

9 10% 90% 10% 100% 20% 0% 0% 100% 100%

10 10% 90% 10% 35% 20% 0% 0% 100% 40%

11 10% 90% 10% 100% 20% 100% 0% 100% 100%

12 48% 52% 96% 50% 24% 0% 10% 100% 100%

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

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

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

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

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

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

External Through Traffic ................................. Traffic on interstates/freeways and major arterial roads at the start of the evacuation. This traffic is stopped by access control 2 hours2.314815e-5 days 5.555556e-4 hours 3.306878e-6 weeks 7.61e-7 months after the evacuation begins.

KLD Engineering, P.C. 65 Revision 3

Turkey Point Evacuation Time Estimate Table 64. Vehicle Estimates by Scenario Households Households With Without Total Returning Returning Special School Transit External Scenario Scenario Commuters Commuters Employees Transients Shadow Events Buses Buses Through Traffic Vehicles 1 43,784 46,568 18,033 6,717 18,314 123 586 5,882 140,007 2 43,784 46,568 18,033 6,717 18,314 123 586 5,882 140,007 3 4,378 85,974 1,878 10,076 15,584 586 5,882 124,358 4 4,378 85,974 1,878 10,076 15,584 586 5,882 124,358 5 4,378 85,974 1,878 3,359 15,584 586 2,353 114,112 6 43,784 46,568 18,784 6,717 18,441 1,230 586 5,882 141,992 7 43,784 46,568 18,784 6,717 18,441 1,230 586 5,882 141,992 8 4,378 85,974 1,878 13,434 15,584 586 5,882 127,716 9 4,378 85,974 1,878 13,434 15,584 586 5,882 127,716 10 4,378 85,974 1,878 4,702 15,584 586 2,353 115,455 11 4,378 85,974 1,878 13,434 15,584 32,600 586 5,882 160,316 12 43,784 46,568 18,033 6,717 18,314 123 586 5,882 140,007 Note: Vehicle estimates are for an evacuation of the entire EPZ (region R03)

KLD Engineering, P.C. 66 Revision 3

Turkey Point Evacuation Time Estimate Figure 61. PTN EPZ Areas KLD Engineering, P.C. 67 Revision 3

Turkey Point Evacuation Time Estimate 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 20 regions within the Turkey Point Nuclear Power Plant EPZ and the 12 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 5mile region for 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 people within the EPZ in areas for which an ATE has not been issued, yet who elect to evacuate. Shadow evacuation is the voluntary outward movement of some people 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 PTN EPZ addresses the issue of voluntary evacuees in the manner shown in Figure 71. Within the EPZ, 20 percent of people located in areas outside of the evacuation region who are not advised to evacuate, are assumed to elect to evacuate. Similarly, it is assumed that 20 percent of those people in the shadow region will choose to leave the area.

Figure 72 presents the area identified as the shadow region. This region extends radially from the plant to cover a region between the EPZ boundary and approximately 15 miles. The population and number of evacuating vehicles in the shadow region were estimated using the same methodology that was used for permanent residents within the EPZ (see Section 3.1). As discussed in Section 3.2, it is estimated that a total of 174,292 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, traveling away from the PTN location has the potential for impeding evacuating vehicles from within the evacuation region. All ETE calculations include this shadow traffic movement.

7.2 Staged Evacuation As defined in NUREG/CR7002, staged evacuation consists of the prompt evacuation of the 2 mile region, while those beyond 2 miles shelterinplace. As discussed in Sections 5.4.2 and 6, MiamiDade County does not consider the evacuation of the 2 mile radius and 5 miles downwind. Rather, MiamiDade considers evacuation of the 5 mile radius and downwind to the EPZ boundary. Thus, this study considers staged evacuation based on a 5 mile prompt evacuation as discussed below:

KLD Engineering, P.C. 71 Revision 3

Turkey Point Evacuation Time Estimate

1. Areas comprising the 5 mile region are advised to evacuate immediately.

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

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

4. The population sheltering in the 5 miles downwind to the EPZ boundary region is advised to evacuate when approximately 90% of the 5 mile region evacuating traffic crosses the 5 mile region boundary.

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

See Section 5.4.2 for additional information on staged evacuation.

7.3 Patterns of Traffic Congestion during Evacuation Figure 73 through Figure 77 illustrate the patterns of traffic congestion that arise for the case when the entire EPZ (region R03) is advised to evacuate during the winter, midweek, midday period under good weather conditions (scenario 6).

Traffic congestion, as the term is used here, is defined as LOS F. LOS F is defined as follows (HCM 2010, page 55):

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

Demandtocapacity ratios describe the extent to which capacity is exceeded during the analysis period (e.g., by 1%, 15%, etc.);

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

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

All highway "links" which experience LOS F are delineated in these figures by a thick red line; all others are lightly indicated. Congestion develops rapidly around concentrations of population and traffic bottlenecks. Figure 73 presents the traffic congestion patterns at one hour after the advisory to evacuate. There is significant congestion within the EPZ at this time. The Florida Turnpike is congested northbound between the access ramps from SW 228th St and State Route 992 in Richmond Heights. Krome Avenue northbound is congested within the shadow region. 344th Street is congested westbound as those workers evacuating from Turkey Point KLD Engineering, P.C. 72 Revision 3

Turkey Point Evacuation Time Estimate encounter an allway stop at the intersection with 117th Avenue. U.S. Highway 1 and Old Cutler Rd are also congested northbound. Finally, County Route 905 (CR905) westbound is congested due to evacuation of the Ocean Reef Community and the TCPs at the intersections with CR905A (Card Sound Rd) and with U.S. Highway 1.

Figure 74 presents the traffic congestion patterns at the peak of congestion, three hours after the ATE. All northbound routes leaving the EPZ exhibit pronounced traffic congestion.

Congestion exists northbound on the turnpike from the interchange with U.S. Highway 1 in Florida City to the split with Don Shula Expressway. Krome Avenue is congested northbound from Florida City through the shadow region. U.S. Highway 1 is congested northbound from Florida City to 136th Street. Old Cutler Rd is congested northbound from the intersection with U.S. Highway 1 to 184th Street. The congestion on 344th Street westbound cleared at one hour and 30 minutes after the advisory to evacuate. Congestion on CR905 westbound leaving the ORC cleared at 2:15. However, congestion persists on CR905 westbound in the shadow region at the intersection with U.S. Highway 1. Note that the 5mile region is essentially clear of congestion.

The congestion patterns at five hours after the advisory to evacuate are displayed in Figure 75.

The congestion patterns are similar to those at three hours. Congestion is beginning to dissipate on Old Cutler Rd northbound and on U.S. Highway 1 within the shadow region.

Pronounced congestion persists on the Florida Turnpike northbound and on U.S. Highway 1 northbound within the EPZ, though the Turnpike is now clear from Florida City to SW 312th St.

Congestion on CR905 within the shadow region cleared at 4 hours4.62963e-5 days 0.00111 hours 6.613757e-6 weeks 1.522e-6 months , 15 minutes after the ATE.

Figure 76 presents the congestion patterns at seven hours after the ATE. Congestion on Old Cutler Rd has cleared, while congestion continues to dissipate northbound on U.S. Highway 1 within the shadow region. Pronounced congestion persists on U.S. Highway 1 northbound in the EPZ in Goulds and Cutler Bay near the interchange with the Florida Turnpike. Congestion northbound on the Florida Turnpike has cleared within the EPZ. Nearly all of the congestion has eased in area 8. Congestion persists on the northbound routes through area 7.

At 10 hours1.157407e-4 days 0.00278 hours 1.653439e-5 weeks 3.805e-6 months after the ATE (Figure 77), the EPZ is clear of traffic congestion. Congestion persists on Krome Avenue northbound in the shadow region. Congestion along U.S. Highway 1 and the Florida Turnpike clear by eight hours after the ATE.

These congestion patterns indicate that there is unused capacity available for those people evacuating the EPZ, namely U.S. Highway 1 southbound toward the Florida Keys.

7.4 Evacuation Rates Evacuation is a continuous process, as implied by Figure 78 through Figure 719. These figures indicate the rate at which traffic flows out of the indicated areas for the case of an evacuation of the full EPZ (region R03) under the indicated conditions. One figure is presented for each scenario considered.

As indicated in Figure 78, 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 KLD Engineering, P.C. 73 Revision 3

Turkey Point Evacuation Time Estimate 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 - 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 20 evacuation regions and all 12 evacuation scenarios. Table 73 through Table 74 present the ETE values for the 5Mile region for both staged and unstaged keyhole regions downwind to the EPZ boundary. The ETE tables 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 73 population within the 5mile region, to evacuate from that region with both concurrent and staged evacuations.

ETE represents the elapsed time required for 100 percent of the 74 population within the 5mile region, to evacuate from that region with both concurrent and staged evacuations.

The animation snapshots described above reflect the ETE statistics for the concurrent (un staged) evacuation scenarios and regions, which are displayed in Figure 73 through Figure 77.

Most of the congestion is located beyond the 5mile region, which is reflected in the ETE statistics:

The 90th percentile ETE for region R01 (2mile region), which is comprised solely of employees at PTN, range between 1:20 (hr:min) and 1:35 (slightly higher for weekday than weekend scenarios).

The 90th percentile ETE for region R02 (5mile region) range between 2:25 and 3:25 (slightly higher for weekday than weekend scenarios).

KLD Engineering, P.C. 74 Revision 3

Turkey Point Evacuation Time Estimate The 90th percentile ETE for regions R03 (full EPZ) and R04 through R10 (regions extending to the EPZ boundary) can extend the ETE by approximately 5 hours5.787037e-5 days 0.00139 hours 8.267196e-6 weeks 1.9025e-6 months due to the pronounced traffic congestion beyond the 5mile radius.

The 100th percentile ETE for all regions and scenarios within 5 miles are comparable to mobilization time. This fact implies that the congestion within the 5mile region dissipates prior to the end of mobilization, as is displayed in Figure 74. However, for those evacuation regions that extend beyond 5 miles, ETE is significantly longer than mobilization time, implying that traffic congestion does not clear prior to the completion of mobilization time, as seen in Figure

77. The congestion is pronounced in regions with wind directions toward the north and west (R07 through R11) where ETE are approximately 2 hours2.314815e-5 days 5.555556e-4 hours 3.306878e-6 weeks 7.61e-7 months (slightly higher in rain scenarios) longer.

Comparison of scenarios 8 and 11 in Table 71 indicates that the special event - a NASCAR race at the HomesteadMiami Speedway - has a significant impact on the ETE for the 90th percentile.

The 2 and 5mile regions are not adversely affected by the special event (note the ETE for the 5mile region actually decreases by 50 minutes because of the traffic control measures implemented during the NASCAR race), but for regions that extend beyond 5 miles, the 90th percentile ETE increases by as much as 2 hours2.314815e-5 days 5.555556e-4 hours 3.306878e-6 weeks 7.61e-7 months and 20 minutes. The special event has a significant impact on the 100th percentile ETE as well, adding an additional 3 hours3.472222e-5 days 8.333333e-4 hours 4.960317e-6 weeks 1.1415e-6 months for a full EPZ (region R03) evacuation.

Comparison of scenarios 1 and 12 in Table 71 indicates that the roadway closure - one lane northbound on the Florida Turnpike from the interchange with US 1 in Florida City to the end of the analysisnetwork at the interchange with the Don Shula Expressway - does have a material impact on 90th percentile ETE for keyhole regions with wind toward the north and west (regions R07 through R11) and for the full EPZ (region R03), with up to 1 hour1.157407e-5 days 2.777778e-4 hours 1.653439e-6 weeks 3.805e-7 months increases in ETE. Wind from the north and west carries the plume over the major population centers in the EPZ, which utilize the Florida Turnpike northbound as an evacuation route. Closing a single lane on the Florida Turnpike northbound reduces capacity in half for most of the roadway through the EPZ, increasing congestion and prolonging ETE.

The results of the roadway impact scenario indicate that events such as adverse weather or traffic accidents which could close a lane on the Florida Turnpike, could impact ETE. State and local police could consider traffic management tactics such as using the shoulder of the roadway as a travel lane or rerouting of traffic along other evacuation routes to avoid overwhelming the Florida Turnpike. All efforts should be made to remove the blockage on the Florida Turnpike, particularly within the first 7 hours8.101852e-5 days 0.00194 hours 1.157407e-5 weeks 2.6635e-6 months of the evacuation.

7.6 Staged Evacuation Results Table 73 and Table 74 present a comparison of the ETE compiled for the concurrent (un staged) evacuation studies with the staged evacuation studies. Note that regions R12 through R20 (staged) are the same geographic areas as regions R03 through R11 (concurrent),

respectively.

KLD Engineering, P.C. 75 Revision 3

Turkey Point Evacuation Time Estimate To determine whether the staged evacuation strategy is worthy of consideration, one must show that the ETE for the 5mile region (region R02) can be reduced without significantly affecting the region between 5 miles and the EPZ boundary.

Comparing regions R03 through R11 with regions R12 through R20 in Table 71 indicates that the 90th percentile ETE increases by as little as 10 minutes and as much as 2 hours2.314815e-5 days 5.555556e-4 hours 3.306878e-6 weeks 7.61e-7 months and 20 minutes when staging evacuation. As shown in Figure 55, staging the evacuation causes a significant spike (sharp increase) in mobilization (tripgeneration rate) of evacuating vehicles:

nearly 70 percent of the evacuating vehicles between 5 miles and the EPZ boundary who have sheltered in place while residents within 5 miles evacuated, begin their evacuation trip over a 15 minute timeframe. This spike oversaturates evacuation routes, causing significant traffic congestion, rerouting and prolonged ETE.

Comparing regions R03 through R11 with regions R12 through R20 in Table 72 indicates that the 100th percentile ETE increase by as much as 1 hour1.157407e-5 days 2.777778e-4 hours 1.653439e-6 weeks 3.805e-7 months and 45 minutes when staging evacuation.

As shown in Table 73, the ETE for region R02 (5mile region only) is about 3:20, on average.

When evacuating a keyhole region beyond 5 miles, the ETE for the 5mile region increases significantly as shown for R03 through R11 in Table 73 (by as much as 5:20 for scenario 11).

The reason for this increase is that many of the vehicles evacuating from Leisure City and Naranja would travel eastbound on SW 268th St, SW 280th St and SW 288th St to access the ramps to the Florida Turnpike. In doing so, these vehicles enter the 5mile region and significantly increase the ETE for the 5mile region. When staging these keyhole regions (regions R12 through R20) in Table 73, the ETE increase by as much as 2 hours2.314815e-5 days 5.555556e-4 hours 3.306878e-6 weeks 7.61e-7 months and 20 minutes. Again, the spike in traffic demand increases traffic congestion prompts the routing described above and prolongs ETE.

Table 74 indicates that the 100th percentile ETE for both unstaged and staged evacuation of the 5mile region for nearly all keyholes is 8:05, which reflects the trip generation time, rather than traffic congestion, except for the special event (scenario 11). The special event involves a large number of vehicles evacuating from the HomesteadMiami Speedway. Many of these vehicles will evacuate northbound on Speedway Blvd (SW 137th Ave), which is the boundary of the 5mile region. These additional special event vehicles cause traffic congestion which extends the 100th percentile ETE beyond the trip generation time. See the ETE for regions R03 and R07 through R11 for scenario 11 in Table 74.

Note that staged evacuation was not considered for scenario 11. The HomesteadMiami Speedway would be evacuated immediately if there were an incident at PTN. As such, it is not realistic to stage the large population at the Speedway during an evacuation.

In summary, staged evacuation would be beneficial for evacuating the resident population within the 5mile region of PTN. As discussed above, the ETE for the 5mile region are however significantly longer when evacuating additional areas beyond 5 miles due to the routing of vehicles from beyond 5 miles into the 5mile region to access the Florida Turnpike. Although staged evacuation is disadvantageous to those beyond 5 miles, it does expedite the evacuation of those evacuees from within the 5mile region.

KLD Engineering, P.C. 76 Revision 3

Turkey Point Evacuation Time Estimate 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

Special Event NASCAR Championship Race at HomesteadMiami Speedway Road Closure (A single lane on the Florida Turnpike northbound is closed)

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 seasons are defined as follows:

Summer assumes that public schools are not in session.

Winter (includes Spring and Autumn) considers that public schools are in session.

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: towards N, NNE, NE,

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:

KLD Engineering, P.C. 77 Revision 3

Turkey Point Evacuation Time Estimate 2 Miles (region R01)

To 5 Miles (region R02)

To EPZ boundary (regions R03 through R11)

Enter Table 75 and identify the applicable group of candidate regions based on the distance that the selected region extends from the PTN. 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 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.

KLD Engineering, P.C. 78 Revision 3

Turkey Point Evacuation Time Estimate Example It is desired to identify the ETE for the following conditions:

Sunday, August 10th at 4:00 AM.

It is raining.

Wind direction is toward the northnortheast (NNE).

Wind speed is such that the distance to be evacuated is judged to be a 5mile radius and downwind to the EPZ boundary.

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

A staged evacuation is not desired.

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

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

2. Enter Table 75 and locate the region described as Evacuate 5Mile Radius and Downwind to EPZ Boundary for wind direction toward the NNE and read region R05 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 R05. This data cell is in column (4) and in the row for region R05; it contains the ETE value of 3:40.

KLD Engineering, P.C. 79 Revision 3

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

Midday Midday Evening Midday Midday Evening Midday Midday Region Good Good Good Good Good Good Special Roadway Rain Rain Rain Rain Weather Weather Weather Weather Weather Weather Event Impact Entire 2Mile Region, 5Mile Region, and EPZ R01 1:35 1:35 1:20 1:20 1:20 1:35 1:35 1:20 1:20 1:20 1:20 1:35 R02 3:25 3:25 3:15 3:15 3:20 3:25 3:25 3:15 3:15 3:20 2:25 3:25 R03 6:55 7:20 6:00 6:15 5:40 6:55 7:15 6:10 6:10 5:45 8:15 7:30 5Mile Region and Keyhole to EPZ Boundary R04 4:10 4:25 3:50 4:10 3:40 4:10 4:35 3:50 4:05 3:40 4:20 4:15 R05 3:45 4:00 3:20 3:40 3:25 3:45 4:00 3:30 3:45 3:25 3:45 3:45 R06 2:35 2:35 2:25 2:25 2:45 2:30 2:30 2:20 2:25 2:45 2:15 2:35 R07 5:20 5:40 4:55 5:00 5:05 5:30 5:40 4:45 5:00 4:55 6:35 5:40 R08 6:00 6:20 5:35 5:35 5:20 6:00 6:35 5:30 5:55 5:20 7:25 6:55 R09 6:30 6:50 5:40 6:05 5:25 6:35 7:05 5:45 6:05 5:35 8:00 7:15 R10 6:50 7:20 6:05 6:30 5:25 7:00 7:15 6:10 6:20 5:25 8:20 7:25 Site Specific Regions R11 6:25 6:50 5:40 6:10 5:25 6:35 7:10 5:40 6:05 5:30 8:00 7:25 Staged Evacuation 5Mile Region and Keyhole to EPZ Boundary R12 7:25 7:55 7:30 7:30 7:20 7:25 7:40 7:20 7:30 7:25 8:00 R13 5:45 5:55 5:45 6:00 5:50 5:45 6:00 5:45 5:55 5:45 5:45 R14 5:35 5:45 5:40 5:50 5:40 5:35 5:50 5:40 5:45 5:35 5:35 R15 4:00 4:00 4:00 4:00 4:15 4:00 4:00 4:00 4:00 4:15 4:00 R16 6:20 6:25 6:15 6:20 6:15 6:15 6:25 6:20 6:25 6:15 N/A 6:30 R17 6:55 7:20 6:55 7:15 6:50 6:55 7:10 6:50 7:10 6:55 7:20 R18 7:15 7:30 7:05 7:35 7:00 7:15 7:35 7:05 7:20 6:55 7:40 R19 7:30 7:35 7:25 7:45 7:20 7:10 7:50 7:35 7:45 7:20 7:55 R20 7:15 7:30 7:10 7:30 7:05 7:20 7:35 7:05 7:25 7:00 7:45 KLD Engineering, P.C. 710 Revision 3

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

Midday Midday Evening Midday Midday Evening Midday Midday Region Good Good Good Good Good Good Special Roadway Rain Rain Rain Rain Weather Weather Weather Weather Weather Weather Event Impact Entire 2Mile Region, 5Mile Region, and EPZ R01 2:10 2:10 2:00 2:05 2:00 2:10 2:10 2:00 2:05 2:00 2:00 2:10 R02 8:05 8:05 8:05 8:05 8:05 8:05 8:05 8:05 8:05 8:05 8:05 8:05 R03 9:40 10:30 9:05 9:40 8:35 10:05 10:50 9:15 9:30 8:15 12:15 10:15 5Mile Region and Keyhole to EPZ Boundary R04 8:10 8:10 8:10 8:10 8:10 8:10 8:10 8:10 8:10 8:10 8:10 8:10 R05 8:10 8:10 8:10 8:10 8:10 8:10 8:10 8:10 8:10 8:10 8:10 8:10 R06 8:10 8:10 8:10 8:10 8:10 8:10 8:10 8:10 8:10 8:10 8:10 8:10 R07 8:35 9:25 8:10 8:40 8:10 8:30 9:30 8:10 8:20 8:10 10:35 9:10 R08 9:25 9:35 8:25 8:50 8:10 9:05 10:25 8:20 9:45 8:35 11:00 9:45 R09 9:25 10:30 9:00 9:30 8:50 9:40 10:30 8:25 9:40 8:55 11:30 10:00 R10 9:55 10:45 9:35 10:00 8:35 9:50 10:45 9:20 9:50 8:45 12:05 10:30 Site Specific Regions R11 9:20 10:15 8:55 9:40 8:45 9:50 10:55 8:50 9:30 8:45 11:00 10:20 Staged Evacuation 5Mile Region and Keyhole to EPZ Boundary R12 10:05 11:05 10:35 10:35 9:45 10:15 11:25 10:05 10:25 9:40 10:50 R13 8:10 8:10 8:10 8:10 8:10 8:10 8:10 8:10 8:10 8:10 8:10 R14 8:10 8:10 8:10 8:10 8:10 8:10 8:10 8:10 8:10 8:10 8:10 R15 8:10 8:10 8:10 8:10 8:10 8:10 8:10 8:10 8:10 8:10 8:10 R16 9:20 10:00 9:20 9:50 9:20 9:35 10:00 9:00 9:55 8:55 N/A 10:10 R17 9:50 10:30 9:40 10:35 9:20 10:15 10:15 9:30 10:25 9:15 10:05 R18 10:15 10:45 9:40 10:55 9:10 10:20 11:05 10:10 10:35 9:45 10:40 R19 10:10 11:20 10:30 10:50 9:55 10:10 11:20 10:40 10:55 9:50 11:00 R20 10:15 10:55 9:35 11:00 9:45 10:25 11:00 9:55 10:35 9:55 10:35 KLD Engineering, P.C. 711 Revision 3

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

Midday Midday Evening Midday Midday Evening Midday Midday Region Good Good Good Good Good Good Special Roadway Rain Rain Rain Rain Weather Weather Weather Weather Weather Weather Event Impact Unstaged Evacuation 5Mile Region and Keyhole to EPZ Boundary R02 3:25 3:25 3:15 3:15 3:20 3:25 3:25 3:15 3:15 3:20 2:25 3:25 R03 5:40 5:55 4:40 5:05 4:20 5:40 6:00 4:50 5:00 4:25 7:45 6:50 R04 3:35 3:35 3:20 3:20 3:25 3:35 3:35 3:20 3:20 3:25 2:55 3:35 R05 3:35 3:35 3:20 3:20 3:25 3:30 3:30 3:20 3:20 3:25 2:45 3:35 R06 3:25 3:25 3:20 3:20 3:20 3:25 3:25 3:15 3:15 3:20 2:30 3:25 R07 4:15 4:10 3:40 3:40 3:30 4:30 4:40 3:30 3:40 3:25 6:25 5:00 R08 4:35 4:45 4:00 4:10 3:35 4:25 4:40 4:00 4:10 3:45 6:55 5:50 R09 5:20 5:25 4:20 4:35 4:00 4:55 5:40 4:20 4:45 4:05 7:10 6:30 R10 5:25 5:55 4:40 5:05 4:05 5:45 5:50 4:55 4:55 4:15 7:50 6:35 R11 4:55 5:20 4:15 4:45 4:05 5:05 5:50 4:25 4:35 4:00 7:25 6:25 Staged Evacuation 5Mile Region and Keyhole to EPZ Boundary R12 6:15 6:35 6:20 6:20 6:10 6:15 6:25 6:10 6:25 6:20 7:05 R13 4:35 4:40 4:35 4:40 4:35 4:35 4:35 4:35 4:35 4:35 4:35 R14 4:30 4:30 4:30 4:30 4:30 4:25 4:30 4:30 4:30 4:30 4:30 R15 4:25 4:25 4:25 4:25 4:25 4:20 4:20 4:25 4:25 4:25 4:25 R16 5:30 5:45 5:45 5:45 5:35 5:35 5:40 5:40 6:00 5:40 N/A 6:10 R17 5:40 5:45 5:40 6:10 5:45 5:40 5:45 5:45 5:55 5:50 6:30 R18 6:00 6:10 6:05 6:10 6:00 6:00 6:15 6:00 6:10 5:55 6:45 R19 6:10 6:25 6:10 6:25 6:10 6:05 6:35 6:20 6:30 6:15 6:45 R20 6:05 6:20 6:00 6:10 6:05 6:05 6:15 6:00 6:10 6:00 6:50 KLD Engineering, P.C. 712 Revision 3

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

Midday Midday Evening Midday Midday Evening Midday Midday Region Good Good Good Good Good Good Special Roadway Rain Rain Rain Rain Weather Weather Weather Weather Weather Weather Event Impact Unstaged Evacuation 5Mile Region and Keyhole to EPZ Boundary R02 8:05 8:05 8:05 8:05 8:05 8:05 8:05 8:05 8:05 8:05 8:05 8:05 R03 8:05 8:05 8:05 8:05 8:05 8:05 8:05 8:05 8:05 8:05 9:35 8:05 R04 8:05 8:05 8:05 8:05 8:05 8:05 8:05 8:05 8:05 8:05 8:05 8:05 R05 8:05 8:05 8:05 8:05 8:05 8:05 8:05 8:05 8:05 8:05 8:05 8:05 R06 8:05 8:05 8:05 8:05 8:05 8:05 8:05 8:05 8:05 8:05 8:05 8:05 R07 8:05 8:05 8:05 8:05 8:05 8:05 8:05 8:05 8:05 8:05 8:40 8:05 R08 8:05 8:05 8:05 8:05 8:05 8:05 8:05 8:05 8:05 8:05 8:25 8:05 R09 8:05 8:05 8:05 8:05 8:05 8:05 8:05 8:05 8:05 8:05 9:20 8:05 R10 8:05 8:05 8:05 8:05 8:05 8:05 8:05 8:05 8:05 8:05 9:45 8:05 R11 8:05 8:05 8:05 8:05 8:05 8:05 8:05 8:05 8:05 8:05 10:10 8:05 Staged Evacuation 5Mile Region and Keyhole to EPZ Boundary R12 8:05 8:05 8:05 8:05 8:05 8:05 8:05 8:05 8:05 8:05 8:20 R13 8:05 8:05 8:05 8:05 8:05 8:05 8:05 8:05 8:05 8:05 8:05 R14 8:05 8:05 8:05 8:05 8:05 8:05 8:05 8:05 8:05 8:05 8:05 R15 8:05 8:05 8:05 8:05 8:05 8:05 8:05 8:05 8:05 8:05 8:05 R16 8:05 8:05 8:05 8:05 8:05 8:20 8:05 8:05 8:05 8:05 N/A 8:05 R17 8:05 8:05 8:05 8:05 8:05 8:05 8:05 8:05 8:05 8:05 8:05 R18 8:05 8:05 8:05 8:05 8:05 8:05 8:05 8:05 8:05 8:05 8:05 R19 8:05 8:05 8:05 8:05 8:05 8:05 8:05 8:05 8:05 8:05 8:20 R20 8:05 8:05 8:05 8:05 8:05 8:05 8:05 8:05 8:05 8:05 8:10 KLD Engineering, P.C. 713 Revision 3

Turkey Point Evacuation Time Estimate Table 75. Description of Evacuation Regions EAS Area Message Region Description 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 R01 2Mile Ring x x 4 R02 5Mile Ring x x x x 5&9 R03 Full EPZ x x x x x x x x x x 6 Evacuate 5Mile Radius and Downwind to EPZ Boundary Area Region Wind Direction Towards: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 EAS Message R04 N x x x x x x x 16 R05 NNE x x x x x x 7 N/A NE, ENE, E, ESE, SE, SSE, S Refer to Region R02 5&9 R06 SSW x x x x x 11 R07 SW, WSW x x x x x x 12 R08 W x x x x x x x 13 R09 WNW, NW x x x x x x x 14 R10 NNW x x x x x x x x 15 Site Specific Regions Area Region Wind Direction Towards: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 EAS Message R11 x x x x x x x x 8 Staged Evacuation 5Mile Radius Evacuates, then Evacuate Downwind to EPZ Boundary Area Region Wind Direction Towards: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 EAS Message R12 Full EPZ x x x x x x x x x x N/A R13 N x x x x x x x N/A R14 NNE x x x x x x N/A N/A NE, ENE, E, ESE, SE, SSE, S Refer to Region R02 N/A R15 SSW x x x x x N/A R16 SW, WSW x x x x x x N/A R17 W x x x x x x x N/A R18 WNW, NW x x x x x x x N/A R19 NNW x x x x x x x x N/A R20 x x x x x x x x N/A ShelterinPlace until 90% ETE for R02, then Evacuate Area(s) ShelterinPlace Area(s) Evacuate KLD Engineering, P.C. 714 Revision 3

Turkey Point Evacuation Time Estimate Figure 71. Voluntary Evacuation Methodology KLD Engineering, P.C. 715 Revision 3

Turkey Point Evacuation Time Estimate Figure 72. PTN Shadow Region KLD Engineering, P.C. 716 Revision 3

Turkey Point Evacuation Time Estimate Figure 73. Congestion Patterns at 1 Hour after the Advisory to Evacuate KLD Engineering, P.C. 717 Revision 3

Turkey Point Evacuation Time Estimate Figure 74. Congestion Patterns at 3 Hours after the Advisory to Evacuate KLD Engineering, P.C. 718 Revision 3

Turkey Point Evacuation Time Estimate Figure 75. Congestion Patterns at 5 Hours after the Advisory to Evacuate KLD Engineering, P.C. 719 Revision 3

Turkey Point Evacuation Time Estimate Figure 76. Congestion Patterns at 7 Hours after the Advisory to Evacuate KLD Engineering, P.C. 720 Revision 3

Turkey Point Evacuation Time Estimate Figure 77. Congestion Patterns at10 Hours after the Advisory to Evacuate KLD Engineering, P.C. 721 Revision 3

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

180 160 140 Vehicles Evacuating 120 100 80 (Thousands) 60 40 20 0

0 60 120 180 240 300 360 420 480 540 600 660 Elapsed Time After Evacuation Recommendation (min)

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

180 160 140 Vehicles Evacuating 120 100 80 (Thousands) 60 40 20 0

0 60 120 180 240 300 360 420 480 540 600 660 720 Elapsed Time After Evacuation Recommendation (min)

Figure 79. Evacuation Time Estimates Scenario 2 for Region R03 KLD Engineering, P.C. 722 Revision 3

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

180 160 140 Vehicles Evacuating 120 100 80 (Thousands) 60 40 20 0

0 60 120 180 240 300 360 420 480 540 600 Elapsed Time After Evacuation Recommendation (min)

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

180 160 140 Vehicles Evacuating 120 100 80 (Thousands) 60 40 20 0

0 60 120 180 240 300 360 420 480 540 600 660 Elapsed Time After Evacuation Recommendation (min)

Figure 711. Evacuation Time Estimates Scenario 4 for Region R03 KLD Engineering, P.C. 723 Revision 3

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

180 160 140 Vehicles Evacuating 120 100 80 (Thousands) 60 40 20 0

0 60 120 180 240 300 360 420 480 540 600 Elapsed Time After Evacuation Recommendation (min)

Figure 712. 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%

180 160 140 Vehicles Evacuating 120 100 80 (Thousands) 60 40 20 0

0 60 120 180 240 300 360 420 480 540 600 660 Elapsed Time After Evacuation Recommendation (min)

Figure 713. Evacuation Time Estimates Scenario 6 for Region R03 KLD Engineering, P.C. 724 Revision 3

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

180 160 140 Vehicles Evacuating 120 100 80 (Thousands) 60 40 20 0

0 60 120 180 240 300 360 420 480 540 600 660 720 Elapsed Time After Evacuation Recommendation (min)

Figure 714. Evacuation Time Estimates Scenario 7 for Region R03 Evacuation Time Estimates Winter, Weekend, Midday, Good (Scenario 8) 2Mile Region 5Mile Region Entire EPZ 90% 100%

180 160 140 Vehicles Evacuating 120 100 80 (Thousands) 60 40 20 0

0 60 120 180 240 300 360 420 480 540 600 Elapsed Time After Evacuation Recommendation (min)

Figure 715. Evacuation Time Estimates Scenario 8 for Region R03 KLD Engineering, P.C. 725 Revision 3

Turkey Point Evacuation Time Estimate Evacuation Time Estimates Winter, Weekend, Midday, Rain (Scenario 9) 2Mile Region 5Mile Region Entire EPZ 90% 100%

180 160 140 Vehicles Evacuating 120 100 80 (Thousands) 60 40 20 0

0 60 120 180 240 300 360 420 480 540 600 Elapsed Time After Evacuation Recommendation (min)

Figure 716. Evacuation Time Estimates Scenario 9 for Region R03 Evacuation Time Estimates Winter, Midweek, Weekend, Evening, Good (Scenario 10) 2Mile Region 5Mile Region Entire EPZ 90% 100%

180 160 140 Vehicles Evacuating 120 100 80 (Thousands) 60 40 20 0

0 60 120 180 240 300 360 420 480 540 Elapsed Time After Evacuation Recommendation (min)

Figure 717. Evacuation Time Estimates Scenario 10 for Region R03 KLD Engineering, P.C. 726 Revision 3

Turkey Point Evacuation Time Estimate Evacuation Time Estimates Winter, Weekend, Midday, Good, Special Event (Scenario 11) 2Mile Region 5Mile Region Entire EPZ 90% 100%

180 160 140 Vehicles Evacuating 120 100 80 (Thousands) 60 40 20 0

0 60 120 180 240 300 360 420 480 540 600 660 720 780 Elapsed Time After Evacuation Recommendation (min)

Figure 718. Evacuation Time Estimates Scenario 11 for Region R03 Evacuation Time Estimates Summer, Midweek, Midday, Good, Roadway Impact (Scenario 12) 2Mile Region 5Mile Region Entire EPZ 90% 100%

180 160 Vehicles Evacuating 140 120 100 80 (Thousands) 60 40 20 0

0 60 120 180 240 300 360 420 480 540 600 660 Elapsed Time After Evacuation Recommendation (min)

Figure 719. Evacuation Time Estimates Scenario 12 for Region R03 KLD Engineering, P.C. 727 Revision 3

Turkey Point Evacuation Time Estimate 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. 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, medical facilities, and correctional facilities; and (3) homebound special 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. Based on discussion with the offsite agencies, bus mobilization times vary between 90 and 120 minutes during school days. Therefore, it is estimated that bus mobilization time will average approximately 105 minutes extending from the ATE, to the time when buses first arrive at the facility to be evacuated.

During this mobilization period, other mobilization activities are taking place. One of these is the action taken by parents, neighbors, relatives and friends to pick up children from school prior to the arrival of buses, so that they may join their families. Virtually all studies of evacuations have concluded that this bonding process of uniting families is universally prevalent during emergencies and should be anticipated in the planning process. The current public information disseminated to residents of the Turkey Point Nuclear Power Plant EPZ indicates that schoolchildren will be evacuated to host schools (H.S.), and that parents should pick schoolchildren up at host schools. As discussed in Section 2, this study assumes a fast breaking general emergency. Therefore, children are evacuated to host schools. 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 children will be picked up by their parents (in accordance with NUREG/CR7002), to present an upper bound estimate of buses required. It is assumed that children at daycare centers are picked up by parents or guardians and that the time to perform this activity is included in the trip generation times discussed in Section 5.

The procedure for computing transitdependent ETE is to:

Estimate demand for transit service

Estimate time to perform all transit functions KLD Engineering, P.C. 81 Revision 3

Turkey Point Evacuation Time Estimate

Estimate route travel times to the EPZ boundary and to the host school/reception centers 8.1 Transit Dependent People Demand Estimate The telephone 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 81 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. We will adopt a conservative estimate that 50 percent of transit dependent persons will ride share, in accordance with NUREG/CR7002.

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 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 81 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 81 indicates that transportation must be provided for 8,732 people. Therefore, a total of 291 bus runs are required to transport this population to reception centers.

KLD Engineering, P.C. 82 Revision 3

Turkey Point Evacuation Time Estimate 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 Turkey Point Nuclear Power Plant EPZ:

Where, A = Percent of households with commuters C = Percent of households who will not await the return of a commuter 65,913 0.07 2.43 0.28 2.31 1 0.68 0.29 0.45 3.22 2 0.68 0.29 65,913 0.265 17,463 0.5 30 291 These calculations are explained as follows:

All members (2.43 avg.) of households (HH) with no vehicles (7%) will evacuate by public transit or rideshare. The term 65,913 (number of households) x 0.07 x 2.43, accounts for these people.

The members of HH with 1 vehicle away (28%), who are at home, equal (2.311). The number of HH where the commuter will not return home is equal to (65,913 x 0.28 x 1.31 x 0.68 x 0.29), as 68% of EPZ households have a commuter, 29% 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 (45%), who are at home, equal (3.22 - 2). The number of HH where neither commuter will return home is equal to 65,913 x 0.45 x 1.22 x (0.68 x 0.29)2. The number of persons who will evacuate by public transit or rideshare is equal to the product of these two terms (the last term is squared to represent the probability that neither commuter will return).

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

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

The estimate of transitdependent population in Table 81 far exceeds the number of registered transitdependent persons in the EPZ as provided by the counties (discussed below in Section 8.5). 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.

KLD Engineering, P.C. 83 Revision 3

Turkey Point Evacuation Time Estimate 8.2 School Population - Transit Demand Table 82 presents the school population and transportation requirements for the direct evacuation of all schools within the EPZ for the 20102011 school year. This information was provided by MiamiDade County. The column in Table 82 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), the estimate of buses required for school evacuation do not consider the use of these private vehicles.

Bus capacity, expressed in students per bus, is set to 70 for primary schools and 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.

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

Table 83 presents a list of the host schools for each school in the EPZ. Students will be transported to these schools where they will be subsequently retrieved by their respective families.

8.3 Special Facility Demand Table 84 presents the census of special facilities in the EPZ. 1,360 people have been identified as living in, or being treated in, these facilities. The capacity for each facility was provided by MiamiDade County. Details of the number of ambulatory, wheelchair bound and bedridden patients at each facility were not available. For planning purposes, it was assumed that 85% of the patients at each facility are ambulatory, 10% are wheelchair bound and 5% are bedridden.

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

84. 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.

KLD Engineering, P.C. 84 Revision 3

Turkey Point Evacuation Time Estimate 8.4 Evacuation Time Estimates for Transit Dependent People EPZ bus resources are assigned to evacuating schoolchildren (if school is in session at the time of the ATE) as the first priority in the event of an emergency. In the event that the allocation of buses dispatched from the depots to the various facilities and to the bus routes is somewhat inefficient, or if there is a shortfall of available drivers, then there may be a need for some buses to return to the EPZ from the reception 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.

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 pickup points.

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.

Activity: Mobilize Drivers (ABC)

Mobilization is the elapsed time from the ATE until the time the buses arrive at the facility to be evacuated. For a rapidly escalating radiological emergency with no observable indication before the fact, drivers would likely require 105 minutes to be contacted, to travel to the depot, be briefed, and to travel to the transitdependent facilities, as discussed in Section 8.1.

Mobilization time is slightly longer in adverse weather - 115 minutes when raining.

Activity: Board Passengers (CD)

Based on discussions with offsite agencies, a loading time of 15 minutes (20 minutes for rain) for school buses is used.

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:

KLD Engineering, P.C. 85 Revision 3

Turkey Point Evacuation Time Estimate 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; total loading time is 40 minutes per bus in rain.

Activity: Travel to EPZ Boundary (DE)

School Evacuation Transportation resources available were provided by the EPZ county emergency management agencies and are summarized in Table 85. Also included in the table are the number of buses needed to evacuate schools, medical facilities, transitdependent population, homebound special needs (discussed below in Section 8.5) and correctional facilities (discussed below in Section 8.6). These numbers indicate there are sufficient ambulance resources available to evacuate the bedridden population in a single wave. The ambulatory (including schoolchildren) and wheelchair bound population within the EPZ may require two waves of bus transportation.

MiamiDade County emergency management personnel indicated that MiamiDade Transit has primary responsibility to evacuate the nonauto owning transit dependent residents in the EPZ who do not rideshare with a neighbor or friend. If MiamiDade Transit does not have sufficient resources, school buses will be used to evacuate the remaining transitdependent people.

As discussed above, it is highly unlikely that the entire EPZ would be evacuated at once. Thus, it is also unlikely that all of the resources identified in Table 85 would be needed at once.

Nonetheless, twowave ETE calculations are provided below for ambulatory and wheelchair bound people within the EPZ.

The buses servicing the schools are ready to begin their evacuation trips at 120 minutes after the ATE - 105 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 5 minute interval, for each bus route. The specified bus routes are documented in Table 86 (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., 115 to 120 minutes after the ATE for good weather) were used to compute the average speed for each route, as follows:

KLD Engineering, P.C. 86 Revision 3

Turkey Point Evacuation Time Estimate

. 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 87 and Table 88, and in Table 810 and Table 811 for the transit vehicles evacuating transitdependent persons, which are discussed later. The travel time to the EPZ boundary was computed for each bus using the computed average speed and the distance to the EPZ boundary along the most likely route out of the EPZ. The travel time from the EPZ boundary to the reception center was computed assuming an average speed of 45 mph and 40 mph, for good weather and rain, respectively.

Table 87 (good weather) and Table 88 (rain) present the following evacuation time estimates (rounded up to the nearest 5 minutes) for schools in the EPZ: (1) The elapsed time from the ATE until the bus exits the EPZ; and (2) The elapsed time until the bus reaches the Host School. The evacuation time out of the EPZ can be computed as the sum of times associated with Activities ABC, CD, and DE (For example: 105 min. + 15 + 99 = 3:40 for Air Base Elementary, with good weather). The evacuation time to the host school is determined by adding the time associated with Activity EF (discussed below), to this EPZ evacua on me.

Evacuation of TransitDependent Population 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), about 90 percent of the evacuees will complete their mobilization when the buses will begin their routes, approximately 180 minutes after the ATE. The distribution of transitdependent buses was based on population within each zip code with bus pick up locations. Each route was assigned 1 to 5 groups of buses depending on the number of buses needed. The start of service for these bus groups is separated by 20 minute headways, as shown in Table 810 and Table 811. The use of bus headways ensures that those people who take longer to mobilize will be picked up.

Mobilization time is 10 minutes longer in rain to account for slower travel speeds and reduced roadway capacity.

Those buses servicing the transitdependent evacuees will first travel along their pickup routes grouped by zip code then proceed out of the EPZ. Transitdependent pickup locations are provided annually to EPZ residents in the emergency preparedness brochure (public information). MiamiDade Transit has 6 predefined bus routes to service these pickup locations. These 6 bus routes are shown graphically in Figure 82 and described in Table 89.

Figure 82 represent the routes defined by MiamiDade Transit to service the predefined pick KLD Engineering, P.C. 87 Revision 3

Turkey Point Evacuation Time Estimate up locations. The bus route numbers are the same as the zip code they service; see Table 89. It is assumed that residents will walk to and congregate at these predesignated pickup locations, and that they can arrive at the stops within the 180 minute bus mobilization time (good weather). These buses will use the Busway to evacuate once the route is complete.

As previously discussed, a pickup time of 30 minutes (good weather) is estimated for 30 individual stops to pick up passengers, to allow for flag stops wherein residents walk to the nearest major route and flag down passing buses, with an average of one minute of delay associated with each stop. Longer pickup times of 40 minutes were used for rain.

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 810 and Table 811 present the transitdependent population evacuation time estimates for each bus route calculated using the above procedures for good weather and rain, respectively.

For example, the ETE for the bus route servicing zip code 33030 is computed as 180 + 40 + 30 =

4:15 for good weather (rounded up to nearest 5 minutes). Here, 40 minutes is the time to travel 18.8 miles at 28.1 mph, the average speed output by the model for this route at 180 minutes.

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

Activity: Travel to Reception Centers (EF)

The distances from the EPZ boundary to the reception centers are measured using GIS software along the most likely route from the EPZ exit point to the reception center. The reception centers and host schools are mapped in Figure 101 and Figure 102, respectively. For a one wave evacuation, this travel time outside the EPZ does not contribute to the ETE. For a two wave evacuation, the ETE for buses must be considered separately, since it could exceed the ETE for the general public. Assumed bus speeds of 45 mph and 40 mph for good weather and rain, 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 10 minute 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 transit dependent evacuees along the route. The travel time back to the EPZ is equal to the travel time to the reception center.

KLD Engineering, P.C. 88 Revision 3

Turkey Point Evacuation Time Estimate The secondwave ETE for the bus route servicing zip code 33030 is computed as follows for good weather:

Bus arrives at reception center at 4:25 in good weather (4:15 to exit EPZ + 10 minute travel time to reception center).

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

Bus returns to EPZ and completes second route: 10 minutes (equal to travel time to reception center) + 26 minutes (18.8 miles @ 36.8 mph) = 41 minutes

Bus completes pickups along route: 30 minutes.

Bus exits EPZ at time 4:15 + 0:10 + 0:15 + 0:41 + 0:30 = 5:50 (rounded to nearest 5 minutes) after the ATE.

The ETE for the completion of the second wave for all transitdependent bus routes are provided in Table 810 and Table 811. The average ETE for a twowave evacuation of transit dependent people does not exceed the ETE for the general population at the 90th percentile (see Table 71).

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

As shown in Table 85, there is a shortfall of school buses for evacuation of schoolchildren in a single wave. As such, a two wave evacuation is needed for schools. Due to the large number of schools in the EPZ, secondwave 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. Times and distances are based on averages for all schools in the EPZ:

School buses arrive at the host schools at 4:15 (see average value in Table 87).

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

Bus returns to EPZ and completes second route: 15 minutes (equal to travel time to host school for good weather) + 170 minutes (12.4 miles @ 4.4 mph) = 185 minutes.

The average distance to EPZ boundary is approximately 6.2 miles in Table 87. Thus 12.4 miles is the estimated distance to travel from the EPZ boundary to a school and then back to the EPZ boundary. 4.4 mph is the average speed output by the model at the time buses would begin the second wave of evacuation.

Loading Time: 15 minutes.

Bus exits EPZ at time 4:15 + 0:15 + 3:05 + 0:15 = 7:50 (rounded up to nearest 5 minutes) after the advisory to evacuate.

Given the average single wave ETE for schools is 4:00 on average (Table 87), a second wave evacuation would require an additional 3 hour3.472222e-5 days 8.333333e-4 hours 4.960317e-6 weeks 1.1415e-6 months and 50 minutes, on average.

Evacuation of Special Facilities The bus operations for this group are similar to those for school evacuation except:

KLD Engineering, P.C. 89 Revision 3

Turkey Point Evacuation Time Estimate

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

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

Table 84 indicates that 50 bus runs, 45 wheelchair bus runs and 11 ambulance runs are needed to service all of the special facilities in the EPZ. Based on discussions with MiamiDade County emergency management officials, Florida state law dictates that all medical facilities (hospitals, assisted living, etc.) must have detailed evacuation plans and adequate transportation resources to evacuate all residents of their facility in the event of an emergency. As such, these facilities will likely rely on private transportation providers. The MiamiDade Department of Corrections and MiamiDade Transit will assist those who may need transportation resources.

It is estimated that mobilization time averages 90 minutes. Specially trained medical support staff (working their regular shift) will be on site to assist in the evacuation of patients.

Additional staff (if needed) could be mobilized over this same 90 minute timeframe.

Assuming the transportation providers are located in Miami, average travel times will be 45 minutes from the depot to the facility to be evacuated traveling counterflow relative to evacuating traffic. Passenger loading time will be longer than that for schools and transit dependents, approximately 30 minutes, to account for the time to move patients from inside the facility to the vehicles. Buses will be ready to begin their evacuation trip at 2:45 (45 minutes

+ 90 + 30).

Appendix E indicates that the medical facilities are approximately 8 miles from the plant, on average. Therefore, buses evacuating these facilities will have to travel at most 5 miles to leave the EPZ. The average travel speed at 2 hours2.314815e-5 days 5.555556e-4 hours 3.306878e-6 weeks 7.61e-7 months and 45 minutes after the ATE is 9.8 mph.

Therefore, the travel time out of the EPZ for buses evacuating special facilities is 31 minutes.

The ETE for medical facilities is 3 hours3.472222e-5 days 8.333333e-4 hours 4.960317e-6 weeks 1.1415e-6 months and 15 minutes, rounded to the nearest 5 minutes.

The ETE for the ambulatory patients at special facilities do not exceed the general population ETE.

It is assumed that special facility population is directly evacuated to appropriate host medical facilities. Relocation of this population to permanent facilities and/or passing through the reception center before arriving at the host facility are not considered in this analysis.

8.5 Special Needs Population The county emergency management agencies have a combined registration for transit dependent and homebound special needs persons. Residents of MiamiDade County are encouraged to register via the annual mailing of the Safety Planning Booklet as well as other public information mechanisms. Registration and program qualifications are described online1.

There are currently 150 registered special needs people within the EPZ, 128 of which would need transportation assistance to evacuate:

1 http://www.miamidade.gov/oem/special_needs.asp KLD Engineering, P.C. 810 Revision 3

Turkey Point Evacuation Time Estimate

31 people are bed ridden and would require an ambulance

44 people are wheelchair bound and would require a wheelchair van or bus

53 people are ambulatory and would require a bus or van There are currently no special needs persons within the Monroe County portion of the EPZ. If a call is received from a special needs person in the event of an emergency at the plant, the person would be picked up by Monroe County Social Services Transit and moved to an appropriate facility.

ETE for Homebound Special Needs Persons Table 812 summarizes the ETE for homebound special needs people. The table is categorized by the type of vehicle required and then broken down by weather condition. The table takes into consideration the deployment of multiple vehicles to reduce the number of stops per vehicle. It is conservatively assumed that ambulatory and wheelchair bound special 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). Mobilization times of 90 minutes were used (100 minutes for rain). The last HH is assumed to be 5 miles from the EPZ boundary, and the networkwide average speed 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. As discussed in Section 8.4, MiamiDade Transit buses are used to evacuate the wheelchair bound population since they can accommodate two wheelchairs per bus.

For example, assuming no more than one special needs person per HH implies that 53 ambulatory households need to be serviced. While only 2 buses are needed from a capacity perspective, if 10 buses are deployed to service these special needs HH, then each would require about 6 stops. The following outlines the ETE calculations:

1. Assume 10 buses are deployed, each with about 6 stops, to service a total of 53 HH.

2. The ETE is calculated as follows:

a. Buses arrive at the first pickup location: 90 minutes

b. Load HH members at first pickup: 5 minutes

c. Travel to subsequent pickup locations: 5 @ 9 minutes = 45 minutes

d. Load HH members at subsequent pickup locations: 5 @ 5 minutes = 25 minutes

e. Travel to EPZ boundary: 34 minutes (5 miles at 8.8 mph).

ETE: 90 + 5 + 45 + 25 + 34 = 3:20 rounded to the nearest 5 minutes The following outlines the ETE calculations if a second wave is needed for the ambulatory population after the schools have been evacuated:

a. ETE to EPZ Boundary - 3:20 (3:40 - rain) (from Table 812)

b. Travel from EPZ Boundary to reception center: 10 minutes (12 minutes - rain) (average time of Travel Time to R.C. from Table 810 and 811)

c. Unload students at host school: 5 minutes.

KLD Engineering, P.C. 811 Revision 3

Turkey Point Evacuation Time Estimate

d. Driver takes 10 minute rest: 10 minutes.

e. Travel time back to EPZ: 10 minutes (12 minutes - rain) (average time of Travel Time to R.C. from Table 810 and 811)

f. Loading time at first household: 5 minutes

g. Bus travels to subsequent household: 5 stops @ 9 minutes = 45 minutes (50 minutes -

rain)

h. Loading time at subsequent households: 5 stops @ 5 minutes = 25 minutes

i. Travel time to EPZ boundary at 5:10 (5:15 - rain): 5 miles @ 7.56 mph = 40 minutes (6.84 mph, 44 minutes - rain)

ETE: 3:20 + 10 + 5 + 10 + 10 + 5 + 45 + 25 + 40 = 5:50 rounded to the nearest 5 minutes Rain ETE: 3:40 + 12 + 5 + 10 + 12 + 5 + 50 + 25 + 44 = 6:00 rounded to the nearest 5 minutes The following outlines the ETE calculations if a second wave is needed for the wheelchair bound population:

a. ETE to EPZ Boundary - 2:20 (2:35 rain) (from Table 812)

b. Travel from EPZ Boundary to reception center: 10 minutes (12 minutes - rain) (average time of Travel Time to R.C. from Table 810 and 811)

c. Unload wheelchair bound people at reception center: 10 minutes (2 people @ 5 min each)

d. Driver takes 10 minute rest: 10 minutes.

e. Travel time back to EPZ: 10 minutes (12 minutes - rain) (average time of Travel Time to R.C. from Table 810 and 811)

f. Loading time at first household: 5 minutes

g. Bus travels to second household: 9 minutes (10 - rain)

h. Loading time at second household: 5 minutes

i. Travel time to EPZ boundary at 3:20 (3:40- rain): 5 miles @ 8.69 mph = 35 minutes (7.23 mph, 41 minutes - rain)

ETE: 2:20 + 10 + 10 + 10 + 10 + 5 + 9 + 5 + 35 = 3:55 rounded to the nearest 5 minutes Rain ETE: 2:35 + 12 + 10 + 10 + 12 + 5 + 10 + 5 + 41 = 4:20 rounded to the nearest 5 minutes 8.6 Correctional Facilities The Dade Juvenile Residential Facility has a capacity of 56 people. The following information was provided by facility management:

Details of the evacuation plan for the facility are confidential

Inmates would be relocated to an undisclosed facility in central Florida

The facility owns two buses, which have sufficient capacity for the 56 inmates plus necessary staff It is assumed that mobilization time for the facility is one hour and that loading the buses will require an additional half hour. Therefore, the buses will be departing at 90 minutes after the KLD Engineering, P.C. 812 Revision 3

Turkey Point Evacuation Time Estimate ATE. The average speed output by DYNEV (winter, midweek, midday, good weather) at this time is 12.5 miles per hour. The most likely route from the facility to central Florida is northbound along US Highway 1 to the Florida Turnpike, and then northbound out of the EPZ.

This route is 19.0 miles long. The ETE in good weather is:

Mobilization time = 90 minutes

Loading time = 30 minutes

Travel time = 91 minutes (19.0 miles at 12.5 miles per hour)

ETE = 3:30 (hr:min, rounded to the nearest 5 minutes)

In rain, mobilization and loading time would each be 10 minutes longer (as was done for school ETE), and average speed would be slower (11.5 mph). ETE would be 3:50 (hr:min, rounded to the nearest 5 minutes).

KLD Engineering, P.C. 813 Revision 3

Turkey Point Evacuation Time Estimate (Subsequent Wave)

A B C D E F G Time Event A Advisory to Evacuate B Bus Dispatched from Depot C Bus Arrives at Facility/Pickup Route D Bus Departs for Reception Center E Bus Exits Region F Bus Arrives at Reception Center/Host School G Bus Available for Second Wave Evacuation Service Activity AB Driver Mobilization BC Travel to Facility or to Pickup Route CD Passengers Board the Bus DE Bus Travels Towards Region Boundary EF Bus Travels Towards Reception Center Outside the EPZ FG Passengers Leave Bus; Driver Takes a Break Figure 81. Chronology of Transit Evacuation Operations KLD Engineering, P.C. 814 Revision 3

Turkey Point Evacuation Time Estimate Figure 82. TransitDependent Bus Routes KLD Engineering, P.C. 815 Revision 3

Turkey Point Evacuation Time Estimate Table 81. TransitDependent Population Estimates Survey Average HH Survey Percent Size Survey Percent HH Survey Percent HH Total People Population with Indicated No. of Estimated with Indicated No. of Percent HH with Non People Estimated Requiring Requiring 2010 EPZ Vehicles No. of Vehicles with Returning Requiring Ridesharing Public Public Population 0 1 2 Households 0 1 2 Commuters Commuters Transport Percentage Transit Transit 206,329 2.43 2.31 3.22 65,913 7% 28% 45% 68% 29% 17,463 50% 8,732 4.2%

KLD Engineering, P.C. 816 Revision 3

Turkey Point Evacuation Time Estimate Table 82. School Population Demand Estimates Buses Area School Name Enrollment Required MIAMIDADE COUNTY, FL 4 Air Base Elementary 676 10 4 Mandarin Lakes K8 Academy 1,376 20 4 Migrant Education Program 17 1 5 Balere Language Academy 151 3 5 BelAire Elementary 522 8 5 Centennial Middle 976 20 5 Cutler Ridge Christian Academy 238 (b) 5 Cutler Ridge Elementary 905 13 5 Cutler Ridge Middle 1,008 21 5 Gulfstream Elementary 724 11 5 Our Lady of the Holy Rosary 460 (b) 5 Whigham, Dr. E.L. Elementary 798 12 5 Whispering Pines Elementary 758 11 6 Caribbean Elementary 811 12 6 Children's Rainbow 20 (b) 6 Coconut Palm K8 Academy 1,400 20 6 Coral Reef Montessori Academy Charter School 335 5 6 Goulds Elementary School 545 8 6 Mays Middle 658 14 6 Pine Villa Elementary 623 9 7 Chapman Elementary 940 14 7 Naranja Elementary 637 10 7 Redland Middle 1,175 24 7 SIA Tech (Homestead Job Corps Center) 357 8 7 South Dade Center N/A N/A 7 South Dade Senior 3,266 66 7 South Dade Skill Center N/A N/A 8 Aspira South Youth Leadership Charter School 306 7 8 Avocado Elementary 782 12 8 Barrington Academy 94 2(c) 8 Campbell Dr Elementary 1,246 18 8 Campbell Dr Middle 1,072 22 8 Colonial Christian School 199 (b) 8 Cooper, Neva King Educational Center 101 3 8 Corporate Academy South 89 2 8 First Assembly Christian Academy 75 (b)

KLD Engineering, P.C. 817 Revision 3

Turkey Point Evacuation Time Estimate Buses Area School Name Enrollment Required 8 First Presbyterian Church School 120 (b) 8 Florida City Elementary 857 13 8 Gateway Environmental K8 1,239 18 8 Homestead Middle 966 20 8 Homestead Senior 2,184 44 8 Keys Gate Charter School 1,143 17 8 Lawrence Academy 15 1 8 Leisure City K8 Center 1,318 19 8 MAST @ Homestead 457 10 8 Miami Community Charter School 50 1 8 Peskoe Elementary 1,114 16 8 Redland Center N/A 0 8 Redland Christian Academy 215 (b) 8 Region VI Office N/A 0 8 Rosa Parks Charter School 155 3 8 Sacred Heart 194 (b) 8 Saint John's Episcopal School 176 (b) 8 Saunders, Laura C. Elementary 919 14 8 South Dade Adult Center N/A 0 8 The Charter School at Waterstone 1,117 16 (a) outside Redland Elementary 996 15 (a) outside Redondo Elementary 753 11 (a) outside West Homestead Elementary 768 11 MONROE COUNTY, FL 10 Academy at Ocean Reef 12 (b)

TOTAL: 38,108 615 (a) According to MiamiDade County, Redland Elementary, Redondo Elementary, and West Homestead Elementary are outside of the EPZ, but are nonetheless evacuated because they are close to the EPZ boundary. They have been included in areas 7, 8, and 8, respectively, for the ETE analysis.

(b) Parents pick up students.

(c) Most students are picked up by parents. There are 2 buses (capacity = 15 students for each bus) which evacuate those students who are not picked up.

KLD Engineering, P.C. 818 Revision 3

Turkey Point Evacuation Time Estimate Table 83. School Reception Centers School Host School MiamiDade County Air Base Elementary Coral Reef Elementary Aspira South Youth Leadership Charter School N/A Avocado Elementary Pine Lake Elementary Barrington Academy N/A BelAire Elementary Devon Aire Elementary Campbell Drive Elementary Palmetto Elementary Campbell Drive Middle Palmetto Senior Caribbean Elementary Pinecrest Elementary Centennial Middle Palmetto Middle Chapman Elementary Richmond Elementary Coconut Palm K8 Coral Reef Senior Cooper, Neva King Educational Center Pine Lake Elementary Coral Reef Montessori Academy Charter School N/A Corporate Academy South Colonial Drive Elementary Cutler Ridge Elementary R. Morgan Voc. Tech.

Cutler Ridge Middle R. Morgan Voc. Tech Florida City Elementary Palmetto Elementary Goulds Elementary School Colonial Drive Elementary Gateway Environmental K8 Richmond Heights Middle Gulfstream Elementary Colonial Drive Elementary Homestead Middle Arvida Middle Homestead Senior Hommocks Middle South Miami Heights Leisure City K8 Center Elementary Mandarin Lakes K8 Coral Reef Senior MAST @ Homestead N/A Mays Middle McMillan Middle Migrant Education Program Palmetto Middle Naranja Elementary Richmond Heights Middle Peskoe Elementary Richmond Heights Middle Pine Villa Elementary Martin, F.C. Elementary Redland Elementary South Miami Elementary Redland Middle South Miami Middle Redondo Elementary Winston Park Elementary Saunders, Laura C. Elementary Porter, G.L. Elementary South Dade Senior Miami Killian Senior West Homestead Elementary Pepper, Claude Elementary Whigham, Dr. E.L. Elementary Pinecrest Elementary Whispering Pines Elementary Howard Drive Elementary Monroe County (a)

The Academy at Ocean Reef Key Largo Elementary (a) Parents will pick up students at this school. In the unlikely event that parents are unable to pick up students, they will be transported to the host school.

KLD Engineering, P.C. 819 Revision 3

Turkey Point Evacuation Time Estimate Table 84. Special Facility Transit Demand Wheel Wheel chair Cap Ambu chair Bed Bus Bus Area Facility Name Municipality acity latory Bound ridden Runs Runs Ambulance MIAMIDADE COUNTY, FL 4 Diaz Home Care ALF Homestead 7 6 1 0 1 1 0 4 Merline's Place Homestead 6 5 1 0 1 1 0 4 M J Quality Care Homestead 8 7 1 0 1 1 0 4 Mother Golden Years III Miami 6 5 1 0 1 1 0 5 Bel Air ALF Miami 7 6 1 0 1 1 0 5 Bella Luna Retirement Home Miami 9 8 1 0 1 1 0 5 Riverside Senior Care Miami 7 6 1 0 1 1 0 5 Blue Point Home Care Miami 6 5 1 0 1 1 0 5 Cutler Bay Village Miami 28 24 3 1 1 1 1 5 Guardian Angel ALF Cutler Bay 8 7 1 0 1 1 0 5 Caribbean ALF Miami 6 5 1 0 1 1 0 5 East Ridge Retirement Village Miami 60 51 6 3 2 1 2 5 Harmony Family Home Miami 7 6 1 0 1 1 0 5 Health South Rehabilitation Hospital Miami 60 51 6 3 2 1 2 5 Kenneth Home Inc. Miami 8 7 1 0 1 1 0 5 Living Well ALF Corporation Cutler Bay 6 5 1 0 1 1 0 5 Marlin Retirement ALF Miami 8 7 1 0 1 1 0 5 Old Cutler Retirement Home Miami 8 7 1 0 1 1 0 5 Paradise Villa ALF, Inc. Cutler Bay 7 6 1 0 1 1 0 5 Perdue Medical Center Cutler Bay 53 45 5 3 2 1 2 5 Rodeck One Inc. Miami 8 7 1 0 1 1 0 5 The Haven Miami 11 9 1 1 1 1 1 5 Welcome Home ALF Corp. Cutler Bay 7 6 1 0 1 1 0 6 Diaz Home Care ALF Homestead 7 6 1 0 1 1 0 KLD Engineering, P.C. 820 Revision 3

Turkey Point Evacuation Time Estimate Wheel Wheel chair Cap Ambu chair Bed Bus Bus Area Facility Name Municipality acity latory Bound ridden Runs Runs Ambulance 6 Blanca Azuzena Homecare Homestead 8 7 1 0 1 1 0 6 B& B Home Care, Inc. Miami 7 6 1 0 1 1 0 6 Del Real Home Care, Inc. Homestead 7 6 1 0 1 1 0 6 Duran Home Care Corp Homestead 7 6 1 0 1 1 0 6 God Is First ALF, Inc. Miami 6 5 1 0 1 1 0 6 Ifa Lola ALF Cutler Bay 6 5 1 0 1 1 0 6 Ive Home Miami 8 7 1 0 1 1 0 6 Ive Home II ALF Cutler Bay 8 7 1 0 1 1 0 6 Rick and Dauvy ALF Inc. Miami 6 5 1 0 1 1 0 6 Living Well ALF, Co. Homestead 7 6 1 0 1 1 0 6 Meadow Wood Homes LLC Homestead 7 6 1 0 1 1 0 6 Osmani M ALF LLC Miami 7 6 1 0 1 1 0 6 My Sweet Home Miami 8 7 1 0 1 1 0 6 Paula's Mansion ALF Miami 6 5 1 0 1 1 0 6 Rafaela's Home ALF II Miami 8 7 1 0 1 1 0 6 St. Mary Adult Care II Miami 7 6 1 0 1 1 0 6 Suany's Home Miami 8 7 1 0 1 1 0 6 Sunny Hills of Homestead Princeton 105 89 11 5 3 1 3 6 Biscayne Villa Assisted Living Miami 6 5 1 0 1 1 0 6 Sylvia's Senior Home Miami 10 9 1 0 1 1 0 6 Vicky's ALF Homestead 7 6 1 0 1 1 0 7 Advance ALF Homestead 6 5 1 0 1 1 0 7 Naranja Group Home Naranja 12 10 1 1 1 1 1 7 Maria Home Care Corp Miami 7 6 1 0 1 1 0 7 Por Una Vida Mejor Homestead 8 7 1 0 1 1 0 7 San Rafael Home Health Inc. Homestead 7 6 1 0 1 1 0 KLD Engineering, P.C. 821 Revision 3

Turkey Point Evacuation Time Estimate Wheel Wheel chair Cap Ambu chair Bed Bus Bus Area Facility Name Municipality acity latory Bound ridden Runs Runs Ambulance 7 Serenity Adult Home Care Services Homestead 6 5 1 0 1 1 0 8 Alita and John Haran ALF Homestead 6 5 1 0 1 1 0 8 Angele's Assisted Living Facility Homestead 7 6 1 0 1 1 0 8 Emanuel Adult ALF Inc. Homestead 7 6 1 0 1 1 0 8 Leixure City Homecare Inc. Homestead 6 5 1 0 1 1 0 8 Heaven Assisted Living Facility Homestead 7 6 1 0 1 1 0 8 New Horizon Assisted Living Homestead 7 6 1 0 1 1 0 8 El Viejo Sol ALF Corp Homestead 6 5 1 0 1 1 0 8 Heaven Assisted Living Facility Homestead 7 6 1 0 1 1 0 8 Homestead Hospital Homestead 120 102 12 6 4 1 3 8 Homestead Manor Homestead 82 70 8 4 3 1 2 8 Kayleen and Denis Care Homestead 10 9 1 0 1 1 0 Krome Apartments Sunrise 8 Homestead 12 10 1 1 1 1 1 Community Inc.

8 Kayleen and Denis Care Homestead 10 9 1 0 1 1 0 8 MD ALF Miami 6 5 1 0 1 1 0 8 Mi Renacer ALF Homestead 8 7 1 0 1 1 0 8 Mother Golden Years II Homestead 6 5 1 0 1 1 0 8 Palace GardensNorth Homestead 224 191 22 11 7 2 6 8 Pina & Fuerte Adult Care Homestead 7 6 1 0 1 1 0 8 Sara Home Care Homestead 16 14 2 0 1 1 0 Signature Healthcare of Brookwood 8 102 12 6 4 1 3 Gardens Homestead 120 8 Sol Radiante Inc. Homestead 6 5 1 0 1 1 0 8 Swankridge Care Center Homestead 12 10 1 1 1 1 1 Swankridge Holistic Research & Care 8 Homestead 12 10 1 1 1 1 1 Center KLD Engineering, P.C. 822 Revision 3

Turkey Point Evacuation Time Estimate Wheel Wheel chair Cap Ambu chair Bed Bus Bus Area Facility Name Municipality acity latory Bound ridden Runs Runs Ambulance 8 Sweet Mansion ALF Inc. Homestead 7 6 1 0 1 1 0 8 The Gil Family Home Miami 6 5 1 0 1 1 0 MiamiDade County Subtotal: 1360 1160 153 47 50 45 11 TOTAL: 1360 1160 153 47 50 45 11 KLD Engineering, P.C. 823 Revision 3

Turkey Point Evacuation Time Estimate Table 85. Summary of Transportation Needs Transportation Wheelchair Resource Drivers Buses Buses Ambulances Resources Available Transportation Center 9233 146 0 0 324 Transportation Center 9231 47 0 0 Transportation Center 9235 178 0 0 Transportation Center 9236 253 83 0 0 Transportation Center 9237 123 0 0 MiamiDade County 0 0 36 2

MiamiDade Transit As Needed TOTAL: 577 577 0 36 Resources Needed Schools (Table 82): 615 0 0 1

Medical Facilities (Table 84): 50 45 11 TransitDependent Population (Table 810): 291 0 0 Homebound Special Needs (Section 8.5): 10 22 16 Correctional Facilities (Section 8.6): 2 0 0 TOTAL TRANSPORTATION NEEDS: 918 22 16

1. It is a Florida state law that medical facilities have a plan for how they will evacuate. Most facilities contract with a private transportation provider. For this reason, the medical facility resources needed are not included in the total transportation needs

2. MiamiDade Transit provides transportation assistance for anyone who cannot evacuate or find shelter on their own and requires evacuation assistance according to the Emergency Evacuation Assistance Program. MiamiDade Transit buses can accommodate up to two wheelchairs.

KLD Engineering, P.C. 824 Revision 3

Turkey Point Evacuation Time Estimate Table 86. Bus Route Descriptions Bus Route Number Description Nodes Traversed from Route Start to EPZ Boundary 159, 144, 288, 359, 181, 515, 179, 337, 184, 806, 187, 202, 189, 192, 655, 197, 193, 656, 198, 200, 632, 205, 206, 207, 208, 493, 506, 494, 215, 12, 268, 1 Avocado Elementary School 660, 111, 105, 109 2 BelAire Elementary School 217, 111, 660, 268, 12, 13, 14, 11, 9 340, 177, 176, 178, 179, 337, 184, 806, 187, 202, 189, 192, 655, 197, 193, 656, 198, 200, 632, 205, 206, 207, 208, 493, 506, 494, 215, 12, 268, 660, 111, 3 Campbell Drive Middle School 105, 109 803, 802, 338, 180, 178, 179, 337, 184, 806, 187, 202, 189, 192, 655, 197, 193, 656, 198, 200, 632, 205, 206, 207, 208, 493, 506, 494, 215, 12, 268, 660, 4 Campbell Drive Elementary School 111, 105, 109 5 Caribbean Elementary School 101, 639, 216, 415, 215, 12, 268, 660, 111, 105, 109 6 Centennial Middle School 275, 121, 120, 119, 108, 106, 107 384, 383, 42, 43, 45, 44, 41, 40, 39, 34, 33, 32, 31, 7 Chapman Elementary School 29, 25, 24, 18, 219, 11, 9, 643, 7, 103, 104 200, 632, 205, 206, 207, 208, 493, 506, 494, 215, 12, 8 Coconut Palm K8 Academy 268, 660, 111, 105, 109 674, 139, 158, 66, 67, 673, 155, 167, 166, 172, 170, 174, 176, 178, 179, 337, 184, 806, 187, 202, 189, 192, 655, 197, 193, 656, 198, 200, 632, 205, 206, 207, 208, 493, 506, 494, 215, `493,506, 494, 215,12, 9 Cooper, Neva King Educational Center 268,660, 111, 105, 109 695, 164, 507, 158, 66, 68, 62, 63, 344, 60, 56, 57, 53, 52, 47, 46, 44, 41, 40, 39, 34, 33, 32, 31, 29, 25, 10 Corporate Academy South 24, 18, 219, 11 637, 16, 267, 19, 15, 496, 495, 215, 415, 216, 639, 11 Cutler Ridge Elementary School 101, 100 12 Cutler Ridge Middle School 269, 217, 111, 416 153, 519, 139, 158, 66, 67, 673, 155, 167, 166, 172, 170, 174, 176, 178, 179, 337, 184, 806, 187, 202, 189, 192, 655, 197, 193, 656, 198, 200, 632, 205, 206, 207, 208, 493, 506, 494, 215, 12, 268, 660, 13 Florida City Elementary 111 105 1096 49 355, 353, 809, 340, 807, 59, 61, 94, 58, 209, 56, 57, 14 Gateway Environmental K8 53, 52, 47, 46, 44, 41, 40, 39, 34, 33, 32, 31, 29, 25, KLD Engineering, P.C. 825 Revision 3

Turkey Point Evacuation Time Estimate Bus Route Number Description Nodes Traversed from Route Start to EPZ Boundary 683, 631, 255, 211, 214, 490, 489, 208, 493, 506, 15 Goulds Elementary School 494, 215, 12, 268, 660, 111, 105, 109 16 Gulfstream Elementary School 638, 637, 269, 217, 111, 416 136, 678, 677, 161, 511, 162, 168, 166, 172, 170, 174, 176, 178, 179, 337, 184, 806, 187, 202, 189, 192, 655, 197, 193, 656, 198, 200, 632, 205, 206, 207, 208, 493, 506, 494,215,12, 268, 660, 111, 17 Homestead Middle School 105,109 164, 507, 158, 66, 68, 62, 63, 344, 60, 56, 57, 53, 52, 47, 46, 44, 41, 40, 39, 34, 33, 32, 31, 29, 25, 24, 18, 18 Homestead Senior High School 219, 11, 9 347, 183, 337, 184, 806, 187, 202, 189, 192, 655, 197, 193, 656, 198, 200, 632, 205, 206, 207, 208, 19 Leisure City K8 Center 493, 506, 494, 215, 12, 268, 660, 111, 105, 109 20 Mandarin Lakes K8 Academy 685, 221, 36, 32, 31, 29, 25, 24, 18, 219, 11, 9 21 Mays Middle School 207, 208, 493, 506, 494, 215, 12, 13, 14, 11, 9 805, 222, 686, 687, 334, 203, 190, 196, 654, 197, 193, 656, 198, 200, 632, 205, 206, 207, 208, 493, 22 Migrant Educational Program 506, 494, 215, 12, 268, 660, 111, 105, 109 189, 192, 655, 197, 193, 656, 198, 200, 632, 205, 206, 207, 208, 493, 506, 494, 215, 12, 268, 660, 111, 23 Naranja Elementary School 105, 109 365, 364, 48, 49, 51, 52, 47, 46, 44, 41, 40, 39, 34, 24 Peskoe Elementary School 33, 32, 31, 29, 25, 24, 18, 219, 11, 9 211, 214, 490, 489, 208, 493, 506, 494, 215, 12, 268, 25 Pine Villa Elementary School 660, 111, 105, 109 283, 282, 713, 281, 194, 411, 193, 656, 198, 200, 632, 205, 206, 207, 208, 493, 506, 494, 215, 12, 268, 26 Redland Elementary School 660, 111, 105, 109 282, 713, 281, 194, 411, 193, 656, 198, 200, 632, 205, 206, 207, 208, 493, 506, 494, 215, 12, 268, 660, 27 Redland Middle School 111, 105, 109 315, 150, 135, 742, 740, 361, 145, 512, 176, 178, 179, 337, 184, 806, 187, 202, 189, 192, 655, 197, 193, 656, 198, 200, 632, 205, 206, 207, 208, 493, 28 Redondo Elementary School 506, 494, 215, 12, 268,660,111, 105, 109 509, 138, 676, 137, 161, 677, 678, 136, 135, 134, 29 Saunders, Laura C. Elementary 133, 625, 286 KLD Engineering, P.C. 826 Revision 3

Turkey Point Evacuation Time Estimate Bus Route Number Description Nodes Traversed from Route Start to EPZ Boundary 288, 359, 181, 515, 179, 337, 184, 806, 187, 202, 189, 192, 655, 197, 193, 656, 198, 200, 632, 205, 206, 207, 208, 493, 506, 494, 215, 12, 268, 660, 111, 30 South Dade Senior High School 105, 109 318, 152, 509, 138, 155, 167, 166, 172, 170, 174, 176, 178, 179, 337, 184, 806, 187, 202, 189, 192, 655, 197, 193, 656, 198, 200, 632, 205, 206, 207, 31 West Homestead Elementary School 208, 493, 506, 494, 215, 12, 268, 660, 111,105,109 32 Whigham Dr. E.L. Elementary 378, 275, 121, 120, 119, 108, 106, 107 33 Whispering Pines Elementary School 737, 119, 108, 106, 107 686, 687, 334, 203, 190, 196, 654, 197, 193, 656, 198, 200, 632, 205, 206, 207, 208, 493, 506, 494, 34 Air Base Elementary 215, 12, 268, 660, 111, 105, 109 48 Shuttle 33032 Part 1 189, 190, 196, 654 49 Shuttle 33032 Part 2 373, 222, 686, 687, 334, 203, 202 409, 410, 712, 411, 657, 420, 332, 201, 633, 635, 50 Shuttle 33032 Part 3 412, 413, 414, 415, 416, 417, 418, 419 171, 340, 807, 59, 61, 94, 399, 210, 370, 692, 367, 51 Shuttle 33033 Part 1 50, 49, 48, 364, 350, 347, 183 178, 514, 515, 516, 517, 518, 409, 410, 712, 411, 657, 420, 332, 201, 633, 635, 412, 413, 414, 415, 52 Shuttle 33033 Part 2 416, 417, 418, 419 53 Shuttle 330341 Part 1 601, 304, 303, 302, 297, 296, 295, 153, 519 519, 509, 510, 137, 511, 711, 513, 743, 512, 514, 515, 516, 517, 518, 409, 410, 712, 411, 657, 420, 332, 201, 633, 635, 412, 413, 414, 415, 416, 417, 54 Shuttle 330341 Part 2 418, 419 139, 519, 509, 510, 137, 511, 711, 513, 743, 512, 514, 515, 516, 517, 518, 409, 410, 712, 411, 657, 420, 332, 201, 633, 635, 412, 413, 414, 415, 416, 55 Shuttle 330342 417, 418, 419 261, 214, 490, 489, 208, 493, 506, 494, 215, 495, 496, 15, 19, 267, 16, 637, 269, 119, 737, 118, 117, 56 Shuttle 33157 Part 1 121, 120 57 Shuttle 33157 Part 2 119, 269, 637, 16, 267, 19, 15, 496, 495, 215, 415 58 Shuttle 33157 Part 3 415, 416, 417, 418, 419 362, 513, 154, 170, 171, 169, 613, 612, 155, 138, 59 Shuttle 33030 Part 1 509, 510, 675, 676, 162, 511, 161, 677, 678, 136 513, 743, 512, 514, 515, 516, 517, 518, 409, 410, 712, 411, 657, 420, 332, 201, 633, 635, 412, 413, 60 Shuttle 33030 Part 2 414, 415, 416, 417, 418, 419 KLD Engineering, P.C. 827 Revision 3

Turkey Point Evacuation Time Estimate Table 87. School Evacuation Time Estimates Good Weather Travel Time Travel Dist. from Dist. Time to EPZ EPZ Driver Loading To EPZ Average EPZ Bdry to Bdry to ETE to Mobilization Time Bdry Speed Bdry ETE H.S. H.S. H.S.

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

MIAMIDADE COUNTY SCHOOLS Air Base Elementary 105 15 10.4 6.3 99 3:40 3.5 5 3:45 Aspira South Youth Leadership Charter 105 15 7.9 8.5 56 3:00 12.3 17 3:15 School Avocado Elementary School 105 15 11.3 2.6 262 6:25 2.9 4 6:30 Balere Language Academy 105 15 0.9 2.5 22 2:25 12.3 17 2:40 Barrington Academy 105 15 2.9 1.5 117 4:00 25.5 34 4:35 BelAire Elementary School 105 15 1 14.8 5 2:05 6.9 10 2:15 Campbell Drive Elementary School 105 15 10.8 3.7 178 5:00 5.4 8 5:10 Campbell Drive Middle School 105 15 12.1 2.8 264 6:25 5.4 8 6:35 Caribbean Elementary School 105 15 2.7 5.8 28 2:30 8.1 11 2:40 Centennial Middle School 105 15 2.5 10.5 15 2:15 5.2 7 2:25 Chapman Elementary School 105 15 7.6 19.5 24 2:25 1.4 2 2:30 Coconut Palm K8 Academy 105 15 4.8 2.4 119 4:00 2.3 4 4:05 Cooper, Neva King Educational Center 105 15 4.3 2.7 95 3:35 13.4 18 3:55 Coral Reef Montessori Academy Charter 105 15 1.5 1.6 58 3:00 12.3 17 3:15 School Corporate Academy South 105 15 13.8 5.1 164 4:45 2.3 4 4:50 Cutler Ridge Elementary School 105 15 1.9 3.2 37 2:40 2.3 4 2:45 Cutler Ridge Middle School 105 15 1.2 6.7 11 2:15 2.3 4 2:15 Florida City Elementary 105 15 3.7 2.5 89 3:30 20.3 28 4:00 Gateway Environmental K8 105 15 12.5 2.7 284 6:45 5.4 8 6:55 Goulds Elementary School 105 15 3.8 1.5 150 4:30 2.6 4 4:35 Gulfstream Elementary School 105 15 2.5 3.3 46 2:50 2.3 4 2:50 Homestead Middle 105 15 2.9 1.5 117 4:00 15.5 21 4:20 Homestead Senior 105 15 12.3 2.7 0 2:00 12.2 17 2:20 KLD Engineering, P.C. 828 Revision 3

Turkey Point Evacuation Time Estimate Travel Time Travel Dist. from Dist. Time to EPZ EPZ Driver Loading To EPZ Average EPZ Bdry to Bdry to ETE to Mobilization Time Bdry Speed Bdry ETE H.S. H.S. H.S.

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

Keys Gate Charter School 105 15 11.2 8.0 84 3:25 12.3 17 3:45 Lawrence Academy 105 15 5.3 2.8 115 3:55 23.0 31 4:30 Leisure City K8 Center 105 15 9.1 1.8 312 7:15 2.4 4 7:20 Mandarin Lakes K8 Academy 105 15 7.8 5.6 84 3:25 8.4 12 3:40 MAST @ Homestead 105 15 10.2 2.8 223 5:45 12.3 17 6:00 Mays Middle School 105 15 1.8 1.6 69 3:10 2.3 4 3:15 Miami Community Charter School 105 15 3.6 2.5 86 3:30 25.0 34 4:00 Migrant Educational Program 105 15 10.8 2.8 229 5:50 5.3 8 6:00 Naranja Elementary School 105 15 7.3 2.0 224 5:45 5.3 8 5:55 Peskoe Elementary School 105 15 8.7 8.3 63 3:05 4.6 7 3:10 Pine Villa Elementary School 105 15 2.3 2.3 60 3:00 2.3 4 3:05 (a)

Redland Elementary 105 15 10.3 2.4 261 6:25 20.8 28 6:50 Redland Middle 105 15 0.0 4.9 1 2:05 20.2 27 2:30 (a)

Redondo Elementary 105 15 12.3 2.7 274 6:35 2.3 4 6:40 Saunders, Laura C. Elementary 105 15 3.8 1.5 150 4:30 15.3 21 4:55 South Dade Senior High School 105 15 2.3 1.5 93 3:35 16.3 22 3:55 (a)

West Homestead Elementary 105 15 13.7 2.0 414 8:55 3.3 5 9:00 Whigham, Dr. E.L. Elementary 105 15 2.8 10.3 17 2:20 6.3 9 2:30 Whispering Pines Elementary 105 15 0.8 5.3 10 2:10 5.1 7 2:20 Maximum for EPZ: 8:55 Maximum: 9:00 Average for EPZ: 4:00 Average: 4:15 (a) According to MiamiDade County, Redland Elementary, Redondo Elementary, and West Homestead Elementary are outside of the EPZ, but are nonetheless evacuated because they are close to the EPZ boundary.

KLD Engineering, P.C. 829 Revision 3

Turkey Point Evacuation Time Estimate Table 88. School Evacuation Time Estimates - Rain Travel Time Travel Dist. from Dist. To Time to EPZ EPZ Driver Loading EPZ Average EPZ Bdry to Bdry to ETE to Mobilization Time Bdry Speed Bdry ETE H.S. H.S. H.S.

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

MIAMIDADE COUNTY SCHOOLS Air Base Elementary 115 20 10.4 6.8 92 3:50 3.5 6 3:55 Aspira South Youth Leadership 115 20 7.9 7.9 60 3:15 12.3 19 3:35 Charter School Avocado Elementary School 115 20 11.3 2.7 256 6:35 2.9 5 6:40 Balere Language Academy 115 20 0.9 2.6 21 2:40 12.3 19 2:55 Barrington Academy 115 20 2.9 1.5 119 4:15 25.5 39 4:55 BelAire Elementary School 115 20 1 12.4 5 2:20 6.9 11 2:35 Campbell Drive Elementary 115 20 10.8 3.8 170 5:05 5.4 9 5:15 School Campbell Drive Middle School 115 20 12.1 2.8 258 6:35 5.4 9 6:45 Caribbean Elementary School 115 20 2.7 5.3 31 2:50 8.1 13 3:00 Centennial Middle School 115 20 2.5 10.2 15 2:30 5.2 8 2:40 Chapman Elementary School 115 20 7.6 10.2 45 3:00 1.4 3 3:05 Coconut Palm K8 Academy 115 20 4.8 2.5 117 4:15 2.3 4 4:20 Cooper, Neva King Educational 115 20 4.3 2.8 93 3:50 13.4 21 4:10 Center Coral Reef Montessori Academy 115 20 1.5 1.6 56 3:15 12.3 19 3:30 Charter School Corporate Academy South 115 20 13.8 5.4 153 4:50 2.3 4 4:55 Cutler Ridge Elementary School 115 20 1.9 3.4 34 2:50 2.3 4 2:55 Cutler Ridge Middle School 115 20 1.2 6.5 12 2:30 2.3 4 2:35 Florida City Elementary 115 20 3.7 2.8 80 3:35 20.3 31 4:10 Gateway Environmental K8 115 20 12.5 2.9 262 6:40 5.4 9 6:50 Goulds Elementary School 115 20 3.8 1.6 146 4:45 2.6 4 4:45 Gulfstream Elementary School 115 20 2.5 3.7 41 3:00 2.3 4 3:00 Homestead Middle 115 20 2.9 1.5 116 4:15 15.5 24 4:35 Homestead Senior 115 20 12.3 2.7 0 2:15 12.2 19 2:35 KLD Engineering, P.C. 830 Revision 3

Turkey Point Evacuation Time Estimate Travel Time Travel Dist. from Dist. To Time to EPZ EPZ Driver Loading EPZ Average EPZ Bdry to Bdry to ETE to Mobilization Time Bdry Speed Bdry ETE H.S. H.S. H.S.

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

Keys Gate Charter School 115 20 11.2 7.6 89 3:45 12.3 19 4:05 Lawrence Academy 115 20 5.3 2.9 110 4:05 23.0 35 4:40 Leisure City K8 Center 115 20 9.1 2.2 248 6:25 2.4 4 6:30 Mandarin Lakes K8 Academy 115 20 7.8 6.2 76 3:35 8.4 13 3:45 MAST @ Homestead 115 20 10.2 2.9 211 5:50 12.3 19 6:05 Mays Middle School 115 20 1.8 3.8 29 2:45 2.3 4 2:50 Miami Community Charter School 115 20 3.6 2.7 80 3:35 25.0 38 4:15 Migrant Educational Program 115 20 10.8 2.7 244 6:20 5.3 8 6:30 Naranja Elementary School 115 20 7.3 2.0 217 5:55 5.3 8 6:00 Peskoe Elementary School 115 20 8.7 7.8 67 3:25 4.6 7 3:30 Pine Villa Elementary School 115 20 2.3 1.7 83 3:40 2.3 4 3:45 Redland Elementary(a) 115 20 10.3 4.8 128 4:25 20.8 32 4:55 Redland Middle 115 20 0.0 1.5 1 2:20 20.2 31 2:50 Redondo Elementary(a) 115 20 12.3 2.9 259 6:35 2.3 4 6:40 Saunders, Laura C. Elementary 115 20 3.8 1.6 146 4:45 15.3 23 5:05 South Dade Senior High School 115 20 2.3 1.5 94 3:50 16.3 25 4:15 West Homestead Elementary(a) 115 20 13.7 2.0 403 9:00 3.3 5 9:05 Whigham, Dr. E.L. Elementary 115 20 2.8 10.2 17 2:35 6.3 10 2:45 Whispering Pines Elementary 115 20 0.8 4.3 12 2:30 5.1 8 2:35 Maximum for EPZ: 9:00 Maximum: 9:05 Average for EPZ: 4:10 Average: 4:25 (a) According to MiamiDade County, Redland Elementary, Redondo Elementary, and West Homestead Elementary are outside of the EPZ, but are nonetheless evacuated because they are close to the EPZ boundary.

KLD Engineering, P.C. 831 Revision 3

Turkey Point Evacuation Time Estimate Table 89. Summary of TransitDependent Bus Routes Route No. of Length (Zip Code) Buses Bus Pick Up Locations Serviced (mi.)

Harris Field, Cocowalk, Boardwalk, Aquarius, Laura Saunders Elementary, Police 33030 48 18.8 Athletic League Gym, Homestead Trailer Park, and Homestead Senior Center 33032 67 Naranja Elementary, Princetonian Mobile Home Park, and HudPine Island 14.0 33033 95 Harris Field, South Dade Camp, Pine Island MHP, and Palm Gardens MHP 19.3 Florida City City Hall, Goldcoaster MHP, Andrew Center, Gateway West MHP, 33034 #1 26 19.9 Gateway Estates MHP 33034 #2 26 City Hall, Southern Comfort Trailer Park, Florida City Camp Site and RV Park 16.6 33157 29 Southland Mall, Cutler Ridge Park, and East Ridge Retirement Village 9.7 Total: 291 KLD Engineering, P.C. 832 Revision 3

Turkey Point Evacuation Time Estimate Table 810. TransitDependent Evacuation Time Estimates Good Weather OneWave TwoWave Route Travel Route Route Travel Pickup Distance Time to Driver Travel Pickup Route Bus Mobilization Length Speed Time Time ETE to R. C. R. C. Unload Rest Time Time ETE Number Number (min) (miles) (mph) (min) (min) (hr:min) (miles) (min) (min) (min) (min) (min) (hr:min) 116 180 18.8 28.1 40 30 4:15 7.8 10 5 10 41 30 5:50 33030 1732 200 18.8 28.9 39 30 4:30 7.8 10 5 10 38 30 6:05 3348 220 18.8 29.9 38 30 4:50 7.8 10 5 10 36 30 6:20 133 180 14.0 16.3 52 30 4:25 7.8 10 5 10 89 30 6:50 33032 3367 200 14.0 18.7 45 30 4:35 7.8 10 5 10 77 30 6:50 119 160 19.3 23.8 49 30 4:00 7.8 10 5 10 51 30 5:45 2039 180 19.3 26.2 44 30 4:15 7.8 10 5 10 50 30 6:00 33033 4059 200 19.3 26.9 43 30 4:35 7.8 10 5 10 49 30 6:20 6079 220 19.3 27.3 42 30 4:55 7.8 10 5 10 48 30 6:40 8095 240 19.3 27.5 42 30 5:15 7.8 10 5 10 46 30 6:55 33034 113 180 19.9 40.1 30 30 4:00 7.8 10 5 10 37 30 5:35

1 1426 200 19.9 42.7 28 30 4:20 7.8 10 5 10 37 30 5:55 33034 113 180 16.6 47.0 21 30 3:55 7.8 10 5 10 31 30 5:20

2 1426 200 16.6 47.3 21 30 4:15 7.8 10 5 10 31 30 5:40 115 180 9.7 18.0 32 30 4:05 7.8 10 5 10 40 30 5:40 33157 1631 200 9.7 18.2 32 30 4:25 7.8 10 5 10 39 30 6:00 3248 220 9.7 18.5 31 30 4:45 7.8 10 5 10 39 30 6:20 Maximum ETE: 5:15 Maximum ETE: 6:55 Average ETE: 4:25 Average ETE: 6:10 KLD Engineering, P.C. 833 Revision 3

Turkey Point Evacuation Time Estimate Table 811. TransitDependent Evacuation Time Estimates - Rain OneWave TwoWave Route Travel Route Route Travel Pickup Distance Time to Driver Travel Pickup Route Bus Mobilization Length Speed Time Time ETE to R. C. R. C. Unload Rest Time Time ETE Number Number (min) (miles) (mph) (min) (min) (hr:min) (miles) (min) (min) (min) (min) (min) (hr:min) 116 190 18.8 28.6 39 40 4:30 7.8 12 5 10 39 40 6:20 33030 1732 210 18.8 29.4 38 40 4:50 7.8 12 5 10 37 40 6:35 3348 230 18.8 30.7 37 40 5:10 7.8 12 5 10 36 40 6:50 133 190 14.0 18.4 46 40 4:40 7.8 12 5 10 72 40 6:55 33032 3367 210 14.0 18.7 45 40 4:55 7.8 12 5 10 62 40 7:05 119 170 19.3 26.2 44 40 4:15 7.8 12 5 10 52 40 6:15 2039 190 19.3 26.6 44 40 4:35 7.8 12 5 10 51 40 6:35 33033 4059 210 19.3 27.0 43 40 4:55 7.8 12 5 10 50 40 6:50 6079 230 19.3 27.4 42 40 5:15 7.8 12 5 10 47 40 7:10 8095 250 19.3 27.6 42 40 5:35 7.8 12 5 10 45 40 7:25 33034 113 190 19.9 39.1 31 40 4:25 7.8 12 5 10 38 40 6:10

1 1426 210 19.9 41.8 29 40 4:40 7.8 12 5 10 38 40 6:25 33034 113 190 16.6 46.2 22 40 4:15 7.8 12 5 10 33 40 5:55

2 1426 210 16.6 46.4 21 40 4:35 7.8 12 5 10 33 40 6:15 115 190 9.7 18.1 32 40 4:25 7.8 12 5 10 40 40 6:10 33157 1631 210 9.7 18.4 32 40 4:45 7.8 12 5 10 40 40 6:30 3248 230 9.7 18.7 31 40 5:05 7.8 12 5 10 40 40 6:50 Maximum ETE: 5:35 Maximum ETE: 7:25 Average ETE: 4:45 Average ETE: 6:40 KLD Engineering, P.C. 834 Revision 3

Turkey Point Evacuation Time Estimate Table 812. Homebound Special Needs Population Evacuation Time Estimates Total Mobiliza Loading Loading Travel Time People tion Time at Travel to Time at to EPZ Requiring Vehicles Weather Time 1st Stop Subsequent Subsequent Boundary Population Vehicle deployed Stops Conditions (min) (min) Stops (min) Stops (min) (min) ETE (hr:min)

Normal 90 45 34 3:20 Ambulatory 53 10 6 5 25 Rain 100 50 39 3:40 Wheelchair Normal 90 9 27 2:20 44 22 2 5 20 Bound Rain 100 10 31 2:35 Normal 30 10 21 1:35 Bedridden 31 16 2 15 15 Rain 40 11 26 1:50 Maximum ETE: 3:40 Average ETE: 2:50 KLD Engineering, P.C. 835 Revision 3

Turkey Point Evacuation Time Estimate 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).

Traffic control devices to assist these personnel in the performance of their tasks. These devices should comply with the guidance of the Manual of Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD) published by the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) of the U.S.D.O.T. 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 plan that defines all 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.

We employ the terms "facilitate" and "discourage" 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 TCPs and ACPs identified by the offsite agencies in their existing emergency plans serve as the basis of the traffic management plan, as per NUREG/CR7002.

2. Computer analysis of the evacuation traffic flow environment (see Figures 73 through 77).

This analysis identifies the best routing and those critical intersections that experience pronounced congestion. Any critical intersections that are not identified in the existing offsite plans are suggested as additional TCPs and ACPs

3. The existing TCPs and ACPs, and how they were applied in this study, are discussed in Appendix G.

KLD Engineering, P.C. 91 Revision 3

Turkey Point Evacuation Time Estimate

4. Prioritization of TCPs and ACPs.

Application of traffic and access control at some TCPs and ACPs will have a more pronounced influence on expediting traffic movements than at other TCPs and ACPs. For example, TCPs controlling traffic originating from areas in close proximity to the power plant could have a more beneficial effect on minimizing potential exposure to radioactivity than those TCPs located far from the power plant. These priorities should be assigned by state/county emergency management representatives and by law enforcement personnel.

The ETE simulations discussed in Section 7 indicate that the evacuation routes are oversaturated and experience pronounced traffic congestion during evacuation due to the limited capacity of the roadways and the large volume of evacuating traffic. The Florida Turnpike, US Highway 1 and Krome Ave are the most heavily used evacuation routes. The ramps to the Florida Turnpike are significant bottlenecks. The traffic signals along US Highway 1 and Krome Ave are also significant bottlenecks. Nearly all of the traffic signals in the EPZ are actuated traffic signals and will adjust their timing to changing traffic patterns. Traffic control at signalized intersections will not have a pronounced impact on the evacuation process as most of the intersections have significant volume on the eastwest approaches as well as the north south approaches. Thus, no additional TCPs or ACPs are deemed necessary as a result of this study.

The use of intelligent transportation systems (ITS) technologies can reduce manpower and equipment needs, while still facilitating the evacuation process. Dynamic message signs (DMS) can be placed within the EPZ to provide information to travelers regarding traffic conditions, route selection, and reception center information. DMS can also be placed outside of the EPZ to 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 en route through their vehicle stereo systems. Automated traveler information systems (ATIS) can also be used to provide evacuees with information. Internet websites can provide traffic and evacuation route information before the evacuee begins his trip, while on board navigation systems (GPS units), cell phones, and pagers can be used to provide information en route. These are only several examples of how ITS technologies can benefit the evacuation process. Consideration should be given that ITS technologies be used to facilitate the evacuation process, and any additional signage placed should consider evacuation needs.

The ETE analysis treated all controlled intersections that are existing TCP locations in the offsite agency plans as being controlled by actuated signals.

Chapters 2N and 5G, and Part 6 of the 2009 MUTCD are particularly relevant and should be reviewed during emergency response training.

KLD Engineering, P.C. 92 Revision 3

Turkey Point Evacuation Time Estimate The ETE calculations reflect the assumption that all externalexternal trips are interdicted and diverted after 2 hours2.314815e-5 days 5.555556e-4 hours 3.306878e-6 weeks 7.61e-7 months have elapsed from the ATE.

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

Study Assumptions 5 and 6 in Section 2.3 discuss ACP and TCP staffing schedules and operations.

KLD Engineering, P.C. 93 Revision 3

Turkey Point Evacuation Time Estimate 10 EVACUATION ROUTES Evacuation routes are comprised of two distinct components:

Routing from an area being evacuated to the boundary of the evacuation region and thence out of the EPZ.

Routing of transitdependent evacuees from the EPZ boundary to reception centers.

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

This expectation is met by the DYNEV II model routing traffic away from the location of the plant, to the extent practicable. The DTRAD model satisfies this behavior by routing traffic so as to balance traffic demand relative to the available highway capacity to the extent possible.

See Appendices B through D for further discussion.

The routing of transitdependent evacuees from the EPZ boundary to reception centers is designed to minimize the amount of travel outside the EPZ, from the points where these routes cross the EPZ boundary.

Figure 101 shows the general population reception centers evacuees. Figure 102 shows the host schools for evacuated schoolchildren. The major evacuation routes for the EPZ are presented in Figure 103.

It is assumed that all school evacuees will be taken to the appropriate host school and subsequently picked up by parents or guardians. Transitdependent evacuees are transported to the reception center for their county. This study does not consider the transport of evacuees from reception centers to more permanent shelters, if the counties do make the decision to relocate evacuees.

KLD Engineering, P.C. 101 Revision 3

Turkey Point Evacuation Time Estimate Figure 101. General Population Reception Centers KLD Engineering, P.C. 102 Revision 3

Turkey Point Evacuation Time Estimate Figure 102. Host Schools KLD Engineering, P.C. 103 Revision 3

Turkey Point Evacuation Time Estimate Figure 103. Evacuation Route Map KLD Engineering, P.C. 104 Revision 3

Turkey Point Evacuation Time Estimate 11 SURVEILLANCE OF EVACUATION OPERATIONS There is a need for surveillance of traffic operations during the evacuation. There is also a need to clear any blockage of roadways arising from accidents or vehicle disablement. Surveillance can take several forms.

1. Traffic control personnel, located at traffic control and access control points, provide fixedpoint surveillance.

2. Ground patrols may be undertaken along welldefined paths to ensure coverage of those highways that serve as major evacuation routes.

3. Aerial surveillance of evacuation operations may also be conducted using helicopter or fixedwing aircraft, if available.

4. Cellular phone calls (if cellular coverage exists) from motorists may also provide direct field reports of road blockages.

These concurrent surveillance procedures are designed to provide coverage of the entire EPZ as well as the area around its periphery. It is the responsibility of the counties to support an emergency response system that can receive messages from the field and be in a position to respond to any reported problems in a timely manner. This coverage should quickly identify, and expedite the response to any blockage caused by a disabled vehicle.

Tow Vehicles In a lowspeed traffic environment, any vehicle disablement is likely to arise due to a lowspeed collision, mechanical failure or the exhaustion of its fuel supply. In any case, the disabled vehicle can be pushed onto the shoulder, thereby restoring traffic flow. Past experience in other emergencies indicates that evacuees who are leaving an area often perform activities such as pushing a disabled vehicle to the side of the road without prompting.

While the need for tow vehicles is expected to be low under the circumstances described above, it is still prudent to be prepared for such a need. Consideration should be given that tow trucks with a supply of gasoline be deployed at strategic locations within, or just outside, the EPZ. These locations should be selected so that:

They permit access to key, heavily loaded, evacuation routes.

Responding tow trucks would most likely travel counterflow relative to evacuating traffic.

Consideration should also be given that the state and local emergency management agencies encourage gas stations to remain open during the evacuation.

KLD Engineering, P.C. 111 Revision 3

Turkey Point Evacuation Time Estimate 12 CONFIRMATION TIME It is necessary to confirm that the evacuation process is effective in the sense that the public is complying with the advisory to evacuate. The EPZ county and state radiological emergency plans do not discuss a procedure for confirming evacuation. Should procedures not already exist, we suggest an alternative or complementary approach.

The procedure we suggest employs a stratified random sample and a telephone survey. The size of the sample is dependent on the expected number of households that do not comply with the advisory to evacuate. We believe it is reasonable to assume, for the purpose of estimating sample size that at least 80 percent of the population within the EPZ will comply with the advisory to evacuate. On this basis, an analysis could be undertaken (see Table 121) to yield an estimated sample size of approximately 300.

The confirmation process should start at about 31/2 hours after the advisory to evacuate, which is when approximately 90 percent of evacuees have completed their mobilization activities (see Table 58). At this time, virtually all evacuees will have departed on their respective trips and the local telephone system will be largely free of traffic.

As indicated in Table 121, approximately 71/2 person hours are needed to complete the telephone survey. If six people are assigned to this task, each dialing a different set of telephone exchanges (e.g., each person can be assigned a different set of areas), then the confirmation process will extend over a timeframe of about 75 minutes. Thus, the confirmation should be completed before the evacuated area is cleared. Of course, fewer people would be needed for this survey if the evacuation region were only a portion of the EPZ. Use of modern automated computer controlled dialing equipment or other technologies (e.g., reverse 911 or equivalent) can significantly reduce the manpower requirements and the time required to undertake this type of confirmation survey.

If this method is indeed used by the offsite agencies, consideration should be given to maintain a list of telephone numbers within the EPZ in the EOC at all times. Such a list could be purchased from vendors and should be periodically updated. As indicated above, the confirmation process should not begin until 31/2 hours after the advisory to evacuate, to ensure that households have had enough time to mobilize. This 31/2hour timeframe will enable telephone operators to arrive at their workplace, obtain a call list and prepare to make the necessary phone calls.

Should the number of telephone responses (i.e., people still at home) exceed 20 percent, then the telephone survey should be repeated after an hour's interval until the confirmation process is completed.

Other techniques should also be considered. After traffic volumes decline, the personnel manning TCPs can be redeployed to travel through residential areas to observe and to confirm evacuation activities.

KLD Engineering, P.C. 121 Revision 3

Turkey Point Evacuation Time Estimate Table 121. Estimated Number of Telephone Calls Required for Confirmation of Evacuation Problem Definition Estimate number of phone calls, n, needed to ascertain the proportion, F of households that have not evacuated.

Reference:

Burstein, H., Attribute Sampling, McGraw Hill, 1971 Given:

No. of households plus other facilities, N, within the EPZ (est.) = 65,500 Est. proportion, F, of households that will not evacuate = 0.20 Allowable error margin, e: 0.05 Confidence level, : 0.95 (implies A = 1.96)

Applying Table 10 of cited reference, 0.25; 1 0.75 308 Finite population correction:

307 1

Thus, some 300 telephone calls will confirm that approximately 20 percent of the population has not evacuated. If only 10 percent of the population does not comply with the advisory to evacuate, then the required sample size, nF = 215.

Est. Person Hours to complete 300 telephone calls Assume:

Time to dial using touch tone (random selection of listed numbers): 30 seconds Time for 6 rings (no answer): 36 seconds Time for 4 rings plus short conversation: 60 sec.

Interval between calls: 20 sec.

Person Hours:

300 30 0.8 36 0.2 60 20 7.6 3600 KLD Engineering, P.C. 122 Revision 3

Turkey Point Evacuation Time Estimate 13 RECOMMENDATIONS The following recommendations are offered:

1. Examination of the general population ETE in Section 7 shows that the ETE for 100 percent of the population is generally 3 to 31/2 hours longer than for 90 percent of the population. This nonlinearity reflects the fact that there is significant traffic congestion within the EPZ (see Section 7.3), which delays the departure of evacuees. NUREG/CR 7002 recommends using the 90th percentile ETE to make PAD because of the long tail of the mobilization curve which is typically caused by those relatively few stragglers who delay the start of their evacuation trip at most nuclear power plant sites. The significant difference between the 90th and 100th percentile ETE for PTN is the result of traffic congestion within the EPZ, not mobilization time. See Appendix J and Figures J1 through J12 for additional information.

2. Staged evacuation would be beneficial for evacuating the population within the 5mile region of PTN. As discussed in Section 7.6, the ETE for the 5mile region are significantly longer when evacuating additional areas beyond 5 miles due to the routing of vehicles from beyond 5 miles into the 5mile region to access the Florida Turnpike. Although staged evacuation is disadvantageous to those beyond 5 miles, it does expedite the evacuation of those evacuees from within the 5mile region.

3. A NASCAR race at the HomesteadMiami Speedway has a significant impact on ETE for regions that extend beyond 5 miles. The 90th percentile ETE increases by as much as 2 hours2.314815e-5 days 5.555556e-4 hours 3.306878e-6 weeks 7.61e-7 months and 20 minutes and the 100th percentile ETE by as much as 3 hours3.472222e-5 days 8.333333e-4 hours 4.960317e-6 weeks 1.1415e-6 months .

4. A lane closure on the Florida Turnpike northbound has a material effect on ETE for keyhole regions with wind towards the north and west. The 90th percentile ETE increases by as much as 1 hour1.157407e-5 days 2.777778e-4 hours 1.653439e-6 weeks 3.805e-7 months for these regions. In the event of a lane closure on the turnpike, it is recommended that state and local police mitigate the problem by using the shoulder as an additional lane if feasible.

5. Counties should implement procedures whereby schools are contacted prior to dispatch of buses from the depots to get an accurate count of students needing transportation and the number of buses required (see Section 8).

6. Table 85 indicates the total transportation resources needed and available for evacuation of the transitdependent population within the EPZ. If sufficient resources are not available at the time an evacuation is ordered, two waves of evacuating vehicles would be required. ETE for two wave evacuation exceed the 90th percentile ETE for the general population and should be considered when making protective action decisions (see Section 8.4). Mutual aid agreements with neighboring counties and assistance from the state should be considered to address any shortfalls in transportation resources.

7. ITS technologies such as DMS, HAR, ATIS, etc. should be used to facilitate the evacuation process (see Section 9). The placement of additional signage should consider evacuation needs.

8. The counties should establish strategic locations to position tow trucks provided with gasoline containers in the event of a disabled vehicle during the evacuation process (see Section 11) and should encourage gas stations to remain open during the evacuation.

KLD Engineering, P.C. 131 Revision 3

Turkey Point Evacuation Time Estimate

9. Counties/state should establish a system/procedure to confirm that the ATE is being adhered to (see the approach suggested by KLD in Section 12). Should the approach recommended in Section 12 be used, consideration should be given to keep a list of telephone numbers within the EPZ in the EOC at all times.

KLD Engineering, P.C. 132 Revision 3

APPENDIX A Glossary of Traffic Engineering Terms

Turkey Point Evacuation Time Estimate 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.

KLD Engineering, P.C. A1 Revision 3

Turkey Point Evacuation Time Estimate 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 Destination Matrix of trips generated at each specified origin, during a specified time period, that are attracted to (and travel toward) each of its specified destinations. These values are expressed in vehicles per hour (vph) or in vehicles.

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

KLD Engineering, P.C. A2 Revision 3

APPENDIX B DTRAD: Dynamic Traffic Assignment and Distribution Model

Turkey Point Evacuation Time Estimate 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 DYNEVII 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 nodeswithin 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.

KLD Engineering, P.C. B1 Revision 3

Turkey Point Evacuation Time Estimate 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 DYNEVII 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 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 KLD Engineering, P.C. B2 Revision 3

Turkey Point Evacuation Time Estimate computes travel times on all edges in the network and DTRAD uses that information to constantly update the costs of paths. The route choice decision model in the next simulation iteration uses these updated values to adjust the route choice behavior. This way, traffic demands are dynamically reassigned based on time dependent conditions.

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

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

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

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

= Scaling factor The value of do = 15 miles, the outer distance of the shadow region. Note that the supplemental cost, sa, of link, a, is (high, low), if its downstream node, n, is (near, far from) the power plant.

KLD Engineering, P.C. B3 Revision 3

Turkey Point Evacuation Time Estimate 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.

KLD Engineering, P.C. B4 Revision 3

Turkey Point Evacuation Time Estimate 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 KLD Engineering, P.C. B5 Revision 3

APPENDIX C DYNEV Traffic Simulation Model

Turkey Point Evacuation Time Estimate 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 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 KLD Engineering, P.C. C1 Revision 3

Turkey Point Evacuation Time Estimate All traffic simulation models are dataintensive. Table C2 outlines the necessary input data elements.

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 C3is 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 KLD Engineering, P.C. C2 Revision 3

Turkey Point Evacuation Time Estimate 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 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 KLD Engineering, P.C. C3 Revision 3

Turkey Point Evacuation Time Estimate 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 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 .

KLD Engineering, P.C. C4 Revision 3

Turkey Point Evacuation Time Estimate End if Computation of unit problem is now complete. Check for excessive inflow causing spillback.

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

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

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

Algorithm A This analysis addresses the flow environment over a TI during which moving vehicles can join a standing or discharging queue. For the case Qb vQ shown, Q Cap, with t 0 and a queue of Qe Qe length, Q , formed by that portion of M and E that reaches the stopbar within the TI, but could v not discharge due to inadequate capacity. That is, Mb Q M E . This queue length, v Q Q M E Cap can be extended to Q L3 by traffic entering the approach during the current TI, traveling at speed, v, and reaching the rear of the t1 t3 queue within the TI. A portion of the entering TI vehicles, E E , will likely join the queue. This analysis calculates t , Q and M for the input values of L, TI, v, E, t, L , LN, Q .

When t 0 and Q Cap:

L L Define: L Q . From the sketch, L v TI t t L Q E .

LN LN Substituting E E yields: vt E L v TI t L . Recognizing that the first two terms on the right hand side cancel, solve for t to obtain:

KLD Engineering, P.C. C5 Revision 3

Turkey Point Evacuation Time Estimate 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.

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 KLD Engineering, P.C. C6 Revision 3

Turkey Point Evacuation Time Estimate 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 all network links) in just two sweeps if the network is entirely undersaturated or in four sweeps in the presence of extensive congestion with link spillback. (The initial sweep over each link uses the final values of E and M, of the prior TI). At the completion of the final sweep for a TI, the procedure computes and stores all measures of effectiveness for each link and turn movement for output purposes. It then prepares for the following time interval by defining the values of Q and M for the start of the next TI as being those values of Q and M at the end of the prior TI. In this manner, the simulation model processes the traffic flow over time until the end of the run. Note that there is no spacediscretization other than the specification of network links.

C.2.2 Interfacing with Dynamic Traffic Assignment (DTRAD)

The DYNEV II system reflects NRC guidance that evacuees will seek to travel in a general direction away from the location of the hazardous event. Thus, an algorithm was developed to identify an appropriate set of destination nodes for each origin based on its location and on the expected direction of travel. This algorithm also supports the DTRAD model in dynamically varying the Trip Table (OD matrix) over time from one DTRAD session to the next.

Figure B1 depicts the interaction of the simulation model with the DTRAD model in the DYNEV II system. As indicated, DYNEV II performs a succession of DTRAD sessions; each such session computes the turn link percentages for each link that remain constant for the session duration, T , T , specified by the analyst. The end product is the assignment of traffic volumes from each origin to paths connecting it with its destinations in such a way as to minimize the networkwide cost function. The output of the DTRAD model is a set of updated link turn percentages which represent this assignment of traffic.

As indicated in Figure B1, the simulation model supports the DTRAD session by providing it with operational link MOE that are needed by the path choice model and included in the DTRAD cost function. These MOE represent the operational state of the network at a time, T T , which lies within the session duration, T , T . This burn time, T T , is selected by the analyst. For each DTRAD iteration, the simulation model computes the change in network operations over this burn time using the latest set of link turn percentages computed by the DTRAD model. Upon convergence of the DTRAD iterative procedure, the KLD Engineering, P.C. C7 Revision 3

Turkey Point Evacuation Time Estimate simulation model accepts the latest turn percentages provided by the 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.

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 KLD Engineering, P.C. C8 Revision 3

Turkey Point Evacuation Time Estimate 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 KLD Engineering, P.C. C9 Revision 3

Turkey Point Evacuation Time Estimate Table C3. Glossary The maximum number of vehicles, of a particular movement, that can discharge from Cap a link within a time interval.

The number of vehicles, of a particular movement, that enter the link over the time E

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.

k The average density of moving vehicles of a particular movement over a TI, on a link.

L The length of the link in feet.

The queue length in feet of a particular movement, at the [beginning, end] of a time L ,L interval.

The number of lanes, expressed as a floating point number, allocated to service a LN particular movement on a link.

L The mean effective length of a queued vehicle including the vehicle spacing, feet.

M Metering factor (Multiplier): 1.

The number of moving vehicles on the link, of a particular movement, that are moving M ,M at the [beginning, end] of the time interval. These vehicles are assumed to be of equal spacing, over the length of link upstream of the queue.

The total number of vehicles of a particular movement that are discharged from a link O

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 the TI; O ,O ,O 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 executes a P

particular turn movement, x.

KLD Engineering, P.C. C10 Revision 3

Turkey Point Evacuation Time Estimate The number of queued vehicles on the link, of a particular turn movement, at the Q ,Q

[beginning, end] of the time interval.

The maximum flow rate that can be serviced by a link for a particular movement Q in the absence of a control device. It is specified by the analyst as an estimate of link capacity, based upon a field survey, with reference to the HCM.

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.

KLD Engineering, P.C. C11 Revision 3

Turkey Point Evacuation Time Estimate 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 KLD Engineering, P.C. C12 Revision 3

Turkey Point Evacuation Time Estimate 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 Configurations with t1>0 KLD Engineering, P.C. C13 Revision 3

Turkey Point Evacuation Time Estimate 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)

KLD Engineering, P.C. C14 Revision 3

APPENDIX D Detailed Description of Study Procedure

Turkey Point Evacuation Time Estimate D. DETAILED DESCRIPTION OF STUDY PROCEDURE This appendix describes the activities that were performed to compute Evacuation Time Estimates. 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 EPZ boundary information and create a 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 2010 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 were estimated using the journey to work Florida Edition website1, and from phone calls to major employers. Transient data were obtained from local/state emergency management agencies and from phone calls to transient attractions. Information concerning schools, medical and other types of special facilities within the EPZ was obtained from county and municipal sources, augmented by telephone contacts with the identified facilities.

Step 3 A kickoff meeting was conducted with major stakeholders (state and local emergency managers, onsite and offsite utility emergency managers, local and state law enforcement agencies). 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 local 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 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 estimate realistic values of roadway capacity.

1 http://www.j2w.usf.edu/default.asp?l=f KLD Engineering, P.C. D1 Revision 3

Turkey Point Evacuation Time Estimate Step 5 A telephone survey of households within the EPZ was conducted to identify household dynamics, trip generation characteristics, and evacuationrelated demographic information of the EPZ population. This information was used to determine important study factors including the average number of evacuating vehicles used by each household, and the time required to perform preevacuation mobilization activities.

Step 6 A computerized representation of the physical roadway system, called a linknode analysis network, was developed using the UNITES software 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). Estimates of highway capacity for each link and other linkspecific characteristics were introduced to the network description. Traffic signal timings were input accordingly. The linknode analysis network was imported into a GIS map. 2010 Census data 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 10 Areas. Based on wind direction and speed, regions (groupings of areas) that may be advised to evacuate, were developed.

The need for evacuation can occur over a range of timeofday, dayofweek, seasonal and weatherrelated conditions. Scenarios were developed to capture the variation in evacuation demand, highway capacity and mobilization time, for different time of day, day of the week, time of year, and weather conditions.

Step 8 The input stream for the DYNEV II model, which integrates the dynamic traffic assignment and distribution model, DTRAD, with the evacuation simulation model, was created for a prototype evacuation case - the evacuation of the entire EPZ for a representative scenario.

Step 9 After creating this input stream, the DYNEV II System was executed on the prototype evacuation case to compute evacuating traffic routing patterns consistent with the appropriate NRC guidelines. DYNEV II contains an extensive suite of data diagnostics which check the completeness and consistency of the input data specified. The analyst reviews all warning and error messages produced by the model and then corrects the database to create an input stream that properly executes to completion.

The model assigns destinations to all origin centroids consistent with a (general) radial evacuation of the EPZ and shadow region. The analyst may optionally supplement and/or replace these modelassigned destinations, based on professional judgment, after studying the topology of the analysis highway network. The model produces link and networkwide measures of effectiveness as well as estimates of evacuation time.

KLD Engineering, P.C. D2 Revision 3

Turkey Point Evacuation Time Estimate Step 10 The results generated by the prototype evacuation case are critically examined. The examination includes observing the animated graphics (using the EVAN software which operates on data produced by DYNEV II) and reviewing the statistics output by the model. This is a laborintensive activity, requiring the direct participation of skilled engineers who possess the necessary practical experience to interpret the results and to determine the causes of any problems reflected in the results.

Essentially, the approach is to identify those bottlenecks in the network that represent locations where congested conditions are pronounced and to identify the cause of this congestion. This cause can take many forms, either as excess demand due to high rates of trip generation, improper routing, a shortfall of capacity, or as a quantitative flaw in the way the physical system was represented in the input stream. This examination leads to one of two conclusions:

The results are satisfactory; or The input stream must be modified accordingly.

This decision requires, of course, the application of the user's judgment and experience based upon the results obtained in previous applications of the model and a comparison of the results of the latest prototype evacuation case iteration with the previous ones. If the results are satisfactory in the opinion of the user, then the process continues with Step 13. Otherwise, proceed to Step 11.

Step 11 There are many "treatments" available to the user in resolving apparent problems. These treatments range from decisions to reroute the traffic by assigning additional evacuation destinations for one or more sources, imposing turn restrictions where they can produce significant improvements in capacity, changing the control treatment at critical intersections so as to provide improved service for one or more movements, or in prescribing specific treatments for channelizing the flow so as to expedite the movement of traffic along major roadway systems. Such "treatments" take the form of modifications to the original prototype evacuation case input stream. All treatments are designed to improve the representation of evacuation behavior.

Step 12 As noted above, the changes to the input stream must be implemented to reflect the modifications undertaken in Step 11. At the completion of this activity, the process returns to Step 9 where the DYNEV II System is again executed.

Step 13 Evacuation of transitdependent evacuees and special facilities are included in the evacuation analysis. Fixed routing for transit buses and for school buses, ambulances, and other transit vehicles are introduced into the final prototype evacuation case data set. DYNEV II generates routespecific speeds over time for use in the estimation of evacuation times for the transit dependent and special facility population groups.

KLD Engineering, P.C. D3 Revision 3

Turkey Point Evacuation Time Estimate Step 14 The prototype evacuation case was used as the basis for generating all region and scenario specific evacuation cases to be simulated. This process was automated through the UNITES user interface. For each specific case, the population to be evacuated, the trip generation distributions, the highway capacity and speeds, and other factors are adjusted to produce a customized casespecific data set.

Step 15 All evacuation cases are executed using the DYNEV II System to compute ETE. Once results 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 were used to compute evacuation time estimates for transitdependent permanent residents, schools, hospitals, and other special facilities.

Step 17 The simulation results are analyzed, tabulated and graphed. The results were then documented, as required by NUREG/CR7002.

Step 18 Following the completion of documentation activities, the ETE criteria checklist (see Appendix N) was completed. An appropriate report reference is provided for each criterion provided in the checklist.

KLD Engineering, P.C. D4 Revision 3

Turkey Point Evacuation Time Estimate A

Step 1 Step 10 Create GIS Base Map Examine Results of 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 Telephone Survey and Develop Trip Generation Characteristics B

Step 13 Step 6 Establish Transit and Special Facility Evacuation Create and Calibrate LinkNode Analysis Network Routes and Update DYNEV II Database Step 14 Step 7 Generate DYNEV II Input Streams for All Evacuation Cases Develop Evacuation Regions and Scenarios Step 15 Step 8 Execute DYNEV II to Compute ETE for All Create and Debug DYNEV II Input Stream Evacuation Cases Step 16 Step 9 Use DYNEV II Average Speed Output to Compute ETE for Transit and Special Facility Routes B Execute DYNEV II for Prototype Evacuation Case Step 17 Documentation A Step 18 Complete ETE Criteria Checklist Figure D1. Flow Diagram of Activities KLD Engineering, P.C. D5 Revision 3

APPENDIX E Special Facility Data

Turkey Point Evacuation Time Estimate E. SPECIAL FACILITY DATA The following tables list population information, as of June 2012, for special facilities that are located within the PTN EPZ. Special facilities are defined as schools, hospitals and other medical care facilities, major employers and correctional facilities. Transient population data is included in the tables for recreational areas and lodging facilities. Employment data is included in the tables for major employers. Each table is grouped by county. The location of the facility is defined by its straightline distance (miles) and direction (magnetic bearing) from the center point of the plant. Maps of each school, medical facility, recreational area, lodging facility, major employer, and correctional facility are also provided.

KLD Engineering, P.C. E1 Revision 3

Turkey Point Evacuation Time Estimate Table E1. Schools within the EPZ Distance Dire Enroll Area (miles) ction School Name Street Address Municipality Phone ment MIAMIDADE COUNTY, FL 4 7.5 NW Air Base Elementary 12829 SW 272nd St Homestead 3052583676 676 4 6.8 NNW Mandarin Lakes K8 Academy 12225 SW 280th St Homestead 3052570377 1,376 4 6.7 NNW Migrant Education Program 28205 SW 125th Ave Homestead 3052584115 17 5 10.6 N Balere Language Academy 10600 Caribbean Blvd Miami 3052329797 151 5 11.3 N BelAire Elementary 10205 SW 194th St Miami 3052335401 522 5 10.2 N Centennial Middle 8601 SW 212th St Miami 3052351581 976 5 10.7 WNW Cutler Ridge Christian Academy 10301 Caribbean Blvd Miami 3052511534 238 5 10.8 N Cutler Ridge Elementary 20210 Coral Sea Rd Miami 3052354611 905 5 11.3 N Cutler Ridge Middle 19400 Gulfstream Rd Miami 3052354761 1,008 5 10.3 N Gulfstream Elementary 20900 SW 97th Ave Miami 3052356811 724 5 12.1 N Our Lady of the Holy Rosary 18455 Franjo Rd Homestead 3052355442 460 5 9.7 N Whigham, Dr. E.L. Elementary 21545 SW 87th Ave Miami 3052344840 798 5 11.5 N Whispering Pines Elementary 18929 SW 89th Rd Miami 3052387382 758 6 11.2 NNW Caribbean Elementary 11990 SW 200th St Miami 3052337131 811 6 9.7 WNW Children's Rainbow 22940 Old Dixie Hwy Miami 3052580194 20 6 8.8 NNW Coconut Palm K8 Academy 24440 SW 124th Ave Miami 3052570501 1,400 Coral Reef Montessori Academy 6 10.0 NNW 10853 SW 216 St Miami 3052550064 335 Charter School 6 8.9 NNW Goulds Elementary School 23555 SW 112th Ave Miami 3052574400 545 6 10.2 NNW Mays Middle 11700 SW 216th St Miami 3052332300 658 6 10.1 NNW Pine Villa Elementary 21799 SW 117th Court Miami 3052585366 623 7 8.1 NW Chapman Elementary 27190 SW 140th Ave Homestead 3052451055 940 7 8.5 NW Naranja Elementary 13990 SW 264th St Naranja 3052583401 637 7 10.7 NW Redland Middle 16001 SW 248th St Homestead 3052476112 1,175 SIA Tech (Homestead Job Corps 7 8.1 NW 12350 SW 285th St Homestead 3052589477 357 Center) 7 8.1 NW South Dade Center 28520 SW 148th Ave Homestead N/A N/A KLD Engineering, P.C. E2 Revision 3

Turkey Point Evacuation Time Estimate Distance Dire Enroll Area (miles) ction School Name Street Address Municipality Phone ment 7 9.6 NW South Dade Senior 28401 SW 167th Ave Homestead 3052474244 3,266 7 8.5 NW South Dade Skill Center 28300 SW 152nd Ave Leisure City N/A N/A Aspira South Youth Leadership 8 7.5 NW 1411214114 SW 288th St Leisure City 3052461111 306 Charter School 8 9.6 WNW Avocado Elementary 16969 SW 294th St Homestead 3052474942 782 8 9.8 WNW Barrington Academy 344 SW 4th Ave Homestead 3052483400 94 8 8.1 WNW Campbell Dr Elementary 15790 SW 307th St Leisure City 3052450270 1,246 8 8.0 WNW Campbell Dr Middle 900 NE 23rd Ave Homestead 3052487911 1,072 8 9.6 WNW Colonial Christian School 17105 SW 296th St Homestead 3052468606 199 Cooper, Neva King Educational 8 9.3 WNW 151 NW 5th St Homestead 3052474307 101 Center 8 8.1 WNW Corporate Academy South 2351 SE 12 Ave Homestead 3052464348 89 First Assembly Christian 8 9.9 W 824 West Palm Dr Florida City 3052482273 75 Academy 8 10.0 WNW First Presbyterian Church School 47 NW 16th St Homestead 3052464094 120 8 9.6 WNW Florida City Elementary 364 NW 6th Ave Florida City 3052474676 857 8 7.7 WNW Gateway Environmental K8 955 SE 18th Ave Homestead 3052576000 1,239 8 9.9 WNW Homestead Middle 650 NW 2nd Ave Homestead 3052474221 966 8 8.1 WNW Homestead Senior 2351 SE 12th Ave Homestead 3052457000 2,184 8 6.7 WNW Keys Gate Charter School 2000 SE 28th Ave Homestead 3052301616 1,143 8 9.8 W Lawrence Academy 777 West Palm Dr Florida City 3052474800 15 8 8.1 NW Leisure City K8 Center 14950 SW 288th St Homestead 3052475431 1,318 8 9.8 WNW MAST @ Homestead 1220 NW 1st Ave Homestead 3052574500 457 Miami Community Charter 8 10.1 W 101 S Redland Rd Florida City 3052452552 50 School 8 7.6 NW Peskoe Elementary 29035 SW 144 Ave Homestead 3052428340 1,114 8 8.8 WNW Redland Center 29355 Dixie Hwy Miami N/A N/A 8 10.7 WNW Redland Christian Academy 17700 SW 280th St Homestead 3052477399 215 8 8.0 WNW Region VI Office 30910 SW 8th St Homestead N/A N/A KLD Engineering, P.C. E3 Revision 3

Turkey Point Evacuation Time Estimate Distance Dire Enroll Area (miles) ction School Name Street Address Municipality Phone ment 8 9.8 W Rosa Parks Charter School 713 W Palm Dr Florida City 3052463336 155 8 9.3 WNW Sacred Heart 300 SE 1st Dr Homestead 3052472678 194 8 9.6 WNW Saint John's Episcopal School 145 NE 10th St Homestead 3052475445 176 8 9.8 WNW Saunders, Laura C. Elementary 505 SW 8th St Homestead 3052473933 919 8 9.6 WNW South Dade Adult Center 109 NE 8th St Homestead N/A N/A The Charter School at 8 6.8 NW 855 Waterstone Way Homestead 3052486206 1,117 Waterstone outside(a) 10.9 NW Redland Elementary 24501 SW 162nd Ave Homestead 3052478141 996 (a) outside 11.0 WNW Redondo Elementary 18480 SW 304th St Homestead 3052475943 753 (a) outside 10.7 WNW West Homestead Elementary 1550 SW 6th St Homestead 3052480812 768 MiamiDade County Subtotals: 38,096 MONROE COUNTY, FL 10 9.1 SSE Academy at Ocean Reef 395 South Harbor Dr Key Largo 3053672409 12 Monroe County Subtotals: 12 TOTAL: 38,108 (a) According to MiamiDade County, Redland Elementary, Redondo Elementary, and West Homestead Elementary are outside of the EPZ, but are nonetheless evacuated because they are close to the EPZ boundary. They have been included in areas 7, 8, and 8, respectively, for the ETE analysis.

KLD Engineering, P.C. E4 Revision 3

Turkey Point Evacuation Time Estimate Table E2. Medical Facilities within the EPZ Ambul Wheel Bed Distance Dire Cap Area Facility Name Street Address Municipality Phone atory chair ridden (miles) ction acity Patients Patients Patients MIAMIDADE COUNTY, FL 4 8.0 NW Diaz Home Care ALF 13481 SW 268th Ter Homestead 3052587790 7 6 1 0 4 7.3 NW Merline's Place 28412 SW 135th Ave Homestead 3052744326 6 5 1 0 4 8.0 NW M J Quality Care 13231 SW 278th Ter Homestead 3057940011 8 7 1 0 4 7.5 NW Mother Golden Years III 13621 SW 281st Ter Miami 3058077138 6 5 1 0 5 11.6 N Bel Air ALF 8830 Caribbean Blvd Miami 3052558737 7 6 1 0 Bella Luna Retirement 5 11.6 N 18700 SW 93rd Ct Miami 3059697482 9 8 1 0 Home 5 9.0 N Riverside Senior Care 22712 SW 103rd Ct Miami 7862108271 7 6 1 0 5 9.6 N Blue Point Home Care 21910 SW 97th Ct Miami 3059715826 6 5 1 0 5 10.0 N Cutler Bay Village 10425 SW 212th St Miami 3059927672 28 24 3 1 5 10.0 N Guardian Angel ALF 10265 Nicaragua Dr Cutler Bay 7863443318 8 7 1 0 5 10.6 N Caribbean ALF 9860 Caribbean Blvd Miami 3059719667 6 5 1 0 East Ridge Retirement 5 11.2 N 19301 SW 87th Ave Miami 3052382623 60 51 6 3 Village 5 10.3 N Harmony Family Home 9245 SW 208th Ter Miami 7862425577 7 6 1 0 Health South Rehabilitation 5 10.4 N 20601 Old Cutler Rd Miami 3052513800 60 51 6 3 Hospital 5 10.5 N Kenneth Home Inc 10051 Haitian Dr Miami 7865430325 8 7 1 0 5 10.0 N Living Well ALF Corporation 21280 Old Cutler Road Cutler Bay 3052327420 6 5 1 0 5 10.4 N Marlin Retirement ALF 20610 Marlin Rd Miami 3055198517 8 7 1 0 Old Cutler Retirement 5 9.8 N 21640 Old Cutler Rd Miami 3052321411 8 7 1 0 Home 5 10.0 N Paradise Villa ALF, Inc. 21164 SW 92nd Pl Cutler Bay 3059716477 7 6 1 0 5 11.1 N Perdue Medical Center 19590 Old Cutler Rd Cutler Bay 7864663500 53 45 5 3 5 10.4 N Rodeck One Inc 9700 Montego Bay Dr Miami 3059694446 8 7 1 0 5 10.7 N The Haven 10601 Caribbean Blvd Miami 3052355872 11 9 1 1 5 10.0 N Welcome Home ALF Corp. 8950 SW 215th Terrace Cutler Bay 7863552630 7 6 1 0 6 7.0 NNW Diaz Home Care ALF II Inc. 12211 SW 268th St Homestead 7866017752 7 6 1 0 6 8.0 NNW Blanca Azuzena Homecare 12414 SW 252nd Ter Homestead 3052574741 8 7 1 0 KLD Engineering, P.C. E5 Revision 3

Turkey Point Evacuation Time Estimate Ambul Wheel Bed Distance Dire Cap Area Facility Name Street Address Municipality Phone atory chair ridden (miles) ction acity Patients Patients Patients 6 10.7 NNW B&B Home Care, Inc. 20625 SW 114th Pl Miami 3052359510 7 6 1 0 6 8.2 NNW Del Real Home Care, Inc. 13071 SW 260th Ter Homestead 3052570041 7 6 1 0 6 7.7 NNW Duran Home Care Corp 26775 SW 129th Ave Homestead 3057265782 7 6 1 0 6 8.3 NNW God Is First ALF, Inc 11316 SW 246th Ter Miami 3055088412 6 5 1 0 6 10.1 NNW Ifa Lola ALF 12230 SW 220th St Cutler Bay 7863089915 6 5 1 0 6 11.1 NNW Ive Home 20020 SW 113th Pl Miami 3052557934 8 7 1 0 6 9.9 NNW Ive Home II ALF 22636 SW 125th Ave Cutler Bay 3058043183 8 7 1 0 6 10.0 NNW Rick and Dauvy ALF Inc. 23120 SW 124th Ave Miami 3053456751 6 5 1 0 6 8.3 NNW Living Well ALF, Co. 24151 SW 107th Ave Homestead 3054312586 7 6 1 0 6 8.0 NNW Meadow Wood Homes LLC 25799 SW 122nd Pl Homestead 3052835034 7 6 1 0 6 8.0 NNW Osmani M ALF LLC 26423 SW 122nd Pl Miami 3056713308 7 6 1 0 6 10.9 NNW My Sweet Home 11312 SW 203rd Ter Miami 3052511119 8 7 1 0 6 9.9 NNW Paula's Mansion ALF 13206 SW 218th Ter Miami 7863064819 6 5 1 0 6 10.8 NNW Rafaela's Home ALF II 20560 SW 113th Rd Miami 3052593607 8 7 1 0 6 9.2 NNW St. Mary Adult Care II 11271 SW 229th Ter Miami 3052385594 7 6 1 0 6 10.9 NNW Suany's Home 20411 SW 116th Rd Miami 3052520734 8 7 1 0 Sunny Hills of Homestead 6 8.8 NNW 25268 SW 134th Ave Princeton 3052582222 105 89 11 5 ALF Biscayne Villa Assisted 22181 Southwest 117th 6 10.0 NNW Miami 3052184429 6 5 1 0 Living Avenue 6 9.5 NNW Sylvia's Senior Home 23025 SW 120th Ave Miami 3052572880 10 9 1 0 6 7.6 NNW Vicky's ALF 12438 SW 266th Ln Homestead 3052573039 7 6 1 0 7 7.7 NW Advance ALF 14335 SW 288 St Homestead 3052426461 6 5 1 0 7 9.0 NW Naranja Group Home 15190 SW 272 St Naranja 3052487116 12 10 1 1 7 7.9 NW Maria Home Care Corp. 14615 SW 288th St Miami 7863855415 7 6 1 0 7 9.0 NW Por Una Vida Mejor 27352 SW 154th Ave Homestead 7864570806 8 7 1 0 7 7.8 NW San Rafael Home Health Inc. 13373 SW 283rd St Homestead 7864707927 7 6 1 0 Serenity Adult Home Care 7 9.0 NW 15401 SW 277th St Homestead 7868538880 6 5 1 0 Services 8 8.0 WNW Alita and John Haran ALF 1532 Flamingo Ct Homestead 3052425620 6 5 1 0 KLD Engineering, P.C. E6 Revision 3

Turkey Point Evacuation Time Estimate Ambul Wheel Bed Distance Dire Cap Area Facility Name Street Address Municipality Phone atory chair ridden (miles) ction acity Patients Patients Patients Angele's Assisted Living 8 7.8 NW 29921 SW 151st Ave Homestead 3052477171 7 6 1 0 Facility 8 8.0 NW Emanuel Adult ALF Inc. 14950 Leisure Dr Homestead 3058157771 7 6 1 0 8 8.0 NW Leisure City Homecare Inc. 14785 Coolidge Lane Homestead 3052475949 6 5 1 0 Heaven Assisted Living 8 8.0 NW 30136 SW 148th Pl Homestead 3052452290 7 6 1 0 Facility 8 8.0 WNW New Horizon Assisted Living 30110 SW 145th Ct Homestead 3052456029 7 6 1 0 8 6.9 NW El Viejo Sol ALF Corp 4163 NE 16th St Homestead 3059868104 6 5 1 0 Heaven Assisted Living 8 7.5 NW 30136 SW 148th Pl Homestead 3052452290 7 6 1 0 Facility 8 7.1 WNW Homestead Hospital 975 Baptist Way Homestead 7862438000 120 102 12 6 8 10.0 WNW Homestead Manor 1330 NW 1st Ave Homestead 3052480271 82 70 8 4 8 8.4 WNW Kayleen and Denis Care 15700 SW 296th St Homestead 3052485046 10 9 1 0 Krome Apartments Sunrise 8 10.0 WNW 1102 N. Krome Ave Homestead 3052420600 12 10 1 1 Community Inc 8 9.0 WNW Kayleen and Denis Care 15700 SW 296th St Homestead 3052425048 10 9 1 0 8 8.2 WNW MD ALF 15735 SW 303rd Ter Miami 3052470260 6 5 1 0 8 7.2 WNW Mi Renacer ALF 1305 SE 7th St Homestead 7862952913 8 7 1 0 8 7.4 NW Mother Golden Years II 29332 SW 143rd Ct Homestead 3055513160 6 5 1 0 8 9.9 WNW Palace GardensNorth 1351 N Krome Ave Homestead 3052470446 224 191 22 11 8 7.8 NW Pina & Fuerte Adult Care 14935 SW 297th St Homestead 3052420871 7 6 1 0 8 9.6 WNW Sara Home Care 29100 SW 172nd Ave Homestead 3052464034 16 14 2 0 Signature Healthcare of 8 7.7 WNW 1990 S Canal Dr Homestead 3052461200 120 102 12 6 Brookwood Gardens 8 10.0 WNW Sol Radiante Inc. 221 NE 15th St Homestead 3052464798 6 5 1 0 8 10.1 WNW Swankridge Care Center 120 NW 17th St Homestead 3052489662 12 10 1 1 Swankridge Holistic 8 9.8 WNW 122 NW 7th St Homestead 3052489662 12 10 1 1 Research & Care Center 8 9.4 WNW Sweet Mansion ALF Inc 16925 SW 300th St Homestead 7864864902 7 6 1 0 KLD Engineering, P.C. E7 Revision 3

Turkey Point Evacuation Time Estimate Ambul Wheel Bed Distance Dire Cap Area Facility Name Street Address Municipality Phone atory chair ridden (miles) ction acity Patients Patients Patients 8 8.0 NW The Gil Family Home 15201 SW 297th St Miami 3052480308 6 5 1 0 MiamiDade County Subtotals: 1,360 1,160 153 47 TOTAL: 1,360 1,160 153 47 KLD Engineering, P.C. E8 Revision 3

Turkey Point Evacuation Time Estimate Table E3. Major Employers within the EPZ Distance Dire Employee Area (miles) ction Facility Name Street Address Municipality Phone Employees(a) Vehicles MIAMIDADE COUNTY, FL 1 0.0 N Turkey Point Nuclear Plant SW 344th St Homestead N/A 1467 1346 19191 S Dixie 5 11.5 N Best Buy Hwy/20505 S Dixie Cutler Bay 3052569552 344 316 Hwy Doris Ison South Dade 10300 Southwest 5 9.8 N Miami 3052535100 345 317 Community Health Center 216th St Health South Rehabilitation 5 10.4 N 20601 Old Cutler Rd Miami 3052513800 263 241 Hospital 19650 South Dixie 5 11.3 N Office Max Cutler Bay 3052548077 125 115 Hwy 5 11.4 N PRC 19500 S Dixie Hwy Cutler Bay 7862934000 126 116 5 9.0 WNW Prime Outlets of Florida City 250 East Palm Dr Florida City 3052484736 195 179 Shopping Center Lakes by 5 10.5 N Old Cutler Rd Cutler Bay N/A 263 241 the Bay South District Wastewater 5 7.8 N SE 232nd St Cutler Bay 7865528157 24 22 Treatment Plant 5 11.3 N Toys R Us 19525 So. Dixie Hwy Cutler Bay 3052336122 344 316 19167 South Dixie 5 11.5 N Winn Dixie Cutler Bay N/A 345 317 Hwy 6 9.4 NNW Cemax N/A Princeton N/A 734 673 th 6 5.2 WNW Contender Boats 1820 SE 38 Ave Homestead 3052301700 31 28 6 10.8 NNW Kmart 20505 S Dixie Hwy Cutler Bay 3052540455 345 317 Miami Dade Government 6 10.3 NNW 10710 SW 211th St Miami 3052751155 345 317 Center 6 7.1 NW Publix Super Market 3060 NE 41st Ter Homestead 3052425530 344 316 6 10.5 NNW Sears 20701 SW 112th Ave Cutler Bay 3053785195 345 317 6 12.0 N Shopping Center - Cutler Bay S Dixie Hwy East Perrine N/A 344 316 6 9.8 NNW Shopping Center I - Goulds S Dixie Hwy Goulds N/A 118 108 6 9.9 NNW Shopping Center II - Goulds S Dixie Hwy Goulds N/A 118 108 6 10.0 NNW Shopping Center III - Goulds S Dixie Hwy Goulds N/A 118 108 KLD Engineering, P.C. E9 Revision 3

Turkey Point Evacuation Time Estimate Distance Dire Employee (a)

Area (miles) ction Facility Name Street Address Municipality Phone Employees Vehicles 6 10.2 NNW Shopping Center IV Goulds S Dixie Hwy Goulds N/A 118 108 6 9.7 NNW Shopping Center V Goulds S Dixie Hwy Goulds N/A 118 108 6 10.6 NNW Southland Mall 20505 S Dixie Hwy Cutler Bay 3052358880 345 317 6 10.8 NNW Target 20500 SW 112th Ave Cutler Bay 3052350839 125 115 28740 South Dixie 7 8.8 NW CVS Homestead 3052481761 181 166 Hwy 27359 S Dixie Hwy/240 Northeast 7 8.7 NW Winn Dixie Homestead 3052480660 515 472 8th St/30346 Old Dixie Highway 8 9.2 WNW Applebee's 33009 S Dixie Hwy Homestead 3052461004 194 178 (c) 8 8.8 WNW BJ's Wholesale & Vicinity 650 NW 8th Ave Homestead 3052487538 2,422 2,222 8 9.3 W DiMare Homestead, Inc. 258 NW 1st Ave Florida City 3052454211 194 178 33001 South Dixie 8 9.1 WNW Florida City Centre & Vicinity Florida City 7862439370 180 165 Hwy Florida City State Farmers' 300 North Krome 8 9.2 WNW Florida City 3052466334 194 178 Market Ave 8 7.2 NW Home Depot 13895 SW 288th St Homestead 3052471179 194 178 Homestead Hospital & Oasis 8 7.1 WNW 975 Baptist Way Homestead 7862438000 2,422 2,222 Plaza Shopping Center (d)

Lowe's Home Improvement 8 8.6 WNW 1850 NE Campbell Dr Homestead 3055083020 2,422 2,222 Center & Vicinity (e) 8 10.6 NNW Publix Super Market 20711 S Dixie Hwy Miami 3052563140 180 165 R C Comprehensive Medical 10700 Caribbean 8 10.7 NNW Cutler Bay 3052521022 344 316 Center Blvd Shopping Center -

8 9.0 WNW S Dixie Hwy Homestead N/A 2,422 2,222 Homestead & Vicinity (f) 8 8.8 WNW Walgreens 29601 S Dixie Hwy Homestead 3052482451 181 166 8 9.0 WNW WalMart 33501 S Dixie Hwy Homestead 3052424447 194 178 15900 SW 408th St 9 9.4 NNW Florida Rock and Sand Florida City 3052479611 50 46

B 10 9.2 WNW Office Depot 32955 S Dixie Hwy Florida City 7862431550 194 178 KLD Engineering, P.C. E10 Revision 3

Turkey Point Evacuation Time Estimate Distance Dire Employee (a)

Area (miles) ction Facility Name Street Address Municipality Phone Employees Vehicles MiamiDade Subtotals: 19,872 18,234 MONROE COUNTY, FL 10 8.2 SSE Ocean Reef Club(b) 35 Ocean Reef Dr Key Largo 3053963006 600 550 Monroe County Subtotals: 600 550 TOTAL: 20,472 18,784 (a) The employment for each municipality in Table 35 was evenly distributed among major employers listed for that municipality in the table above. There are many large shopping centers with multiple stores along S Dixie Hwy; the employee estimates above are for the entire shopping center which has been identified by the major store in that shopping center.

(b) Based on information provided by the director of public safety for the Ocean Reef Community (ORC), there are 3000 employees at ORC at peak times, 80% of which are EPZ residents. Therefore 20% of employees (3000 x 20% = 600) commute into the EPZ to work at ORC.

(c) There are several additional employees in this area including Homestead Water & Sewer, NAPA Auto Parts, AT&T, and 3 shopping centers.

(d) Oasis Plaza Shopping Center includes Publix Supermarket, Walgreens, H&R Block, several restaurants and small retail establishments.

(e) There are several additional employers in this area including Campbell East Shopping Center, The Flagship Cinemas Shopping Center, and Homestead Pavilion Shopping Center (including Kohls, Sports Authority, Ross, Dress for Less, Petco, Michaels, Staples, specialty shops and restaurants).

(f) There are several employers in this area including Publix Supermarket, Sedanos Supermarket, Office Max, Walgreens, Pet Supermarket, Chase Bank, Bank of America, and several restaurants.

KLD Engineering, P.C. E11 Revision 3

Turkey Point Evacuation Time Estimate Table E4. Parks/Recreational Attractions within the EPZ Distance Dire Area (miles) ction Facility Name Street Address Municipality Phone Transients Vehicles MIAMIDADE COUNTY, FL Biscayne National Park 4 2.7 N 9700 SW 328 St Homestead 3052307275 400 70 (Homestead Bayfront Park)

Homestead Bayfront 4 2.3 N Marina/Herbert Hoover 9698 SW 328th St Homestead 3052303033 2,000 500 Marina and Park 6 7.9 N Black Point Marina 24775 SW 87 Ave Cutler Bay 3052584092 2,613 871 6 7.8 N Black Point Park 24775 SW 87th Ave Cutler Bay 3052584092 4,000 1,333 Larry & Penny Thompson 6 12.7 NNW 12451 SW 184th St Miami 3052321049 1,360 920 Memorial Park(a)

South MiamiDade Cultural 6 9.6 NNW 10950 SW 211 St Cutler Bay 7865735317 1,250 313 Arts Center 6 10.7 NNW Southland Mall 20505 South Dixie Hwy Miami 3052358880 3,825 1,275 (a) 7 10.7 NW Camp Owaissa Bauer 17001 SW 264 St Miami 3052476016 150 6 7 8.7 NW Coral Castle Museum 28655 S Dixie Hwy Homestead 3052486344 50 20 8 8.9 WNW Harris Field 1034 NE 8th St Homestead 3052485189 591 197 8 5.8 WNW Homestead Sports Complex 1601 SE 28th Ave Homestead 3057737987 1,000 333 8 7.2 WNW Keys Gate Golf Club 2300 Palm Dr Homestead 3052300362 100 40 8 8.9 W Prime Outlets of Florida City 250 East Palm Dr Florida City 3052484736 3,715 1,229 MiamiDade County Subtotals: 21,054 7,107 MONROE COUNTY, FL 10 8.4 SSE Ocean Reef Club Marina 35 Ocean Reef Dr Key Largo 305-367-2611 See note (b)

Monroe County Subtotals: See note (b)

TOTAL: 21,054 7,107 (a) Based on discussions with MiamiDade County emergency management officials, Camp Owaissa Bauer and Larry & Penny Thompson Memorial Park will be evacuated in the event of an incident at Turkey Point because they are close to the EPZ boundary. Larry & Penny Thompson Park and Camp Owaissa Bauer were included in areas 6 and 7, respectively, for the ETE analysis.

(b) As discussed in Section 3.3, the transients at this facility have been included with the Ocean Reef Community transient population provided in Table E5.

KLD Engineering, P.C. E12 Revision 3

Turkey Point Evacuation Time Estimate Table E5. Lodging Facilities within the EPZ Distance Dire Area (miles) ction Facility Name Street Address Municipality Phone Transients Vehicles MIAMIDADE COUNTY, FL 6 10.8 N Best Western Floridian Hotel 10775 Caribbean Blvd Miami 305-253-9960 600 150 Howard Johnson Plaza (Floridian 6 10.8 N 10779 Caribbean Blvd Cutler Bay 305-253-9960 370 128 Hotel Cutler Ridge) 6 9.9 NNW Kent Motel 22345 S Dixie Hwy Miami 305-258-2114 48 12 6 10.9 NNW La Quinta Inn 10821 Caribbean Blvd Cutler Bay 305-278-0001 412 103 America's Best Inn & Suites (Royal 7 8.8 NW 26476 S Dixie Hwy Homestead 305-258-3034 57 20 Tern Motel) 7 8.7 NW Budget Express 27707 S Dixie Hwy Naranja 305-245-4330 217 108 7 8.7 NW Deluxe Inn Motel 28475 S Dixie Hwy Homestead 305-248-5622 44 15 8 9.0 WNW A-1 Budget Motel 30600 S Dixie Hwy Homestead 305-247-7032 49 17 8 9.5 WNW Anhinga Motel 250 S Krome Ave Homestead 305-247-3590 99 34 8 9.1 W Best Western Gateway to the Keys 411 S Krome Ave Florida City 305-246-5100 281 97 8 9.3 WNW Budget Host (Roadway Inn) 815 N Krome Ave Florida City 305-248-2741 90 45 8 9.7 WNW Caribe Motel 841 N Krome Ave Homestead 305-247-2442 103 34 8 8.9 W Comfort Inn Florida City Hotel 333 SE First Ave Florida City 305-248-4009 372 124 8 9.3 WNW Coral Roc Motel 1100 N Krome Ave Florida City 305-246-2888 30 10 8 9.7 WNW Country Lodge 651 N Krome Ave Florida City 305-245-2376 89 31 8 9.2 WNW Days Inn 51 S Homestead Blvd Homestead 305-245-1260 187 94 8 9.1 WNW Econo Lodge 553 NE First Ave Florida City 305-248-9300 104 36 8 9.4 WNW Everglades Motel 605 S Krome Ave Homestead 305-247-4117 25 8 8 9.0 W Fairway Inn 100 SE 1st Ave Florida City 305-248-4202 394 136 8 9.0 WNW Floridian Hotel of Homestead 990 N Homestead Blvd Homestead 305-247-7020 345 119 8 9.6 WNW Green Stone Motel 304 N Krome Ave Homestead 305-247-8334 62 21 8 8.9 W Holiday Inn Express 35200 S Dixie Hwy Florida City 305-247-3414 200 100 8 9.3 WNW Holiday Motel 1405 N Krome Ave Florida City 305-248-8681 30 15 8 9.1 WNW Inn at Homestead (Villager Lodge) 1020 N Homestead Blvd Homestead 305-248-2121 123 43 Knights Inn Florida City-Hotel (Sea 8 9.2 WNW 1223 NE First Ave Florida City 305-247-6633 70 35 Glades Hotel) 8 9.4 WNW Park Motel 600 S Krome Ave Homestead 305-247-6731 52 18 Ramada Inn Florida City (Hampton 8 9.0 W 124 East Palm Dr Florida City 305-247-8833 394 98 Inn) 8 9.4 WNW Redland Hotel 5 S Flagler Ave Homestead 305-246-1904 22 11 KLD Engineering, P.C. E13 Revision 3

Turkey Point Evacuation Time Estimate Distance Dire Area (miles) ction Facility Name Street Address Municipality Phone Transients Vehicles 8 9.3 WNW Super 8-Florida City (Bel Air Motel) 1202 N Krome Ave Florida City 305-245-0311 104 26 8 9.8 WNW Tradewinds Motel 846 N Krome Ave Homestead 305-247-5050 21 11 8 8.9 W Travelodge-Florida City 409 SE 1st Ave Florida City 305-248-9777 264 88 MiamiDade County Subtotals: 5,258 1,787 MONROE COUNTY, FL (a) 10 8.2 SSE Ocean Reef Club 35 Ocean Reef Dr Key Largo 305-396-3006 6,763 4,540 Monroe County Subtotals: 6,763 4,540 TOTAL: 12,021 6,327 Note: People and vehicles per room varied by hotel. Peak occupancy rates were obtained through direct phone calls to the facilities. An average occupancy rate was used for hotels that did not provide data.

(a) Based on information provided by the director of public safety for the ORC, there are 5,000 residents and 2,800 transients staying at rental homes and lodging facilities at ORC at peak times. There are 1,037 yearround residents at ORC (see Section 3.3). Therefore, there are 6,763 (5,000 + 2,800 - 1,037) nonEPZ residents at ORC at peak times. Vehicle estimates were also provided by the director of public safety.

KLD Engineering, P.C. E14 Revision 3

Turkey Point Evacuation Time Estimate Table E6. Correctional Facilities within the EPZ Distance Dire Cap Area (miles) ction Facility Name Street Address Municipality Phone acity Census MIAMIDADE COUNTY, FL Dade Juvenile Residential 9 9.8 WSW 18500 SW 424th St Florida City 3052476492 56 55 Facility MiamiDade County Subtotal: 56 55 TOTAL: 56 55 KLD Engineering, P.C. E15 Revision 3

Turkey Point Evacuation Time Estimate Figure E1. Schools within the EPZ KLD Engineering, P.C. E16 Revision 3

Turkey Point Evacuation Time Estimate Figure E2. Schools within the EPZ KLD Engineering, P.C. E17 Revision 3

Turkey Point Evacuation Time Estimate Figure E3. Medical Facilities within the EPZ KLD Engineering, P.C. E18 Revision 3

Turkey Point Evacuation Time Estimate Figure E4. Medical Facilities within the EPZ KLD Engineering, P.C. E19 Revision 3

Turkey Point Evacuation Time Estimate Figure E5. Medical Facilities within the EPZ KLD Engineering, P.C. E20 Revision 3

Turkey Point Evacuation Time Estimate Figure E6. Major Employers within the EPZ KLD Engineering, P.C. E21 Revision 3

Turkey Point Evacuation Time Estimate Figure E7. Major Employers within the EPZ KLD Engineering, P.C. E22 Revision 3

Turkey Point Evacuation Time Estimate Figure E8. Major Employers within the EPZ KLD Engineering, P.C. E23 Revision 3

Turkey Point Evacuation Time Estimate Figure E9. Recreational Areas within the EPZ KLD Engineering, P.C. E24 Revision 3

Turkey Point Evacuation Time Estimate Figure E10. Lodging Facilities within the EPZ KLD Engineering, P.C. E25 Revision 3

Turkey Point Evacuation Time Estimate Figure E11. Lodging Facilities within the EPZ KLD Engineering, P.C. E26 Revision 3

Turkey Point Evacuation Time Estimate Figure E12. Correctional Facilities with the EPZ KLD Engineering, P.C. E27 Revision 3

APPENDIX F Telephone Survey

Turkey Point Evacuation Time Estimate F. TELEPHONE SURVEY F.1 Introduction The development of ETE for the Turkey Point Nuclear Power Plant 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 telephone 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 ?)

KLD Engineering, P.C. F1 Revision 3

Turkey Point Evacuation Time Estimate 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. A sample size of approximately 550 completed survey forms yields results with a sampling error of +/-4.15% 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 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 completed survey adhered to the sampling plan.

The survey discussed herein was performed in 2009 for the preparation of the Turkey Point Nuclear Power Plant Units 6 & 7 combined license application effort. The EPZ population has increased by about 4 percent (an estimated 7,841 people) between 2009, when the survey was conducted, and the 2010 Census. During this timeframe, the nature of the EPZ and the population demographics have not significantly changed. It consists primarily of farmland to the west and suburban housing in the remainder of the EPZ. Consequently, the use of 2009 telephone survey results can be justified on this basis.

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 (DK) or refused entry for a response. It is accepted practice in conducting surveys of this type to accept the answers of a respondent who offers a DK response for a few questions or who refuses to answer a few questions. To address the issue of occasional DK/refused 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 DK/refused responses are ignored and the distributions are based upon the positive data that is acquired.

KLD Engineering, P.C. F2 Revision 3

Turkey Point Evacuation Time Estimate F.3.1 Household Demographic Results Household Size Figure F1 presents the distribution of household size within the EPZ. The average household contains 3.13 people. The estimated household size (3.25 persons) used to determine the survey sample (Table F1) was drawn from Census data. The agreement (within the sampling error range) between the average household size obtained from the survey and from the Census is an indication of the reliability of the survey.

Automobile Ownership The average number of automobiles available per household in the EPZ is 1.89. It should be noted that approximately 7 percent of households do not own or have access to an automobile.

The distribution of automobile ownership is presented in Figure F2. Figure F3 and Figure F4 present the automobile availability by household size. Note that the majority of households without access to a car are single person households.

Commuters Figure F5 presents the distribution of the number of commuters in each household.

Commuters are defined as household members who travel to work or college on a daily basis.

The data shows an average of 1.19 commuters in each household in the EPZ, and 68% of households have at least one commuter.

Commuter Travel Modes Figure F6 presents the mode of travel that commuters use on a daily basis. The vast majority of commuters use their private automobiles to travel to work. The data shows an average of 1.09 employees per vehicle, assuming 2 people per vehicle - on average - for carpools.

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 F7. On average, evacuating households would use 1.37 vehicles.

Would your family await the return of other family members prior to evacuating the area?

Of the survey participants who responded, 71 percent said they would await the return of other family members before evacuating and 29 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, 65 percent of households do have a family pet.

KLD Engineering, P.C. F3 Revision 3

Turkey Point Evacuation Time Estimate Of the households with pets, 75 percent of them indicated that they would take their pets, as shown in Figure F8.

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 F9 presents the cumulative distribution; in all cases, the activity is completed by 105 minutes.

About eighty percent can leave within 35 minutes.

How long would it take the commuter to travel home? Figure F10 presents the work to home travel time for the EPZ. About 80 percent of commuters can arrive home within 45 minutes of leaving work; all within 120 minutes.

How long would it take the family to pack clothing, secure the house, and load the car?

Figure F11 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 Figure F11 has a long tail. About 90 percent of households can be ready to leave home within 180 minutes; the remaining households require up to an additional three hours.

F.4 Conclusions The telephone survey provides valuable, relevant data associated with the EPZ population, which have been used to quantify demographics specific to the EPZ, and mobilization time which can influence evacuation time estimates.

KLD Engineering, P.C. F4 Revision 3

Turkey Point Evacuation Time Estimate Table F1. Turkey Point Telephone Survey Sampling Plan Population within Zip Code EPZ (2000) Households Required Sample 33030 21,955 6,518 83 33031 1,574 519 7 33032 19,520 5,488 70 33033 32,224 9,485 120 33034 9,900 3,001 38 33035 2,763 1,091 14 33037 932 511 6 33039 446 13 1 33157 13,378 4,679 59 33170 5,667 1,607 20 33177 6,265 1,643 21 33189 22,051 7,392 94 33190 3,993 1,356 17 Total 140,668 43,303 550 Average Household Size: 3.25 Total Sample Required: 550 KLD Engineering, P.C. F5 Revision 3

Turkey Point Evacuation Time Estimate Turkey Point Household Size 40%

30%

% of Households 20%

10%

0%

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12+

Household Size Figure F1. Household Size in the EPZ Turkey Point Vehicle Availability 50%

40%

% of Households 30%

20%

10%

0%

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9+

Number of Vehicles Figure F2. Household Vehicle Availability KLD Engineering, P.C. F6 Revision 3

Turkey Point Evacuation Time Estimate Distribution of Vehicles by HH Size 15 Person Households 1 Person 2 People 3 People 4 People 5 People 100%

80%

% of Households 60%

40%

20%

0%

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9+

Vehicles Figure F3. Vehicle Availability 1 to 5 Person Household Distribution of Vehicles by HH Size 69+ Person Households 6 People 7 People 8 People 9+ People 100%

80%

% of Households 60%

40%

20%

0%

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9+

Vehicles Figure F4. Vehicle Availability 6 to 9+ Person Household KLD Engineering, P.C. F7 Revision 3

Turkey Point Evacuation Time Estimate Turkey Point Commuters 50%

40%

% of Households 30%

20%

10%

0%

0 1 2 3 4+

Number of Commuters Figure F5. Commuters in Households in the EPZ Turkey Point Travel Mode to Work 100%

91.5%

80%

% of Commuters 60%

40%

20%

4.0% 4.2%

0.3% 0.0%

0%

Rail Bus Walk/Bike Drive Alone Carpool (2+)

Mode of Travel Figure F6. Modes of Travel in the EPZ KLD Engineering, P.C. F8 Revision 3

Turkey Point Evacuation Time Estimate Vehicles Used for Evacuation 100%

80%

60%

% of Households 40%

20%

0%

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9+

Number of Vehicles Figure F7. Number of Vehicles Used for Evacuation Households Evacuating with Pets 100%

80%

% of Households 60%

40%

20%

0%

Yes No Figure F8. Households Evacuating with Pets KLD Engineering, P.C. F9 Revision 3

Turkey Point Evacuation Time Estimate Time to Prepare to Leave Work 100%

80%

% of Commuters 60%

40%

20%

0%

0 20 40 60 80 100 Preaparation Time (min)

Figure F9. Time Required to Prepare to Leave Work/School Work to Home Travel 100%

80%

% of Commuters 60%

40%

20%

0%

0 20 40 60 80 100 120 Travel Time (min)

Figure F10. Work to Home Travel Time KLD Engineering, P.C. F10 Revision 3

Turkey Point Evacuation Time Estimate Time to Prepare to Leave Home 100%

80%

% of Households 60%

40%

20%

0%

0 60 120 180 240 300 360 Preparation Time (min)

Figure F11. Time to Prepare Home for Evacuation KLD Engineering, P.C. F11 Revision 3

Turkey Point Evacuation Time Estimate ATTACHMENT A Telephone Survey Instrument KLD Engineering, P.C. F12 Revision 3

Turkey Point Evacuation Time Estimate Survey Instrument Hello, my name is _______________ and I'm doing COL.1 Unused a survey to be used for emergency plans in response COL.2 Unused to hazards that are not weather-related. COL.3 Unused I am working for [INSERT MARKETING FIRM NAME]. Your COL.4 Unused answers will help identify local travel patterns.

The information obtained will be used in a traffic COL.5 Unused engineering study and in connection with an update of the countys emergency response plans.

Your participation in this survey will greatly enhance the countys emergency preparedness program. Sex COL. 8 1 Male 2 Female INTERVIEWER: ASK TO SPEAK TO THE HEAD OF HOUSEHOLD OR THE SPOUSE OF THE HEAD OF HOUSEHOLD.

(Terminate call if not a residence)

DO NOT ASK:

1A. Record area code. To Be Determined COL. 9-11 1B. Record exchange number. To Be Determined COL. 12-14

2. What is your home Zip Code Col. 15-19

3. In total, how many cars, or other vehicles COL.20 are usually available to the household? 1 ONE (DO NOT READ ANSWERS.) 2 TWO 3 THREE 4 FOUR KLD Engineering, P.C. F13 Revision 3

Turkey Point Evacuation Time Estimate 5 FIVE 6 SIX 7 SEVEN 8 EIGHT 9 NINE OR MORE 0 ZERO (NONE)

X REFUSED

4. How many people usually live in this COL.21 COL.22 household? (DO NOT READ ANSWERS.) 1 ONE 0 TEN 2 TWO 1 ELEVEN 3 THREE 2 TWELVE 4 FOUR 3 THIRTEEN 5 FIVE 4 FOURTEEN 6 SIX 5 FIFTEEN 7 SEVEN 6 SIXTEEN 8 EIGHT 7 SEVENTEEN 9 NINE 8 EIGHTEEN 9 NINETEEN OR MORE X REFUSED

5. How many children living in this COL.23 household go to local public, 0 ZERO private, or parochial schools? 1 ONE (DO NOT READ ANSWERS.) 2 TWO 3 THREE 4 FOUR 5 FIVE 6 SIX 7 SEVEN 8 EIGHT 9 NINE OR MORE X REFUSED

6. How many people in the household COL.24 SKIP TO commute to a job, or to college, 0 ZERO Q. 12 at least 4 times a week? 1 ONE Q. 7 2 TWO Q. 7 3 THREE Q. 7 KLD Engineering, P.C. F14 Revision 3

Turkey Point Evacuation Time Estimate 4 FOUR OR MORE Q. 7 5 DON'T KNOW/REFUSED Q. 12 INTERVIEWER: For each person identified in Question 6, ask Questions 7, 8, 9, and 10.

7. Thinking about commuter #1, how does that person usually travel to work or college?

(REPEAT QUESTION FOR EACH COMMUTER.)

Commuter #1 Commuter #2 Commuter #3 Commuter #4 COL.25 COL.26 COL.27 COL.28 Rail 1 1 1 1 Bus 2 2 2 2 Walk/Bicycle 3 3 3 3 Driver Car/Van 4 4 4 4 Park & Ride (Car/Rail, Xpress_bus) 5 5 5 5 Driver Carpool-2 or more people 6 6 6 6 Passenger Carpool-2 or more people 7 7 7 7 Taxi 8 8 8 8 Refused 9 9 9 9 KLD Engineering, P.C. F15 Revision 3

Turkey Point Evacuation Time Estimate

8. What is the name of the city, town or community in which Commuter #1 works or attends school? (REPEAT QUESTION FOR EACH COMMUTER.) (FILL IN ANSWER.)

COMMUTER #1 COMMUTER #2 COMMUTER #3 COMMUTER #4 City/Town State City/Town State City/Town State City/Town State COL.29 COL.30 COL.31 COL.32 COL.33 COL.34 COL.35 COL.36 COL.37 COL.38 COL.39 COL.40 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 KLD Engineering, P.C. F16 Revision 3

Turkey Point Evacuation Time Estimate

9. How long would it take Commuter #1 to travel home from work or college?

(REPEAT QUESTION FOR EACH COMMUTER.) (DO NOT READ ANSWERS.)

COMMUTER #1 COMMUTER #2 COL.41 COL.42 COL.43 COL.44 1 5 MINUTES OR LESS 1 46-50 MINUTES 1 5 MINUTES OR LESS 1 46-50 MINUTES 2 6-10 MINUTES 2 51-55 MINUTES 2 6-10 MINUTES 2 51-55 MINUTES 3 11-15 MINUTES 3 56 - 1 HOUR 3 11-15 MINUTES 3 56 - 1 HOUR 4 16-20 MINUTES 4 OVER 1 HOUR, BUT 4 16-20 MINUTES 4 OVER 1 HOUR, BUT 5 21-25 MINUTES LESS THAN 1 HOUR 5 21-25 MINUTES LESS THAN 1 HOUR 6 26-30 MINUTES 15 MINUTES 6 26-30 MINUTES 15 MINUTES 7 31-35 MINUTES 5 BETWEEN 1 HOUR 7 31-35 MINUTES 5 BETWEEN 1 HOUR 8 36-40 MINUTES 16 MINUTES AND 1 8 36-40 MINUTES 16 MINUTES AND 1 9 41-45 MINUTES HOUR 30 MINUTES 9 41-45 MINUTES HOUR 30 MINUTES 6 BETWEEN 1 HOUR 6 BETWEEN 1 HOUR 31 MINUTES AND 1 31 MINUTES AND 1 HOUR 45 MINUTES HOUR 45 MINUTES 7 BETWEEN 1 HOUR 7 BETWEEN 1 HOUR 46 MINUTES AND 46 MINUTES AND 2 HOURS 2 HOURS 8 OVER 2 HOURS 8 OVER 2 HOURS (SPECIFY _____) (SPECIFY _____)

9 9 0 0 X DON'T KNOW/REFUSED X DON'T KNOW/REFUSED COMMUTER #3 COMMUTER #4 COL.45 COL.46 COL.47 COL.48 1 5 MINUTES OR LESS 1 46-50 MINUTES 1 5 MINUTES OR LESS 1 46-50 MINUTES 2 6-10 MINUTES 2 51-55 MINUTES 2 6-10 MINUTES 2 51-55 MINUTES 3 11-15 MINUTES 3 56 - 1 HOUR 3 11-15 MINUTES 3 56 - 1 HOUR 4 16-20 MINUTES 4 OVER 1 HOUR, BUT 4 16-20 MINUTES 4 OVER 1 HOUR, BUT 5 21-25 MINUTES LESS THAN 1 HOUR 5 21-25 MINUTES LESS THAN 1 HOUR 6 26-30 MINUTES 15 MINUTES 6 26-30 MINUTES 15 MINUTES 7 31-35 MINUTES 5 BETWEEN 1 HOUR 7 31-35 MINUTES 5 BETWEEN 1 HOUR 8 36-40 MINUTES 16 MINUTES AND 1 8 36-40 MINUTES 16 MINUTES AND 1 9 41-45 MINUTES HOUR 30 MINUTES 9 41-45 MINUTES HOUR 30 MINUTES 6 BETWEEN 1 HOUR 6 BETWEEN 1 HOUR 31 MINUTES AND 1 31 MINUTES AND 1 HOUR 45 MINUTES HOUR 45 MINUTES 7 BETWEEN 1 HOUR 7 BETWEEN 1 HOUR KLD Engineering, P.C. F17 Revision 3

Turkey Point Evacuation Time Estimate 46 MINUTES AND 46 MINUTES AND 2 HOURS 2 HOURS 8 OVER 2 HOURS 8 OVER 2 HOURS (SPECIFY _____) (SPECIFY _____)

9 9 0 0 X DON'T KNOW/REFUSED X DON'T KNOW/REFUSED

10. Approximately how long does it take Commuter #1 to complete preparation for leaving work or college prior to starting the trip home? (REPEAT QUESTION FOR EACH COMMUTER.)

(DO NOT READ ANSWERS.)

COMMUTER #1 COMMUTER #2 COL. 49 COL.50 COL.51 COL. 52 1 5 MINUTES OR LESS 1 46-50 MINUTES 1 5 MINUTES OR LESS 1 46-50 MINUTES 2 6-10 MINUTES 2 51-55 MINUTES 2 6-10 MINUTES 2 51-55 MINUTES 3 11-15 MINUTES 3 56 - 1 HOUR 3 11-15 MINUTES 3 56 - 1 HOUR 4 16-20 MINUTES 4 OVER 1 HOUR, BUT 4 16-20 MINUTES 4 OVER 1 HOUR, BUT 5 21-25 MINUTES LESS THAN 1 HOUR 5 21-25 MINUTES LESS THAN 1 HOUR 6 26-30 MINUTES 15 MINUTES 6 26-30 MINUTES 15 MINUTES 7 31-35 MINUTES 5 BETWEEN 1 HOUR 7 31-35 MINUTES 5 BETWEEN 1 HOUR 8 36-40 MINUTES 16 MINUTES AND 1 8 36-40 MINUTES 16 MINUTES AND 1 9 41-45 MINUTES HOUR 30 MINUTES 9 41-45 MINUTES HOUR 30 MINUTES 6 BETWEEN 1 HOUR 6 BETWEEN 1 HOUR 31 MINUTES AND 1 31 MINUTES AND 1 HOUR 45 MINUTES HOUR 45 MINUTES 7 BETWEEN 1 HOUR 7 BETWEEN 1 HOUR 46 MINUTES AND 46 MINUTES AND 2 HOURS 2 HOURS 8 OVER 2 HOURS 8 OVER 2 HOURS (SPECIFY _____) (SPECIFY _____)

9 9 0 0 X DON'T KNOW/REFUSED X DON'T KNOW/REFUSED COMMUTER #3 COMMUTER #4 COL. 53 COL. 54 COL. 55 COL. 56 1 5 MINUTES OR LESS 1 46-50 MINUTES 1 5 MINUTES OR LESS 1 46-50 MINUTES 2 6-10 MINUTES 2 51-55 MINUTES 2 6-10 MINUTES 2 51-55 MINUTES 3 11-15 MINUTES 3 56 - 1 HOUR 3 11-15 MINUTES 3 56 - 1 HOUR 4 16-20 MINUTES 4 OVER 1 HOUR, BUT 4 16-20 MINUTES 4 OVER 1 HOUR, BUT KLD Engineering, P.C. F18 Revision 3

Turkey Point Evacuation Time Estimate 5 21-25 MINUTES LESS THAN 1 HOUR 5 21-25 MINUTES LESS THAN 1 HOUR 6 26-30 MINUTES 15 MINUTES 6 26-30 MINUTES 15 MINUTES 7 31-35 MINUTES 5 BETWEEN 1 HOUR 7 31-35 MINUTES 5 BETWEEN 1 HOUR 8 36-40 MINUTES 16 MINUTES AND 1 8 36-40 MINUTES 16 MINUTES AND 1 9 41-45 MINUTES HOUR 30 MINUTES 9 41-45 MINUTES HOUR 30 MINUTES 6 BETWEEN 1 HOUR 6 BETWEEN 1 HOUR 31 MINUTES AND 1 31 MINUTES AND 1 HOUR 45 MINUTES HOUR 45 MINUTES 7 BETWEEN 1 HOUR 7 BETWEEN 1 HOUR 46 MINUTES AND 46 MINUTES AND 2 HOURS 2 HOURS 8 OVER 2 HOURS 8 OVER 2 HOURS (SPECIFY _____) (SPECIFY _____)

9 9 0 0 X DON'T KNOW/REFUSED X DON'T KNOW/REFUSED

11. When the commuters are away from home, is there a vehicle at home that is available for evacuation during any emergency? Col. 57 1 Yes 2 No 3 Dont Know/Refused

12. Would you await the return of family members prior to evacuating the area? Col. 58 1 Yes 2 No 3 Dont Know/Refused KLD Engineering, P.C. F19 Revision 3

Turkey Point Evacuation Time Estimate

13. How many of the vehicles that are usually available to the household would your family use during an evacuation? COL.59 (DO NOT READ ANSWERS.) 1 ONE 2 TWO 3 THREE 4 FOUR 5 FIVE 6 SIX 7 SEVEN 8 EIGHT 9 NINE OR MORE 0 ZERO (NONE)

X REFUSED

14. If time permits, how long would it take the family to pack clothing, secure the house, load the car, and complete preparations prior to evacuating the area? (DO NOT READ ANSWERS.)

COL.60 COL.61 1 LESS THAN 15 MINUTES 1 3 HOURS TO 3 HOURS 15 MINUTES 2 15-30 MINUTES 2 3 HOURS 16 MINUTES TO 3 HOURS 30 MINUTES 3 31-45 MINUTES 3 3 HOURS 31 MINUTES TO 3 HOURS 45 MINUTES 4 46 MINUTES - 1 HOUR 4 3 HOURS 46 MINUTES TO 4 HOURS 5 1 HOUR TO 1 HOUR 15 MINUTES 5 4 HOURS TO 4 HOURS 15 MINUTES 6 1 HOUR 16 MINUTES TO 1 HOUR 30 MINUTES 6 4 HOURS 16 MINUTES TO 4 HOURS 30 MINUTES 7 1 HOUR 31 MINUTES TO 1 HOUR 45 MINUTES 7 4 HOURS 31 MINUTES TO 4 HOURS 45 MINUTES 8 1 HOUR 46 MINUTES TO 2 HOURS 8 4 HOURS 46 MINUTES TO 5 HOURS 9 2 HOURS TO 2 HOURS 15 MINUTES 9 5 HOURS TO 5 HOURS 15 MINUTES 0 2 HOURS 16 MINUTES TO 2 HOURS 30 MINUTES 0 5 HOURS 16 MINUTES TO 5 HOURS 30 MINUTES X 2 HOURS 31 MINUTES TO 2 HOURS 45 MINUTES X 5 HOURS 31 MINUTES TO 5 HOURS 45 MINUTES Y 2 HOURS 46 MINUTES TO 3 HOURS Y 5 HOURS 46 MINUTES TO 6 HOURS COL.62 1 DON'T KNOW KLD Engineering, P.C. F20 Revision 3

Turkey Point Evacuation Time Estimate

15. Would you take household pets with you if you were asked to evacuate the area?

Col. 58 1 Yes 2 No 3 Dont Know/Refused Thank you very much. _______________________________________

(TELEPHONE NUMBER CALLED)

If requested:

County Phone Number For Additional information Miami-Dade County (305) 468-5415 Contact your County Emergency Management Office Monroe County (305) 289-6018 KLD Engineering, P.C. F21 Revision 3

APPENDIX G Traffic Management Plan

Turkey Point Evacuation Time Estimate G. TRAFFIC MANAGEMENT PLAN NUREG/CR7002 indicates that the existing TCPs and ACPs identified by the offsite agencies should be used in the evacuation simulation modeling. The traffic and access control plans for the EPZ were provided by each county.

These plans were reviewed and the TCPs were modeled accordingly.

G.1 Traffic Control Points As discussed in Section 9, traffic control points at intersections (which are controlled) are modeled as actuated signals. If an intersection has a pretimed signal, stop, or yield control, and the intersection is identified as a traffic control point, the control type was changed to an actuated signal in the DYNEV II system. One exception to this is the allway stop sign at the intersection of CR905 and CR905A (Card Sound Rd) in Monroe County. Based on discussions with county emergency planning personnel, this intersection would be manned by a police officer who would allow the continuous flow of traffic on CR905 (there will be little to no traffic flowing southbound on CR905A) to facilitate the evacuation of the ORC. As such, the intersection was modeled as a TCP and uncontrolled.

Table K2 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 TCP, the control type is indicated as TCP.

As shown in Figures 73 through 77, there is significant traffic congestion in competing directions (eastwest and northsouth) at intersections in the northwest quadrant of the EPZ.

Assigning police officers to perform traffic control at these intersections will have no benefit due to the heavy congestion along all approaches. TCPs in this area would be ineffective. TCPs on the Florida Turnpike ramps would have the most benefit for evacuation. These TCPs would facilitate traffic movement onto the turnpike and discourage traffic from exiting the turnpike.

Available manpower and equipment should be assigned to these interchanges as the top priority.

Figure G1 maps the TCPs identified in the county emergency plans. These TCPS are concentrated along the Turnpike ramps in MiamiDade County and along CR905 in Monroe County. This is the most effective allocation of manpower and equipment as these are the primary evacuation routes in each county. These TCPs would be manned during evacuation by traffic guides who would direct evacuees in the proper direction and facilitate the flow of traffic through the intersections.

Note that there are additional TCPs in MiamiDade County along the EPZ boundary and the boundary of those areas comprising the 5mile region. These TCPs are designed to limit the number of vehicles entering areas at risk from outside the EPZ.

KLD Engineering, P.C. G1 Revision 3

Turkey Point Evacuation Time Estimate G.2 Access Control Points It is assumed that ACPs will be established within 2 hours2.314815e-5 days 5.555556e-4 hours 3.306878e-6 weeks 7.61e-7 months of the advisory to evacuate to discourage through travelers from using major through routes which traverse the EPZ. As discussed in Section 3.6, external traffic was only considered on three routes which traverse the EPZ - Don Shula Expressway, Florida Turnpike, and US 1 - in this analysis. The generation of these external trips ceased at 2 hours2.314815e-5 days 5.555556e-4 hours 3.306878e-6 weeks 7.61e-7 months after the advisory to evacuate in the simulation.

According to the counties emergency plans, access control points will be established through the use of road blocks and barricades. Residents and transients will be directed away from the restricted areas. They will be enacted in conjunction with evacuation.

As discussed in Section 9, no additional TCPs or ACPs are deemed necessary as a result of this study.

KLD Engineering, P.C. G2 Revision 3

Turkey Point Evacuation Time Estimate Figure G1. Traffic Control Points for the PTN Site KLD Engineering, P.C. G3 Revision 3

APPENDIX H Evacuation Regions

Turkey Point Evacuation Time Estimate H EVACUATION REGIONS This appendix presents the evacuation percentages for each evacuation region (Table H1) and maps of all evacuation regions. The percentages presented in Table H1 are based on the methodology discussed in assumption 5 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.

Note that area 1 is not labeled in Figures H1 through H20. Area 1 is the Turkey Point site and is indicated with a star in these figures.

KLD Engineering, P.C. H1 Revision 3

Turkey Point Evacuation Time Estimate Table H1. Percent of Area Population Evacuating for Each Region EAS Area Message Region Description 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 R01 2Mile Ring 100% 100% 20% 20% 20% 20% 20% 20% 20% 20% 4 R02 5Mile Ring 100% 100% 100% 100% 20% 20% 20% 20% 20% 20% 5&9 R03 Full EPZ 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 6 Evacuate 5Mile Radius and Downwind to EPZ Boundary Area Wind Direction EAS 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Region Towards: Message R04 N 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 20% 20% 20% 16 R05 NNE 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 20% 20% 20% 20% 7 NE, ENE, E, ESE, SE, Refer to Region R02 N/A SSE, S 5&9 R06 SSW 100% 100% 100% 100% 20% 20% 20% 20% 100% 20% 11 R07 SW, WSW 100% 100% 100% 100% 20% 20% 20% 100% 100% 20% 12 R08 W 100% 100% 100% 100% 20% 20% 100% 100% 100% 20% 13 R09 WNW, NW 100% 100% 100% 100% 20% 100% 100% 100% 20% 20% 14 R10 NNW 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 20% 20% 15 Site Specific Regions Area Wind Direction EAS 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Region Towards: Message R11 100% 100% 100% 100% 20% 100% 100% 100% 100% 20% 8 Staged Evacuation 5Mile Radius Evacuates, then Evacuate Downwind to EPZ Boundary Area Wind Direction EAS 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Region Towards: Message R12 Full EPZ 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% N/A R13 N 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 20% 20% 20% N/A R14 NNE 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 20% 20% 20% 20% N/A NE, ENE, E, ESE, SE, Refer to Region R02 N/A SSE, S N/A R15 SSW 100% 100% 100% 100% 20% 20% 20% 20% 100% 20% N/A R16 SW, WSW 100% 100% 100% 100% 20% 20% 20% 100% 100% 20% N/A R17 W 100% 100% 100% 100% 20% 20% 100% 100% 100% 20% N/A R18 WNW, NW 100% 100% 100% 100% 20% 100% 100% 100% 20% 20% N/A R19 NNW 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 20% 20% N/A R20 100% 100% 100% 100% 20% 100% 100% 100% 100% 20% N/A ShelterinPlace until 90% ETE for R02, then Evacuate Area(s) ShelterinPlace Area(s) Evacuate KLD Engineering, P.C. H2 Revision 3

Turkey Point Evacuation Time Estimate Figure H1. Region R01 KLD Engineering, P.C. H3 Revision 3

Turkey Point Evacuation Time Estimate Figure H2. Region R02 KLD Engineering, P.C. H4 Revision 3

Turkey Point Evacuation Time Estimate Figure H3. Region R03 KLD Engineering, P.C. H5 Revision 3

Turkey Point Evacuation Time Estimate Figure H4. Region R04 KLD Engineering, P.C. H6 Revision 3

Turkey Point Evacuation Time Estimate Figure H5. Region R05 KLD Engineering, P.C. H7 Revision 3

Turkey Point Evacuation Time Estimate Figure H6. Region R06 KLD Engineering, P.C. H8 Revision 3

Turkey Point Evacuation Time Estimate Figure H7. Region R07 KLD Engineering, P.C. H9 Revision 3

Turkey Point Evacuation Time Estimate Figure H8. Region R08 KLD Engineering, P.C. H10 Revision 3

Turkey Point Evacuation Time Estimate Figure H9. Region R09 KLD Engineering, P.C. H11 Revision 3

Turkey Point Evacuation Time Estimate Figure H10. Region R10 KLD Engineering, P.C. H12 Revision 3

Turkey Point Evacuation Time Estimate Figure H11. Region R11 KLD Engineering, P.C. H13 Revision 3

Turkey Point Evacuation Time Estimate Figure H12. Region R12 KLD Engineering, P.C. H14 Revision 3

Turkey Point Evacuation Time Estimate Figure H13. Region R13 KLD Engineering, P.C. H15 Revision 3

Turkey Point Evacuation Time Estimate Figure H14. Region R14 KLD Engineering, P.C. H16 Revision 3

Turkey Point Evacuation Time Estimate Figure H15. Region R15 KLD Engineering, P.C. H17 Revision 3

Turkey Point Evacuation Time Estimate Figure H16. Region R16 KLD Engineering, P.C. H18 Revision 3

Turkey Point Evacuation Time Estimate Figure H17. Region R17 KLD Engineering, P.C. H19 Revision 3

Turkey Point Evacuation Time Estimate Figure H18. Region R18 KLD Engineering, P.C. H20 Revision 3

Turkey Point Evacuation Time Estimate Figure H19. Region R19 KLD Engineering, P.C. H21 Revision 3

Turkey Point Evacuation Time Estimate Figure H20. Region R20 KLD Engineering, P.C. H22 Revision 3

APPENDIX J Representative Inputs to and Outputs from the DYNEV II System

Turkey Point Evacuation Time Estimate 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 the volume and queues for the ten highest volume signalized intersections in the study area.

Refer to Table K2 and the figures in Appendix K for a map showing the geographic location of each intersection.

Table J2 provides source (vehicle loading) and destination information for several roadway segments (links) in the analysis network. Refer to Table K1 and the figures in Appendix K for a map showing the geographic location of each link.

Table J3 provides network-wide statistics (average travel time, average speed and number of vehicles) for an evacuation of the entire EPZ (region R03) for each scenario. As expected, scenarios 11 (Special Event - NASCAR) and 12 (roadway impact - one lane closed northbound on Florida Turnpike), exhibit the slowest average speeds and longest average travel times.

Table J4 provides statistics (average speed and travel time) for the major evacuation routes -

Florida Turnpike, Krome Ave, and US1 - for an evacuation of the entire EPZ (region R03) under scenario 1 conditions. As discussed in Section 7.3 and shown in Figures 73 through 77, US1 and Krome Ave are congested for most of the evacuation. As such, the average speeds are comparably slower (and travel times longer) on these routes than on other evacuation routes.

Table J5 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 Table K1 and the figures in Appendix K for a map showing the geographic location of each link.

Figure J1 through Figure J12 plot the trip generation time versus the ETE for each of the 12 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 J1 through Figure J12, the curves are spatially separated as a result of the pronounced traffic congestion in the EPZ, which is discussed in detail in Section 7.3.

KLD Engineering, P.C. J1 Revision 3

Turkey Point Evacuation Time Estimate Table J1. Characteristics of the Ten Highest Volume Signalized Intersections Max.

Approach Total Turn Intersection (Up Volume Queue Node Location Control Node) (Veh) (Veh) 717 5,139 72 432 12,399 105 SW 117th Ave & SH 433 Actuated 435 12,153 114 992 477 0 0 TOTAL 29,691 663 18,460 453 747 1,030 0 452 US1 & SH 992 Actuated 459 2,895 66 466 6,749 89 TOTAL 29,134 436 11,710 71 Turnpike On Ramp 437 Actuated 477 16,216 218

& SW 117th Ave TOTAL 27,926 106 5,918 46 109 1,028 0 105 US1 & SH 994 Actuated 111 16,553 144 417 4,060 2 TOTAL 27,559 435 4,775 3 Turnpike On Ramp 454 14,050 54 436 Actuated

& SH 992 481 8,701 13 TOTAL 27,526 781 989 0 775 24,461 950 777 US1 & SH 973 Actuated 776 155 0 TOTAL 25,605 777 991 0 747 18,566 809 775 US 1 & SW 136th St Actuated 774 175 10 783 5,729 461 TOTAL 25,461 6 6,867 44 SW 184th St & 7 11,765 72 5 Actuated Turnpike On Ramp 650 5,827 95 TOTAL 24,459 KLD Engineering, P.C. J2 Revision 3

Turkey Point Evacuation Time Estimate Max.

Approach Total Turn Intersection (Up Volume Queue Node Location Control Node) (Veh) (Veh) 669 12,075 457 Olivia L. Edwards 443 8,242 922 454 Actuated Blvd & SH 992 436 3,648 65 TOTAL 23,965 430 3,508 3 SW 137th Ave & SH 725 8,933 348 480 Actuated 992 128 11,075 238 TOTAL 23,516 KLD Engineering, P.C. J3 Revision 3

Turkey Point Evacuation Time Estimate Table J2. Sample Simulation Model Input Vehicles Entering Link Network Directional Destination Destination Number on this Link Preference Nodes Capacity 8129 5,715 6 1,505 N 8124 5,715 8788 1,714 8129 5,715 279 246 N 8124 5,715 8788 1,714 8114 1,698 410 115 NW 8788 1,714 8458 3,810 8129 5,715 584 355 NW 8124 5,715 8788 1,714 8124 5,715 735 31 NW 8788 1,714 8458 3,810 8788 1,714 819 72 NW 8458 3,810 8474 6,750 8129 5,715 915 365 NW 8124 5,715 8788 1,714 8124 5,715 1105 47 N 8788 1,714 8458 3,810 8458 3,810 1326 27 N 8474 6,750 8010 6,750 8129 5,715 1433 299 N 8124 5,715 8788 1,714 KLD Engineering, P.C. J4 Revision 3

Turkey Point Evacuation Time Estimate Table J3. Selected Model Outputs for the Evacuation of the Entire EPZ (Region R03)

Scenario 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 NetworkWide Average 7.6 8.5 7.0 7.8 6.9 7.7 8.5 7.4 7.6 7.1 8.9 8.6 Travel Time (Min/VehMi)

NetworkWide Average 8.0 7.1 8.5 7.7 8.7 7.8 7.1 8.2 7.9 8.4 6.8 7.0 Speed (mph)

Total Vehicles 147,437 146,001 129,921 130,863 118,888 149,004 147,907 134,057 133,964 119,955 165,567 145,753 Exiting Network KLD Engineering, P.C. J5 Revision 3

Turkey Point Evacuation Time Estimate Table J4. Average Speed (mph) and Travel Time (min) for Major Evacuation Routes Elapsed Time (hours) 1 2 3 4 5 Travel Length Speed Time Travel Travel Travel Travel Route# (miles) (mph) (min) Speed Time Speed Time Speed Time Speed Time US 1 Northbound 39.2 9.0 260.3 3.9 597.6 4.2 564.5 4.3 541.6 7.1 330.6 US 1 Southbound 39.1 32.9 71.3 16.4 142.8 8.0 292.7 39.2 59.9 53.1 44.2 Florida Turnpike Northbound 40.3 20.2 119.8 13.6 177.3 14.1 171.7 16.0 151.3 21.1 114.4 Florida Turnpike Southbound 41.1 26.8 91.9 15.3 160.8 7.8 317.1 29.3 84.3 36.9 66.9 Krome Ave 12.9 6.9 113.0 2.2 345.8 2.1 367.5 2.6 302.6 2.6 293.0 CR 905 10.0 24.2 24.8 9.7 62.1 15.4 39.0 53.2 11.3 52.6 11.4 6 7 8 9 Length Travel Travel Travel Travel Route# (miles) Speed Time Speed Time Speed Time Speed Time US 1 Northbound 39.2 12.7 184.9 25.9 90.7 46.0 51.1 53.0 44.3 US 1 Southbound 39.1 53.4 43.9 53.2 44.1 53.4 43.9 53.4 43.9 Florida Turnpike Northbound 40.3 25.4 95.3 28.8 83.8 54.4 44.4 58.1 41.6 Florida Turnpike Southbound 41.1 36.1 68.3 58.5 42.1 58.8 41.9 58.8 41.9 Krome Ave 12.9 2.9 271.5 2.7 284.7 3.1 253.8 4.9 157.4 CR 905 10.0 52.6 11.4 52.6 11.4 52.6 11.4 53.2 11.3 KLD Engineering, P.C. J6 Revision 3

Turkey Point Evacuation Time Estimate Table J5. Simulation Model Outputs at Network Exit Links for Region R03, Scenario 1 Elapsed Time (hours)

EPZ 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Exit Link Vehicles Discharged During the Indicated Time Interval Cumulative Percent of Vehicles Discharged During the Indicated Time Interval 1,384 3,082 4,780 6,373 7,967 9,583 11,215 12,896 14,507 176 10% 9% 8% 8% 8% 8% 9% 9% 10%

1,272 2,967 4,658 6,382 6,707 6,721 6,741 6,749 6,749 641 9% 8% 8% 8% 7% 6% 5% 5% 5%

1,902 5,135 8,099 10,924 13,393 15,090 16,744 17,761 17,947 1089 14% 14% 14% 14% 14% 13% 13% 12% 12%

4,477 10,622 16,928 22,994 28,731 35,082 41,513 46,039 46,581 1331 33% 29% 29% 29% 29% 30% 32% 32% 32%

7 62 100 119 125 128 132 136 136 1473 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0%

803 1,779 2,739 3,683 4,617 5,214 5,734 6,260 6,312 1504 6% 5% 5% 5% 5% 5% 4% 4% 4%

0 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1507 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0%

69 234 349 430 467 482 534 605 607 1508 1% 1% 1% 1% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0%

1,350 3,799 6,183 8,660 11,338 14,414 17,341 19,672 19,790 1510 10% 11% 11% 11% 12% 12% 13% 14% 13%

530 1,211 1,937 2,437 2,734 3,037 3,242 3,566 3,567 1522 4% 3% 3% 3% 3% 3% 2% 2% 2%

4 37 64 81 90 96 101 111 111 1523 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0%

492 2,602 4,577 6,553 8,323 9,989 10,612 10,944 10,948 1530 4% 7% 8% 8% 8% 9% 8% 8% 7%

1,278 4,514 7,801 11,063 13,967 16,027 17,586 18,889 19,733 1562 9% 13% 13% 14% 14% 14% 13% 13% 13%

KLD Engineering, P.C. J7 Revision 3

Turkey Point Evacuation Time Estimate ETE and Trip Generation Summer, Midweek, Midday, Good (Scenario 1)

Trip Generation ETE 100%

Percent of Total Vehicles 80%

60%

40%

20%

0%

0 60 120 180 240 300 360 420 480 540 600 660 Elapsed Time (min)

Figure J1. 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 60 120 180 240 300 360 420 480 540 600 660 720 Elapsed Time (min)

Figure J2. ETE and Trip Generation: Summer, Midweek, Midday, Rain (Scenario 2)

KLD Engineering, P.C. J8 Revision 3

Turkey Point Evacuation Time Estimate ETE and Trip Generation Summer, Weekend, Midday, Good (Scenario 3)

Trip Generation ETE 100%

Percent of Total Vehicles 80%

60%

40%

20%

0%

0 60 120 180 240 300 360 420 480 540 600 Elapsed Time (min)

Figure J3. 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 60 120 180 240 300 360 420 480 540 600 660 Elapsed Time (min)

Figure J4. ETE and Trip Generation: Summer, Weekend, Midday, Rain (Scenario 4)

KLD Engineering, P.C. J9 Revision 3

Turkey Point Evacuation Time Estimate 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 60 120 180 240 300 360 420 480 540 600 Elapsed Time (min)

Figure J5. 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 60 120 180 240 300 360 420 480 540 600 660 Elapsed Time (min)

Figure J6. ETE and Trip Generation: Winter, Midweek, Midday, Good Weather (Scenario 6)

KLD Engineering, P.C. J10 Revision 3

Turkey Point Evacuation Time Estimate ETE and Trip Generation Winter, Midweek, Midday, Rain (Scenario 7)

Trip Generation ETE 100%

Percent of Total Vehicles 80%

60%

40%

20%

0%

0 60 120 180 240 300 360 420 480 540 600 660 720 Elapsed Time (min)

Figure J7. ETE and Trip Generation: Winter, Midweek, Midday, Rain (Scenario 7)

ETE and Trip Generation Winter, Weekend, Midday, Good (Scenario 8)

Trip Generation ETE 100%

Percent of Total Vehicles 80%

60%

40%

20%

0%

0 60 120 180 240 300 360 420 480 540 600 Elapsed Time (min)

Figure J8. ETE and Trip Generation: Winter, Weekend, Midday, Good Weather (Scenario 8)

KLD Engineering, P.C. J11 Revision 3

Turkey Point Evacuation Time Estimate ETE and Trip Generation Winter, Weekend, Midday, Rain (Scenario 9)

Trip Generation ETE 100%

Percent of Total Vehicles 80%

60%

40%

20%

0%

0 60 120 180 240 300 360 420 480 540 600 Elapsed Time (min)

Figure J9. ETE and Trip Generation: Winter, Weekend, Midday, Rain (Scenario 9)

ETE and Trip Generation Winter, Midweek, Weekend, Evening, Good (Scenario 10)

Trip Generation ETE 100%

Percent of Total Vehicles 80%

60%

40%

20%

0%

0 60 120 180 240 300 360 420 480 540 Elapsed Time (min)

Figure J10. ETE and Trip Generation: Winter, Midweek, Evening, Good Weather (Scenario 10)

KLD Engineering, P.C. J12 Revision 3

Turkey Point Evacuation Time Estimate ETE and Trip Generation Winter, Weekend, Midday, Good, Special Event (Scenario 11)

Trip Generation ETE 100%

Percent of Total Vehicles 80%

60%

40%

20%

0%

0 60 120 180 240 300 360 420 480 540 600 660 720 Elapsed Time (min)

Figure J11. ETE and Trip Generation: Winter, Weekend, Midday, Good Weather, Special Event (Scenario 11)

ETE and Trip Generation Summer, Midweek, Midday, Good, Roadway Impact (Scenario 12)

Trip Generation ETE 100%

Percent of Total Vehicles 80%

60%

40%

20%

0%

0 60 120 180 240 300 360 420 480 540 600 660 Elapsed Time (min)

Figure J12. ETE and Trip Generation: Summer, Midweek, Midday, Good Weather, Roadway Impact (Scenario 12)

KLD Engineering, P.C. J13 Revision 3

Turkey Point Evacuation Time Estimate 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 32 more detailed figures (Figure K2 through Figure K33) which show each of the links and nodes in the network.

The analysis network was calibrated using the observations made during the field survey conducted in February 2012. Table K1 lists the characteristics of each roadway section modeled in the ETE analysis. Each link is identified by its road name and the upstream and downstream node numbers. The geographic location of each link can be observed by referencing the grid map number provided in Table K1. The roadway type identified in Table K1 is 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 roadways: single lane in each direction, local roads with low free flow speeds The term, No. of Lanes in Table K1 identifies the number of lanes that extend throughout the length of the link. Many links have additional lanes on the immediate approach to an intersection (turn pockets); these have been recorded and entered into the input stream for the DYNEV II System.

As discussed in Section 1.3, lane width and shoulder width were not physically measured during the road survey. Rather, estimates of these measures were based on visual observations and recorded images.

Table K2 identifies each node in the network that is controlled and the type of control (stop sign, yield sign, pretimed signal, actuated signal, traffic control point) at that node. Two types of traffic control points are identified - if the intersection is normally controlled (stop sign, yield sign, pretimed signal or actuated signal), it is labeled TCP - actuated as it is modeled as an actuated signal. If the intersection is normally uncontrolled and it is a TCP, it is labeled TCP -

uncontrolled. All other uncontrolled nodes are not included in Table K2. The location of each node can be observed by referencing the grid map number provided.

KLD Engineering, P.C. K1 Revision 3

Turkey Point Evacuation Time Estimate Table K1. Evacuation Roadway Network Characteristics Saturation Free Up Down Lane Shoulder Flow Flow Grid Stream Stream Length No. of Width Width Rate Speed Map Link # Node Node Roadway Name Roadway Type (ft.) Lanes (ft.) (ft.) (pcphpl) (mph) Number 1 1 78 SH 994 COLLECTOR 5256 1 12 4 1700 50 5 2 1 623 SH 997 COLLECTOR 2750 1 12 4 1700 50 5 3 1 699 SH 997 COLLECTOR 2649 1 12 4 1700 50 5 4 2 243 SH 905 COLLECTOR 4414 1 12 0 1700 45 29 5 2 244 CARD SOUND COLLECTOR 2635 1 12 0 1700 60 29 6 3 27 OLD CULTER RD COLLECTOR 3315 1 12 4 1750 45 9 7 3 257 OLD CULTER RD COLLECTOR 2311 1 12 4 1700 45 9 TURNPIKE OFF RAMP TO SW 8 4 6 184TH ST FREEWAY RAMP 1225 2 12 4 1750 40 7 9 4 9 FLORIDA TURNPIKE FREEWAY 3767 3 12 10 2250 70 7 10 4 10 FLORIDA TURNPIKE FREEWAY 8634 4 12 10 2250 70 7 TURNPIKE ON RAMP FROM 11 5 4 SW 184TH ST FREEWAY RAMP 1474 2 12 4 1900 50 7 12 5 6 SW 184TH ST MINOR ARTERIAL 525 2 12 4 1750 45 7 13 5 650 SW 184TH ST MINOR ARTERIAL 565 2 12 4 1750 45 7 14 6 5 SW 184TH ST MINOR ARTERIAL 525 4 12 4 1750 45 7 15 6 8 TURNPIKE SERVICE RD LOCAL ROAD 1382 1 12 4 1750 40 7 16 6 646 SW 184TH ST MINOR ARTERIAL 991 2 12 4 1750 40 7 17 7 5 TURNPIKE SERVICE RD MINOR ARTERIAL 1315 2 12 4 1750 40 7 18 7 8 SH 994 MAJOR ARTERIAL 516 2 12 4 1750 40 7 19 7 103 SH 994 MINOR ARTERIAL 2254 2 12 4 1750 40 7 20 8 7 SH 994 MAJOR ARTERIAL 516 3 12 4 1750 40 7 21 8 102 SH 994 MINOR ARTERIAL 997 2 12 4 1900 40 7 22 8 642 TURNPIKE SERVICE RD MINOR ARTERIAL 603 2 12 4 1900 40 7 KLD Engineering, P.C. K2 Revision 3

Turkey Point Evacuation Time Estimate Saturation Free Up Down Lane Shoulder Flow Flow Grid Stream Stream Length No. of Width Width Rate Speed Map Link # Node Node Roadway Name Roadway Type (ft.) Lanes (ft.) (ft.) (pcphpl) (mph) Number 23 9 4 FLORIDA TURNPIKE FREEWAY 3767 3 12 10 2250 70 7 24 9 11 FLORIDA TURNPIKE FREEWAY 4429 3 12 10 2250 70 9 TURNPIKE OFF RAMP TO SW 25 9 643 186TH ST FREEWAY RAMP 508 1 12 4 1700 40 7 26 10 4 FLORIDA TURNPIKE FREEWAY 8633 4 12 10 2250 70 7 27 10 440 FLORIDA TURNPIKE FREEWAY 737 4 12 10 2250 70 2 TURNPIKE OFF RAMP TO SR 28 10 481 992 FREEWAY RAMP 486 1 12 4 1700 45 7 29 11 9 FLORIDA TURNPIKE FREEWAY 4429 3 12 10 2250 70 9 TURNPIKE OFF RAMP TO 30 11 15 OLD CUTTLER RD FREEWAY RAMP 1621 1 12 4 1750 40 9 31 11 219 FLORIDA TURNPIKE FREEWAY 648 3 12 10 2250 70 9 TURNPIKE ON RAMP FROM 32 12 13 US 1 FREEWAY RAMP 373 1 12 4 1575 35 9 33 12 215 US 1 MAJOR ARTERIAL 1390 3 12 3 1750 45 9 34 12 268 US 1 MAJOR ARTERIAL 268 3 12 3 1900 45 9 TURNPIKE ON RAMP FROM 35 13 14 US 1 FREEWAY RAMP 335 1 12 4 1575 35 9 TURNPIKE ON RAMP FROM 36 14 11 US 1 FREEWAY RAMP 524 1 12 4 1575 35 9 37 15 19 CARIBBEAN BLVD MAJOR ARTERIAL 339 3 12 4 1750 40 9 38 15 20 TURNPIKE EXTENTION MINOR ARTERIAL 927 2 12 4 1900 40 9 39 15 496 CARIBBEAN BLVD MINOR ARTERIAL 371 2 12 4 1900 40 9 40 16 267 CARIBBEAN BLVD COLLECTOR 1560 1 12 4 1700 40 9 41 16 637 CARIBBEAN BLVD COLLECTOR 1921 1 12 4 1750 40 9 42 17 21 CUTLER RIDGE BLVD MINOR ARTERIAL 372 2 12 4 1750 40 9 43 17 23 TURNPIKE EXTENTION MAJOR ARTERIAL 233 3 12 4 1900 40 9 KLD Engineering, P.C. K3 Revision 3

Turkey Point Evacuation Time Estimate Saturation Free Up Down Lane Shoulder Flow Flow Grid Stream Stream Length No. of Width Width Rate Speed Map Link # Node Node Roadway Name Roadway Type (ft.) Lanes (ft.) (ft.) (pcphpl) (mph) Number 44 17 492 CUTLER RIDGE BLVD MINOR ARTERIAL 445 2 12 4 1750 45 9 45 18 20 TURNPIKE OFF RAMP FREEWAY RAMP 582 1 12 4 1700 40 9 46 18 24 FLORIDA TURNPIKE FREEWAY 1342 2 12 10 2250 70 9 47 18 219 FLORIDA TURNPIKE FREEWAY 1336 3 12 10 2250 70 9 48 19 15 CARIBBEAN BLVD MAJOR ARTERIAL 339 3 12 4 1750 40 9 49 19 129 SW 107TH AVE MINOR ARTERIAL 1924 2 12 4 1900 40 9 50 19 267 CARIBBEAN BLVD MINOR ARTERIAL 554 2 12 4 1900 40 9 51 20 17 TURNPIKE EXTENTION MAJOR ARTERIAL 678 3 12 4 1750 40 9 52 21 17 CUTLER RIDGE BLVD MINOR ARTERIAL 372 2 12 4 1750 40 9 53 21 22 TURNPIKE EXTENTION MAJOR ARTERIAL 630 3 12 4 1900 40 9 54 22 18 TURNPIKE ON RAMP FREEWAY RAMP 529 1 12 4 1700 50 9 55 22 19 TURNPIKE EXTENTION MINOR ARTERIAL 700 2 12 4 1750 40 9 56 23 25 TURNPIKE ON RAMP FREEWAY RAMP 1633 1 12 4 1700 50 9 57 23 260 TURNPIKE EXTENTION MINOR ARTERIAL 2054 1 12 4 1750 40 9 58 24 18 FLORIDA TURNPIKE FREEWAY 1342 3 12 10 2250 70 9 59 24 25 FLORIDA TURNPIKE FREEWAY 1764 2 12 10 2250 70 9 60 25 24 FLORIDA TURNPIKE FREEWAY 1764 2 12 10 2250 70 9 61 25 26 TURNPIKE OFF RAMP COLLECTOR 988 1 12 4 1700 40 9 62 25 29 FLORIDA TURNPIKE FREEWAY 2070 2 12 10 2250 70 9 63 26 21 TURNPIKE EXTENTION MAJOR ARTERIAL 1048 3 12 4 1750 40 9 64 27 3 OLD CULTER RD COLLECTOR 3315 1 12 4 1700 45 9 65 27 28 SW 216TH ST MINOR ARTERIAL 3461 2 12 0 1750 45 9 66 27 262 SW 216TH ST MINOR ARTERIAL 2603 2 12 4 1900 40 9 67 27 266 OLD CULTER RD COLLECTOR 3621 1 12 4 1750 40 9 68 28 26 TURNPIKE EXTENTION MINOR ARTERIAL 1404 2 12 4 1900 40 9 69 28 27 SW 216TH ST MINOR ARTERIAL 3461 2 12 0 1750 45 9 KLD Engineering, P.C. K4 Revision 3

Turkey Point Evacuation Time Estimate Saturation Free Up Down Lane Shoulder Flow Flow Grid Stream Stream Length No. of Width Width Rate Speed Map Link # Node Node Roadway Name Roadway Type (ft.) Lanes (ft.) (ft.) (pcphpl) (mph) Number 70 28 260 SW 216TH ST MAJOR ARTERIAL 362 2 12 0 1750 45 9 71 29 25 FLORIDA TURNPIKE FREEWAY 2070 2 12 10 2250 70 9 72 29 31 FLORIDA TURNPIKE FREEWAY 6534 2 12 10 2250 70 13 73 29 265 TURNPIKE OFF RAMP FREEWAY RAMP 729 1 12 4 1700 40 9 74 30 29 TURNPIKE ON RAMP FREEWAY RAMP 726 1 12 4 1700 50 9 75 31 29 FLORIDA TURNPIKE FREEWAY 6534 2 12 10 2250 70 13 76 31 32 FLORIDA TURNPIKE FREEWAY 4136 2 12 10 2250 70 13 77 32 31 FLORIDA TURNPIKE FREEWAY 4140 2 12 10 2250 70 13 78 32 33 FLORIDA TURNPIKE FREEWAY 1589 2 12 10 2250 70 13 TURNPIKE OFF RAMP TO SH 79 32 35 989 FREEWAY RAMP 1152 1 12 4 1700 40 13 80 33 32 FLORIDA TURNPIKE FREEWAY 1589 2 12 10 2250 70 13 81 33 34 FLORIDA TURNPIKE FREEWAY 854 2 12 10 2250 70 13 TURNPIKE ON RAMP FROM 82 33 37 SH 989 FREEWAY RAMP 920 1 12 4 1350 30 13 83 34 33 FLORIDA TURNPIKE FREEWAY 854 2 12 10 2250 70 13 TURNPIKE OFF RAMP TO SH 84 34 36 989 FREEWAY RAMP 1165 1 12 4 1750 40 13 85 34 39 FLORIDA TURNPIKE FREEWAY 4394 2 12 10 2250 70 13 TURNPIKE ON RAMP FROM 86 35 34 SH 989 FREEWAY RAMP 1635 1 12 4 1700 50 13 87 35 38 SH 989 MINOR ARTERIAL 216 2 12 4 1900 55 13 88 35 220 SH 989 MINOR ARTERIAL 1026 2 12 4 1750 55 13 TURNPIKE ON RAMP FROM 89 36 32 SH 989 FREEWAY RAMP 1492 1 12 4 1700 50 13 90 36 38 SH 989 MINOR ARTERIAL 832 2 12 4 1900 50 13 91 36 221 SH 989 COLLECTOR 4723 2 12 4 1750 50 13 KLD Engineering, P.C. K5 Revision 3

Turkey Point Evacuation Time Estimate Saturation Free Up Down Lane Shoulder Flow Flow Grid Stream Stream Length No. of Width Width Rate Speed Map Link # Node Node Roadway Name Roadway Type (ft.) Lanes (ft.) (ft.) (pcphpl) (mph) Number TURNPIKE ON RAMP FROM 92 37 38 SH 989 FREEWAY RAMP 710 1 12 4 1350 30 13 93 38 35 SH 989 MINOR ARTERIAL 216 2 12 4 1900 55 13 94 38 36 SH 989 MINOR ARTERIAL 832 2 12 4 1750 55 13 95 39 34 FLORIDA TURNPIKE FREEWAY 4394 2 12 10 2250 70 13 96 39 40 FLORIDA TURNPIKE FREEWAY 2609 2 12 10 2250 70 13 97 40 39 FLORIDA TURNPIKE FREEWAY 2607 2 12 10 2250 70 13 98 40 41 FLORIDA TURNPIKE FREEWAY 6379 2 12 10 2250 70 13 99 41 40 FLORIDA TURNPIKE FREEWAY 6379 2 12 10 2250 70 13 TURNPIKE OFF RAMP TO SW 100 41 42 137TH ST FREEWAY RAMP 1233 1 12 4 1750 40 13 101 41 44 FLORIDA TURNPIKE FREEWAY 2363 2 12 10 2250 70 13 102 42 43 SW 137TH AVE MAJOR ARTERIAL 2166 3 12 4 1900 50 13 103 42 383 SW 137TH AVE MINOR ARTERIAL 513 2 12 4 1750 50 13 104 43 42 SW 137TH AVE MINOR ARTERIAL 2166 2 12 4 1750 50 13 TURNPIKE ON RAMP FROM 105 43 45 SW 137TH ST FREEWAY RAMP 518 1 12 4 1700 40 13 106 43 690 SW 137TH AVE MINOR ARTERIAL 1593 2 12 4 1750 45 13 107 44 41 FLORIDA TURNPIKE FREEWAY 2363 2 12 10 2250 70 13 108 44 46 FLORIDA TURNPIKE FREEWAY 1266 2 12 10 2250 70 13 TURNPIKE ON RAMP FROM 109 45 44 SW 137TH ST FREEWAY RAMP 654 1 12 4 1700 50 13 110 46 44 FLORIDA TURNPIKE FREEWAY 1266 2 12 10 2250 70 13 111 46 47 FLORIDA TURNPIKE FREEWAY 742 2 12 10 2250 70 13 112 47 46 FLORIDA TURNPIKE FREEWAY 742 2 12 10 2250 70 13 TURNPIKE OFF RAMP TO SW 113 47 48 288TH ST FREEWAY RAMP 1796 1 12 4 1750 40 13 KLD Engineering, P.C. K6 Revision 3

Turkey Point Evacuation Time Estimate Saturation Free Up Down Lane Shoulder Flow Flow Grid Stream Stream Length No. of Width Width Rate Speed Map Link # Node Node Roadway Name Roadway Type (ft.) Lanes (ft.) (ft.) (pcphpl) (mph) Number 114 47 52 FLORIDA TURNPIKE FREEWAY 2174 2 12 10 2250 70 13 115 48 49 SW 288TH ST MINOR ARTERIAL 468 2 12 4 1900 45 13 TURNPIKE ON RAMP FROM 116 48 53 SW 288TH ST FREEWAY RAMP 1303 1 12 4 1700 50 13 117 48 364 SW 288TH ST MINOR ARTERIAL 2171 2 12 4 1750 45 12 TURNPIKE ON RAMP FROM 118 49 47 SW 288TH ST FREEWAY RAMP 1768 1 12 4 1700 50 13 119 49 48 SW 288TH ST MAJOR ARTERIAL 468 3 12 4 1750 45 13 120 49 50 SW 288TH ST MINOR ARTERIAL 419 2 12 4 1750 45 13 TURNPIKE ON RAMP FROM 121 49 51 SW 288TH ST FREEWAY RAMP 525 1 12 4 1350 30 13 122 50 49 SW 288TH ST MAJOR ARTERIAL 419 3 12 4 1900 45 13 123 50 367 SW 288TH ST MINOR ARTERIAL 962 2 12 4 1750 45 13 TURNPIKE ON RAMP FROM 124 51 52 SW 288TH ST FREEWAY RAMP 899 1 12 4 1700 50 13 125 52 47 FLORIDA TURNPIKE FREEWAY 2174 2 12 10 2250 70 13 126 52 53 FLORIDA TURNPIKE FREEWAY 902 2 12 10 2250 70 13 127 53 52 FLORIDA TURNPIKE FREEWAY 902 2 12 10 2250 70 13 TURNPIKE OFF RAMP TO SW 128 53 54 288TH ST FREEWAY RAMP 854 1 12 4 1700 40 13 129 53 57 FLORIDA TURNPIKE FREEWAY 4513 2 12 10 2250 70 12 TURNPIKE OFF RAMP TO SW 130 54 55 288TH ST FREEWAY RAMP 353 1 12 4 1700 40 13 TURNPIKE OFF RAMP TO SW 131 55 50 288TH ST FREEWAY RAMP 429 1 12 4 1750 40 13 132 56 57 FLORIDA TURNPIKE FREEWAY 5767 2 12 10 2250 70 17 133 56 60 FLORIDA TURNPIKE FREEWAY 930 2 12 10 2250 70 17 KLD Engineering, P.C. K7 Revision 3

Turkey Point Evacuation Time Estimate Saturation Free Up Down Lane Shoulder Flow Flow Grid Stream Stream Length No. of Width Width Rate Speed Map Link # Node Node Roadway Name Roadway Type (ft.) Lanes (ft.) (ft.) (pcphpl) (mph) Number 134 57 53 FLORIDA TURNPIKE FREEWAY 4528 2 12 10 2250 70 12 135 57 56 FLORIDA TURNPIKE FREEWAY 5767 2 12 10 2250 70 17 TURNPIKE ON RAMP FROM 136 58 209 CAMPBELL DR FREEWAY RAMP 483 1 12 4 1350 30 17 137 59 61 CAMPBELL DR MINOR ARTERIAL 1011 3 12 4 1750 45 17 138 59 341 SW 157TH AVE COLLECTOR 538 1 12 4 1750 40 17 TURNPIKE ON RAMP FROM 139 59 343 CAMPBELL DR FREEWAY RAMP 569 1 12 4 1700 40 17 140 59 807 CAMPBELL DR MINOR ARTERIAL 362 2 12 4 1750 45 17 141 60 56 FLORIDA TURNPIKE FREEWAY 930 2 12 10 2250 70 17 TURNPIKE OFF RAMP TO 142 60 59 CAMPBELL DR COLLECTOR 946 2 12 4 1750 40 17 143 60 344 FLORIDA TURNPIKE FREEWAY 771 2 12 10 2250 70 17 144 61 59 CAMPBELL DR MAJOR ARTERIAL 1011 3 12 4 1750 45 17 145 61 94 CAMPBELL DR MINOR ARTERIAL 1031 1 12 4 1900 45 17 146 62 63 FLORIDA TURNPIKE FREEWAY 6041 2 12 10 2250 70 16 TURNPIKE OFF RAMP TO US 147 62 223 1 FREEWAY RAMP 1026 2 12 4 1900 60 18 TURNPIKE OFF RAMP TO US 148 62 673 1 FREEWAY RAMP 1051 1 12 4 1750 35 18 149 63 62 FLORIDA TURNPIKE FREEWAY 6041 2 12 10 2250 70 16 150 63 344 FLORIDA TURNPIKE FREEWAY 5191 2 12 10 2250 70 17 151 64 351 SW 152ND ST COLLECTOR 1510 1 12 4 1700 40 17 TURNPIKE OFF RAMP TO US 152 65 66 1 FREEWAY RAMP 672 1 12 4 1700 50 18 153 66 67 US 1 MINOR ARTERIAL 739 2 12 4 1900 50 18 KLD Engineering, P.C. K8 Revision 3

Turkey Point Evacuation Time Estimate Saturation Free Up Down Lane Shoulder Flow Flow Grid Stream Stream Length No. of Width Width Rate Speed Map Link # Node Node Roadway Name Roadway Type (ft.) Lanes (ft.) (ft.) (pcphpl) (mph) Number TURNPIKE ON RAMP FROM 154 66 68 US 1 FREEWAY RAMP 1135 2 12 4 1900 50 18 155 66 158 US 1 MINOR ARTERIAL 1082 3 12 4 1750 50 18 156 67 66 US 1 MINOR ARTERIAL 739 2 12 4 1900 50 18 TURNPIKE ON RAMP FROM 157 67 68 US 1 FREEWAY RAMP 427 1 12 4 1700 50 18 158 67 673 US 1 MINOR ARTERIAL 801 2 12 4 1750 50 18 159 68 62 FLORIDA TURNPIKE FREEWAY 983 2 12 4 2250 60 18 160 69 70 US 1 MINOR ARTERIAL 452 2 12 4 1900 50 18 161 69 140 SH 997 COLLECTOR 1409 1 12 2 1700 40 18 162 69 218 US 1 MINOR ARTERIAL 3070 3 12 4 1900 50 18 163 70 69 US 1 MINOR ARTERIAL 452 3 12 4 1900 50 18 164 70 72 US 1 MINOR ARTERIAL 515 3 12 4 1900 50 18 165 71 70 CARD SOUND COLLECTOR 596 1 12 0 1700 40 18 166 71 72 CARD SOUND COLLECTOR 228 1 12 0 1700 40 18 167 72 70 US 1 MINOR ARTERIAL 515 2 12 4 1900 50 18 168 72 604 US 1 MINOR ARTERIAL 1588 2 12 4 1900 50 18 169 73 224 US 1 COLLECTOR 10028 1 12 5 1700 65 23 170 73 604 US 1 COLLECTOR 1531 1 12 4 1700 60 18 171 74 71 CARD SOUND COLLECTOR 9512 1 12 0 1700 50 18 172 75 76 SH 997 COLLECTOR 6439 1 12 4 1700 50 5 173 75 488 SW 184TH ST COLLECTOR 2631 1 12 4 1700 45 5 174 75 699 SH 997 COLLECTOR 2672 1 12 4 1700 50 5 175 76 75 SH 997 COLLECTOR 6439 1 12 4 1750 50 5 176 76 424 SH 997 COLLECTOR 4310 1 12 4 1700 50 5 177 77 85 SW 184TH ST COLLECTOR 5329 2 12 4 1750 45 5 KLD Engineering, P.C. K9 Revision 3

Turkey Point Evacuation Time Estimate Saturation Free Up Down Lane Shoulder Flow Flow Grid Stream Stream Length No. of Width Width Rate Speed Map Link # Node Node Roadway Name Roadway Type (ft.) Lanes (ft.) (ft.) (pcphpl) (mph) Number 178 77 488 SW 184TH ST COLLECTOR 8006 1 12 4 1700 45 5 179 77 731 SW 157TH AVE COLLECTOR 5596 1 12 4 1700 40 5 180 78 1 SH 994 COLLECTOR 5256 1 12 4 1750 50 5 181 78 81 SH 994 COLLECTOR 2691 1 12 4 1700 50 5 182 79 618 SH 994 COLLECTOR 2709 1 12 4 1700 50 5 183 80 82 SW 216TH ST COLLECTOR 5301 1 12 0 1575 35 5 184 80 130 SH 997 COLLECTOR 5152 1 12 4 1750 50 12 185 80 623 SH 997 COLLECTOR 2689 1 12 4 1700 50 5 186 81 78 SH 994 COLLECTOR 2691 1 12 4 1700 50 5 187 81 86 SH 994 COLLECTOR 8022 1 12 4 1750 50 5 188 82 78 SW 167TH AVE COLLECTOR 5385 1 12 4 1700 40 5 189 82 80 SW 216TH ST COLLECTOR 5301 1 12 0 1750 35 5 190 82 83 SW 216TH ST COLLECTOR 2657 1 12 0 1700 50 5 191 83 81 SW 162ND AVE COLLECTOR 5432 1 12 4 1700 45 5 192 83 82 SW 216TH ST COLLECTOR 2657 1 12 0 1700 50 5 193 83 84 SW 216TH ST COLLECTOR 2726 1 12 0 1700 50 5 194 84 83 SW 216TH ST COLLECTOR 2726 1 12 0 1700 50 5 195 84 87 SW 216TH ST COLLECTOR 5353 1 12 0 1750 50 5 196 85 77 SW 184TH ST COLLECTOR 5329 1 12 4 1700 45 5 197 85 648 SW 184TH ST COLLECTOR 4104 2 12 4 1900 45 5 198 85 730 SW 147TH AVE COLLECTOR 5529 1 12 4 1700 40 5 199 86 81 SH 994 COLLECTOR 8022 1 12 4 1700 50 5 200 86 85 SW 147TH AVE COLLECTOR 5505 1 12 4 1750 50 5 201 86 88 SH 994 COLLECTOR 5330 1 12 4 1750 45 5 202 87 84 SW 216TH ST COLLECTOR 5353 1 12 0 1700 50 5 203 87 86 SW 147TH AVE COLLECTOR 5579 1 12 4 1750 50 5 KLD Engineering, P.C. K10 Revision 3

Turkey Point Evacuation Time Estimate Saturation Free Up Down Lane Shoulder Flow Flow Grid Stream Stream Length No. of Width Width Rate Speed Map Link # Node Node Roadway Name Roadway Type (ft.) Lanes (ft.) (ft.) (pcphpl) (mph) Number 204 87 259 SW 216TH ST COLLECTOR 6626 1 12 4 1750 50 5 205 88 86 SH 994 COLLECTOR 5330 1 12 4 1750 45 5 206 88 89 SW 137TH AVE COLLECTOR 4666 1 12 4 1700 40 8 207 88 91 SH 994 COLLECTOR 4790 1 12 4 1700 45 8 208 89 127 SW 137TH AVE COLLECTOR 1062 2 12 4 1750 40 6 209 90 92 SW 184TH ST MINOR ARTERIAL 4001 2 12 4 1750 45 6 210 90 127 SW 184TH ST MINOR ARTERIAL 1381 2 12 4 1750 45 6 211 91 88 SH 994 COLLECTOR 4790 1 12 4 1750 45 8 212 91 93 SH 994 MINOR ARTERIAL 561 2 12 4 1750 45 8 213 92 90 SW 184TH ST MINOR ARTERIAL 4001 2 12 4 1750 45 6 214 92 126 SW 184TH ST MINOR ARTERIAL 1395 2 12 4 1900 45 6 215 93 91 SH 994 MINOR ARTERIAL 561 2 12 4 1900 45 8 216 93 92 SW 127TH AVE COLLECTOR 5878 1 12 4 1750 40 8 217 93 95 SH 994 MINOR ARTERIAL 1291 2 12 4 1900 40 8 TURNPIKE ON RAMP FROM 218 94 58 CAMPBELL DR FREEWAY RAMP 906 1 12 4 1700 40 17 219 94 61 CAMPBELL DR MINOR ARTERIAL 1031 2 12 4 1750 45 17 220 94 399 CAMPBELL DR MINOR ARTERIAL 596 1 12 4 1750 45 17 221 95 93 SH 994 MINOR ARTERIAL 1291 2 12 4 1750 40 8 222 95 96 SH 994 MINOR ARTERIAL 1755 2 12 4 1750 40 8 223 96 95 SH 994 MINOR ARTERIAL 1755 2 12 4 1900 40 8 224 96 97 SH 994 MINOR ARTERIAL 3643 2 12 4 1750 40 8 225 96 98 SW 122ND AVE COLLECTOR 4763 1 12 4 1750 40 8 226 96 100 SW 122ND AVE COLLECTOR 1230 1 12 4 1700 40 8 227 97 96 SH 994 MINOR ARTERIAL 3643 2 12 4 1750 40 8 228 97 99 SW 117TH AVE COLLECTOR 2412 1 12 4 1750 40 6 KLD Engineering, P.C. K11 Revision 3

Turkey Point Evacuation Time Estimate Saturation Free Up Down Lane Shoulder Flow Flow Grid Stream Stream Length No. of Width Width Rate Speed Map Link # Node Node Roadway Name Roadway Type (ft.) Lanes (ft.) (ft.) (pcphpl) (mph) Number 229 97 101 SW 117TH AVE COLLECTOR 3661 1 12 4 1750 40 8 230 97 645 SH 994 MINOR ARTERIAL 967 2 12 4 1750 40 7 231 98 99 SW 184TH ST MINOR ARTERIAL 2641 2 12 4 1750 45 6 232 98 126 SW 184TH ST MINOR ARTERIAL 1250 2 12 4 1900 45 6 233 98 649 SW 122ND AVE COLLECTOR 5387 1 12 4 1700 40 6 234 99 98 SW 184TH ST MINOR ARTERIAL 2641 2 12 4 1750 45 6 235 99 432 SW 117TH AVE COLLECTOR 5445 2 12 4 1750 40 6 236 99 646 SW 184TH ST MINOR ARTERIAL 676 2 12 4 1750 45 7 237 100 96 SW 122ND AVE COLLECTOR 1230 1 12 4 1750 40 8 238 100 101 CARIBBEAN BLVD COLLECTOR 2818 1 12 4 1750 40 8 239 101 97 SW 117TH AVE COLLECTOR 3661 1 12 4 1750 40 8 240 101 100 CARIBBEAN BLVD COLLECTOR 2818 1 12 4 1700 40 8 241 101 213 SW 117TH AVE COLLECTOR 2144 1 12 4 1700 40 9 242 101 639 CARIBBEAN BLVD COLLECTOR 1270 1 12 4 1750 40 9 243 102 8 SH 994 MINOR ARTERIAL 997 2 12 4 1750 40 7 244 102 645 SH 994 MINOR ARTERIAL 1151 2 12 4 1750 40 7 245 103 7 SH 994 MINOR ARTERIAL 2254 2 12 4 1750 45 7 246 103 104 MARLIN RD MINOR ARTERIAL 868 2 12 4 1750 40 7 247 103 110 MARLIN RD MINOR ARTERIAL 2105 2 12 4 1750 40 7 248 103 653 SH 994 MINOR ARTERIAL 2170 2 12 4 1750 45 7 249 104 103 MARLIN RD MINOR ARTERIAL 868 2 12 4 1750 45 7 250 104 125 SW 107TH AVE COLLECTOR 5450 1 12 4 1750 40 7 251 104 650 SW 184TH ST MINOR ARTERIAL 2615 2 12 4 1750 45 7 252 104 652 SW 184TH ST MINOR ARTERIAL 2553 2 12 4 1750 45 7 253 105 106 SH 994 COLLECTOR 2315 1 12 4 1700 40 7 254 105 109 US 1 MINOR ARTERIAL 922 3 12 3 1750 45 7 KLD Engineering, P.C. K12 Revision 3

Turkey Point Evacuation Time Estimate Saturation Free Up Down Lane Shoulder Flow Flow Grid Stream Stream Length No. of Width Width Rate Speed Map Link # Node Node Roadway Name Roadway Type (ft.) Lanes (ft.) (ft.) (pcphpl) (mph) Number 255 105 111 US 1 MINOR ARTERIAL 2974 3 12 3 1750 45 7 256 105 417 SH 994 MINOR ARTERIAL 254 2 12 4 1750 40 7 257 106 105 SH 994 COLLECTOR 2315 1 12 4 1750 40 7 258 106 107 SW 97TH ST COLLECTOR 965 1 12 4 1750 40 7 259 106 108 SW 97TH ST COLLECTOR 1259 1 12 4 1700 40 7 260 107 106 SW 97TH ST COLLECTOR 965 1 12 4 1700 40 7 261 107 109 SW 184TH ST MINOR ARTERIAL 1966 2 12 4 1750 45 7 262 107 123 SW 97TH ST COLLECTOR 2771 1 12 4 1750 40 7 263 107 752 SW 184TH ST MINOR ARTERIAL 511 1 12 4 1750 45 7 264 108 106 SW 97TH ST COLLECTOR 1259 1 12 4 1700 40 7 265 108 119 FRANJO RD COLLECTOR 2797 1 12 4 1750 40 9 266 109 105 US 1 MINOR ARTERIAL 922 3 12 3 1750 45 7 267 109 107 SW 184TH ST MINOR ARTERIAL 1966 2 12 4 1750 45 7 268 109 122 US 1 MINOR ARTERIAL 1038 3 12 3 1900 50 7 269 109 418 SW 184TH ST MINOR ARTERIAL 234 2 12 4 1750 30 7 270 110 103 MARLIN RD MINOR ARTERIAL 2104 2 12 4 1750 40 7 271 110 416 MARLIN RD MINOR ARTERIAL 848 2 12 4 1750 40 9 272 111 105 US 1 MINOR ARTERIAL 2974 3 12 3 1750 45 7 273 111 217 MARLIN RD MINOR ARTERIAL 1804 2 12 4 1900 40 9 274 111 416 MARLIN RD MINOR ARTERIAL 257 2 12 4 1750 40 9 275 111 660 US 1 MAJOR ARTERIAL 958 3 12 3 1750 45 9 276 112 115 SW 184TH ST COLLECTOR 1170 1 12 4 1750 45 10 277 112 117 SW 87TH AVE COLLECTOR 1972 1 12 4 1750 45 10 278 112 482 SW 87TH AVE COLLECTOR 3433 1 12 4 1700 40 10 279 112 752 SW 184TH ST COLLECTOR 4811 1 12 4 1750 45 10 280 113 114 OLD CULTER RD COLLECTOR 3363 1 12 0 1750 45 10 KLD Engineering, P.C. K13 Revision 3

Turkey Point Evacuation Time Estimate Saturation Free Up Down Lane Shoulder Flow Flow Grid Stream Stream Length No. of Width Width Rate Speed Map Link # Node Node Roadway Name Roadway Type (ft.) Lanes (ft.) (ft.) (pcphpl) (mph) Number 281 113 115 SW 184TH ST COLLECTOR 4037 1 12 4 1750 45 10 282 113 382 OLD CULTER RD COLLECTOR 6390 1 11 0 1700 45 10 283 114 113 OLD CULTER RD COLLECTOR 3363 1 12 0 1750 45 10 284 114 461 OLD CULTER RD COLLECTOR 2729 1 12 0 1750 45 10 285 115 112 SW 184TH ST COLLECTOR 1170 1 12 4 1750 45 10 286 115 113 SW 184TH ST COLLECTOR 4037 1 12 4 1750 45 10 287 115 116 CARIBBEAN BLVD COLLECTOR 1811 1 12 4 1700 40 10 288 116 115 CARIBBEAN BLVD COLLECTOR 1811 1 12 4 1750 40 10 289 116 117 CARIBBEAN BLVD COLLECTOR 1024 1 12 4 1750 40 10 290 117 112 SW 87TH AVE COLLECTOR 1972 1 12 4 1750 45 10 291 117 116 CARIBBEAN BLVD COLLECTOR 1030 1 12 4 1700 40 10 292 117 118 CARIBBEAN BLVD COLLECTOR 889 1 12 4 1700 40 10 293 117 121 SW 87TH AVE COLLECTOR 5048 1 12 4 1750 40 10 294 118 117 CARIBBEAN BLVD COLLECTOR 877 1 12 4 1750 40 10 295 118 737 CARIBBEAN BLVD COLLECTOR 990 1 12 4 1750 40 10 296 119 108 FRANJO RD COLLECTOR 2797 1 12 4 1700 40 9 297 119 120 FRANJO RD COLLECTOR 3647 1 12 4 1750 40 10 298 119 269 CARIBBEAN BLVD COLLECTOR 2518 1 12 4 1750 40 9 299 119 737 CARIBBEAN BLVD COLLECTOR 2675 1 12 4 1750 40 10 300 120 119 FRANJO RD COLLECTOR 3647 1 12 4 1750 40 10 301 120 121 OLD CULTER RD COLLECTOR 1315 1 12 4 1750 30 10 302 120 271 OLD CULTER RD COLLECTOR 1619 1 12 4 1750 30 10 303 121 117 SW 87TH AVE COLLECTOR 5048 1 12 4 1750 45 10 304 121 120 OLD CULTER RD COLLECTOR 1315 1 12 4 1750 30 10 305 121 274 OLD CULTER RD COLLECTOR 406 1 12 4 1700 45 10 306 122 109 US 1 MINOR ARTERIAL 1038 3 12 3 1750 45 7 KLD Engineering, P.C. K14 Revision 3

Turkey Point Evacuation Time Estimate Saturation Free Up Down Lane Shoulder Flow Flow Grid Stream Stream Length No. of Width Width Rate Speed Map Link # Node Node Roadway Name Roadway Type (ft.) Lanes (ft.) (ft.) (pcphpl) (mph) Number 307 122 661 US 1 MINOR ARTERIAL 1661 3 12 3 1750 30 7 308 123 483 US 1 MINOR ARTERIAL 730 3 12 3 1750 50 7 309 124 484 SW 168TH ST MINOR ARTERIAL 248 1 12 4 1750 40 7 310 124 485 US 1 MAJOR ARTERIAL 592 3 12 3 1900 50 7 311 124 754 SW 168TH ST COLLECTOR 4403 1 12 4 1700 40 10 312 125 444 SW 107TH AVE COLLECTOR 2692 1 12 4 1750 40 7 313 125 445 SW 168TH ST COLLECTOR 2709 1 12 4 1750 40 7 314 125 811 SW 168TH ST COLLECTOR 2711 1 12 4 1750 40 7 315 126 92 SW 184TH ST MINOR ARTERIAL 1395 2 12 4 1750 45 6 316 126 98 SW 184TH ST MINOR ARTERIAL 1250 2 12 4 1750 45 6 317 127 90 SW 184TH ST MINOR ARTERIAL 1381 2 12 4 1750 45 6 318 127 128 SW 137TH AVE COLLECTOR 8169 3 12 4 1750 50 6 319 127 648 SW 184TH ST MINOR ARTERIAL 1256 2 12 4 1900 45 6 320 128 480 SW 137TH AVE MAJOR ARTERIAL 2673 3 12 4 1750 50 6 321 129 268 SW 107TH AVE COLLECTOR 543 1 12 4 1700 40 9 322 130 80 SH 997 COLLECTOR 5152 1 12 4 1750 50 12 323 130 131 SH 997 COLLECTOR 5369 1 12 4 1750 50 12 324 130 141 SW 232ND ST COLLECTOR 5299 1 12 4 1700 50 12 325 131 130 SH 997 COLLECTOR 5369 1 12 4 1750 50 12 326 131 142 SW 248TH ST COLLECTOR 5367 1 12 4 1750 50 12 327 131 624 SH 997 COLLECTOR 2621 1 12 4 1700 50 12 328 132 143 SW 264TH ST COLLECTOR 5360 1 12 4 1750 50 12 329 132 286 SH 997 COLLECTOR 2693 1 12 4 1750 50 12 330 132 624 SH 997 COLLECTOR 2669 1 12 4 1700 50 12 331 133 134 SH 997 COLLECTOR 2648 1 12 4 1750 50 12 332 133 144 SW 288TH ST COLLECTOR 2698 1 12 4 1700 45 12 KLD Engineering, P.C. K15 Revision 3

Turkey Point Evacuation Time Estimate Saturation Free Up Down Lane Shoulder Flow Flow Grid Stream Stream Length No. of Width Width Rate Speed Map Link # Node Node Roadway Name Roadway Type (ft.) Lanes (ft.) (ft.) (pcphpl) (mph) Number 333 133 149 SW 288TH ST COLLECTOR 2692 1 12 4 1700 50 12 334 133 625 SH 997 COLLECTOR 2611 1 12 4 1750 50 12 335 134 133 SH 997 COLLECTOR 2648 1 12 4 1750 50 12 336 134 135 SH 997 COLLECTOR 2664 2 12 3 1750 40 16 337 134 159 SW 296TH ST COLLECTOR 2777 1 12 4 1700 40 12 338 134 160 SW 296TH ST COLLECTOR 2645 1 12 4 1700 40 12 339 135 134 SH 997 COLLECTOR 2664 1 12 3 1750 40 16 340 135 136 SH 997 COLLECTOR 2667 1 14 8 1750 30 16 341 135 150 NE 15TH ST COLLECTOR 2702 1 12 4 1750 40 16 342 135 742 NE 15TH ST COLLECTOR 2621 1 12 4 1700 40 16 343 136 135 SH 997 COLLECTOR 2667 1 14 8 1750 30 16 344 136 151 CAMPBELL DR COLLECTOR 2748 1 12 4 1750 35 16 345 136 362 CAMPBELL DR MINOR ARTERIAL 2590 2 12 4 1750 45 16 346 136 678 SH 997 COLLECTOR 1959 1 12 2 1750 40 16 347 137 161 SH 997 COLLECTOR 493 1 12 2 1750 40 16 348 137 511 BUSWAY LOCAL ROADWAY 673 1 12 4 1750 45 16 349 137 676 SH 997 COLLECTOR 360 1 12 2 1750 40 16 350 138 155 SW 328TH AVE MINOR ARTERIAL 712 2 12 4 1750 40 16 351 138 509 SW 328TH AVE COLLECTOR 1540 1 12 4 1750 35 16 352 138 674 SH 997 COLLECTOR 2690 1 12 2 1750 40 16 353 138 676 SH 997 COLLECTOR 1803 1 12 2 1750 40 16 354 139 140 SH 997 COLLECTOR 2829 1 12 2 1700 40 18 355 139 158 SW 344TH ST MAJOR ARTERIAL 721 2 12 4 1750 40 18 356 139 519 SW 344TH ST MINOR ARTERIAL 545 2 12 4 1750 40 18 357 139 674 SH 997 COLLECTOR 2655 1 12 2 1750 40 18 358 140 69 SH 997 COLLECTOR 1417 1 12 2 1700 40 18 KLD Engineering, P.C. K16 Revision 3

Turkey Point Evacuation Time Estimate Saturation Free Up Down Lane Shoulder Flow Flow Grid Stream Stream Length No. of Width Width Rate Speed Map Link # Node Node Roadway Name Roadway Type (ft.) Lanes (ft.) (ft.) (pcphpl) (mph) Number 359 140 139 SH 997 COLLECTOR 2829 1 12 2 1750 40 18 360 141 82 SW 167TH AVE COLLECTOR 5164 1 12 4 1700 45 5 361 141 130 SW 232ND ST COLLECTOR 5299 1 12 4 1750 50 12 362 141 278 SW 232ND ST COLLECTOR 2667 1 12 4 1700 50 12 363 142 131 SW 248TH ST COLLECTOR 5367 1 12 4 1750 50 12 364 142 141 SW 167TH AVE COLLECTOR 5356 1 12 4 1700 45 12 365 142 283 SW 248TH ST COLLECTOR 2643 1 12 4 1700 50 12 366 143 132 SW 264TH ST COLLECTOR 5360 1 12 4 1750 50 12 367 143 142 SW 167TH AVE COLLECTOR 5343 1 12 4 1750 45 12 368 143 279 SW 264TH ST COLLECTOR 2673 1 12 4 1700 50 12 369 144 133 SW 288TH ST COLLECTOR 2698 1 12 4 1750 45 12 370 144 159 SW 172ND AVE COLLECTOR 2626 1 12 4 1700 40 12 371 144 288 SW 288TH ST COLLECTOR 2683 1 12 4 1750 45 12 372 145 336 OLD DIXIE HWY COLLECTOR 653 1 12 4 1700 45 16 373 145 361 NE 15TH ST COLLECTOR 2130 1 12 4 1700 40 16 374 145 512 NE 15TH ST COLLECTOR 256 1 12 4 1750 40 16 375 145 744 OLD DIXIE HWY COLLECTOR 1899 1 12 4 1750 45 16 376 146 130 SW 232ND ST COLLECTOR 2650 1 12 4 1750 50 12 377 147 131 SW 248TH ST COLLECTOR 2652 1 12 4 1750 50 12 378 147 146 SW 182ND AVE COLLECTOR 5338 1 12 4 1700 45 12 379 148 132 SW 264TH ST COLLECTOR 2687 1 12 4 1750 50 12 380 148 614 SW 182ND AVE COLLECTOR 2717 1 12 4 1700 50 12 381 149 133 SW 288TH ST COLLECTOR 2692 1 12 4 1750 45 12 382 149 313 SW 288TH ST COLLECTOR 2695 1 12 4 1750 50 12 383 149 607 SW 182ND AVE COLLECTOR 2621 1 12 4 1700 50 12 384 150 135 NE 15TH ST COLLECTOR 2702 1 12 4 1750 40 16 KLD Engineering, P.C. K17 Revision 3

Turkey Point Evacuation Time Estimate Saturation Free Up Down Lane Shoulder Flow Flow Grid Stream Stream Length No. of Width Width Rate Speed Map Link # Node Node Roadway Name Roadway Type (ft.) Lanes (ft.) (ft.) (pcphpl) (mph) Number 385 150 160 SW 182ND AVE COLLECTOR 2665 1 12 4 1700 40 16 386 150 315 NE 15TH ST COLLECTOR 2666 1 12 4 1750 40 16 387 151 136 CAMPBELL DR COLLECTOR 2748 1 12 4 1750 40 16 388 151 150 SW 182ND AVE COLLECTOR 2609 1 12 4 1750 40 16 389 151 316 CAMPBELL DR COLLECTOR 2621 1 12 4 1750 35 16 390 152 163 SW 182ND AVE COLLECTOR 2656 1 12 4 1750 35 16 391 152 318 SW 328TH AVE COLLECTOR 2682 1 12 4 1750 40 16 392 152 509 SW 328TH AVE COLLECTOR 1116 1 12 4 1750 35 16 393 153 152 SW 182ND AVE COLLECTOR 5318 1 12 4 1750 35 18 394 153 295 SW 344TH ST COLLECTOR 2637 1 12 4 1750 40 18 395 153 519 SW 344TH ST MINOR ARTERIAL 2154 2 12 4 1750 40 18 396 154 168 FLAGLER AVE COLLECTOR 2937 1 12 0 1750 40 16 397 154 170 CAMPBELL DR MINOR ARTERIAL 1108 2 12 4 1750 40 16 398 154 173 FLAGLER AVE COLLECTOR 1810 1 12 0 1750 40 16 399 154 513 CAMPBELL DR MINOR ARTERIAL 237 2 12 4 1750 45 16 400 155 138 SW 328TH AVE MINOR ARTERIAL 712 1 12 4 1750 35 16 401 155 167 US 1 MINOR ARTERIAL 1465 2 12 4 1900 50 16 402 155 612 SW 328TH AVE COLLECTOR 2031 1 12 4 1750 45 16 403 155 673 US 1 MINOR ARTERIAL 2699 2 12 4 1750 50 16 404 158 66 US 1 MINOR ARTERIAL 1082 3 12 4 1900 50 18 405 158 139 SW 344TH ST MINOR ARTERIAL 721 2 12 4 1750 40 18 406 158 218 US 1 MINOR ARTERIAL 981 3 12 4 1900 50 18 407 159 134 SW 296TH ST COLLECTOR 2777 1 12 4 1750 40 12 408 159 144 SW 172ND AVE COLLECTOR 2626 1 12 4 1700 45 12 409 159 358 SW 296TH ST COLLECTOR 2661 1 12 4 1700 40 12 410 159 756 SW 172ND AVE COLLECTOR 1331 1 12 4 1700 40 12 KLD Engineering, P.C. K18 Revision 3

Turkey Point Evacuation Time Estimate Saturation Free Up Down Lane Shoulder Flow Flow Grid Stream Stream Length No. of Width Width Rate Speed Map Link # Node Node Roadway Name Roadway Type (ft.) Lanes (ft.) (ft.) (pcphpl) (mph) Number 411 160 134 SW 296TH ST COLLECTOR 2645 1 12 4 1750 40 12 412 160 149 SW 182ND AVE COLLECTOR 2670 1 12 4 1700 50 12 413 160 314 SW 296TH ST COLLECTOR 2663 1 12 4 1750 40 12 414 161 137 SH 997 COLLECTOR 493 1 12 2 1750 40 16 415 161 511 SW 320TH ST COLLECTOR 483 1 12 4 1750 40 16 416 161 677 SH 997 COLLECTOR 334 1 12 2 1750 40 16 417 161 710 SW 320TH ST COLLECTOR 1310 1 12 4 1750 35 16 418 162 168 FLAGLER AVE COLLECTOR 678 1 12 0 1750 40 16 419 162 511 SW 320TH ST COLLECTOR 272 1 12 4 1750 40 16 420 162 676 FLAGLER AVE COLLECTOR 1007 1 12 0 1750 40 16 421 163 151 SW 182ND AVE COLLECTOR 2684 1 12 4 1750 35 16 422 163 317 SW 320TH ST COLLECTOR 2664 1 12 4 1750 40 16 423 163 710 SW 320TH ST COLLECTOR 1355 1 12 4 1750 30 16 424 164 165 SE 12TH AVE COLLECTOR 5342 1 12 0 1750 45 18 425 164 507 SW 344TH ST MINOR ARTERIAL 3399 2 12 4 1900 45 18 426 165 164 SE 12TH AVE COLLECTOR 5342 1 12 0 1750 45 18 427 165 355 SW 328TH AVE COLLECTOR 2698 1 12 4 1750 45 16 428 165 612 SW 328TH AVE COLLECTOR 2699 1 12 4 1750 45 16 429 166 167 US 1 MINOR ARTERIAL 1567 3 12 4 1900 50 16 430 166 168 SW 320TH ST COLLECTOR 835 1 12 4 1750 40 16 431 166 172 US 1 MINOR ARTERIAL 838 2 12 4 1900 50 16 432 166 613 SW 320TH ST COLLECTOR 818 1 12 4 1700 40 16 433 167 155 US 1 MINOR ARTERIAL 1465 3 12 4 1750 50 16 434 167 166 US 1 MINOR ARTERIAL 1567 2 12 4 1750 50 16 435 168 154 FLAGLER AVE COLLECTOR 2937 1 12 0 1750 40 16 436 168 162 FLAGLER AVE COLLECTOR 678 1 12 0 1750 40 16 KLD Engineering, P.C. K19 Revision 3

Turkey Point Evacuation Time Estimate Saturation Free Up Down Lane Shoulder Flow Flow Grid Stream Stream Length No. of Width Width Rate Speed Map Link # Node Node Roadway Name Roadway Type (ft.) Lanes (ft.) (ft.) (pcphpl) (mph) Number 437 168 166 SW 320TH ST COLLECTOR 835 1 12 4 1750 40 16 438 168 711 SW 320TH ST COLLECTOR 400 1 12 4 1750 40 16 439 169 171 NE 12TH AVE COLLECTOR 2612 1 12 4 1750 40 16 440 169 613 SW 320TH ST COLLECTOR 2664 1 12 4 1700 40 16 441 170 154 CAMPBELL DR MINOR ARTERIAL 1108 2 12 4 1750 40 16 442 170 171 CAMPBELL DR MINOR ARTERIAL 1320 2 12 4 1750 45 16 443 170 172 US 1 MINOR ARTERIAL 2543 2 12 4 1900 50 16 444 170 174 US 1 MINOR ARTERIAL 1438 3 12 4 1750 50 16 445 171 169 NE 12TH AVE COLLECTOR 2612 1 12 4 1700 40 16 446 171 170 CAMPBELL DR MINOR ARTERIAL 1320 2 12 4 1750 45 16 447 171 175 NE 12TH ST COLLECTOR 1328 1 12 4 1700 35 16 448 171 340 CAMPBELL DR MINOR ARTERIAL 2655 2 12 4 1750 45 16 449 172 166 US 1 MINOR ARTERIAL 838 2 12 4 1750 50 16 450 172 170 US 1 MINOR ARTERIAL 2543 2 12 4 1750 50 16 451 173 154 FLAGLER AVE COLLECTOR 1810 1 12 0 1750 40 16 452 173 174 NE 11TH ST COLLECTOR 361 2 12 4 1750 40 16 453 173 743 NE 11TH ST COLLECTOR 308 1 12 4 1750 40 16 454 174 170 US 1 MINOR ARTERIAL 1438 2 12 4 1750 50 16 455 174 173 NE 11TH ST COLLECTOR 361 1 12 4 1750 40 16 456 174 175 NE 11TH ST COLLECTOR 800 1 12 4 1700 40 16 457 174 176 US 1 MINOR ARTERIAL 1622 2 12 3 1750 50 16 458 175 171 NE 12TH ST COLLECTOR 1328 1 12 4 1750 40 16 459 175 174 NE 11TH ST COLLECTOR 800 1 12 4 1750 40 16 460 176 174 US 1 MINOR ARTERIAL 1622 2 12 3 1750 50 16 461 176 177 NE 15TH ST COLLECTOR 2569 1 12 4 1700 40 16 462 176 178 US 1 MINOR ARTERIAL 3566 2 12 3 1750 50 16 KLD Engineering, P.C. K20 Revision 3

Turkey Point Evacuation Time Estimate Saturation Free Up Down Lane Shoulder Flow Flow Grid Stream Stream Length No. of Width Width Rate Speed Map Link # Node Node Roadway Name Roadway Type (ft.) Lanes (ft.) (ft.) (pcphpl) (mph) Number 463 176 512 NE 15TH ST COLLECTOR 213 1 12 4 1750 40 16 464 177 176 NE 15TH ST COLLECTOR 2569 1 12 4 1750 40 16 465 177 180 SW 162ND AVE COLLECTOR 2693 1 12 4 1750 40 17 466 177 340 SW 162ND AVE COLLECTOR 2626 1 12 4 1750 40 17 467 178 176 US 1 MINOR ARTERIAL 3566 2 12 3 1750 50 16 468 178 179 US 1 MINOR ARTERIAL 3621 2 12 3 1750 50 12 469 178 180 SW 296TH ST COLLECTOR 243 1 12 4 1750 40 12 470 178 514 SW 296TH ST COLLECTOR 223 1 12 4 1750 40 12 471 179 178 US 1 MINOR ARTERIAL 3621 2 12 3 1750 50 12 472 179 183 SW 288TH ST MINOR ARTERIAL 413 2 12 4 1750 45 12 473 179 337 US 1 MINOR ARTERIAL 619 2 12 3 1750 50 12 474 179 515 SW 288TH ST COLLECTOR 213 1 12 4 1750 45 12 475 180 177 SW 162ND AVE COLLECTOR 2693 1 12 4 1700 40 17 476 180 178 SW 296TH ST COLLECTOR 243 1 12 4 1750 40 12 477 180 338 SW 296TH ST COLLECTOR 2608 1 12 4 1750 40 12 478 181 291 OLD DIXIE HWY COLLECTOR 1412 1 12 4 1750 40 12 479 181 335 OLD DIXIE HWY COLLECTOR 2281 1 12 4 1700 45 12 480 181 359 SW 288TH ST COLLECTOR 1729 1 12 4 1700 45 12 481 181 515 SW 288TH ST COLLECTOR 336 1 12 4 1750 45 12 482 182 335 OLD DIXIE HWY COLLECTOR 1250 1 12 4 1700 45 12 483 182 336 OLD DIXIE HWY COLLECTOR 2937 1 12 4 1700 45 16 484 182 358 SW 296TH ST COLLECTOR 2029 1 12 4 1700 40 12 485 182 514 SW 296TH ST COLLECTOR 200 1 12 4 1750 40 12 486 183 179 SW 288TH ST MINOR ARTERIAL 413 2 12 4 1750 45 12 487 183 337 SW 157TH AVE COLLECTOR 469 1 12 4 1750 45 12 488 183 338 SW 157TH AVE COLLECTOR 2658 1 12 4 1750 40 12 KLD Engineering, P.C. K21 Revision 3

Turkey Point Evacuation Time Estimate Saturation Free Up Down Lane Shoulder Flow Flow Grid Stream Stream Length No. of Width Width Rate Speed Map Link # Node Node Roadway Name Roadway Type (ft.) Lanes (ft.) (ft.) (pcphpl) (mph) Number 489 183 347 SW 288TH ST MINOR ARTERIAL 2650 2 12 4 1750 45 12 490 184 186 WALDEN ST COLLECTOR 641 1 12 4 1700 45 12 491 184 337 US 1 MINOR ARTERIAL 2951 2 12 3 1750 50 12 492 184 517 WALDEN ST COLLECTOR 297 1 12 4 1750 30 12 493 184 806 US 1 MINOR ARTERIAL 827 2 12 3 1750 50 12 494 185 188 SW 157TH AVE COLLECTOR 2657 1 12 4 1700 45 12 495 185 290 WALDEN ST COLLECTOR 2686 1 12 4 1700 45 12 496 185 291 SW 157TH AVE COLLECTOR 1611 1 12 4 1750 45 12 497 185 346 WALDEN ST COLLECTOR 1439 1 12 4 1750 45 12 498 186 184 WALDEN ST COLLECTOR 641 2 12 4 1750 45 12 499 186 347 SW 152ND ST COLLECTOR 2633 1 12 4 1750 40 12 500 186 363 WALDEN ST MINOR ARTERIAL 2671 2 12 4 1900 45 12 501 186 806 SW 152ND ST COLLECTOR 558 1 12 4 1750 40 12 502 187 202 US 1 MINOR ARTERIAL 2180 2 12 3 1750 50 12 503 187 518 SW 272ND ST COLLECTOR 222 1 12 4 1750 30 12 504 187 806 US 1 MINOR ARTERIAL 2458 2 12 3 1750 50 12 505 188 280 NEWTON RD COLLECTOR 2695 1 12 4 1700 45 12 506 188 284 SW 272ND ST COLLECTOR 2635 1 12 4 1700 40 12 507 188 345 SW 272ND ST COLLECTOR 3911 1 12 4 1750 40 12 508 189 190 SW 264TH ST COLLECTOR 3906 1 12 4 1200 40 12 509 189 192 US 1 MINOR ARTERIAL 1677 2 12 3 1750 50 12 510 189 202 US 1 MINOR ARTERIAL 1739 2 12 3 1750 50 12 511 189 409 SW 264TH ST COLLECTOR 246 1 12 4 1750 30 12 512 190 189 SW 264TH ST COLLECTOR 3906 1 12 4 1750 50 12 513 190 196 SW 137TH AVE COLLECTOR 1350 1 12 4 1700 40 13 514 190 203 SW 137TH AVE COLLECTOR 1340 1 12 4 1750 40 13 KLD Engineering, P.C. K22 Revision 3

Turkey Point Evacuation Time Estimate Saturation Free Up Down Lane Shoulder Flow Flow Grid Stream Stream Length No. of Width Width Rate Speed Map Link # Node Node Roadway Name Roadway Type (ft.) Lanes (ft.) (ft.) (pcphpl) (mph) Number 515 191 280 SW 264TH ST COLLECTOR 5392 1 12 4 1700 50 12 516 191 281 SW 147TH AVE COLLECTOR 5326 1 12 4 1700 50 12 517 191 409 SW 264TH ST COLLECTOR 1178 1 12 4 1750 50 12 518 192 189 US 1 MINOR ARTERIAL 1677 2 12 3 1750 50 12 519 192 196 SW 260TH ST COLLECTOR 2903 1 12 4 1700 40 13 520 192 410 SW 260TH ST COLLECTOR 257 1 12 4 1750 30 12 521 192 655 US 1 MINOR ARTERIAL 3567 2 12 2 1750 50 13 522 193 195 SW 248TH ST COLLECTOR 668 1 12 4 1750 50 13 523 193 197 US 1 MINOR ARTERIAL 1045 2 12 2 1750 50 13 524 193 411 SW 248TH ST COLLECTOR 214 1 12 4 1750 50 13 525 193 656 US 1 MINOR ARTERIAL 1459 2 12 3 1750 50 13 526 194 281 SW 248TH ST COLLECTOR 2722 1 12 4 1700 50 12 527 194 411 SW 248TH ST COLLECTOR 3054 1 12 4 1750 50 13 528 195 193 SW 248TH ST COLLECTOR 668 1 12 4 1750 50 13 529 195 204 SW 248TH ST COLLECTOR 4032 1 12 4 1750 50 13 530 196 190 SW 137TH AVE COLLECTOR 1350 1 12 4 1700 40 13 531 196 192 SW 260TH ST COLLECTOR 2903 1 12 4 1750 40 13 532 196 654 SW 137TH AVE COLLECTOR 2660 1 12 4 1700 40 13 533 197 193 US 1 MINOR ARTERIAL 1045 2 12 2 1750 50 13 534 197 654 SW 137TH AVE COLLECTOR 518 1 12 4 1700 40 13 535 197 655 US 1 MINOR ARTERIAL 733 2 12 2 1750 50 13 536 197 712 BUSWAY COLLECTOR 207 1 12 4 1700 40 13 537 198 200 US 1 MINOR ARTERIAL 4036 2 12 3 1750 45 13 538 198 420 SW 132ND ST COLLECTOR 514 1 12 4 1750 30 13 539 198 656 US 1 MINOR ARTERIAL 1531 2 12 3 1750 50 13 540 199 332 SW 232ND ST COLLECTOR 2295 1 12 4 1750 40 13 KLD Engineering, P.C. K23 Revision 3

Turkey Point Evacuation Time Estimate Saturation Free Up Down Lane Shoulder Flow Flow Grid Stream Stream Length No. of Width Width Rate Speed Map Link # Node Node Roadway Name Roadway Type (ft.) Lanes (ft.) (ft.) (pcphpl) (mph) Number 541 199 420 SW 132ND ST COLLECTOR 2688 1 12 4 1750 40 13 542 199 636 SW 232ND ST COLLECTOR 1340 1 12 4 1700 50 13 543 200 198 US 1 MINOR ARTERIAL 4036 2 12 3 1750 45 13 544 200 204 SW 127TH AVE COLLECTOR 5209 1 12 4 1750 45 13 545 200 332 SW 232ND ST MINOR ARTERIAL 384 2 12 4 1750 30 13 546 200 632 US 1 MINOR ARTERIAL 3821 2 12 3 1750 45 13 547 201 633 BUSWAY LOCAL ROADWAY 2952 1 12 4 1750 45 13 548 202 187 US 1 MINOR ARTERIAL 2180 2 12 3 1750 50 12 549 202 189 US 1 MINOR ARTERIAL 1739 2 12 3 1750 50 12 550 202 203 SW 268TH ST MINOR ARTERIAL 5091 2 12 4 1750 40 12 551 203 190 SW 137TH AVE COLLECTOR 1340 1 12 4 1700 40 13 552 203 202 SW 268TH ST MINOR ARTERIAL 5091 2 12 4 1750 50 12 553 203 334 SW 268TH ST MINOR ARTERIAL 1315 2 12 4 1900 50 13 554 203 383 SW 137TH AVE COLLECTOR 1364 1 12 4 1750 40 13 555 204 195 SW 248TH ST COLLECTOR 4032 1 12 4 1750 50 13 556 204 200 SW 127TH AVE COLLECTOR 5209 1 12 4 1750 45 13 557 204 220 SW 248TH ST COLLECTOR 7975 1 12 4 1750 50 13 558 205 206 US 1 MINOR ARTERIAL 1715 2 12 3 1750 45 8 559 205 255 OLD CULTER RD COLLECTOR 4170 1 12 4 1750 45 9 560 205 632 US 1 MINOR ARTERIAL 1865 2 12 3 1750 45 8 561 205 635 OLD CULTER RD COLLECTOR 580 1 12 4 1750 45 8 562 206 205 US 1 MINOR ARTERIAL 1715 2 12 3 1750 45 8 563 206 207 US 1 MINOR ARTERIAL 2641 2 12 3 1750 45 9 564 206 211 SW 216TH ST COLLECTOR 3054 1 12 4 1750 45 9 565 206 412 SW 216TH ST COLLECTOR 338 1 12 4 1750 30 8 566 207 206 US 1 MINOR ARTERIAL 2641 2 12 3 1750 45 9 KLD Engineering, P.C. K24 Revision 3

Turkey Point Evacuation Time Estimate Saturation Free Up Down Lane Shoulder Flow Flow Grid Stream Stream Length No. of Width Width Rate Speed Map Link # Node Node Roadway Name Roadway Type (ft.) Lanes (ft.) (ft.) (pcphpl) (mph) Number 567 207 208 US 1 MINOR ARTERIAL 1882 2 12 3 1750 45 9 568 207 214 CUTLER RIDGE BLVD MAJOR ARTERIAL 1348 2 12 4 1750 40 9 569 207 413 CUTLER RIDGE BLVD MINOR ARTERIAL 233 2 12 4 1750 40 9 570 208 207 US 1 MINOR ARTERIAL 1882 2 12 3 1750 45 9 571 208 414 SH 989 COLLECTOR 216 1 12 4 1750 40 9 572 208 489 SH 989 MINOR ARTERIAL 708 2 12 4 1900 40 9 573 208 493 US 1 MINOR ARTERIAL 418 3 12 3 1900 45 9 TURNPIKE ON RAMP FROM 574 209 56 CAMPBELL DR FREEWAY RAMP 782 1 12 4 1700 50 17 575 210 399 CAMPBELL DR MINOR ARTERIAL 2639 2 12 4 1750 50 17 576 211 206 SW 216TH ST COLLECTOR 3054 1 12 4 1750 45 9 577 211 214 SH 989 MINOR ARTERIAL 1733 2 12 0 1750 50 9 578 211 255 SH 989 MINOR ARTERIAL 1318 2 12 0 1750 50 9 579 211 260 SW 216TH ST MINOR ARTERIAL 2883 2 12 0 1750 45 9 580 212 93 SW 127TH AVE COLLECTOR 5371 1 12 4 1750 45 8 581 212 259 SW 216TH ST COLLECTOR 4003 1 12 4 1750 50 8 582 212 681 SW 216TH ST COLLECTOR 2675 1 12 4 1700 40 8 583 213 101 SW 117TH AVE COLLECTOR 2146 1 12 4 1750 40 9 584 213 413 CUTLER RIDGE BLVD MINOR ARTERIAL 1509 2 12 4 1750 30 9 585 214 207 CUTLER RIDGE BLVD MAJOR ARTERIAL 1351 2 12 4 1750 40 9 586 214 211 SH 989 MINOR ARTERIAL 1733 2 12 0 1750 50 9 587 214 261 CUTLER RIDGE BLVD MINOR ARTERIAL 606 2 12 4 1900 45 9 588 214 490 SH 989 MINOR ARTERIAL 505 2 12 4 1750 40 9 589 215 12 US 1 MAJOR ARTERIAL 1390 3 12 3 1900 45 9 590 215 415 CARIBBEAN BLVD MINOR ARTERIAL 256 2 12 4 1750 30 9 591 215 494 US 1 MAJOR ARTERIAL 542 3 12 3 1900 45 9 KLD Engineering, P.C. K25 Revision 3

Turkey Point Evacuation Time Estimate Saturation Free Up Down Lane Shoulder Flow Flow Grid Stream Stream Length No. of Width Width Rate Speed Map Link # Node Node Roadway Name Roadway Type (ft.) Lanes (ft.) (ft.) (pcphpl) (mph) Number 592 215 495 CARIBBEAN BLVD MINOR ARTERIAL 384 2 12 4 1750 40 9 593 216 415 CARIBBEAN BLVD MINOR ARTERIAL 765 2 12 4 1750 40 9 594 216 639 CARIBBEAN BLVD COLLECTOR 1829 1 12 4 1750 40 9 595 217 111 MARLIN RD MINOR ARTERIAL 1804 2 12 4 1750 40 9 596 217 269 MARLIN RD COLLECTOR 3369 1 12 4 1750 35 9 597 218 69 US 1 MINOR ARTERIAL 3070 2 12 4 1900 50 18 598 218 158 US 1 MINOR ARTERIAL 981 3 12 4 1750 50 18 599 219 11 FLORIDA TURNPIKE FREEWAY 648 3 12 10 2250 70 9 600 219 18 FLORIDA TURNPIKE FREEWAY 1336 2 12 10 2250 70 9 601 220 35 SH 989 MINOR ARTERIAL 1026 2 12 4 1900 55 13 602 220 204 SW 248TH ST COLLECTOR 7975 1 12 4 1750 50 13 603 220 683 SH 989 MINOR ARTERIAL 5283 2 12 0 1750 50 13 604 221 36 SH 989 MINOR ARTERIAL 4723 2 12 4 1750 50 13 605 221 685 SW 268TH ST MINOR ARTERIAL 639 2 12 4 1900 50 13 606 222 685 SW 268TH ST MAJOR ARTERIAL 7318 2 12 4 1900 50 13 607 222 686 SW 268TH ST MINOR ARTERIAL 2630 2 12 4 1750 50 13 TURNPIKE OFF RAMP TO US 608 223 65 1 FREEWAY RAMP 857 1 12 4 1700 40 18 609 224 73 US 1 COLLECTOR 10028 1 12 5 1700 65 23 610 224 229 US 1 COLLECTOR 5820 1 12 5 1700 65 23 611 225 226 US 1 COLLECTOR 5459 1 12 5 1700 65 23 612 225 229 US 1 COLLECTOR 5730 1 12 5 1700 65 23 613 226 225 US 1 COLLECTOR 5459 1 12 5 1700 65 23 614 226 230 US 1 MINOR ARTERIAL 9890 2 12 5 1900 65 24 615 227 228 US 1 MINOR ARTERIAL 5206 2 12 5 1900 65 27 616 227 231 US 1 COLLECTOR 7275 1 12 5 1700 65 24 KLD Engineering, P.C. K26 Revision 3

Turkey Point Evacuation Time Estimate Saturation Free Up Down Lane Shoulder Flow Flow Grid Stream Stream Length No. of Width Width Rate Speed Map Link # Node Node Roadway Name Roadway Type (ft.) Lanes (ft.) (ft.) (pcphpl) (mph) Number 617 228 227 US 1 MINOR ARTERIAL 5206 2 12 5 1900 65 27 618 228 232 US 1 COLLECTOR 8048 1 12 5 1700 65 27 619 229 224 US 1 COLLECTOR 5820 1 12 5 1700 65 23 620 229 225 US 1 COLLECTOR 5730 1 12 5 1700 65 23 621 230 226 US 1 MINOR ARTERIAL 9890 2 12 5 1900 65 24 622 230 231 US 1 COLLECTOR 9269 1 12 5 1700 65 24 623 231 227 US 1 COLLECTOR 7275 1 12 5 1700 65 24 624 231 230 US 1 COLLECTOR 9269 1 12 5 1700 65 24 625 232 228 US 1 COLLECTOR 8048 1 12 5 1700 65 27 626 232 233 US 1 COLLECTOR 7740 1 12 5 1700 65 27 627 233 232 US 1 COLLECTOR 7740 1 12 5 1700 65 27 628 233 234 US 1 COLLECTOR 10817 1 12 5 1700 65 30 629 234 233 US 1 COLLECTOR 10817 1 12 5 1700 65 30 630 234 235 US 1 COLLECTOR 8381 1 12 4 1700 45 31 631 235 234 US 1 COLLECTOR 8381 1 12 4 1700 45 31 632 235 236 US 1 COLLECTOR 7644 1 12 4 1700 40 31 633 236 235 US 1 COLLECTOR 7644 1 12 4 1700 40 31 634 236 239 US 1 COLLECTOR 1533 1 12 4 1700 45 31 635 237 239 US 1 MINOR ARTERIAL 4343 2 12 4 1900 45 31 636 238 239 SH 905 COLLECTOR 9281 1 12 0 1700 45 31 637 238 240 SH 905 COLLECTOR 6852 1 12 0 1700 60 31 638 239 236 US 1 MINOR ARTERIAL 1541 2 12 4 1900 40 31 639 239 237 US 1 MINOR ARTERIAL 4343 2 12 4 1900 45 31 640 239 238 SH 905 COLLECTOR 9281 1 12 0 1700 55 31 641 240 238 SH 905 COLLECTOR 6852 1 12 0 1700 60 31 642 240 241 SH 905 COLLECTOR 12320 1 12 0 1700 60 29 KLD Engineering, P.C. K27 Revision 3

Turkey Point Evacuation Time Estimate Saturation Free Up Down Lane Shoulder Flow Flow Grid Stream Stream Length No. of Width Width Rate Speed Map Link # Node Node Roadway Name Roadway Type (ft.) Lanes (ft.) (ft.) (pcphpl) (mph) Number 643 241 240 SH 905 COLLECTOR 12320 1 12 0 1700 60 29 644 241 242 SH 905 COLLECTOR 7977 1 12 0 1700 60 29 645 242 241 SH 905 COLLECTOR 7977 1 12 0 1700 60 29 646 242 243 SH 905 COLLECTOR 7567 1 12 0 1700 55 29 647 243 2 SH 905 COLLECTOR 4414 1 12 0 1700 45 29 648 243 242 SH 905 COLLECTOR 7567 1 12 0 1700 55 29 649 244 245 CARD SOUND COLLECTOR 7306 1 12 0 1700 60 29 650 245 246 CARD SOUND COLLECTOR 2550 1 12 0 1700 60 29 651 246 248 CARD SOUND COLLECTOR 7487 1 12 0 1700 60 28 652 247 2 SH 905 COLLECTOR 4215 1 12 4 1575 35 26 653 248 249 CARD SOUND COLLECTOR 6864 1 12 0 1700 45 25 654 249 253 CARD SOUND COLLECTOR 11881 1 12 0 1700 60 25 655 250 74 CARD SOUND COLLECTOR 9449 1 12 0 1700 60 23 656 251 250 CARD SOUND COLLECTOR 9423 1 12 0 1700 60 23 657 252 251 CARD SOUND COLLECTOR 9619 1 12 0 1700 60 23 658 253 252 CARD SOUND COLLECTOR 9841 1 12 0 1700 60 25 659 254 220 SW 248TH ST COLLECTOR 2705 1 12 4 1750 50 13 660 255 205 OLD CULTER RD COLLECTOR 4170 1 12 4 1750 45 9 661 255 211 SH 989 MINOR ARTERIAL 1318 2 12 0 1750 50 9 662 255 257 OLD CULTER RD COLLECTOR 2597 1 12 4 1700 45 9 663 255 631 SH 989 MINOR ARTERIAL 1311 2 12 0 1750 50 9 664 256 299 SW 182ND AVE COLLECTOR 896 1 12 4 1700 40 18 665 257 3 OLD CULTER RD COLLECTOR 2310 1 12 4 1700 45 9 666 257 255 OLD CULTER RD COLLECTOR 2595 1 12 4 1750 45 9 667 258 254 SW 248TH ST COLLECTOR 10673 1 12 4 1700 45 13 668 258 264 SW 87TH AVE COLLECTOR 9584 1 12 4 1750 40 14 KLD Engineering, P.C. K28 Revision 3

Turkey Point Evacuation Time Estimate Saturation Free Up Down Lane Shoulder Flow Flow Grid Stream Stream Length No. of Width Width Rate Speed Map Link # Node Node Roadway Name Roadway Type (ft.) Lanes (ft.) (ft.) (pcphpl) (mph) Number 669 259 87 SW 216TH ST COLLECTOR 6626 1 12 4 1750 50 5 670 259 212 SW 216TH ST COLLECTOR 4003 1 12 4 1700 50 8 671 260 28 SW 216TH ST MAJOR ARTERIAL 362 3 12 0 1750 45 9 672 260 30 TURNPIKE EXTENTION MINOR ARTERIAL 929 2 12 4 1900 40 9 673 260 211 SW 216TH ST MINOR ARTERIAL 2883 1 12 0 1750 45 9 674 261 214 CUTLER RIDGE BLVD MINOR ARTERIAL 606 2 12 4 1750 45 9 675 261 491 CUTLER RIDGE BLVD MINOR ARTERIAL 817 2 12 4 1750 45 9 676 262 27 SW 216TH ST MINOR ARTERIAL 2603 2 12 4 1750 40 9 677 262 263 SW 216TH ST MINOR ARTERIAL 1681 2 12 4 1900 40 10 678 263 262 SW 216TH ST MINOR ARTERIAL 1681 2 12 4 1900 40 10 679 263 264 SW 216TH ST MINOR ARTERIAL 2627 1 12 4 1750 40 10 680 264 263 SW 216TH ST MINOR ARTERIAL 2627 2 12 4 1900 40 10 681 264 378 SW 87TH AVE COLLECTOR 2197 1 12 4 1750 40 10 682 265 28 TURNPIKE EXTENTION MINOR ARTERIAL 936 2 12 4 1750 40 9 683 266 27 OLD CULTER RD COLLECTOR 3621 1 12 4 1750 45 9 684 266 270 MARLIN RD COLLECTOR 1431 1 11 0 1575 35 9 685 266 271 OLD CULTER RD COLLECTOR 1660 1 12 4 1750 40 10 686 267 16 CARIBBEAN BLVD COLLECTOR 1560 1 12 4 1750 40 9 687 267 19 CARIBBEAN BLVD MINOR ARTERIAL 554 2 12 4 1750 40 9 688 268 12 US 1 MAJOR ARTERIAL 268 3 12 3 1900 45 9 689 268 660 US 1 MAJOR ARTERIAL 1842 3 12 3 1750 45 9 690 269 119 CARIBBEAN BLVD COLLECTOR 2522 1 12 4 1750 40 9 691 269 217 MARLIN RD COLLECTOR 3365 1 12 4 1575 35 9 692 269 270 MARLIN RD COLLECTOR 1459 1 11 0 1575 35 9 693 269 637 CARIBBEAN BLVD COLLECTOR 2089 1 12 4 1750 40 9 694 270 266 MARLIN RD COLLECTOR 1431 1 11 0 1750 35 9 KLD Engineering, P.C. K29 Revision 3

Turkey Point Evacuation Time Estimate Saturation Free Up Down Lane Shoulder Flow Flow Grid Stream Stream Length No. of Width Width Rate Speed Map Link # Node Node Roadway Name Roadway Type (ft.) Lanes (ft.) (ft.) (pcphpl) (mph) Number 695 270 269 MARLIN RD COLLECTOR 1459 1 11 0 1750 35 9 696 271 120 OLD CULTER RD COLLECTOR 1619 1 12 4 1750 30 10 697 271 266 OLD CULTER RD COLLECTOR 1660 1 12 4 1750 40 10 698 274 121 OLD CULTER RD COLLECTOR 406 1 12 4 1750 45 10 699 274 382 OLD CULTER RD COLLECTOR 2098 1 11 0 1700 45 10 700 275 121 SW 87TH AVE COLLECTOR 2132 1 12 4 1750 40 10 701 276 87 SW 147TH AVE COLLECTOR 5108 1 12 4 1750 50 5 702 276 636 SW 232ND ST COLLECTOR 6673 1 12 4 1700 50 12 703 276 748 SW 232ND ST COLLECTOR 2680 1 12 4 1750 50 12 704 277 84 NEWTON RD COLLECTOR 5064 1 12 4 1700 40 5 705 277 278 SW 232ND ST COLLECTOR 2637 1 12 4 1700 50 12 706 277 748 SW 232ND ST COLLECTOR 2739 1 12 4 1750 50 12 707 278 83 SW 162ND AVE COLLECTOR 5128 1 12 4 1700 45 5 708 278 141 SW 232ND ST COLLECTOR 2667 1 12 4 1700 50 12 709 278 277 SW 232ND ST COLLECTOR 2637 1 12 4 1750 50 12 710 279 143 SW 264TH ST COLLECTOR 2673 1 12 4 1750 50 12 711 279 280 SW 264TH ST COLLECTOR 2662 1 12 4 1700 50 12 712 279 283 SW 162ND AVE COLLECTOR 5333 1 12 4 1700 45 12 713 280 191 SW 264TH ST COLLECTOR 5392 1 12 4 1700 50 12 714 280 279 SW 264TH ST COLLECTOR 2662 1 12 4 1700 50 12 715 280 282 NEWTON RD COLLECTOR 5316 1 12 4 1750 45 12 716 281 194 SW 248TH ST COLLECTOR 2722 1 12 4 1700 50 12 717 281 276 SW 147TH AVE COLLECTOR 5364 1 12 4 1750 50 12 718 281 713 SW 248TH ST COLLECTOR 2682 1 12 4 1700 50 12 719 282 277 NEWTON RD COLLECTOR 5379 1 12 4 1750 45 12 720 282 283 SW 248TH ST COLLECTOR 2727 1 12 4 1700 50 12 KLD Engineering, P.C. K30 Revision 3

Turkey Point Evacuation Time Estimate Saturation Free Up Down Lane Shoulder Flow Flow Grid Stream Stream Length No. of Width Width Rate Speed Map Link # Node Node Roadway Name Roadway Type (ft.) Lanes (ft.) (ft.) (pcphpl) (mph) Number 721 282 713 SW 248TH ST COLLECTOR 2643 1 12 4 1700 50 12 722 283 142 SW 248TH ST COLLECTOR 2643 1 12 4 1750 50 12 723 283 278 SW 162ND AVE COLLECTOR 5360 1 12 4 1700 45 12 724 283 282 SW 248TH ST COLLECTOR 2727 1 12 4 1750 50 12 725 284 188 SW 272ND ST COLLECTOR 2635 1 12 4 1700 40 12 726 284 279 SW 162ND AVE COLLECTOR 2708 1 12 4 1700 45 12 727 284 285 SW 272ND ST COLLECTOR 2684 1 12 4 1750 40 12 728 285 143 SW 167TH AVE COLLECTOR 2626 1 12 4 1750 45 12 729 285 284 SW 272ND ST COLLECTOR 2684 1 12 4 1700 40 12 730 285 286 SW 272ND ST COLLECTOR 5334 1 12 4 1750 40 12 731 286 132 SH 997 COLLECTOR 2693 1 12 4 1750 50 12 732 286 285 SW 272ND ST COLLECTOR 5334 1 12 4 1750 40 12 733 286 625 SH 997 COLLECTOR 2695 1 12 4 1750 50 12 734 287 148 SW 182ND AVE COLLECTOR 2626 1 12 4 1700 50 12 735 287 286 SW 272ND ST COLLECTOR 2718 1 12 4 1750 50 12 736 288 144 SW 288TH ST COLLECTOR 2683 1 12 4 1700 45 12 737 288 289 SW 167TH AVE COLLECTOR 2613 1 12 4 1700 45 12 738 288 358 SW 167TH AVE COLLECTOR 2651 1 12 4 1700 45 12 739 288 359 SW 288TH ST COLLECTOR 2653 1 12 4 1700 45 12 740 289 285 SW 167TH AVE COLLECTOR 2737 1 12 4 1750 45 12 741 289 290 WALDEN ST COLLECTOR 2719 1 12 4 1700 45 12 742 290 185 WALDEN ST COLLECTOR 2686 1 12 4 1700 45 12 743 290 284 SW 162ND AVE COLLECTOR 2663 1 12 4 1700 45 12 744 290 289 WALDEN ST COLLECTOR 2719 1 12 4 1700 45 12 745 291 181 OLD DIXIE HWY COLLECTOR 1412 1 12 4 1750 45 12 746 291 185 SW 157TH AVE COLLECTOR 1611 1 12 4 1700 45 12 KLD Engineering, P.C. K31 Revision 3

Turkey Point Evacuation Time Estimate Saturation Free Up Down Lane Shoulder Flow Flow Grid Stream Stream Length No. of Width Width Rate Speed Map Link # Node Node Roadway Name Roadway Type (ft.) Lanes (ft.) (ft.) (pcphpl) (mph) Number 747 291 346 OLD DIXIE HWY COLLECTOR 2152 1 12 4 1750 45 12 748 291 516 SW 157TH AVE COLLECTOR 306 1 12 4 1750 45 12 749 292 16 ARCHOR RD COLLECTOR 1156 1 12 4 1750 35 9 750 293 216 SW 110TH CT COLLECTOR 646 1 12 4 1750 35 9 751 294 100 SW 122ND AVE COLLECTOR 1441 1 12 4 1575 35 8 752 295 153 SW 344TH ST COLLECTOR 2637 1 12 4 1750 40 18 753 295 296 SW 344TH ST COLLECTOR 2670 1 12 4 1700 45 15 754 295 318 SW 187TH AVE COLLECTOR 5328 1 12 4 1750 40 18 755 296 295 SW 344TH ST COLLECTOR 2670 1 12 4 1750 40 15 756 296 331 TOWER RD COLLECTOR 5253 1 12 4 1700 45 15 757 297 296 TOWER RD COLLECTOR 2662 1 12 4 1700 45 15 758 298 295 SW 187TH AVE COLLECTOR 2674 1 12 4 1750 40 18 759 298 297 SW 7TH ST COLLECTOR 2688 1 12 4 1700 40 15 760 299 153 SW 182ND AVE COLLECTOR 2626 1 12 4 1750 35 18 761 299 298 SW 7TH ST COLLECTOR 2650 1 12 4 1750 40 18 762 300 301 LUCILLE DR COLLECTOR 1292 1 12 4 1700 40 18 763 301 298 SW 187TH AVE COLLECTOR 2617 1 12 4 1750 40 18 764 301 302 LUCILLE DR COLLECTOR 2695 1 12 4 1700 40 15 765 302 297 TOWER RD COLLECTOR 2649 1 12 4 1700 50 15 766 303 302 TOWER RD COLLECTOR 5279 1 12 4 1700 50 15 767 304 303 SW 392ND ST COLLECTOR 3553 1 12 0 1700 45 22 768 308 615 SW 187TH AVE COLLECTOR 2697 1 12 4 1700 50 4 769 309 146 SW 232ND ST COLLECTOR 2702 1 12 4 1700 50 12 770 309 308 SW 187TH AVE COLLECTOR 5250 1 12 4 1700 50 11 771 310 147 SW 248TH ST COLLECTOR 2708 1 12 4 1700 50 12 772 310 309 SW 187TH AVE COLLECTOR 5324 1 12 4 1700 50 11 KLD Engineering, P.C. K32 Revision 3

Turkey Point Evacuation Time Estimate Saturation Free Up Down Lane Shoulder Flow Flow Grid Stream Stream Length No. of Width Width Rate Speed Map Link # Node Node Roadway Name Roadway Type (ft.) Lanes (ft.) (ft.) (pcphpl) (mph) Number 773 311 148 SW 264TH ST COLLECTOR 2668 1 12 4 1700 50 12 774 311 606 SW 187TH AVE COLLECTOR 2645 1 12 4 1700 50 11 775 312 287 SW 272ND ST COLLECTOR 2651 1 12 4 1700 50 12 776 312 311 SW 187TH AVE COLLECTOR 2679 1 12 4 1700 50 11 777 313 149 SW 288TH ST COLLECTOR 2695 1 12 4 1700 50 12 778 313 605 SW 187TH AVE COLLECTOR 2605 1 12 4 1700 50 11 779 314 160 SW 296TH ST COLLECTOR 2663 1 12 4 1700 40 12 780 314 313 SW 187TH AVE COLLECTOR 2633 1 12 4 1750 50 11 781 315 150 NE 15TH ST COLLECTOR 2666 1 12 4 1750 40 16 782 315 314 SW 187TH AVE COLLECTOR 2683 1 12 4 1750 40 15 783 316 151 CAMPBELL DR COLLECTOR 2621 1 12 4 1750 35 16 784 316 315 SW 187TH AVE COLLECTOR 2667 1 12 4 1750 40 15 785 317 163 SW 320TH ST COLLECTOR 2664 1 12 4 1750 35 16 786 317 316 SW 187TH AVE COLLECTOR 2642 1 12 4 1750 40 16 787 318 152 SW 328TH AVE COLLECTOR 2682 1 12 4 1750 35 16 788 318 317 SW 187TH AVE COLLECTOR 2647 1 12 4 1750 40 16 789 318 331 SW 328TH AVE COLLECTOR 2622 1 12 4 1700 40 15 790 319 602 SW 217TH AVE COLLECTOR 8015 1 12 4 1700 50 15 791 319 706 SW 344TH ST COLLECTOR 7941 1 12 4 1700 45 15 792 322 701 SW 232ND ST COLLECTOR 5264 1 12 4 1700 50 11 793 323 310 SW 248TH ST COLLECTOR 15834 1 12 4 1700 50 11 794 323 322 SW 217TH AVE COLLECTOR 5298 1 12 4 1700 50 11 795 324 311 SW 264TH ST COLLECTOR 15863 1 12 4 1700 50 11 796 324 323 SW 217TH AVE COLLECTOR 5314 1 12 4 1700 50 11 797 325 324 SW 217TH AVE COLLECTOR 2755 1 12 4 1700 50 11 798 327 314 SW 296TH ST COLLECTOR 15954 1 12 4 1750 50 11 KLD Engineering, P.C. K33 Revision 3

Turkey Point Evacuation Time Estimate Saturation Free Up Down Lane Shoulder Flow Flow Grid Stream Stream Length No. of Width Width Rate Speed Map Link # Node Node Roadway Name Roadway Type (ft.) Lanes (ft.) (ft.) (pcphpl) (mph) Number 799 327 704 SW 217TH AVE COLLECTOR 5323 1 12 4 1700 50 11 800 328 315 SW 304TH ST COLLECTOR 15921 1 12 4 1750 40 15 801 328 327 SW 217TH AVE COLLECTOR 2621 1 12 4 1700 50 15 802 329 328 SW 217TH AVE COLLECTOR 2603 1 12 4 1700 50 15 803 329 709 CAMPBELL DR COLLECTOR 10651 1 12 4 1575 35 15 804 330 317 SW 320TH ST COLLECTOR 2620 1 12 4 1750 40 15 805 330 331 TOWER RD COLLECTOR 2726 1 12 4 1700 45 15 806 331 296 TOWER RD COLLECTOR 5253 1 12 4 1700 45 15 807 331 318 SW 328TH AVE COLLECTOR 2622 1 12 4 1750 40 15 808 331 330 TOWER RD COLLECTOR 2726 1 12 4 1700 45 15 809 332 199 SW 232ND ST COLLECTOR 2295 1 12 4 1700 50 13 810 332 200 SW 232ND ST MAJOR ARTERIAL 384 2 12 4 1750 30 13 811 332 201 BUSWAY LOCAL ROADWAY 718 1 12 4 1700 45 13 812 333 204 SW 127TH AVE MINOR ARTERIAL 2654 1 12 4 1750 40 13 813 334 195 SW 134TH AVE COLLECTOR 6651 1 12 4 1750 45 13 814 334 203 SW 268TH ST MINOR ARTERIAL 1315 2 12 4 1750 50 13 815 334 687 SW 268TH ST MINOR ARTERIAL 1075 2 12 4 1750 50 13 816 335 181 OLD DIXIE HWY COLLECTOR 2281 1 12 4 1750 45 12 817 335 182 OLD DIXIE HWY COLLECTOR 1250 1 12 4 1750 45 12 818 335 359 SW 162ND AVE COLLECTOR 1727 1 12 4 1700 45 12 819 336 145 OLD DIXIE HWY COLLECTOR 653 1 12 4 1750 45 16 820 336 182 OLD DIXIE HWY COLLECTOR 2937 1 12 4 1750 45 16 821 336 358 SW 167TH AVE COLLECTOR 2166 1 12 4 1700 45 16 822 337 179 US 1 MINOR ARTERIAL 619 2 12 3 1750 50 12 823 337 183 SW 157TH AVE COLLECTOR 469 1 12 4 1750 45 12 824 337 184 US 1 MINOR ARTERIAL 2951 2 12 3 1750 50 12 KLD Engineering, P.C. K34 Revision 3

Turkey Point Evacuation Time Estimate Saturation Free Up Down Lane Shoulder Flow Flow Grid Stream Stream Length No. of Width Width Rate Speed Map Link # Node Node Roadway Name Roadway Type (ft.) Lanes (ft.) (ft.) (pcphpl) (mph) Number 825 337 516 SW 157TH AVE COLLECTOR 281 1 12 4 1750 45 12 826 338 180 SW 296TH ST COLLECTOR 2608 1 12 4 1750 40 12 827 338 183 SW 157TH AVE COLLECTOR 2658 1 12 4 1750 40 12 828 338 348 SW 296TH ST COLLECTOR 2660 1 12 4 1750 40 12 829 338 802 SW 157TH AVE COLLECTOR 4174 1 12 4 1750 40 17 830 340 171 CAMPBELL DR MINOR ARTERIAL 2655 2 12 4 1750 45 16 831 340 177 SW 162ND AVE COLLECTOR 2626 1 12 4 1700 40 17 832 340 807 CAMPBELL DR MINOR ARTERIAL 2463 2 12 4 1750 40 17 833 341 59 SW 157TH AVE MINOR ARTERIAL 553 2 12 4 1750 45 17 834 341 802 SW 157TH AVE COLLECTOR 677 1 12 4 1750 40 17 835 342 341 MALL ENTRANCE LOCAL ROADWAY 516 2 12 4 1750 20 17 TURNPIKE ON RAMP FROM 836 343 344 CAMPBELL DR FREEWAY RAMP 634 1 12 4 1700 50 17 837 344 60 FLORIDA TURNPIKE FREEWAY 771 2 12 10 2250 70 17 838 344 63 FLORIDA TURNPIKE FREEWAY 5191 2 12 10 2250 70 17 839 345 188 SW 272ND ST COLLECTOR 3911 1 12 4 1700 40 12 840 345 346 OLD DIXIE HWY COLLECTOR 3604 1 12 4 1750 45 12 841 345 518 SW 272ND ST COLLECTOR 232 1 12 4 1750 30 12 842 346 185 WALDEN ST COLLECTOR 1439 1 12 4 1700 45 12 843 346 291 OLD DIXIE HWY COLLECTOR 2152 1 12 4 1750 40 12 844 346 345 OLD DIXIE HWY COLLECTOR 3604 1 12 4 1750 40 12 845 346 517 WALDEN ST COLLECTOR 280 1 12 4 1750 30 12 846 347 183 SW 288TH ST MINOR ARTERIAL 2650 2 12 4 1750 45 12 847 347 350 SW 288TH ST MINOR ARTERIAL 2625 2 12 4 1750 45 12 848 348 338 SW 296TH ST COLLECTOR 2660 1 12 4 1750 40 12 849 348 347 SW 152ND ST COLLECTOR 2658 1 12 4 1750 40 12 KLD Engineering, P.C. K35 Revision 3

Turkey Point Evacuation Time Estimate Saturation Free Up Down Lane Shoulder Flow Flow Grid Stream Stream Length No. of Width Width Rate Speed Map Link # Node Node Roadway Name Roadway Type (ft.) Lanes (ft.) (ft.) (pcphpl) (mph) Number 850 348 349 SW 296TH ST COLLECTOR 2660 1 12 4 1700 40 12 851 349 348 SW 296TH ST COLLECTOR 2660 1 12 4 1750 40 12 852 349 350 SW 147TH AVE COLLECTOR 2686 1 12 4 1750 40 12 853 350 347 SW 288TH ST MINOR ARTERIAL 2625 2 12 4 1750 45 12 854 350 364 SW 288TH ST MINOR ARTERIAL 1376 2 12 4 1750 45 12 855 351 348 SW 152ND ST COLLECTOR 2630 1 12 4 1750 40 17 856 352 349 SW 147TH AVE COLLECTOR 1467 1 12 4 1700 40 12 857 353 169 SW 320TH ST COLLECTOR 2698 1 12 4 1700 40 16 858 353 809 NE 18TH AVE COLLECTOR 1263 2 12 4 1750 40 17 859 355 165 SW 328TH AVE COLLECTOR 2698 1 12 4 1750 45 16 860 355 353 NE 18TH AVE MINOR ARTERIAL 2718 2 12 4 1900 40 17 861 355 392 SW 328TH AVE MINOR ARTERIAL 5345 2 12 4 1750 45 17 862 358 159 SW 296TH ST COLLECTOR 2661 1 12 4 1700 40 12 863 358 182 SW 296TH ST COLLECTOR 2029 1 12 4 1750 40 12 864 358 288 SW 167TH AVE COLLECTOR 2651 1 12 4 1750 45 12 865 358 336 SW 167TH AVE COLLECTOR 2166 1 12 4 1700 45 16 866 359 181 SW 288TH ST COLLECTOR 1729 1 12 4 1750 45 12 867 359 288 SW 288TH ST COLLECTOR 2653 1 12 4 1750 45 12 868 359 290 SW 162ND AVE COLLECTOR 2648 1 12 4 1700 45 12 869 360 289 WALDEN ST COLLECTOR 797 1 12 4 1700 45 12 870 361 145 NE 15TH ST COLLECTOR 2130 1 12 4 1750 40 16 871 361 741 SW 172ND AVE COLLECTOR 192 1 12 4 1125 25 16 872 362 136 CAMPBELL DR MINOR ARTERIAL 2590 2 12 4 1750 40 16 873 362 513 CAMPBELL DR MINOR ARTERIAL 142 2 12 4 1750 45 16 874 362 744 OLD DIXIE HWY COLLECTOR 1699 1 12 4 1750 45 16 875 363 186 WALDEN ST MINOR ARTERIAL 2671 2 12 4 1900 45 12 KLD Engineering, P.C. K36 Revision 3

Turkey Point Evacuation Time Estimate Saturation Free Up Down Lane Shoulder Flow Flow Grid Stream Stream Length No. of Width Width Rate Speed Map Link # Node Node Roadway Name Roadway Type (ft.) Lanes (ft.) (ft.) (pcphpl) (mph) Number 876 363 350 SW 147TH AVE COLLECTOR 2673 1 12 4 1750 40 12 877 363 366 WALDEN ST MINOR ARTERIAL 1264 2 12 4 1900 45 12 878 364 48 SW 288TH ST MINOR ARTERIAL 2171 2 12 4 1750 45 12 879 364 350 SW 288TH ST MINOR ARTERIAL 1376 2 12 4 1750 45 12 880 365 364 SW 144TH AVE COLLECTOR 1729 1 12 4 1750 40 12 881 366 363 WALDEN ST MINOR ARTERIAL 1264 2 12 4 1900 45 12 882 366 364 SW 144TH AVE COLLECTOR 2664 1 12 4 1750 40 12 883 366 387 WALDEN ST MINOR ARTERIAL 1153 2 12 4 1900 45 12 884 367 50 SW 288TH ST MINOR ARTERIAL 962 2 12 4 1750 45 13 885 367 690 SW 137TH AVE MINOR ARTERIAL 1051 2 12 4 1750 50 13 886 368 367 SW 288TH ST MINOR ARTERIAL 3316 2 12 4 1750 45 13 887 369 372 SW 127TH AVE COLLECTOR 1485 2 12 4 1900 35 13 888 370 210 CAMPBELL DR MINOR ARTERIAL 5239 2 12 4 1750 50 17 889 370 692 SW 137TH AVE MINOR ARTERIAL 5381 2 12 4 1750 50 20 890 372 368 SW 288TH ST MINOR ARTERIAL 2012 2 12 4 1900 45 13 891 372 805 SW 127TH AVE COLLECTOR 2159 2 12 4 1750 45 13 892 373 222 SW 127TH AVE COLLECTOR 1300 1 12 4 1750 35 13 893 374 258 SW 248TH ST COLLECTOR 1711 1 12 4 1575 35 14 894 375 264 SW 216TH ST COLLECTOR 1319 1 12 4 1750 40 10 895 376 377 SW 85TH AVE MINOR ARTERIAL 1235 2 12 4 1750 40 10 896 376 378 SW 212TH AVE MINOR ARTERIAL 1662 2 12 4 1750 40 10 897 377 275 SW 207TH AVE COLLECTOR 1637 1 12 4 1700 40 10 898 377 380 SW 85TH AVE MINOR ARTERIAL 1344 2 12 4 1900 40 10 899 378 275 SW 87TH AVE COLLECTOR 1440 1 12 4 1700 40 10 900 378 629 SW 212TH AVE MINOR ARTERIAL 2637 2 12 4 1900 40 10 901 379 377 SW 207TH AVE MINOR ARTERIAL 1019 2 12 4 1750 40 10 KLD Engineering, P.C. K37 Revision 3

Turkey Point Evacuation Time Estimate Saturation Free Up Down Lane Shoulder Flow Flow Grid Stream Stream Length No. of Width Width Rate Speed Map Link # Node Node Roadway Name Roadway Type (ft.) Lanes (ft.) (ft.) (pcphpl) (mph) Number 902 380 274 SW 85TH AVE MINOR ARTERIAL 1527 2 12 4 1900 40 10 903 381 376 SW 85TH AVE MINOR ARTERIAL 927 2 12 4 1900 40 10 904 382 113 OLD CULTER RD COLLECTOR 6392 1 11 0 1750 45 10 905 382 274 OLD CULTER RD COLLECTOR 2094 1 11 0 1700 40 10 906 383 42 SW 137TH AVE MAJOR ARTERIAL 513 3 12 4 1750 50 13 907 383 203 SW 137TH AVE COLLECTOR 1364 1 12 4 1750 50 13 908 383 384 WALDEN ST MINOR ARTERIAL 1153 2 12 4 1900 45 13 909 384 383 WALDEN ST MINOR ARTERIAL 1153 2 12 4 1750 45 13 910 384 385 WALDEN ST MINOR ARTERIAL 980 2 12 4 1900 45 13 911 385 384 WALDEN ST MINOR ARTERIAL 976 2 12 4 1900 45 13 912 385 386 WALDEN ST MINOR ARTERIAL 1554 2 12 4 1900 45 12 913 386 385 WALDEN ST MINOR ARTERIAL 1554 2 12 4 1900 45 12 914 386 387 WALDEN ST COLLECTOR 948 1 12 4 1700 45 12 915 387 366 WALDEN ST MINOR ARTERIAL 1153 2 12 4 1900 45 12 916 387 386 WALDEN ST MINOR ARTERIAL 946 1 12 4 1700 45 12 917 388 370 SW 137TH AVE MINOR ARTERIAL 5356 2 12 4 1750 45 20 918 388 389 SW 137TH AVE MINOR ARTERIAL 2641 2 12 4 1900 50 20 919 388 401 SW 328TH AVE MINOR ARTERIAL 2641 1 12 4 1700 50 20 920 389 388 SW 137TH AVE MINOR ARTERIAL 2641 2 12 4 1750 50 20 921 389 390 SW 336TH ST COLLECTOR 2667 1 12 4 1700 40 20 922 389 528 SW 137TH AVE MINOR ARTERIAL 2134 2 12 4 1900 40 20 923 390 389 SW 336TH ST MINOR ARTERIAL 2667 1 12 4 1700 40 20 924 390 391 SE 38TH AVE MINOR ARTERIAL 1412 2 12 4 1900 40 19 925 390 400 SW 336TH ST COLLECTOR 2680 1 12 4 1700 40 19 926 390 401 SE 38TH AVE MINOR ARTERIAL 2654 2 12 4 1900 40 17 927 391 390 SE 38TH AVE MINOR ARTERIAL 1412 2 12 4 1900 40 19 KLD Engineering, P.C. K38 Revision 3

Turkey Point Evacuation Time Estimate Saturation Free Up Down Lane Shoulder Flow Flow Grid Stream Stream Length No. of Width Width Rate Speed Map Link # Node Node Roadway Name Roadway Type (ft.) Lanes (ft.) (ft.) (pcphpl) (mph) Number 928 391 395 SE 38TH AVE MINOR ARTERIAL 1283 2 12 4 1900 40 19 929 391 397 SPEEDWAY BLVD MINOR ARTERIAL 4524 2 12 4 1900 40 19 930 392 355 SW 328TH AVE COLLECTOR 5345 1 12 4 1750 45 17 931 392 397 SW 152ND ST MINOR ARTERIAL 3244 2 12 4 1900 40 17 932 392 399 SW 152ND ST COLLECTOR 5407 2 12 4 1750 40 17 933 394 389 SW 336TH ST COLLECTOR 2654 1 12 4 1700 40 20 934 395 391 SE 38TH AVE MINOR ARTERIAL 1283 2 12 4 1900 40 19 935 395 396 SW 344TH ST MINOR ARTERIAL 4837 2 12 4 1900 45 19 936 395 529 SW 344TH ST MINOR ARTERIAL 1378 2 12 4 1750 40 20 937 396 397 SW 152ND ST MINOR ARTERIAL 1697 2 12 4 1900 40 19 938 396 611 SW 344TH ST MINOR ARTERIAL 5149 2 12 4 1750 45 19 939 397 392 SW 152ND ST MINOR ARTERIAL 3244 2 12 4 1750 45 17 940 397 396 SW 152ND ST MINOR ARTERIAL 1697 2 12 4 1900 40 19 941 398 392 SW 328TH AVE MINOR ARTERIAL 842 1 12 4 1750 50 17 942 399 94 CAMPBELL DR MINOR ARTERIAL 596 3 12 4 1900 45 17 943 399 392 SW 152ND ST COLLECTOR 5407 2 12 4 1750 45 17 944 400 398 SW 336TH ST COLLECTOR 3270 1 12 4 1700 40 17 945 401 388 SW 328TH AVE MINOR ARTERIAL 2641 1 12 4 1750 40 20 946 401 390 SE 38TH AVE MINOR ARTERIAL 2654 2 12 4 1900 40 17 947 401 627 SW 328TH AVE MINOR ARTERIAL 2705 1 12 4 1700 50 17 948 402 355 SW 162ND AVE MINOR ARTERIAL 2758 2 12 4 1750 45 17 949 402 611 SW 162ND AVE MINOR ARTERIAL 1520 2 12 4 1750 45 19 950 403 404 SW 328TH AVE COLLECTOR 10719 1 12 4 1750 40 20 951 404 405 SW 328TH AVE COLLECTOR 5306 1 12 4 1700 50 20 952 404 522 SW 117TH AVE COLLECTOR 5437 1 12 4 1700 40 20 953 405 388 SW 328TH AVE COLLECTOR 5282 1 12 4 1750 50 20 KLD Engineering, P.C. K39 Revision 3

Turkey Point Evacuation Time Estimate Saturation Free Up Down Lane Shoulder Flow Flow Grid Stream Stream Length No. of Width Width Rate Speed Map Link # Node Node Roadway Name Roadway Type (ft.) Lanes (ft.) (ft.) (pcphpl) (mph) Number 954 406 403 SW 328TH AVE COLLECTOR 1560 1 12 4 1700 40 20 955 407 177 NE 15TH ST COLLECTOR 1137 1 12 4 1700 40 17 956 408 740 SW 172ND AVE COLLECTOR 1041 1 12 4 1700 40 16 957 409 189 SW 264TH ST COLLECTOR 246 2 12 4 1750 30 12 958 409 191 SW 264TH ST COLLECTOR 1178 1 12 4 1700 50 12 959 409 410 BUSWAY LOCAL ROADWAY 1673 1 12 4 1750 45 12 960 410 192 SW 260TH ST COLLECTOR 257 1 12 4 1750 30 12 961 410 712 BUSWAY LOCAL ROADWAY 4570 1 12 4 1700 45 13 962 411 193 SW 248TH ST COLLECTOR 214 1 12 4 1750 30 13 963 411 194 SW 248TH ST COLLECTOR 3054 1 12 4 1700 50 13 964 411 657 BUSWAY LOCAL ROADWAY 1581 1 12 4 1750 45 13 965 412 206 SW 216TH ST MINOR ARTERIAL 338 2 12 4 1750 30 8 966 412 413 BUSWAY LOCAL ROADWAY 2834 1 12 4 1750 45 9 967 412 681 SW 216TH ST COLLECTOR 2002 1 12 4 1200 40 8 968 413 207 CUTLER RIDGE BLVD MAJOR ARTERIAL 233 3 12 4 1750 30 9 969 413 213 CUTLER RIDGE BLVD MINOR ARTERIAL 1509 2 12 4 1900 40 9 970 413 414 BUSWAY LOCAL ROADWAY 1989 1 12 4 1750 45 9 971 414 208 SH 989 MAJOR ARTERIAL 216 2 12 4 1750 30 9 972 414 415 BUSWAY LOCAL ROADWAY 1916 1 12 4 1750 45 9 973 415 215 CARIBBEAN BLVD MINOR ARTERIAL 256 2 12 4 1750 30 9 974 415 216 CARIBBEAN BLVD MINOR ARTERIAL 765 2 12 4 1750 40 9 975 415 416 BUSWAY LOCAL ROADWAY 4444 1 12 4 1750 45 9 976 416 110 MARLIN RD MINOR ARTERIAL 848 2 12 4 1750 40 9 977 416 111 MARLIN RD MINOR ARTERIAL 257 2 12 4 1750 40 9 978 416 417 BUSWAY LOCAL ROADWAY 2803 1 12 4 1750 45 7 979 417 105 SH 994 MINOR ARTERIAL 254 2 12 4 1750 30 7 KLD Engineering, P.C. K40 Revision 3

Turkey Point Evacuation Time Estimate Saturation Free Up Down Lane Shoulder Flow Flow Grid Stream Stream Length No. of Width Width Rate Speed Map Link # Node Node Roadway Name Roadway Type (ft.) Lanes (ft.) (ft.) (pcphpl) (mph) Number 980 417 418 BUSWAY LOCAL ROADWAY 924 1 12 4 1750 45 7 981 417 653 SH 994 MINOR ARTERIAL 577 2 12 4 1750 40 7 982 418 109 SW 184TH ST MINOR ARTERIAL 234 3 12 4 1750 45 7 983 418 419 BUSWAY LOCAL ROADWAY 6021 1 12 4 1750 45 7 984 418 652 SW 184TH ST MINOR ARTERIAL 612 2 12 4 1750 40 7 985 419 465 BUSWAY LOCAL ROADWAY 2034 1 12 4 1750 45 7 986 419 484 SW 168TH ST MINOR ARTERIAL 302 1 12 4 1750 30 7 987 419 811 SW 168TH ST COLLECTOR 3005 1 12 4 1750 40 7 988 420 198 SW 132ND ST COLLECTOR 514 1 12 4 1750 30 13 989 420 199 SW 132ND ST COLLECTOR 2688 1 12 4 1700 40 13 990 420 332 BUSWAY LOCAL ROADWAY 3494 1 12 4 1750 45 13 991 421 422 SW 107TH AVE COLLECTOR 8059 1 12 4 1700 40 13 992 422 423 SW 107TH AVE COLLECTOR 3947 1 12 4 1700 40 13 993 423 221 SW 268TH ST MINOR ARTERIAL 2612 2 12 4 1750 50 13 994 423 254 SW 107TH AVE COLLECTOR 6759 1 12 4 1700 40 13 995 424 76 SH 997 COLLECTOR 4310 1 12 4 1700 50 5 996 425 427 SR 992 COLLECTOR 1606 1 12 4 1750 40 5 997 426 427 SW 157TH AVE COLLECTOR 2697 1 12 4 1750 40 5 998 426 736 SW 160TH ST COLLECTOR 2620 1 12 4 1750 40 5 999 427 479 SR 992 COLLECTOR 2643 1 12 4 1750 40 5 1000 428 128 SW 160TH ST MINOR ARTERIAL 5159 1 12 4 1750 40 5 1001 428 429 SW 147TH AVE COLLECTOR 2629 1 12 4 1750 40 5 1002 429 728 SR 992 MINOR ARTERIAL 2599 2 12 4 1750 40 1 1003 430 480 SR 992 MAJOR ARTERIAL 1319 3 12 4 1750 40 2 1004 432 433 SW 117TH AVE COLLECTOR 5295 2 12 4 1750 40 6 1005 432 445 SW 168TH ST COLLECTOR 2560 1 12 4 1750 40 7 KLD Engineering, P.C. K41 Revision 3

Turkey Point Evacuation Time Estimate Saturation Free Up Down Lane Shoulder Flow Flow Grid Stream Stream Length No. of Width Width Rate Speed Map Link # Node Node Roadway Name Roadway Type (ft.) Lanes (ft.) (ft.) (pcphpl) (mph) Number 1006 433 435 SR 992 MAJOR ARTERIAL 686 2 12 4 1750 45 2 1007 433 477 SW 117TH AVE MINOR ARTERIAL 817 2 12 4 1750 40 2 1008 433 717 SR 992 MAJOR ARTERIAL 2570 3 12 4 1750 40 2 1009 434 720 SR 992 MAJOR ARTERIAL 1470 3 12 4 1750 40 2 1010 434 722 SR 992 MAJOR ARTERIAL 451 3 12 4 1750 40 2 TURNPIKE ON RAMP FROM 1011 435 10 SR 992 FREEWAY RAMP 1093 2 12 4 1900 45 2 1012 435 433 SR 992 MAJOR ARTERIAL 686 2 12 4 1750 50 2 1013 435 436 SR 992 MAJOR ARTERIAL 388 3 12 4 1750 50 2 1014 436 435 SR 992 MAJOR ARTERIAL 388 3 12 4 1750 45 2 1015 436 437 TURNPIKE ON RAMP FREEWAY RAMP 1535 2 12 4 1750 45 2 1016 436 454 SR 992 MAJOR ARTERIAL 1529 2 12 4 1750 50 2 1017 437 457 SW 117TH AVE MINOR ARTERIAL 1448 2 12 4 1750 40 2 1018 437 478 TURNPIKE ON RAMP FREEWAY RAMP 536 2 12 4 1900 40 2 TURNPIKE OFF RAMP TO SR 1019 438 477 992 FREEWAY RAMP 848 3 12 4 1750 45 2 TURNPIKE OFF RAMP TO SR 1020 439 438 992 FREEWAY RAMP 469 2 12 4 1900 45 2 1021 439 441 FLORIDA TURNPIKE FREEWAY 2138 4 12 10 2250 70 2 1022 439 442 FLORIDA TURNPIKE FREEWAY 4322 5 12 10 2250 70 2 1023 440 10 FLORIDA TURNPIKE FREEWAY 737 4 12 10 2250 70 2 1024 440 441 FLORIDA TURNPIKE FREEWAY 582 4 12 10 2250 70 2 1025 441 439 FLORIDA TURNPIKE FREEWAY 2138 4 12 10 2250 70 2 1026 441 440 FLORIDA TURNPIKE FREEWAY 582 4 12 10 2250 70 2 1027 442 439 FLORIDA TURNPIKE FREEWAY 4322 5 12 10 2250 70 2 1028 442 468 FLORIDA TURNPIKE FREEWAY 1426 3 12 10 2250 70 2 KLD Engineering, P.C. K42 Revision 3

Turkey Point Evacuation Time Estimate Saturation Free Up Down Lane Shoulder Flow Flow Grid Stream Stream Length No. of Width Width Rate Speed Map Link # Node Node Roadway Name Roadway Type (ft.) Lanes (ft.) (ft.) (pcphpl) (mph) Number 1029 442 671 DON SHULA EXPRESSWAY FREEWAY 1348 3 12 4 2250 70 2 1030 443 444 COLONIAL DR COLLECTOR 2686 1 12 4 1750 40 7 1031 443 454 SW 112TH AVE COLLECTOR 2692 1 12 4 1750 40 7 1032 444 443 COLONIAL DR COLLECTOR 2686 1 12 4 1750 40 7 1033 444 446 FAIRWAY HIGHTS BLVD MINOR ARTERIAL 2025 2 12 4 1900 40 7 1034 444 810 COLONIAL DR COLLECTOR 2726 1 12 4 1750 40 7 1035 445 125 SW 168TH ST COLLECTOR 2709 1 12 4 1750 40 7 1036 445 432 SW 168TH ST COLLECTOR 2560 1 12 4 1750 40 7 1037 445 443 SW 112TH AVE COLLECTOR 2732 1 12 4 1750 40 7 1038 446 447 FAIRWAY HIGHTS BLVD MINOR ARTERIAL 1375 2 12 4 1900 40 2 1039 447 448 FAIRWAY HIGHTS BLVD MINOR ARTERIAL 692 2 12 4 1750 40 2 1040 448 667 SR 992 MINOR ARTERIAL 565 2 12 4 1750 50 2 1041 448 669 SR 992 MINOR ARTERIAL 2650 2 12 4 1750 50 2 1042 449 486 COLONIAL DR COLLECTOR 907 1 12 4 1700 40 7 1043 449 810 COLONIAL DR COLLECTOR 2245 1 12 4 1750 40 7 1044 450 465 COLONIAL DR MINOR ARTERIAL 413 2 12 4 1750 30 7 1045 450 485 US 1 MAJOR ARTERIAL 1276 3 12 3 1900 50 7 1046 450 663 US 1 MINOR ARTERIAL 1593 3 12 3 1750 50 7 1047 451 460 SW 168TH ST COLLECTOR 2487 1 12 4 1750 40 10 1048 451 754 SW 168TH ST COLLECTOR 465 1 12 4 1125 25 10 1049 452 459 SR 992 MINOR ARTERIAL 1047 2 12 4 1900 40 3 1050 452 466 SR 992 MINOR ARTERIAL 275 2 12 4 1750 30 3 1051 452 663 US 1 MAJOR ARTERIAL 2323 3 12 3 1750 50 3 1052 452 747 US 1 MAJOR ARTERIAL 2887 3 12 3 1750 50 3 1053 453 781 US 1 MAJOR ARTERIAL 1468 3 12 3 1750 50 3 1054 454 436 SR 992 MAJOR ARTERIAL 1529 2 12 4 1750 50 2 KLD Engineering, P.C. K43 Revision 3

Turkey Point Evacuation Time Estimate Saturation Free Up Down Lane Shoulder Flow Flow Grid Stream Stream Length No. of Width Width Rate Speed Map Link # Node Node Roadway Name Roadway Type (ft.) Lanes (ft.) (ft.) (pcphpl) (mph) Number 1055 454 455 OLIVIA L. EDWARDS BLVD COLLECTOR 1411 1 12 4 1700 40 2 1056 454 669 SR 992 MINOR ARTERIAL 2713 2 12 4 1750 50 2 1057 455 456 OLIVIA L. EDWARDS BLVD COLLECTOR 1719 1 12 4 1200 40 2 1058 456 457 OLIVIA L. EDWARDS BLVD COLLECTOR 1164 1 12 4 1750 40 2 1059 457 458 SW 117TH AVE MINOR ARTERIAL 2671 2 12 4 1900 40 2 1060 458 790 SW 117TH AVE MINOR ARTERIAL 2250 2 12 4 1900 30 2 1061 459 452 SR 992 MINOR ARTERIAL 1047 2 12 4 1750 40 3 1062 459 715 SR 992 COLLECTOR 1355 1 12 4 1750 40 3 1063 460 451 SW 168TH ST COLLECTOR 2487 1 12 4 1700 40 10 1064 460 461 SW 168TH ST COLLECTOR 4655 1 12 4 1750 40 10 1065 460 487 SW 82ND AVE COLLECTOR 5226 1 12 4 1750 40 10 1066 461 114 OLD CULTER RD COLLECTOR 2724 1 12 0 1750 45 10 1067 461 460 SW 168TH ST COLLECTOR 4655 1 12 4 1750 40 10 1068 461 462 OLD CULTER RD COLLECTOR 5335 1 12 0 1750 45 10 1069 462 461 OLD CULTER RD COLLECTOR 5335 1 12 0 1750 45 10 1070 462 787 OLD CULTER RD COLLECTOR 2897 1 12 4 1750 40 3 1071 462 792 SR 992 COLLECTOR 2021 1 12 4 1750 40 3 1072 463 786 OLD CULTER RD COLLECTOR 3317 1 12 4 1750 45 3 1073 464 445 SW 112TH AVE COLLECTOR 3112 1 12 4 1750 40 7 1074 464 650 SW 112TH AVE COLLECTOR 2262 1 12 4 1750 40 7 1075 465 450 COLONIAL DR MINOR ARTERIAL 413 2 12 4 1750 30 7 1076 465 466 BUSWAY LOCAL ROADWAY 3819 1 12 4 1750 45 7 1077 465 486 COLONIAL DR MINOR ARTERIAL 494 2 12 4 1900 40 7 1078 466 452 SR 992 MINOR ARTERIAL 275 2 12 4 1750 30 3 1079 466 665 SR 992 MINOR ARTERIAL 688 2 12 4 1750 50 3 1080 466 789 BUSWAY LOCAL ROADWAY 2911 1 12 4 1750 45 3 KLD Engineering, P.C. K44 Revision 3

Turkey Point Evacuation Time Estimate Saturation Free Up Down Lane Shoulder Flow Flow Grid Stream Stream Length No. of Width Width Rate Speed Map Link # Node Node Roadway Name Roadway Type (ft.) Lanes (ft.) (ft.) (pcphpl) (mph) Number 1081 468 469 FLORIDA TURNPIKE FREEWAY 1798 3 12 10 2250 70 2 1082 469 470 FLORIDA TURNPIKE FREEWAY 3704 3 12 10 2250 70 2 1083 470 471 FLORIDA TURNPIKE FREEWAY 2575 3 12 10 2250 70 2 1084 471 472 FLORIDA TURNPIKE FREEWAY 1693 3 12 10 2250 70 2 1085 471 474 FLORIDA TURNPIKE FREEWAY 1981 3 12 10 2250 70 2 1086 472 473 FLORIDA TURNPIKE FREEWAY 4716 3 12 10 2250 70 2 1087 473 475 FLORIDA TURNPIKE FREEWAY 1487 2 12 10 2250 70 2 1088 474 471 FLORIDA TURNPIKE FREEWAY 1981 3 12 10 2250 70 2 1089 475 442 FLORIDA TURNPIKE FREEWAY 1379 5 12 10 2250 70 2 1090 476 475 DON SHULA EXPRESSWAY FREEWAY 1285 3 12 4 2250 70 2 1091 477 433 SW 117TH AVE MINOR ARTERIAL 817 2 12 4 1750 40 2 TURNPIKE OFF RAMP TO SR 1092 477 435 992 FREEWAY RAMP 1025 2 12 4 1750 45 2 1093 477 437 SW 117TH AVE MINOR ARTERIAL 412 2 12 4 1750 40 2 1094 478 439 TURNPIKE ON RAMP FREEWAY RAMP 450 2 12 4 1900 50 2 1095 479 429 SR 992 MINOR ARTERIAL 2625 1 12 4 1750 40 1 1096 480 431 SW 137TH AVE MAJOR ARTERIAL 2860 3 12 4 1900 50 2 1097 480 725 SR 992 MAJOR ARTERIAL 3001 3 12 4 1750 40 2 TURNPIKE OFF RAMP TO SR 1098 481 436 992 FREEWAY RAMP 611 2 12 4 1750 45 2 1099 482 483 SW 174TH ST COLLECTOR 4917 1 12 4 1750 40 10 1100 482 753 SW 87TH AVE COLLECTOR 1936 1 12 4 1700 40 10 1101 483 124 US 1 MINOR ARTERIAL 2104 3 12 3 1750 50 7 1102 483 482 SW 174TH ST COLLECTOR 4917 1 12 4 1700 40 10 1103 484 124 SW 168TH ST MINOR ARTERIAL 248 1 12 4 1750 40 7 1104 484 419 SW 168TH ST MINOR ARTERIAL 302 1 12 4 1750 30 7 KLD Engineering, P.C. K45 Revision 3

Turkey Point Evacuation Time Estimate Saturation Free Up Down Lane Shoulder Flow Flow Grid Stream Stream Length No. of Width Width Rate Speed Map Link # Node Node Roadway Name Roadway Type (ft.) Lanes (ft.) (ft.) (pcphpl) (mph) Number 1105 484 662 US 1 MINOR ARTERIAL 3452 3 12 3 1750 50 7 1106 485 450 US 1 MAJOR ARTERIAL 1276 3 12 3 1750 50 7 1107 485 484 US 1 MAJOR ARTERIAL 625 3 12 3 1750 40 7 1108 486 449 COLONIAL DR COLLECTOR 907 1 12 4 1700 40 7 1109 486 465 COLONIAL DR MAJOR ARTERIAL 494 2 12 4 1750 40 7 1110 487 715 SR 992 COLLECTOR 2658 1 12 4 1750 40 3 1111 487 746 SW 82ND AVE COLLECTOR 2783 1 12 4 1750 40 3 1112 487 792 SR 992 COLLECTOR 2669 1 12 4 1750 40 3 1113 488 75 SW 184TH ST COLLECTOR 2631 1 12 4 1750 45 5 1114 488 77 SW 184TH ST COLLECTOR 8006 1 12 4 1700 45 5 1115 489 208 SH 989 MINOR ARTERIAL 708 1 12 4 1750 40 9 1116 489 490 SH 989 MINOR ARTERIAL 411 2 12 4 1750 40 9 1117 490 214 SH 989 MINOR ARTERIAL 505 2 12 4 1750 50 9 1118 490 489 SH 989 MINOR ARTERIAL 411 2 12 4 1900 40 9 1119 491 261 CUTLER RIDGE BLVD MINOR ARTERIAL 817 2 12 4 1900 45 9 1120 491 492 CUTLER RIDGE BLVD MINOR ARTERIAL 953 2 12 4 1750 45 9 1121 492 17 CUTLER RIDGE BLVD MINOR ARTERIAL 445 2 12 4 1750 40 9 1122 492 491 CUTLER RIDGE BLVD MINOR ARTERIAL 953 2 12 4 1750 45 9 1123 493 208 US 1 MINOR ARTERIAL 418 2 12 3 1750 45 9 1124 493 506 US 1 MAJOR ARTERIAL 482 3 12 3 1750 45 9 1125 494 215 US 1 MAJOR ARTERIAL 542 5 12 3 1750 45 9 1126 494 506 US 1 MAJOR ARTERIAL 567 3 12 3 1750 45 9 1127 495 215 CARIBBEAN BLVD MAJOR ARTERIAL 384 2 12 4 1750 40 9 1128 495 496 CARIBBEAN BLVD MINOR ARTERIAL 693 2 12 4 1900 40 9 1129 496 15 CARIBBEAN BLVD MINOR ARTERIAL 371 2 12 4 1750 40 9 1130 496 495 CARIBBEAN BLVD MINOR ARTERIAL 693 2 12 4 1750 40 9 KLD Engineering, P.C. K46 Revision 3

Turkey Point Evacuation Time Estimate Saturation Free Up Down Lane Shoulder Flow Flow Grid Stream Stream Length No. of Width Width Rate Speed Map Link # Node Node Roadway Name Roadway Type (ft.) Lanes (ft.) (ft.) (pcphpl) (mph) Number 1131 497 494 MALL ACCESS RD MINOR ARTERIAL 281 2 12 4 1900 25 9 1132 497 495 MALL ACCESS RD MINOR ARTERIAL 579 2 12 4 1750 25 9 1133 497 498 MALL RD COLLECTOR 622 1 12 4 1125 25 9 1134 498 497 MALL RD COLLECTOR 622 1 12 4 1125 25 9 1135 498 499 MALL RD COLLECTOR 513 1 12 4 1125 25 9 1136 498 506 MALL ACCESS RD MINOR ARTERIAL 288 2 12 4 1750 25 9 1137 499 493 MALL ACCESS RD COLLECTOR 303 1 12 4 1125 25 9 1138 499 498 MALL RD COLLECTOR 513 1 12 4 1125 25 9 1139 499 500 MALL RD COLLECTOR 739 1 12 4 1125 25 9 1140 500 489 MALL ACCESS RD COLLECTOR 249 1 12 4 1125 25 9 1141 500 499 MALL RD COLLECTOR 739 1 12 4 1125 25 9 1142 500 501 MALL RD COLLECTOR 420 1 12 4 1125 25 9 1143 501 490 MALL ACCESS RD MINOR ARTERIAL 306 2 12 4 1750 25 9 1144 501 500 MALL RD COLLECTOR 420 1 12 4 1125 25 9 1145 501 502 MALL RD COLLECTOR 364 1 12 4 1125 25 9 1146 502 261 MALL ACCESS RD MINOR ARTERIAL 355 2 12 4 1900 25 9 1147 502 501 MALL RD COLLECTOR 364 1 12 4 1125 25 9 1148 502 503 MALL RD COLLECTOR 722 1 12 4 1125 25 9 1149 503 491 MALL ACCESS RD MINOR ARTERIAL 357 2 12 4 1750 25 9 1150 503 502 MALL RD COLLECTOR 722 1 12 4 1125 25 9 1151 503 504 MALL RD COLLECTOR 997 1 12 4 1125 25 9 1152 504 492 MALL ACCESS RD MINOR ARTERIAL 610 2 12 4 1750 25 9 1153 504 503 MALL RD COLLECTOR 997 1 12 4 1125 25 9 1154 504 505 MALL RD COLLECTOR 1137 1 12 4 1125 25 9 1155 505 496 MALL ACCESS RD MINOR ARTERIAL 310 2 12 4 1900 25 9 1156 505 504 MALL RD COLLECTOR 1137 1 12 4 1125 25 9 KLD Engineering, P.C. K47 Revision 3

Turkey Point Evacuation Time Estimate Saturation Free Up Down Lane Shoulder Flow Flow Grid Stream Stream Length No. of Width Width Rate Speed Map Link # Node Node Roadway Name Roadway Type (ft.) Lanes (ft.) (ft.) (pcphpl) (mph) Number 1157 506 493 US 1 MAJOR ARTERIAL 482 3 12 3 1900 45 9 1158 506 494 US 1 MAJOR ARTERIAL 567 3 12 3 1900 45 9 1159 507 158 SW 344TH ST MINOR ARTERIAL 1301 1 12 4 1750 45 18 FLORIDA KEYS SHOPPING 1160 508 507 CENTER ENTRANCE MINOR ARTERIAL 1336 2 12 4 1900 40 18 1161 509 138 SW 328TH AVE COLLECTOR 1540 1 12 4 1750 35 16 1162 509 152 SW 328TH AVE COLLECTOR 1116 1 12 4 1750 35 16 1163 509 510 BUSWAY LOCAL ROADWAY 643 1 12 4 1750 45 16 1164 509 519 BUSWAY LOCAL ROADWAY 5430 1 12 4 1750 50 18 1165 510 137 BUSWAY LOCAL ROADWAY 2145 1 12 4 1750 45 16 1166 510 675 SW 4TH ST LOCAL ROADWAY 255 1 12 4 1750 40 16 1167 511 161 SW 320TH ST COLLECTOR 483 1 12 4 1750 30 16 1168 511 162 SW 320TH ST COLLECTOR 272 1 12 4 1750 40 16 1169 511 711 BUSWAY LOCAL ROADWAY 595 1 12 4 1750 45 16 1170 512 145 NE 15TH ST COLLECTOR 256 1 12 4 1750 40 16 1171 512 176 NE 15TH ST COLLECTOR 213 1 12 4 1750 30 16 1172 512 514 BUSWAY LOCAL ROADWAY 3554 1 12 4 1750 45 16 1173 513 154 CAMPBELL DR MINOR ARTERIAL 237 2 12 4 1750 40 16 1174 513 362 CAMPBELL DR MINOR ARTERIAL 142 2 12 4 1750 45 16 1175 513 743 BUSWAY LOCAL ROADWAY 1744 1 12 4 1750 45 16 1176 514 178 SW 296TH ST COLLECTOR 223 1 12 4 1750 40 12 1177 514 182 SW 296TH ST COLLECTOR 200 1 12 4 1750 40 12 1178 514 515 BUSWAY LOCAL ROADWAY 3623 1 12 4 1750 45 12 1179 515 179 SW 288TH ST MINOR ARTERIAL 213 2 12 4 1750 30 12 1180 515 181 SW 288TH ST COLLECTOR 336 1 12 4 1750 45 12 1181 515 516 BUSWAY LOCAL ROADWAY 968 1 12 4 1750 45 12 KLD Engineering, P.C. K48 Revision 3

Turkey Point Evacuation Time Estimate Saturation Free Up Down Lane Shoulder Flow Flow Grid Stream Stream Length No. of Width Width Rate Speed Map Link # Node Node Roadway Name Roadway Type (ft.) Lanes (ft.) (ft.) (pcphpl) (mph) Number 1182 516 291 SW 157TH AVE COLLECTOR 306 1 12 4 1750 45 12 1183 516 337 SW 157TH AVE COLLECTOR 281 1 12 4 1750 45 12 1184 516 517 BUSWAY LOCAL ROADWAY 2549 1 12 4 1750 45 12 1185 517 184 WALDEN ST MINOR ARTERIAL 297 1 12 4 1750 30 12 1186 517 346 WALDEN ST COLLECTOR 280 1 12 4 1750 45 12 1187 517 518 BUSWAY LOCAL ROADWAY 3486 1 12 4 1750 45 12 1188 518 187 SW 272ND ST COLLECTOR 222 1 12 4 1750 30 12 1189 518 345 SW 272ND ST COLLECTOR 232 1 12 4 1750 40 12 1190 518 409 BUSWAY LOCAL ROADWAY 3758 1 12 4 1750 45 12 1191 519 139 SW 344TH ST MINOR ARTERIAL 545 2 12 4 1750 40 18 1192 519 153 SW 344TH ST MINOR ARTERIAL 2154 2 12 4 1750 40 18 1193 519 509 BUSWAY LOCAL ROADWAY 5430 1 12 4 1750 45 18 1194 521 527 SW 344TH ST COLLECTOR 10678 1 12 4 1750 50 20 1195 521 531 SW 117TH AVE COLLECTOR 4879 1 12 4 1700 40 20 1196 522 751 SW 312TH ST COLLECTOR 2668 1 12 4 1700 40 20 1197 523 735 SW 344TH ST COLLECTOR 1824 1 12 4 1750 40 20 1198 524 523 SW 344TH ST COLLECTOR 4449 1 12 4 1700 40 21 1199 527 529 SW 344TH ST MINOR ARTERIAL 1187 2 12 4 1750 50 20 1200 528 389 SW 137TH AVE MINOR ARTERIAL 2134 2 12 4 1900 40 20 1201 528 391 SPEEDWAY BLVD MINOR ARTERIAL 1464 2 12 4 1900 40 20 1202 528 529 SW 137TH AVE MINOR ARTERIAL 934 2 12 4 1750 40 20 1203 529 395 SW 344TH ST MINOR ARTERIAL 1378 2 12 4 1900 40 20 1204 529 528 SW 137TH AVE MINOR ARTERIAL 934 2 12 4 1900 40 20 1205 530 527 SW 137TH AVE COLLECTOR 4733 1 12 4 1750 40 20 1206 531 404 SW 117TH AVE COLLECTOR 582 1 12 4 1750 40 20 1207 600 319 SW 217TH AVE COLLECTOR 15895 1 11 0 1700 50 15 KLD Engineering, P.C. K49 Revision 3

Turkey Point Evacuation Time Estimate Saturation Free Up Down Lane Shoulder Flow Flow Grid Stream Stream Length No. of Width Width Rate Speed Map Link # Node Node Roadway Name Roadway Type (ft.) Lanes (ft.) (ft.) (pcphpl) (mph) Number 1208 600 601 SW 392ND ST COLLECTOR 4404 1 12 0 1700 50 22 1209 601 304 SW 392ND ST COLLECTOR 7405 1 12 0 1700 50 22 1210 602 329 SW 217TH AVE COLLECTOR 2654 1 12 4 1700 50 15 1211 602 707 SW 320TH ST COLLECTOR 7961 1 12 4 1700 45 15 1212 603 600 SW 392ND ST COLLECTOR 5701 1 12 0 1700 50 22 1213 604 72 US 1 MINOR ARTERIAL 1588 2 12 4 1900 50 18 1214 604 73 US 1 COLLECTOR 1531 2 12 4 1900 60 18 1215 605 312 SW 187TH AVE COLLECTOR 2731 1 12 4 1700 50 11 1216 605 607 SW 280TH ST COLLECTOR 2644 1 12 4 1700 50 12 1217 606 310 SW 187TH AVE COLLECTOR 2645 1 12 4 1700 50 11 1218 606 614 SW 256TH ST COLLECTOR 2626 1 12 4 1700 50 12 1219 607 287 SW 182ND AVE COLLECTOR 2725 1 12 4 1700 50 12 1220 607 625 SW 280TH ST COLLECTOR 2666 1 12 4 1750 40 12 1221 611 402 SW 162ND AVE MINOR ARTERIAL 1520 2 12 4 1900 45 19 1222 611 694 SW 344TH ST MINOR ARTERIAL 3159 2 12 4 1700 45 19 1223 612 155 SW 328TH AVE COLLECTOR 2031 1 12 4 1750 40 16 1224 612 165 SW 328TH AVE COLLECTOR 2699 1 12 4 1750 45 16 1225 612 613 SE 6TH ST COLLECTOR 2743 1 12 4 1700 40 16 1226 613 166 SW 320TH ST COLLECTOR 818 1 12 4 1750 40 16 1227 613 169 SW 320TH ST COLLECTOR 2664 1 12 4 1700 40 16 1228 613 612 SE 6TH ST COLLECTOR 2743 1 12 4 1750 40 16 1229 614 147 SW 182ND AVE COLLECTOR 2604 1 12 4 1700 50 12 1230 614 624 SW 256TH ST COLLECTOR 2693 1 12 4 1700 50 12 1231 615 79 SW 187TH AVE COLLECTOR 2618 1 12 4 1700 50 4 1232 615 617 BUSH DR COLLECTOR 2654 1 12 4 1700 50 5 1233 617 623 BUSH DR COLLECTOR 2719 1 12 4 1700 40 5 KLD Engineering, P.C. K50 Revision 3

Turkey Point Evacuation Time Estimate Saturation Free Up Down Lane Shoulder Flow Flow Grid Stream Stream Length No. of Width Width Rate Speed Map Link # Node Node Roadway Name Roadway Type (ft.) Lanes (ft.) (ft.) (pcphpl) (mph) Number 1234 618 1 SH 994 COLLECTOR 2637 1 12 4 1750 50 5 1235 619 309 SW 232ND ST COLLECTOR 3992 1 12 4 1700 50 11 1236 619 620 SW 194TH AVE COLLECTOR 5226 1 12 4 1700 50 11 1237 620 621 SW 194TH AVE COLLECTOR 2654 1 12 4 1700 50 4 1238 621 615 BUSH DR COLLECTOR 4003 1 12 4 1700 50 4 1239 621 622 SW 194TH AVE COLLECTOR 2714 1 12 4 1700 50 4 1240 622 698 SW 194TH AVE COLLECTOR 2642 1 12 4 1700 50 4 1241 623 1 SH 997 COLLECTOR 2750 1 12 4 1750 50 5 1242 623 80 SH 997 COLLECTOR 2689 1 12 4 1750 50 5 1243 624 131 SH 997 COLLECTOR 2621 1 12 4 1750 50 12 1244 624 132 SH 997 COLLECTOR 2669 1 12 4 1750 50 12 1245 625 133 SH 997 COLLECTOR 2611 1 12 4 1750 50 12 1246 625 286 SH 997 COLLECTOR 2695 1 12 4 1750 50 12 1247 626 370 CAMPBELL DR COLLECTOR 1326 1 12 4 1750 40 20 1248 627 210 SW 147TH AVE COLLECTOR 5444 1 12 4 1750 40 17 1249 627 398 SW 328TH AVE MINOR ARTERIAL 1786 1 12 4 1700 50 17 1250 628 210 SW 147TH AVE COLLECTOR 676 2 12 4 1750 40 17 1251 629 271 SW 92ND AVE COLLECTOR 2389 1 12 4 1750 40 10 1252 630 114 SW 176TH ST LOCAL ROADWAY 1503 1 12 4 1750 40 10 1253 631 255 SH 989 MINOR ARTERIAL 1311 2 12 0 1750 50 9 1254 631 632 SW 224TH ST COLLECTOR 5456 1 12 4 1750 40 9 1255 631 683 SH 989 MINOR ARTERIAL 2686 2 12 0 1750 50 13 1256 632 200 US 1 MINOR ARTERIAL 3821 2 12 3 1750 45 13 1257 632 205 US 1 MINOR ARTERIAL 1865 2 12 3 1750 45 8 1258 632 631 SW 224TH ST COLLECTOR 5456 1 12 4 1750 40 9 1259 632 633 MIAMI AVE COLLECTOR 486 1 12 4 1750 30 8 KLD Engineering, P.C. K51 Revision 3

Turkey Point Evacuation Time Estimate Saturation Free Up Down Lane Shoulder Flow Flow Grid Stream Stream Length No. of Width Width Rate Speed Map Link # Node Node Roadway Name Roadway Type (ft.) Lanes (ft.) (ft.) (pcphpl) (mph) Number 1260 633 632 MIAMI AVE COLLECTOR 486 1 12 4 1750 40 8 1261 633 635 BUSWAY LOCAL ROADWAY 1772 1 12 4 1750 45 8 1262 634 631 SW 224TH ST COLLECTOR 1436 1 12 4 1750 40 9 1263 635 205 OLD CULTER RD COLLECTOR 580 1 12 4 1750 30 8 1264 635 412 BUSWAY LOCAL ROADWAY 1921 1 12 4 1750 45 8 1265 636 199 SW 232ND ST COLLECTOR 1340 1 12 4 1700 50 13 1266 636 259 SW 134TH ST COLLECTOR 5341 1 12 4 1750 50 8 1267 636 276 SW 232ND ST COLLECTOR 6673 1 12 4 1750 50 12 1268 637 16 CARIBBEAN BLVD COLLECTOR 1916 1 12 4 1750 40 9 1269 637 269 CARIBBEAN BLVD COLLECTOR 2089 1 12 4 1750 40 9 1270 638 637 CORAL SEA RD COLLECTOR 1165 1 12 4 1750 35 9 1271 639 101 CARIBBEAN BLVD COLLECTOR 1270 1 12 4 1750 40 9 1272 639 216 CARIBBEAN BLVD COLLECTOR 1829 1 12 4 1750 40 9 1273 640 639 SW 114TH AVE COLLECTOR 2237 1 12 4 1750 35 9 1274 640 644 SW 114TH AVE COLLECTOR 1616 1 12 4 1700 40 9 1275 641 110 SW 106TH AVE LOCAL ROADWAY 674 2 12 4 1750 35 9 TURNPIKE ON RAMP FROM 1276 642 9 SW 186TH ST FREEWAY RAMP 647 1 12 4 1700 50 7 1277 643 7 TURNPIKE SERVICE RD MINOR ARTERIAL 532 2 12 4 1750 40 7 1278 644 645 SW 114TH AVE COLLECTOR 584 1 12 4 1750 40 7 1279 645 97 SH 994 MINOR ARTERIAL 967 2 12 4 1750 40 7 1280 645 102 SH 994 MINOR ARTERIAL 1151 2 12 4 1900 40 7 1281 645 646 SW 114TH AVE COLLECTOR 1841 1 12 4 1750 40 7 1282 646 6 SW 184TH ST MINOR ARTERIAL 991 2 12 4 1750 45 7 1283 646 99 SW 184TH ST MINOR ARTERIAL 676 2 12 4 1750 45 7 1284 647 88 SW 137TH AVE COLLECTOR 1899 1 12 4 1750 30 8 KLD Engineering, P.C. K52 Revision 3

Turkey Point Evacuation Time Estimate Saturation Free Up Down Lane Shoulder Flow Flow Grid Stream Stream Length No. of Width Width Rate Speed Map Link # Node Node Roadway Name Roadway Type (ft.) Lanes (ft.) (ft.) (pcphpl) (mph) Number 1285 648 85 SW 184TH ST COLLECTOR 4104 2 12 4 1750 45 5 1286 648 127 SW 184TH ST MINOR ARTERIAL 1256 2 12 4 1750 45 6 1287 649 432 SW 168TH ST COLLECTOR 2653 1 12 4 1750 40 6 1288 650 5 SW 184TH ST MINOR ARTERIAL 565 2 12 4 1750 45 7 1289 650 104 SW 184TH ST MINOR ARTERIAL 2615 2 12 4 1750 45 7 1290 650 464 SW 112TH AVE COLLECTOR 2262 1 12 4 1700 40 7 1291 651 460 SW 82ND AVE COLLECTOR 874 1 12 4 1750 40 10 1292 652 104 SW 184TH ST MINOR ARTERIAL 2553 2 12 4 1750 45 7 1293 652 418 SW 184TH ST MINOR ARTERIAL 612 2 12 4 1750 45 7 1294 652 653 HOMESTEAD AVE COLLECTOR 919 1 12 4 1750 40 7 1295 653 103 SH 994 MINOR ARTERIAL 2170 2 12 4 1750 45 7 1296 653 417 SH 994 MINOR ARTERIAL 577 2 12 4 1750 45 7 1297 653 652 HOMESTEAD AVE COLLECTOR 919 1 12 4 1750 40 7 1298 654 196 SW 137TH AVE COLLECTOR 2660 1 12 4 1700 40 13 1299 654 197 SW 137TH AVE COLLECTOR 518 1 12 4 1750 40 13 1300 654 655 SW 252ND ST LOCAL ROADWAY 507 1 12 4 1750 45 13 1301 655 192 US 1 MINOR ARTERIAL 3567 2 12 2 1750 50 13 1302 655 197 US 1 MINOR ARTERIAL 733 2 12 2 1750 50 13 1303 656 193 US 1 MINOR ARTERIAL 1459 2 12 3 1750 50 13 1304 656 198 US 1 MINOR ARTERIAL 1531 2 12 3 1750 50 13 1305 657 420 BUSWAY LOCAL ROADWAY 1932 1 12 4 1750 45 13 1306 657 656 SW 244TH ST COLLECTOR 262 2 12 4 1750 45 13 1307 658 657 SW 244TH ST COLLECTOR 220 1 12 4 1750 45 13 1308 659 660 SW 19500 BLK LOCAL ROADWAY 482 1 12 4 1750 35 9 1309 660 111 US 1 MAJOR ARTERIAL 958 3 12 3 1750 45 9 1310 660 268 US 1 MAJOR ARTERIAL 1842 3 12 3 1900 45 9 KLD Engineering, P.C. K53 Revision 3

Turkey Point Evacuation Time Estimate Saturation Free Up Down Lane Shoulder Flow Flow Grid Stream Stream Length No. of Width Width Rate Speed Map Link # Node Node Roadway Name Roadway Type (ft.) Lanes (ft.) (ft.) (pcphpl) (mph) Number 1311 661 123 US 1 MINOR ARTERIAL 744 3 12 3 1750 50 7 1312 661 662 HIBISCUS ST. COLLECTOR 590 1 12 4 1750 30 7 1313 662 122 US 1 MINOR ARTERIAL 1558 3 12 3 1900 50 7 1314 662 661 HIBISCUS ST. COLLECTOR 590 1 12 4 1750 30 7 1315 663 450 US 1 MINOR ARTERIAL 1593 3 12 3 1750 50 7 1316 663 452 US 1 MAJOR ARTERIAL 2323 3 12 3 1750 50 3 1317 664 663 SW 15900 BLK COLLECTOR 374 1 12 4 1750 45 7 1318 665 466 SR 992 MINOR ARTERIAL 688 2 12 4 1750 50 3 1319 665 667 SR 992 MINOR ARTERIAL 4108 2 12 4 1750 50 2 1320 666 665 SW 93RD AVE COLLECTOR 922 1 12 4 1750 45 2 1321 667 448 SR 992 MINOR ARTERIAL 565 2 12 4 1750 50 2 1322 667 665 SR 992 MINOR ARTERIAL 4108 2 12 4 1750 50 2 1323 668 667 SW 99TH CT COLLECTOR 560 1 12 4 1750 30 2 1324 669 448 SR 992 MINOR ARTERIAL 2650 2 12 4 1750 50 2 1325 669 454 SR 992 MINOR ARTERIAL 2713 2 12 4 1750 50 2 1326 670 669 SW 107TH AVE COLLECTOR 1957 1 12 4 1750 40 2 1327 671 476 DON SHULA EXPRESSWAY FREEWAY 1236 3 12 4 2250 70 2 1328 672 61 MALL ENTRANCE COLLECTOR 510 1 12 4 1750 45 17 1329 673 67 US 1 MINOR ARTERIAL 801 2 12 4 1900 50 18 1330 673 155 US 1 MINOR ARTERIAL 2699 2 12 4 1750 50 16 1331 673 674 NE 7TH ST MINOR ARTERIAL 695 1 12 4 1750 30 18 1332 674 138 SH 997 COLLECTOR 2690 1 12 2 1750 40 16 1333 674 139 SH 997 COLLECTOR 2655 1 12 2 1750 40 18 1334 675 510 SW 4TH ST LOCAL ROADWAY 255 1 12 4 1750 40 16 1335 675 676 FLAGLER AVE COLLECTOR 1697 1 12 0 1750 40 16 1336 676 137 SH 997 COLLECTOR 360 1 12 2 1750 40 16 KLD Engineering, P.C. K54 Revision 3

Turkey Point Evacuation Time Estimate Saturation Free Up Down Lane Shoulder Flow Flow Grid Stream Stream Length No. of Width Width Rate Speed Map Link # Node Node Roadway Name Roadway Type (ft.) Lanes (ft.) (ft.) (pcphpl) (mph) Number 1337 676 138 SH 997 COLLECTOR 1803 1 12 2 1750 40 16 1338 676 162 FLAGLER AVE COLLECTOR 1007 1 12 0 1750 40 16 1339 676 675 FLAGLER AVE COLLECTOR 1697 1 12 0 1750 40 16 1340 677 161 SH 997 COLLECTOR 334 1 12 2 1750 40 16 1341 677 678 SH 997 COLLECTOR 335 1 12 2 1750 40 16 1342 678 136 SH 997 COLLECTOR 1959 1 12 2 1750 40 16 1343 678 677 SH 997 COLLECTOR 335 1 12 2 1750 40 16 1344 679 677 NW 2ND ST LOCAL ROADWAY 1293 1 12 4 1750 40 16 1345 679 710 NW 2ND AVE COLLECTOR 343 1 12 4 1750 30 16 1346 680 678 NW 4TH ST LOCAL ROADWAY 1310 1 12 4 1750 40 16 1347 681 212 SW 216TH ST COLLECTOR 2675 1 12 4 1700 40 8 1348 681 412 SW 216TH ST COLLECTOR 2002 2 12 4 1750 40 8 1349 682 681 SW 120TH AVE COLLECTOR 949 1 12 4 1700 40 8 1350 683 220 SH 989 MINOR ARTERIAL 5283 2 12 0 1750 50 13 1351 683 631 SH 989 MINOR ARTERIAL 2686 2 12 0 1750 50 13 1352 684 683 SW 232 ST COLLECTOR 1519 1 12 4 1750 40 13 1353 685 221 SW 268TH ST COLLECTOR 639 1 12 4 1750 50 13 1354 685 222 SW 268TH ST MINOR ARTERIAL 7318 2 12 4 1750 50 13 1355 686 222 SW 268TH ST MINOR ARTERIAL 2630 2 12 4 1750 50 13 1356 686 687 SW 268TH ST MINOR ARTERIAL 341 2 12 4 1750 50 13 1357 687 334 SW 268TH ST MINOR ARTERIAL 1075 2 12 4 1900 50 13 1358 687 686 SW 268TH ST MINOR ARTERIAL 341 2 12 4 1750 50 13 1359 688 687 SW 132 AVE COLLECTOR 470 1 12 4 1750 45 13 1360 689 686 SW 132 AVE COLLECTOR 4156 1 12 4 1750 45 13 1361 690 43 SW 137TH AVE MINOR ARTERIAL 1593 2 12 4 1900 50 13 1362 690 367 SW 137TH AVE MINOR ARTERIAL 1051 2 12 4 1750 45 13 KLD Engineering, P.C. K55 Revision 3

Turkey Point Evacuation Time Estimate Saturation Free Up Down Lane Shoulder Flow Flow Grid Stream Stream Length No. of Width Width Rate Speed Map Link # Node Node Roadway Name Roadway Type (ft.) Lanes (ft.) (ft.) (pcphpl) (mph) Number 1363 691 690 SW 284TH ST COLLECTOR 1093 1 12 4 1750 45 13 1364 692 367 SW 137TH AVE MINOR ARTERIAL 2643 2 12 4 1750 50 13 1365 693 692 SW 296TH AVE COLLECTOR 1082 1 12 4 1750 40 13 1366 694 695 SW 344TH ST MINOR ARTERIAL 333 2 12 4 1700 45 18 1367 695 164 SW 344TH ST MINOR ARTERIAL 483 2 12 4 1750 45 18 1368 696 694 SW 344TH ST COLLECTOR 308 1 12 4 1700 40 18 1369 697 696 SE 13TH AVE COLLECTOR 422 1 12 4 1700 40 18 1370 698 699 GROSSMAN FARM RD COLLECTOR 9305 1 12 4 1700 50 5 1371 699 1 SH 997 COLLECTOR 2649 1 12 4 1750 50 5 1372 699 75 SH 997 COLLECTOR 2672 1 12 4 1750 50 5 1373 700 619 SW 232ND ST COLLECTOR 3975 1 12 4 1700 50 11 1374 701 700 SW 232ND ST COLLECTOR 2650 1 12 4 1700 50 11 1375 702 701 SW 207TH AVE COLLECTOR 2679 1 12 4 1700 50 11 1376 703 700 SW 202ND AVE COLLECTOR 2690 1 12 4 1700 50 11 1377 704 325 SW 217TH AVE COLLECTOR 2644 1 12 4 1700 50 11 1378 704 705 SW 280TH ST COLLECTOR 7943 1 12 4 1700 50 11 1379 705 605 SW 280TH ST COLLECTOR 8000 1 12 4 1700 50 11 1380 706 296 SW 344TH ST COLLECTOR 5272 1 12 4 1700 45 15 1381 706 707 SW 202 AVE COLLECTOR 7995 1 12 4 1700 50 15 1382 707 708 SW 320TH ST COLLECTOR 2682 1 12 4 1700 45 15 1383 708 330 SW 320TH ST COLLECTOR 2655 1 12 4 1700 45 15 1384 708 709 SW 197TH AVE COLLECTOR 2679 1 12 4 1700 50 15 1385 709 316 CAMPBELL DR COLLECTOR 5283 1 12 4 1750 35 15 1386 710 161 SW 320TH ST COLLECTOR 1310 1 12 4 1750 30 16 1387 710 163 SW 320TH ST COLLECTOR 1355 1 12 4 1750 35 16 1388 711 168 SW 320TH ST COLLECTOR 400 1 12 4 1750 40 16 KLD Engineering, P.C. K56 Revision 3

Turkey Point Evacuation Time Estimate Saturation Free Up Down Lane Shoulder Flow Flow Grid Stream Stream Length No. of Width Width Rate Speed Map Link # Node Node Roadway Name Roadway Type (ft.) Lanes (ft.) (ft.) (pcphpl) (mph) Number 1389 711 513 BUSWAY LOCAL ROADWAY 2920 1 12 4 1750 45 16 1390 712 197 BUSWAY COLLECTOR 207 1 12 4 1750 40 13 1391 712 411 BUSWAY LOCAL ROADWAY 787 1 12 4 1750 45 13 1392 713 281 SW 248TH ST COLLECTOR 2682 1 12 4 1700 50 12 1393 713 282 SW 248TH ST COLLECTOR 2643 1 12 4 1750 50 12 1394 714 713 SW 152ND AVE COLLECTOR 2626 1 12 4 1700 40 12 1395 715 459 SR 992 COLLECTOR 1355 1 12 4 1700 40 3 1396 715 487 SR 992 COLLECTOR 2658 1 12 4 1750 40 3 1397 715 745 GALLOWAY RD COLLECTOR 2655 1 12 4 1700 40 3 1398 716 715 GALLOWAY RD COLLECTOR 2597 1 12 4 1750 40 3 1399 717 433 SR 992 MAJOR ARTERIAL 2570 3 12 4 1750 40 2 1400 717 722 SR 992 MAJOR ARTERIAL 1082 3 12 4 1750 40 2 1401 718 717 SW 122ND AVE COLLECTOR 2342 2 12 4 1750 40 2 1402 719 434 SW 127TH AVE COLLECTOR 1045 2 12 4 1750 40 2 1403 720 434 SR 992 MAJOR ARTERIAL 1470 3 12 4 1750 40 2 1404 720 724 SR 992 MAJOR ARTERIAL 1396 3 12 4 1900 40 2 1405 721 720 SW 129TH AVE COLLECTOR 544 1 12 4 1750 40 2 1406 722 434 SR 992 MAJOR ARTERIAL 451 3 12 4 1750 40 2 1407 722 717 SR 992 MAJOR ARTERIAL 1082 3 12 4 1750 40 2 1408 723 722 SW 124TH AVE COLLECTOR 686 2 12 4 1750 40 2 1409 724 720 SR 992 MAJOR ARTERIAL 1396 3 12 4 1750 40 2 1410 724 725 SR 992 MAJOR ARTERIAL 620 3 12 4 1750 25 2 1411 725 480 SR 992 MAJOR ARTERIAL 3001 3 12 4 1750 40 2 1412 725 724 SR 992 MAJOR ARTERIAL 620 3 12 4 1900 25 2 1413 726 725 SW 132ND AVE COLLECTOR 359 1 12 4 1750 40 2 1414 727 430 SW 13800 BLK COLLECTOR 671 1 12 4 1750 40 5 KLD Engineering, P.C. K57 Revision 3

Turkey Point Evacuation Time Estimate Saturation Free Up Down Lane Shoulder Flow Flow Grid Stream Stream Length No. of Width Width Rate Speed Map Link # Node Node Roadway Name Roadway Type (ft.) Lanes (ft.) (ft.) (pcphpl) (mph) Number 1415 728 430 SR 992 MINOR ARTERIAL 1367 2 12 4 1750 40 1 1416 729 728 SW 142ND AVE COLLECTOR 599 1 12 4 1750 40 1 1417 730 428 SW 147TH AVE COLLECTOR 2691 1 12 4 1750 40 5 1418 731 426 SW 157TH AVE COLLECTOR 2627 1 12 4 1700 40 5 1419 731 730 SW 168TH ST COLLECTOR 5407 1 12 4 1000 40 5 1420 732 90 SW 134TH AVE COLLECTOR 2074 1 12 4 1750 40 6 1421 733 92 BURR RD LOCAL ROADWAY 932 1 12 4 1750 15 6 1422 734 735 UNNAMED ROAD LOCAL ROADWAY 633 1 12 4 1750 20 20 1423 735 521 SW 344TH ST COLLECTOR 8697 1 12 4 1700 40 20 1424 736 428 SW 160TH ST COLLECTOR 2734 1 12 4 1750 40 5 1425 736 479 SW 152ND AVE COLLECTOR 2673 1 12 4 1750 40 5 1426 737 118 CARIBBEAN BLVD COLLECTOR 990 1 12 4 1700 40 10 1427 737 119 CARIBBEAN BLVD COLLECTOR 2667 1 12 4 1750 40 10 1428 738 737 SW 89TH RD LOCAL ROADWAY 450 1 12 4 1750 35 10 1429 739 737 SW 89TH RD LOCAL ROADWAY 709 1 12 4 1750 35 10 1430 740 361 SW 172ND AVE COLLECTOR 167 1 12 4 1125 25 16 1431 741 742 SW 172ND AVE COLLECTOR 175 1 12 4 1125 25 16 1432 741 756 SW 172ND AVE COLLECTOR 1222 1 12 4 1700 40 16 1433 742 135 NE 15TH ST COLLECTOR 2621 1 12 4 1750 40 16 1434 742 740 SW 172ND AVE COLLECTOR 173 1 12 4 1125 25 16 1435 743 173 NE 11TH ST COLLECTOR 308 1 12 4 1750 40 16 1436 743 512 BUSWAY LOCAL ROADWAY 1917 1 12 4 1750 45 16 1437 743 744 NE 11TH ST COLLECTOR 220 1 12 4 1750 40 16 1438 744 145 OLD DIXIE HWY COLLECTOR 1899 1 12 4 1750 45 16 1439 744 362 OLD DIXIE HWY COLLECTOR 1699 1 12 4 1750 45 16 1440 744 743 NE 11TH ST COLLECTOR 220 1 12 4 1750 40 16 KLD Engineering, P.C. K58 Revision 3

Turkey Point Evacuation Time Estimate Saturation Free Up Down Lane Shoulder Flow Flow Grid Stream Stream Length No. of Width Width Rate Speed Map Link # Node Node Roadway Name Roadway Type (ft.) Lanes (ft.) (ft.) (pcphpl) (mph) Number 1441 745 746 SW 144TH ST COLLECTOR 2717 1 12 4 1750 40 3 1442 745 747 SW 144TH ST COLLECTOR 1150 1 12 4 1750 40 3 1443 746 745 SW 144TH ST COLLECTOR 2717 1 12 4 1700 40 3 1444 746 782 SW 144TH ST COLLECTOR 2695 1 12 4 1750 40 3 1445 746 783 SW 82ND AVE COLLECTOR 2670 1 12 4 1750 40 3 1446 747 452 US 1 MAJOR ARTERIAL 2887 3 12 3 1750 50 3 1447 747 775 US 1 MAJOR ARTERIAL 2953 3 12 3 1750 50 3 1448 748 276 SW 232ND ST COLLECTOR 2680 1 12 4 1750 50 12 1449 748 277 SW 232ND ST COLLECTOR 2739 1 12 4 1750 50 12 1450 749 748 SW 152ND AVE COLLECTOR 1967 1 12 4 1700 40 12 1451 750 421 SW 304TH ST COLLECTOR 2646 1 12 4 1700 40 20 1452 751 750 SW 112TH AVE COLLECTOR 2662 1 12 4 1700 40 20 1453 752 107 SW 184TH ST COLLECTOR 511 2 12 4 1750 45 7 1454 752 112 SW 184TH ST MINOR ARTERIAL 4811 1 12 4 1750 45 10 1455 753 451 SW 87TH AVE COLLECTOR 275 1 12 4 1125 25 10 1456 754 124 SW 168TH ST COLLECTOR 4403 1 12 4 1700 40 10 1457 754 753 SW 168TH ST COLLECTOR 276 1 12 4 1125 25 10 1458 755 270 NASSAU DR COLLECTOR 492 1 12 4 1700 40 9 1459 756 159 SW 172ND AVE COLLECTOR 1331 1 12 4 1700 40 12 1460 756 741 SW 172ND AVE COLLECTOR 1222 1 12 4 1700 40 16 1461 757 756 NE 19TH ST COLLECTOR 1370 1 12 4 1700 40 16 1462 758 759 SW 112TH AVE COLLECTOR 2644 1 12 4 1700 40 2 1463 758 763 SW 136TH ST COLLECTOR 2599 1 12 4 1700 40 2 1464 759 790 SW 128TH ST COLLECTOR 2665 1 12 4 1700 40 2 1465 760 759 SW 128TH ST COLLECTOR 2635 1 12 4 1700 40 2 1466 761 760 SW 128TH ST COLLECTOR 2749 1 12 4 1700 40 2 KLD Engineering, P.C. K59 Revision 3

Turkey Point Evacuation Time Estimate Saturation Free Up Down Lane Shoulder Flow Flow Grid Stream Stream Length No. of Width Width Rate Speed Map Link # Node Node Roadway Name Roadway Type (ft.) Lanes (ft.) (ft.) (pcphpl) (mph) Number 1467 762 779 SW 128TH ST COLLECTOR 5314 1 12 4 1700 40 3 1468 763 758 SW 136TH ST COLLECTOR 2599 1 12 4 1700 40 2 1469 763 760 SW 107TH AVE COLLECTOR 2635 1 12 4 1700 40 2 1470 763 765 SW 136TH ST COLLECTOR 2723 1 12 4 1750 40 2 1471 764 763 SW 107TH AVE COLLECTOR 1403 1 12 4 1700 40 2 1472 765 761 SW 102ND AVE COLLECTOR 2611 1 12 4 1700 40 2 1473 765 763 SW 136TH ST COLLECTOR 2723 1 12 4 1700 40 2 1474 765 769 SW 136TH ST COLLECTOR 2672 1 12 4 1750 40 2 1475 766 765 SW 102ND AVE COLLECTOR 2537 1 12 4 1750 40 2 1476 767 769 SW 97TH AVE COLLECTOR 2670 1 12 4 1750 40 2 1477 767 793 SW 144TH ST COLLECTOR 2613 1 12 4 1750 40 2 1478 768 767 SW 97TH AVE COLLECTOR 1321 1 12 4 1700 40 2 1479 769 762 SW 97TH AVE COLLECTOR 2653 1 12 4 1750 40 2 1480 769 765 SW 136TH ST COLLECTOR 2672 1 12 4 1750 40 2 1481 769 770 SW 136TH ST MINOR ARTERIAL 2801 2 12 4 1750 40 2 1482 770 771 SW 136TH ST MINOR ARTERIAL 1012 2 12 4 1900 40 3 1483 771 772 SW 136TH ST MINOR ARTERIAL 742 2 12 4 1750 40 3 1484 772 773 SW 136TH ST MINOR ARTERIAL 823 2 12 4 1750 40 3 1485 772 778 SW 132ND ST COLLECTOR 1321 1 12 4 1750 40 3 1486 773 774 SW 136TH ST MINOR ARTERIAL 655 2 12 4 1750 40 3 1487 774 775 SW 136TH ST COLLECTOR 232 2 12 4 1750 40 3 1488 774 776 BUSWAY LOCAL ROADWAY 1226 1 12 4 1750 45 3 1489 775 747 US 1 MAJOR ARTERIAL 2953 3 12 3 1750 50 3 1490 775 777 US 1 MAJOR ARTERIAL 1166 3 12 3 1750 50 3 1491 776 777 SH 973 COLLECTOR 188 1 12 4 1750 40 3 1492 776 778 SH 973 COLLECTOR 394 2 12 4 1750 40 3 KLD Engineering, P.C. K60 Revision 3

Turkey Point Evacuation Time Estimate Saturation Free Up Down Lane Shoulder Flow Flow Grid Stream Stream Length No. of Width Width Rate Speed Map Link # Node Node Roadway Name Roadway Type (ft.) Lanes (ft.) (ft.) (pcphpl) (mph) Number 1493 776 780 BUSWAY LOCAL ROADWAY 1728 1 12 4 1750 45 3 1494 777 775 US 1 MAJOR ARTERIAL 1166 3 12 3 1750 50 3 1495 777 776 SH 973 COLLECTOR 188 2 12 4 1750 40 3 1496 777 781 US 1 MAJOR ARTERIAL 1836 3 12 3 1750 50 3 1497 778 776 SH 973 COLLECTOR 394 2 12 4 1750 40 3 1498 778 779 SH 973 COLLECTOR 1335 1 12 4 1700 40 3 1499 779 762 SW 128TH ST COLLECTOR 5314 1 12 4 1750 40 3 1500 779 780 SW 128TH ST COLLECTOR 1101 1 12 4 1750 40 3 1501 780 467 BUSWAY LOCAL ROADWAY 1484 1 12 4 1700 45 3 1502 780 779 SW 128TH ST COLLECTOR 1101 1 12 4 1700 40 3 1503 780 781 SW 128TH ST COLLECTOR 220 2 12 4 1750 40 3 1504 781 453 US 1 MAJOR ARTERIAL 1468 3 12 3 1900 50 3 1505 781 777 US 1 MAJOR ARTERIAL 1836 3 12 3 1750 50 3 1506 781 780 SW 128TH ST COLLECTOR 220 1 12 4 1750 40 3 1507 782 746 SW 144TH ST COLLECTOR 2695 1 12 4 1750 40 3 1508 782 784 SW 77TH AVE COLLECTOR 2680 1 12 4 1750 40 3 1509 782 787 SW 144TH ST COLLECTOR 3032 1 12 4 1750 40 3 1510 783 775 SW 136TH ST COLLECTOR 2635 1 12 4 1750 40 3 1511 783 784 SW 136TH ST COLLECTOR 2682 1 12 4 1750 40 3 1512 784 783 SW 136TH ST COLLECTOR 2682 1 12 4 1750 40 3 1513 784 785 SW 136TH ST COLLECTOR 2653 1 12 4 1700 40 3 1514 785 784 SW 136TH ST COLLECTOR 2653 1 12 4 1750 40 3 1515 785 799 SW 136TH ST COLLECTOR 2122 1 12 4 1700 40 3 1516 786 463 OLD CULTER RD COLLECTOR 3317 1 12 4 1700 45 3 1517 786 788 SW 67TH AVE COLLECTOR 1725 1 12 4 1700 40 3 1518 786 799 OLD CULTER RD COLLECTOR 513 1 12 4 1750 45 3 KLD Engineering, P.C. K61 Revision 3

Turkey Point Evacuation Time Estimate Saturation Free Up Down Lane Shoulder Flow Flow Grid Stream Stream Length No. of Width Width Rate Speed Map Link # Node Node Roadway Name Roadway Type (ft.) Lanes (ft.) (ft.) (pcphpl) (mph) Number 1519 787 462 OLD CULTER RD COLLECTOR 2907 1 12 4 1750 45 3 1520 787 782 SW 144TH ST COLLECTOR 3032 1 12 4 1750 40 3 1521 787 799 OLD CULTER RD COLLECTOR 3225 1 12 4 1700 40 3 1522 789 747 SW 144TH ST COLLECTOR 210 2 12 4 1750 40 3 1523 789 774 BUSWAY LOCAL ROADWAY 2984 1 12 4 1750 45 3 1524 790 791 SW 117TH AVE MINOR ARTERIAL 2971 2 12 4 1900 30 2 1525 792 462 SR 992 COLLECTOR 2021 1 12 4 1750 40 3 1526 792 487 SR 992 COLLECTOR 2669 1 12 4 1750 40 3 1527 792 782 SW 77TH AVE COLLECTOR 2714 1 12 4 1750 40 3 1528 793 789 SW 144TH ST COLLECTOR 1227 1 12 4 1750 40 3 1529 793 794 SW 92ND AVE COLLECTOR 1579 1 12 4 1700 40 3 1530 794 770 SW 92ND AVE COLLECTOR 2301 1 12 4 1750 40 3 1531 795 793 SW 92ND AVE COLLECTOR 1223 1 12 4 1750 40 3 1532 797 773 SCHOOL ENTRANCE COLLECTOR 579 1 12 4 1750 30 3 1533 798 772 MALL ENTRANCE COLLECTOR 345 1 12 4 1750 30 3 1534 799 785 SW 136TH ST COLLECTOR 2122 1 12 4 1700 40 3 1535 799 786 OLD CULTER RD COLLECTOR 513 1 12 4 1750 40 3 1536 799 787 OLD CULTER RD COLLECTOR 3229 1 12 4 1750 45 3 1537 800 786 SW 67TH AVE COLLECTOR 2648 1 12 4 1750 40 3 1538 801 792 SW 77TH AVE COLLECTOR 1409 1 12 4 1750 40 3 1539 802 338 SW 157TH AVE COLLECTOR 4174 1 12 4 1750 40 17 1540 802 341 SW 157TH AVE COLLECTOR 677 1 12 4 1750 40 17 1541 803 802 SW 307TH AVE COLLECTOR 605 1 12 4 1750 40 17 1542 804 368 WESTOVER AVE COLLECTOR 1661 1 12 4 1700 40 13 1543 805 222 SW 127TH AVE COLLECTOR 4537 1 12 4 1750 45 13 1544 806 184 US 1 MINOR ARTERIAL 827 2 12 3 1750 50 12 KLD Engineering, P.C. K62 Revision 3

Turkey Point Evacuation Time Estimate Saturation Free Up Down Lane Shoulder Flow Flow Grid Stream Stream Length No. of Width Width Rate Speed Map Link # Node Node Roadway Name Roadway Type (ft.) Lanes (ft.) (ft.) (pcphpl) (mph) Number 1545 806 187 US 1 MINOR ARTERIAL 2458 2 12 3 1750 50 12 1546 807 59 CAMPBELL DR MINOR ARTERIAL 362 3 12 4 1750 40 17 1547 807 340 CAMPBELL DR MINOR ARTERIAL 2463 2 12 4 1750 45 17 1548 808 807 NE 22ND TERRACE COLLECTOR 365 2 12 4 1750 40 17 1549 809 340 NE 18TH AVE COLLECTOR 1382 1 12 4 1750 40 17 1550 810 444 COLONIAL DR COLLECTOR 2726 1 12 4 1750 40 7 1551 810 449 COLONIAL DR COLLECTOR 2245 1 12 4 1700 40 7 1552 810 811 SW 102ND AVE COLLECTOR 2726 1 12 4 1750 40 7 1553 811 125 SW 168TH ST COLLECTOR 2711 1 12 4 1750 40 7 1554 811 419 SW 168TH ST COLLECTOR 3005 1 12 4 1750 40 7 1555 811 810 SW 102ND AVE COLLECTOR 2726 1 12 4 1750 40 7 1556 8010 476 DON SHULA EXPRESSWAY FREEWAY 3120 3 12 4 2250 70 2 1559 8124 453 US 1 MINOR ARTERIAL 1166 3 12 3 1900 50 3 1560 8237 237 US 1 MINOR ARTERIAL 2856 2 12 4 1900 45 31 1561 8474 474 FLORIDA TURNPIKE FREEWAY 1487 3 12 10 2250 70 2 Exit Link 237 8237 US 1 MINOR ARTERIAL 2856 2 12 4 1900 45 31 Exit Link 424 8076 SH 997 COLLECTOR 4027 1 12 4 1350 30 1 Exit Link 431 8129 SW 137TH AVE MAJOR ARTERIAL 2752 3 12 4 1900 30 2 Exit Link 453 8124 US 1 MINOR ARTERIAL 1166 3 12 3 1900 30 3 Exit Link 463 8114 OLD CULTER RD COLLECTOR 1162 1 12 4 1350 30 3 Exit Link 467 8419 BUSWAY LOCAL ROADWAY 1174 1 12 4 1900 45 3 KLD Engineering, P.C. K63 Revision 3

Turkey Point Evacuation Time Estimate Saturation Free Up Down Lane Shoulder Flow Flow Grid Stream Stream Length No. of Width Width Rate Speed Map Link # Node Node Roadway Name Roadway Type (ft.) Lanes (ft.) (ft.) (pcphpl) (mph) Number Exit Link 474 8474 FLORIDA TURNPIKE FREEWAY 1487 3 12 10 2250 30 2 Exit Link 476 8010 DON SHULA EXPRESSWAY FREEWAY 3120 3 12 4 2250 70 2 Exit Link 779 8788 SH 973 COLLECTOR 2387 1 12 4 1700 40 3 Exit Link 788 8789 SW 67TH AVE COLLECTOR 1090 1 12 4 1700 40 3 Exit Link 791 8458 SW 117TH AVE MINOR ARTERIAL 1105 2 12 4 1900 30 2 KLD Engineering, P.C. K64 Revision 3

Turkey Point Evacuation Time Estimate Table K2. Nodes in the LinkNode Analysis Network which are Controlled X Y Coordinate Coordinate Control Grid Map Node Type Number (ft) (ft) 1 828307 453210 Actuated 5 2 885928 346885 TCP Uncontrolled1 26 3 867772 446037 TCP Uncontrolled 9 5 862361 459987 TCP Actuated 7 6 861839 459939 TCP Actuated 7 7 863338 459107 TCP Actuated 7 8 862837 458984 TCP Actuated 7 12 865198 454453 TCP Uncontrolled 9 15 865425 452395 TCP Actuated 9 16 867843 452134 Actuated 9 17 865801 450835 TCP Actuated 9 19 865752 452303 TCP Actuated 9 21 866120 451026 TCP Actuated 9 27 869793 448665 Actuated 9 28 866333 448594 TCP Actuated 9 35 863181 436898 Yield 13 36 863188 435850 TCP Actuated 13 38 863181 436682 Yield 13 42 849941 429069 TCP Actuated 13 43 849963 426903 TCP Uncontrolled 13 48 848181 424202 TCP Actuated 13 49 848649 424214 TCP Uncontrolled 13 50 849067 424247 TCP Actuated 13 59 839615 416123 TCP Actuated 17 61 840625 416157 Actuated 17 69 829653 401336 Stop 18 70 829753 400895 Yield 18 72 829853 400390 Stop 18 75 828211 458530 Actuated 5 77 838841 458908 Stop 5 78 833563 453268 Stop 5 79 822963 453114 Stop 4 81 836253 453350 Stop 5 1

This TCP is located at the intersection of CR905 and CR905A (Card Sound Rd) in Monroe County. The TCP is only activated when Area 10 evacuates (Region R03 only). The intersection is modeled as an allway stop sign for all other regions.

KLD Engineering, P.C. K65 Revision 3

Turkey Point Evacuation Time Estimate X Y Coordinate Coordinate Control Grid Map Node Type Number (ft) (ft) 82 833668 447884 Stop 5 83 836325 447919 Stop 5 84 839051 447884 Stop 5 85 844167 459109 Actuated 5 86 844271 453605 Actuated 5 87 844402 448028 TCP Actuated 5 88 849601 453646 Actuated 8 90 850897 459456 Actuated 6 92 854895 459615 Actuated 6 93 854951 453737 Actuated 8 94 841657 416170 TCP Uncontrolled 17 96 857565 454987 Actuated 8 97 860253 457446 Actuated 8 98 857536 459750 Actuated 6 99 860175 459856 Actuated 6 100 857545 453758 Stop 8 101 860362 453786 TCP Actuated 9 103 865587 459258 Actuated 7 104 865538 460124 Actuated 7 105 868585 459402 TCP Actuated 7 106 870900 459373 Stop 7 107 870900 460338 Actuated 7 109 868936 460255 TCP Actuated 7 110 866318 457412 Actuated 9 111 867212 456764 TCP Actuated 9 112 876219 460494 TCP Actuated 10 113 881424 460630 TCP Actuated 10 114 883016 463592 Actuated 10 115 877389 460522 TCP Actuated 10 117 876254 458523 Actuated 10 119 872757 455948 Actuated 10 120 875041 453105 Actuated 10 121 876303 453475 Actuated 10 123 870802 463107 Actuated 7 124 871466 465848 Actuated 7 125 865208 465565 Actuated 7 127 849519 459374 Actuated 6 128 849130 467534 Actuated 6 130 828408 442619 Actuated 12 KLD Engineering, P.C. K66 Revision 3

Turkey Point Evacuation Time Estimate X Y Coordinate Coordinate Control Grid Map Node Type Number (ft) (ft) 131 828438 437250 Actuated 12 132 828500 431962 Actuated 12 133 828636 423965 TCP Actuated 12 134 828620 421317 Actuated 12 135 828706 418654 Actuated 16 136 828740 415988 Actuated 16 137 828763 412868 Actuated 16 138 828781 410705 Actuated 16 139 828833 405360 Actuated 18 141 833706 442720 Stop 12 142 833804 437365 TCP Actuated 12 143 833860 432022 TCP Actuated 12 144 831334 423993 Stop 12 145 833685 418761 Actuated 16 146 825759 442573 Stop 12 147 825786 437234 Stop 12 148 825814 431913 Stop 12 149 825944 423943 Stop 12 150 826004 418608 Actuated 16 151 825993 415999 Actuated 16 152 826125 410661 Actuated 16 153 826133 405343 Actuated 18 154 831708 416051 Actuated 16 155 829493 410705 Actuated 16 158 829554 405386 Actuated 18 159 831397 421367 Stop 12 160 825975 421273 Stop 12 161 828728 413361 Actuated 16 162 829448 413238 Actuated 16 163 826064 413316 Actuated 16 164 834254 405399 Actuated 18 165 834222 410741 Actuated 16 166 830715 413405 Actuated 16 168 829937 413708 Actuated 16 169 834196 413466 Stop 16 170 832816 416025 Actuated 16 171 834135 416077 Actuated 16 173 832939 417378 Actuated 16 174 833300 417378 Actuated 16 KLD Engineering, P.C. K67 Revision 3

Turkey Point Evacuation Time Estimate X Y Coordinate Coordinate Control Grid Map Node Type Number (ft) (ft) 175 834099 417405 Stop 16 176 834154 418757 Actuated 16 177 836723 418742 Stop 17 178 836509 421435 Actuated 12 179 838947 424112 Actuated 12 180 836752 421435 Actuated 12 181 838397 424096 Actuated 12 182 836086 421428 Actuated 12 183 839360 424113 Actuated 12 184 841341 426761 Actuated 12 185 839325 426779 Stop 12 186 841981 426787 Stop 12 187 843478 429251 Actuated 12 188 839194 429433 Stop 12 189 846010 432242 Actuated 12 190 849915 432285 Stop 13 192 846991 433603 Actuated 12 193 850487 437641 Actuated 13 195 851156 437646 Actuated 13 196 849893 433634 Stop 13 197 849851 436813 Actuated 13 198 852521 439833 Actuated 13 199 852439 443034 Stop 13 200 855105 442934 Actuated 13 202 844883 430917 Actuated 12 203 849974 430946 TCP Actuated 13 204 855187 437726 Actuated 13 205 858950 447122 Actuated 8 206 860036 448449 Actuated 8 207 861772 450440 Actuated 9 208 862993 451871 Actuated 9 210 844890 416263 Actuated 17 211 863089 448520 Actuated 9 212 855023 448367 TCP Uncontrolled 8 214 863078 450254 Actuated 9 215 864348 453353 TCP Actuated 9 216 863461 453842 Actuated 9 220 863160 437924 Actuated 13 221 863289 431129 TCP Actuated 13 KLD Engineering, P.C. K68 Revision 3

Turkey Point Evacuation Time Estimate X Y Coordinate Coordinate Control Grid Map Node Type Number (ft) (ft) 222 855333 431031 TCP Actuated 13 239 863117 305093 TCP Actuated2 31 249 860667 349113 Stop 25 254 865865 437931 Stop 13 255 863119 447203 Actuated 9 259 851020 448346 TCP Actuated 8 260 865971 448594 TCP Actuated 9 261 863684 450244 Stop 9 262 872395 448595 Stop 9 264 876443 447707 Actuated 10 266 872389 451190 Actuated 9 268 865361 454665 Stop 9 269 871386 453836 Actuated 9 270 872141 452587 Stop 9 271 873667 452250 Actuated 10 274 876658 453671 Stop 10 275 876368 451343 Stop 10 276 844426 442920 TCP Actuated 12 277 839009 442820 TCP Actuated 12 278 836372 442791 Stop 12 279 836532 432100 Stop 12 280 839194 432128 Stop 12 281 844498 437556 Stop 12 282 839173 437444 TCP Actuated 12 283 836446 437432 Stop 12 284 836560 429393 Stop 12 285 833875 429397 TCP Actuated 12 286 828543 429269 TCP Actuated 12 287 825825 429287 Stop 12 288 834016 424049 Actuated 12 289 833922 426660 Stop 12 290 836640 426731 Stop 12 291 839316 425169 Actuated 12 295 823496 405325 TCP Actuated 18 2

This TCP is located at the intersection of CR905 and U.S. Highway 1 in Monroe County. The TCP is only activated when Area 10 evacuates (Region R03 only). The intersection is modeled as a stop sign for CR905 only for all other regions.

KLD Engineering, P.C. K69 Revision 3

Turkey Point Evacuation Time Estimate X Y Coordinate Coordinate Control Grid Map Node Type Number (ft) (ft) 296 820827 405294 Stop 15 297 820840 402632 Stop 15 298 823528 402651 TCP Actuated 18 299 826177 402717 Stop 18 301 823561 400035 TCP Uncontrolled 18 302 820866 399983 Stop 15 309 823057 442549 Stop 11 310 823079 437225 Stop 11 311 823146 431937 Stop 11 312 823174 429259 Stop 11 313 823249 423923 TCP Actuated 11 314 823312 421291 TCP Actuated 11 315 823338 418608 TCP Actuated 15 316 823372 415941 TCP Actuated 15 317 823400 413299 TCP Actuated 16 318 823444 410653 TCP Actuated 16 319 807614 405164 Stop 15 322 807177 442387 Stop 11 323 807245 437089 Stop 11 329 807439 415832 Stop 15 330 820780 413272 Stop 15 331 820824 410547 Stop 15 332 854734 443034 Actuated 13 336 834134 419234 Stop 16 337 839350 424582 Actuated 12 338 839360 421455 Actuated 12 340 836789 416117 Actuated 17 341 839401 416605 Actuated 17 345 843105 429501 Actuated 12 346 840764 426761 Actuated 12 347 842009 424154 Actuated 12 348 842019 421496 Actuated 12 349 844679 421517 Stop 12 350 844634 424202 Actuated 12 355 836920 410757 Actuated 17 358 834058 421399 Stop 12 359 836669 424083 Stop 12 361 831557 418684 Yield 16 362 831330 416042 Actuated 16 KLD Engineering, P.C. K70 Revision 3

Turkey Point Evacuation Time Estimate X Y Coordinate Coordinate Control Grid Map Node Type Number (ft) (ft) 364 846010 424207 Actuated 12 367 850029 424261 TCP Actuated 13 368 853345 424294 Stop 13 370 850129 416238 TCP Actuated 20 372 855357 424335 Stop 13 376 878052 450062 Stop 10 377 878005 451296 Actuated 10 378 876397 449904 Actuated 10 383 849952 429582 TCP Actuated 13 386 847825 427432 Stop 12 388 850239 410884 TCP Actuated 20 389 850277 408243 Stop 20 390 847611 408179 Stop 19 391 847701 406770 Stop 19 392 842265 410769 Actuated 17 395 847675 405487 Stop 19 396 842929 406036 Stop 19 397 843286 407695 Stop 19 398 843107 410782 Stop 17 399 842252 416176 Actuated 17 401 847598 410833 Stop 17 404 860825 411013 Actuated 20 409 845764 432247 Actuated 12 410 846734 433610 Actuated 12 411 850273 437630 Actuated 13 412 859699 448469 Actuated 8 413 861588 450583 Actuated 9 414 862908 452070 Actuated 9 415 864156 453523 Actuated 9 416 867014 456927 Actuated 9 417 868330 459402 Actuated 7 418 868702 460248 Actuated 7 419 870916 465848 Actuated 7 420 852501 440347 Actuated 13 423 865900 431172 Stop 13 426 838625 467127 Stop 5 427 838559 469823 Actuated 5 428 843975 467325 Actuated 5 429 843825 469949 Actuated 1 KLD Engineering, P.C. K71 Revision 3

Turkey Point Evacuation Time Estimate X Y Coordinate Coordinate Control Grid Map Node Type Number (ft) (ft) 430 847786 470147 Actuated 1 432 859947 465297 Actuated 6 433 859686 470585 Actuated 2 434 855587 470419 Actuated 2 435 860366 470674 TCP Actuated 2 436 860751 470723 TCP Actuated 2 437 859671 471813 TCP Actuated 2 443 862402 468109 Actuated 7 444 865084 468254 Actuated 7 445 862505 465379 Actuated 7 448 867635 471067 Actuated 2 450 871720 467684 Actuated 7 451 876127 466068 Yield 10 452 873267 471280 Actuated 3 454 862279 470798 Actuated 2 457 859609 473259 Actuated 2 460 878613 466127 Actuated 10 461 883265 466278 Actuated 10 465 871337 467838 Actuated 7 466 872992 471280 Actuated 3 477 859644 471401 TCP Actuated 2 479 841201 469895 Actuated 5 480 849104 470207 Actuated 2 482 876006 463921 Stop 10 483 871091 463777 Actuated 7 484 871218 465855 Actuated 7 487 878325 471345 Actuated 3 489 863073 451168 Stop 9 490 863054 450758 Actuated 9 491 864496 450332 Actuated 9 492 865390 450665 Actuated 9 493 863263 452190 Stop 9 494 863972 452963 Stop 9 495 864652 453119 Actuated 9 496 865120 452607 Stop 9 506 863582 452552 Actuated 9 507 830855 405395 Stop 18 509 827241 410680 Actuated 16 510 827277 411322 Actuated 16 KLD Engineering, P.C. K72 Revision 3

Turkey Point Evacuation Time Estimate X Y Coordinate Coordinate Control Grid Map Node Type Number (ft) (ft) 511 829211 413370 Actuated 16 512 833941 418761 Actuated 16 513 831471 416060 Actuated 16 514 836286 421432 Actuated 12 515 838734 424103 Actuated 12 516 839334 424863 Actuated 12 517 841044 426753 Actuated 12 518 843313 429399 Actuated 12 519 828288 405351 Actuated 18 521 860915 405553 Stop 20 527 850238 405462 Stop 20 529 849052 405513 TCP Actuated 20 602 807483 413178 Stop 15 605 823233 426528 Stop 11 606 823176 434582 Stop 11 607 825877 426562 Stop 12 611 837813 406623 Actuated 19 612 831524 410688 Actuated 16 613 831532 413431 Stop 16 614 825802 434630 Stop 12 615 822993 450496 Stop 4 623 828365 450460 Stop 5 624 828494 434630 Stop 12 625 828544 426574 TCP Actuated 12 629 873760 449866 Stop 10 631 863144 445892 Actuated 9 632 857690 445748 Actuated 8 633 857204 445748 Actuated 8 635 858371 447081 Actuated 8 636 851099 443006 Stop 13 637 869637 452694 Actuated 9 639 861632 453836 Actuated 9 645 860992 458069 Actuated 7 646 860849 459904 Actuated 7 650 862925 460021 Actuated 7 652 868089 460234 Actuated 7 653 867754 459379 Actuated 7 655 849344 436283 Actuated 13 656 851491 438701 Actuated 13 KLD Engineering, P.C. K73 Revision 3

Turkey Point Evacuation Time Estimate X Y Coordinate Coordinate Control Grid Map Node Type Number (ft) (ft) 657 851277 438853 Actuated 13 660 866610 456019 Actuated 9 661 870455 462449 Actuated 7 662 869905 462662 Actuated 7 663 872312 469162 Actuated 7 665 872304 471266 Actuated 2 667 868199 471108 Actuated 2 669 864988 470950 Actuated 2 673 829518 408006 Actuated 18 674 828824 408015 Actuated 18 675 827532 411330 Actuated 16 676 828753 412508 Actuated 16 677 828719 413695 Actuated 16 678 828728 414029 Actuated 16 681 857698 448418 Stop 8 683 863175 443207 Actuated 13 686 852703 430990 TCP Actuated 13 687 852363 431013 TCP Actuated 13 690 850043 425312 Actuated 13 692 850069 421619 Actuated 13 694 834955 405619 Stop 18 696 834928 405358 Stop 18 698 818949 455762 Stop 4 699 828253 455858 Stop 5 700 815091 442468 Stop 11 701 812442 442422 Stop 11 704 807291 426378 Stop 11 705 815234 426470 Stop 11 706 815555 405242 Stop 15 707 815444 413237 Stop 15 708 818125 413238 Stop 15 709 818090 415917 Stop 15 710 827418 413343 Actuated 16 711 829563 413850 Actuated 16 712 849789 437010 Stop 13 713 841816 437506 Stop 12 715 875668 471363 Actuated 3 717 857118 470494 Actuated 2 720 854117 470357 Actuated 2 KLD Engineering, P.C. K74 Revision 3

Turkey Point Evacuation Time Estimate X Y Coordinate Coordinate Control Grid Map Node Type Number (ft) (ft) 722 856038 470432 Actuated 2 725 852104 470264 Actuated 2 728 846420 470105 Actuated 1 730 844131 464638 Stop 5 731 838726 464502 Stop 5 735 869611 405708 Actuated 20 736 841243 467223 Stop 5 737 874587 457870 Actuated 10 740 831447 418581 Yield 16 741 831433 418814 Yield 16 742 831327 418687 Yield 16 743 832631 417361 Actuated 16 744 832412 417352 Actuated 16 745 875468 474010 Stop 3 746 878183 474124 Actuated 3 747 874319 473969 Actuated 3 748 841747 442905 Stop 12 753 875981 465856 Yield 10 754 875863 466082 Yield 10 756 831427 420036 Stop 16 759 861972 478804 Stop 2 760 864604 478929 Stop 2 762 870006 479203 Actuated 2 763 864713 476296 Stop 2 765 867433 476429 Actuated 2 767 870269 473887 Stop 2 769 870102 476552 Actuated 2 770 872598 477587 Actuated 2 772 874182 477724 Actuated 3 773 874752 477131 Actuated 3 774 875263 476720 Actuated 3 775 875491 476680 Actuated 3 776 875747 477847 Actuated 3 777 875916 477765 Actuated 3 778 875404 478044 Actuated 3 780 876417 479440 Actuated 3 781 876637 479454 Actuated 3 782 880875 474247 Actuated 3 783 878124 476793 Actuated 3 KLD Engineering, P.C. K75 Revision 3

Turkey Point Evacuation Time Estimate X Y Coordinate Coordinate Control Grid Map Node Type Number (ft) (ft) 784 880802 476926 Actuated 3 786 886087 477112 Actuated 3 787 883906 474343 Actuated 3 789 874108 473969 Actuated 3 790 859396 478176 Actuated 2 792 880988 471536 Actuated 3 793 872881 473946 Actuated 3 799 885575 477071 Stop 3 802 839401 417282 Actuated 17 806 841929 427342 Actuated 12 807 839253 416137 Actuated 17 810 867807 468378 Actuated 7 811 867917 465654 Actuated 7 1

Coordinates are in the North American Datum of 1983 Florida East State Plane Zone KLD Engineering, P.C. K76 Revision 3

Turkey Point Evacuation Time Estimate Figure K1. Turkey Point LinkNode Analysis Network KLD Engineering, P.C. K77 Revision 3

Turkey Point Evacuation Time Estimate Figure K2. LinkNode Analysis Network - Grid 1 KLD Engineering, P.C. K78 Revision 3

Turkey Point Evacuation Time Estimate Figure K3. LinkNode Analysis Network Grid 2 KLD Engineering, P.C. K79 Revision 3

Turkey Point Evacuation Time Estimate Figure K4. LinkNode Analysis Network Grid 3 KLD Engineering, P.C. K80 Revision 3

Turkey Point Evacuation Time Estimate Figure K5. LinkNode Analysis Network Grid 4 KLD Engineering, P.C. K81 Revision 3

Turkey Point Evacuation Time Estimate Figure K6. LinkNode Analysis Network Grid 5 KLD Engineering, P.C. K82 Revision 3

Turkey Point Evacuation Time Estimate Figure K7. LinkNode Analysis Network Grid 6 KLD Engineering, P.C. K83 Revision 3

Turkey Point Evacuation Time Estimate Figure K8. LinkNode Analysis Network Grid 7 KLD Engineering, P.C. K84 Revision 3

Turkey Point Evacuation Time Estimate Figure K9. LinkNode Analysis Network Grid 8 KLD Engineering, P.C. K85 Revision 3

Turkey Point Evacuation Time Estimate Figure K10. LinkNode Analysis Network Grid 9 KLD Engineering, P.C. K86 Revision 3

Turkey Point Evacuation Time Estimate Figure K11. LinkNode Analysis Network Grid 10 KLD Engineering, P.C. K87 Revision 3

Turkey Point Evacuation Time Estimate Figure K12. LinkNode Analysis Network Grid 11 KLD Engineering, P.C. K88 Revision 3

Turkey Point Evacuation Time Estimate Figure K13. LinkNode Analysis Network Grid 12 KLD Engineering, P.C. K89 Revision 3

Turkey Point Evacuation Time Estimate Figure K14. LinkNode Analysis Network Grid 13 KLD Engineering, P.C. K90 Revision 3

Turkey Point Evacuation Time Estimate Figure K15. LinkNode Analysis Network Grid 14 KLD Engineering, P.C. K91 Revision 3

Turkey Point Evacuation Time Estimate Figure K16. LinkNode Analysis Network Grid 15 KLD Engineering, P.C. K92 Revision 3

Turkey Point Evacuation Time Estimate Figure K17. LinkNode Analysis Network Grid 16 KLD Engineering, P.C. K93 Revision 3

Turkey Point Evacuation Time Estimate Figure K18. LinkNode Analysis Network Grid 17 KLD Engineering, P.C. K94 Revision 3

Turkey Point Evacuation Time Estimate Figure K19. LinkNode Analysis Network Grid 18 KLD Engineering, P.C. K95 Revision 3

Turkey Point Evacuation Time Estimate Figure K20. LinkNode Analysis Network Grid 19 KLD Engineering, P.C. K96 Revision 3

Turkey Point Evacuation Time Estimate Figure K21. LinkNode Analysis Network Grid 20 KLD Engineering, P.C. K97 Revision 3

Turkey Point Evacuation Time Estimate Figure K22. LinkNode Analysis Network Grid 21 KLD Engineering, P.C. K98 Revision 3

Turkey Point Evacuation Time Estimate Figure K23. LinkNode Analysis Network Grid 22 KLD Engineering, P.C. K99 Revision 3

Turkey Point Evacuation Time Estimate Figure K24. LinkNode Analysis Network Grid 23 KLD Engineering, P.C. K100 Revision 3

Turkey Point Evacuation Time Estimate Figure K25. LinkNode Analysis Network Grid 24 KLD Engineering, P.C. K101 Revision 3

Turkey Point Evacuation Time Estimate Figure K26. LinkNode Analysis Network Grid 25 KLD Engineering, P.C. K102 Revision 3

Turkey Point Evacuation Time Estimate Figure K27. LinkNode Analysis Network Grid 26 KLD Engineering, P.C. K103 Revision 3

Turkey Point Evacuation Time Estimate Figure K28. LinkNode Analysis Network Grid 27 KLD Engineering, P.C. K104 Revision 3

Turkey Point Evacuation Time Estimate Figure K29. LinkNode Analysis Network Grid 28 KLD Engineering, P.C. K105 Revision 3

Turkey Point Evacuation Time Estimate Figure K30. LinkNode Analysis Network Grid 29 KLD Engineering, P.C. K106 Revision 3

Turkey Point Evacuation Time Estimate Figure K31. LinkNode Analysis Network Grid 30 KLD Engineering, P.C. K107 Revision 3

Turkey Point Evacuation Time Estimate Figure K32. LinkNode Analysis Network Grid 31 KLD Engineering, P.C. K108 Revision 3

Turkey Point Evacuation Time Estimate Figure K33. LinkNode Analysis Network Grid 32 KLD Engineering, P.C. K109 Revision 3

APPENDIX L Area Boundaries

Turkey Point Evacuation Time Estimate L. AREA BOUNDARIES Area 1 County: MiamiDade Turkey Point Units 3 & 4.

Area 2 County: MiamiDade Defined as the area within the following boundary: An annular ring with a radius of 2 miles centered at the Turkey Point Units 3 & 4.

Area 3 County: MiamiDade Defined as the area within the following boundary: Palm Drive (SW 344th Street) west from the border of area 2 to SW 137th Avenue.137th Avenue south to Card Sound Road. Card Sound Road south to Card Sound. North on the coast to the border of area 2.

Area 4 County: MiamiDade Defined as the area within the following boundary: SW 280th Street west from the coast to SW 107th Avenue. SW 107th Avenue north to SW 268th Street (Hainlin Mill Drive). SW 268th Street west to SW 137th Avenue. SW 137th Avenue south to Palm Drive (SW 344th Street). SW 344th Street east to the area 2 boundary. Follows area 2 boundary to the shore and follows the shore north to SW 280th Street.

Area 5 County: MiamiDade Defined as the area within the following boundary: Eureka Drive (SW 184th Street) west from the coast to S Dixie Highway (U.S. Highway 1). U.S. Highway 1 south to the Florida Turnpike. Florida Turnpike south to Black Creek Canal. Follows Black Creek Canal south to the shore. Follows the shoreline north to Eureka Drive.

Area 6 County: MiamiDade Defined as the area within the following boundary: West on Caribbean Boulevard (SW 200th Street) from the intersection with U.S. Highway 1 and the Florida Turnpike to SW 122nd Avenue. South on SW 122nd Avenue to SW 204th Street.

West on SW 204th Street to SW 127th Avenue. South on SW 127th Avenue to Hainlin Mill Drive (SW 216th Street.). West on SW 216th Street to SW 137th Avenue. South on SW 137th Avenue to Moody Drive (SW 268th Street). East on Moody Drive to SW 107th Avenue. South on SW 107th Avenue to SW 280th Street. East on SW 280th Street to the shore. Follows the shoreline north to Black Creek Canal. Follows Black Creek Canal north to the Florida Turnpike. Florida Turnpike north to the intersection with U.S. Highway 1 just north of Caribbean Boulevard.

KLD Engineering, P.C. L1 Revision 3

Turkey Point Evacuation Time Estimate Area 7 County: MiamiDade Defined as the area within the following boundary: Hainlin Mill Drive (SW 216th Street) west from the intersection with SW 137th Avenue to Naranja Road (SW 147th Avenue). Naranja Road south to Silver Palm Drive (SW 232nd Street). Silver Palm Drive west to Newton Road (SW 157th Avenue). Newton Road south to Coconut Palm Drive (SW 248th Street). Coconut Palm Drive west to Tennessee Road (SW 167th Avenue). Tennessee Road south to Epmore Drive (SW 272nd Street). Epmore Drive west to Krome Avenue (SW 177th Street). Krome Avenue south to Biscayne Drive (SW 288th Street). Biscayne Drive east to SW 137th Avenue. 137th Avenue north to intersection with Hainlin Mill Drive.

Area 8 County: MiamiDade Defined as the area within the following boundary: Biscayne Drive (SW 288th Street) west from the intersection with SW 137th Avenue to Redland Road (SW 187th Avenue). Redland Road south to SW 392nd Street. SW 392nd Street east to SW 137th Avenue. SW 137th Avenue north to intersection with Biscayne Drive.

Area 9 County: MiamiDade Defined as the area within the following boundary: SW 392nd Street west from the intersection with SW 137th Avenue to SW 182nd Avenue. SW 182nd Avenue south to Dade County Work Camp Road. Work Camp Road east to Card Sound Road (road physically ends at U.S. Highway 1). Card Sound Road south to SW 137th Avenue. SW 137th Avenue north to intersection with SW 392nd Street.

Area 10 County: Monroe Ocean Reef Community.

KLD Engineering, P.C. L2 Revision 3

APPENDIX M Evacuation Sensitivity Studies

Turkey Point Evacuation Time Estimate 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 EPZ. Specifically, if the tail of the mobilization distribution were truncated (i.e., if those who responded most slowly to the ATE, could be persuaded to respond much more rapidly), how would the ETE be affected? The case considered was scenario 1, region 3; a summer, midweek, midday, good weather evacuation of the entire EPZ. Table M1 presents the results of this study.

As discussed in Section 7.3, traffic congestion persists within the EPZ for about 10 hours1.157407e-4 days 0.00278 hours 1.653439e-5 weeks 3.805e-6 months . As such, the ETE for the 100th percentile are not significantly affected by the trip generation time, but by the time needed to clear the congestion within the EPZ. The 90th percentile ETE are also not sensitive to truncating the tail of the mobilization time distribution.

KLD Engineering, P.C. M1 Revision 3

Turkey Point Evacuation Time Estimate 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, 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 evacuation time estimates for each of the cases considered. The results show that the 90th percentile ETE is not materially impacted by a reduction in the shadow evacuation from 20% to 0%, as ETE only decreases by 15 minutes at the 90th percentile. Tripling the shadow percentage increases the ETE by 30 minutes and 80 minutes for the 90th and 100th percentiles, respectively - a significant change.

KLD Engineering, P.C. M2 Revision 3

Turkey Point Evacuation Time Estimate M.3 Effect of Changes in EPZ Resident Population A sensitivity study was conducted to determine the effect on ETE of changes in the resident population within the EPZ. As population in the EPZ 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 EPZ, changes in population will cause the demand side of the equation to change. The sensitivity study was conducted using the following planning assumptions:

1. The change in population within the EPZ was treated parametrically. The percent population change was varied between +/-30%. Changes in population were applied to permanent residents only (as per federal guidance), in both the EPZ area and the shadow region.

2. The transportation infrastructure remained fixed; the presence of new roads 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 good weather scenario which yielded the highest ETE values was selected as the case to be considered in this sensitivity study (scenario 6).

Table M3 presents the results of the sensitivity study.Section IV of Appendix E to 10 CFR Part 50, and NUREG/CR7002, Section 5.4, require licensees to provide an updated ETE analysis to the NRC when a population increase within the EPZ causes ETE values (for the 2Mile region, 5 Mile region or entire EPZ) to increase by 25 percent or 30 minutes, whichever is less. Note that all of the base ETE values except the 2 mile region, which has no population, are greater than 2 hours2.314815e-5 days 5.555556e-4 hours 3.306878e-6 weeks 7.61e-7 months ; 25 percent of the base ETE is always greater than 30 minutes. Therefore, 30 minutes is the lesser and is the criterion for updating. Twenty five percent of the 90th percentile ETE for the 2mile region (1:35) is 24 minutes, which is less than 30 minutes.

Those percent population changes which result in ETE changes greater than 30 minutes, or 24 minutes for the 2mile region, are highlighted in Table M3 - population increases of 9% or decreases of 10% or more would require an ETE update. FPL will have to estimate the EPZ population on an annual basis to see if it has increased by at least 9% or decreased by at least 10%.

KLD Engineering, P.C. M3 Revision 3

Turkey Point Evacuation Time Estimate M.4 Effect of Construction of Units 6 & 7 A sensitivity analysis representing a typical winter, midweek, and midday with workers at the Turkey Point site constructing the new units (Units 6 & 7) when an emergency occurs at the operational units (Units 3 & 4) was conducted. Based on discussions with Bechtel, the peak construction will be in 2019 with target dates of operation of 2022 and 2023 for Units 6 & 7, respectively. During the peak, 3950 construction workers will be present and 33 operations personnel for a total workforce of 3983 people. As stated in the Turkey Point Power Plant Peak Construction Analysis1, the workforce will be split amongst two shifts: Shift 1 from 6:00 AM to 4:30 PM will account for 70% of the workforce and Shift 2 from 5:00 PM to 3:00 AM will account for the remaining 30% of the workforce. A conservative vehicle occupancy of 1.0 worker per vehicle is assumed to estimate the additional vehicle demand servicing construction workers. In addition, there will be a maximum of 36 trucks per hour entering and exiting the construction site. The ETE analysis models trucks as two passenger car equivalents to account for their larger size and more sluggish operating characteristics. Thus, there are 3,983 workers x 70% 1.0 workers per vehicle + 36 trucks x 2.0 vehicles per truck = 2,860 additional vehicles evacuating for the peak construction scenario.

There are plans to build a parking lot for construction workers on 359th Street and transport the workers to the site via shuttle bus. It is assumed that the time to transport the workers to their vehicles is included in the trip generation (Table 58) as the majority of employees in the EPZ require 30 minutes or more to mobilize. It is also assumed that 359th Street will be paved between the construction site and 137th Avenue and that 117th Avenue will be paved between 359th Street and 344th Street; these changes have been modeled in the linknode analysis network used for the ETE analysis (see Figure 12). The roadway and intersection improvements identified in Figure 2 and Figures 5 through 10 of the Turkey Point Power Plant Peak Construction Analysis have also been modeled in the linknode analysis network. Permanent resident population and shadow population are extrapolated to 2020 for this scenario assuming the same population growth rates used to extrapolate from 2000 to 2010. Table M4 summarizes the results.

The ETE for the 2mile region is shorter for the 90th percentile ETE because of the increased capacities due to the aforementioned traffic treatments in the immediate vicinity of the plant.

The 90th and 100th percentile ETE for the full EPZ increase by 2:20 and 2:50, respectively, because of the significant increase in permanent resident and shadow populations due to the extrapolation to year 2019.

1 Turkey Point Power Plant Peak Construction Analysis, TrafTech Engineering, Inc., June 2009 KLD Engineering, P.C. M4 Revision 3

Turkey Point Evacuation Time Estimate Table M1. Evacuation Time Estimates for Trip Generation Sensitivity Study Trip Evacuation Time Estimate for Entire EPZ Generation Period 90th Percentile 100th Percentile 6 Hours 6:45 9:25 7 Hours 6:50 9:40 8 Hours (Base) 6:55 9:40 Table M2. Evacuation Time Estimates for Shadow Sensitivity Study Evacuating Evacuation Time Estimate for Entire EPZ Percent Shadow Shadow Evacuation Vehicles 90th Percentile 100th Percentile 0 0 6:40 9:35 15 13,735 6:45 9:35 20 (Base) 18,314 6:55 9:40 60 54,942 7:25 11:00 Table M3. ETE Variation with Population Change Population Change Population Change Base 8% 9% 10% Base 8% 9% 10%

Resident Population 206,329 222,835 224,899 226,962 206,329 189,823 187,759 185,696 th ETE for 90 Percentile Population Change Population Change Region Base 8% 9% 10% Base 8% 9% 10%

2MILE 1:35 1:35 1:35 1:35 1:35 1:35 1:30 1:30 5MILE 3:25 3:25 3:25 3:25 3:25 3:25 3:25 3:25 FULL EPZ 6:55 7:15 7:15 7:20 6:55 6:20 6:20 6:25 ETE for 100th Percentile Population Change Population Change Region Base 8% 9% 10% Base 8% 9% 10%

2MILE 2:10 2:10 2:10 2:10 2:10 2:10 2:10 2:10 5MILE 8:05 8:05 8:05 8:05 8:05 8:05 8:05 8:05 FULL EPZ 9:40 9:50 10:10 10:25 9:40 9:30 9:20 9:20 KLD Engineering, P.C. M5 Revision 3

Turkey Point Evacuation Time Estimate Table M4. Evacuation Time Estimates for Construction Case No Construction (Base) Construction Region 90th Percentile 100th Percentile 90th Percentile 100th Percentile 2MILE 1:35 2:10 1:20 2:10 5MILE 3:25 8:05 3:00 8:05 FULL EPZ 6:55 9:40 9:15 12:30 KLD Engineering, P.C. M6 Revision 3

APPENDIX N ETE Criteria Checklist

Turkey Point Evacuation Time Estimate N. ETE CRITERIA CHECKLIST Table N1. ETE Review Criteria Checklist NRC Review Criteria Criterion Addressed Comments in ETE Analysis 1.0 Introduction

a. The emergency planning zone (EPZ) and surrounding area Yes Section 1 should be described.

b. A map should be included that identifies primary features Yes Figure 11 of the site, including major roadways, significant topographical features, boundaries of counties, and population centers within the EPZ.

c. A comparison of the current and previous ETE should be Yes Table 13 provided and includes similar information as identified in Table 11, ETE Comparison, of NUREG/CR7002.

1.1 Approach

a. A discussion of the approach and level of detail obtained Yes Section 1.3 during the field survey of the roadway network should be provided.

b. Sources of demographic data for schools, special facilities, Yes Section 2.1 large employers, and special events should be identified. Section 3

c. Discussion should be presented on use of traffic control Yes Section 1.3, Section 2.2, Section 9, plans in the analysis. Appendix G

d. Traffic simulation models used for the analyses should be Yes Section 1.3, Table 13, Appendix B, identified by name and version. Appendix C KLD Engineering, P.C. N1 Revision 3

Turkey Point Evacuation Time Estimate NRC Review Criteria Criterion Addressed Comments in ETE Analysis

e. Methods used to address data uncertainties should be Yes Section 3 - avoid double counting described. Section 5, Appendix F - 4.15% sampling error at 95% confidence interval for telephone survey 1.2 Assumptions

a. The planning basis for the ETE includes the assumption Yes Section 2.3 - Assumption 1 that the evacuation should be ordered promptly and no Section 5.1 early protective actions have been implemented.

b. Assumptions consistent with Table 12, General Yes Sections 2.2, 2.3 Assumptions, of NUREG/CR7002 should be provided and include the basis to support their use.

1.3 Scenario Development

a. The ten scenarios in Table 13, Evacuation Scenarios, Yes Tables 21, 62 should be developed for the ETE analysis, or a reason should be provided for use of other scenarios.

1.3.1 Staged Evacuation

a. A discussion should be provided on the approach used in Yes Sections 5.4.2, 7.2 development of a staged evacuation.

1.4 Evacuation Planning Areas

a. A map of EPZ with emergency response planning areas Yes Figure 61 (ERPAs) should be included.

b. A table should be provided identifying the ERPAs Yes Table 61 considered for each ETE calculation by downwind direction in each sector.

KLD Engineering, P.C. N2 Revision 3

Turkey Point Evacuation Time Estimate NRC Review Criteria Criterion Addressed Comments in ETE Analysis

c. A table similar to Table 14, Evacuation Areas for a Staged Yes Table 75 Evacuation Keyhole, of NUREG/CR7002 should be provided and includes the complete evacuation of the 2, 5, and 10 mile areas and for the 2 mile area/5 mile keyhole evacuations.

2.0 Demand Estimation

a. Demand estimation should be developed for the four Yes Permanent residents, employees, population groups, including permanent residents of the transients - Section 3, Appendix E EPZ, transients, special facilities, and schools. Special facilities, schools - Section 8, Appendix E 2.1 Permanent Residents and Transient Population

a. The US Census should be the source of the population Yes Section 3.1 values, or another credible source should be provided.

b. Population values should be adjusted as necessary for Yes 2010 used as the base year for analysis. No growth to reflect population estimates to the year of the growth of population necessary.

ETE.

c. A sector diagram should be included, similar to Figure 21, Yes Figure 32 Population by Sector, of NUREG/CR7002, showing the population distribution for permanent residents.

2.1.1 Permanent Residents with Vehicles

a. The persons per vehicle value should be between 1 and 2 Yes 2.28 persons per vehicle - Table 13 or justification should be provided for other values.

b. Major employers should be listed. Yes Appendix E - Table E3 2.1.2 Transient Population KLD Engineering, P.C. N3 Revision 3

Turkey Point Evacuation Time Estimate NRC Review Criteria Criterion Addressed Comments in ETE Analysis

a. A list of facilities which attract transient populations Yes Sections 3.3, 3.4, Appendix E should be included, and peak and average attendance for these facilities should be listed. The source of information used to develop attendance values should be provided.

b. The average population during the season should be used, Yes Tables 34, 35, 36 and Appendix E itemize itemized and totaled for each scenario. the transient population and employee estimates. These estimates are multiplied by the scenario specific percentages provided in Table 63 to estimate transient population by scenario.

c. The percent of permanent residents assumed to be at Yes Sections 3.3, 3.4 facilities should be estimated.

d. The number of people per vehicle should be provided. Yes Sections 3.3, 3.4 Numbers may vary by scenario, and if so, discussion on why values vary should be provided.

e. A sector diagram should be included, similar to Figure 21 Yes Figure 36 - transients of NUREG/CR7002, showing the population distribution Figure 38 - employees for the transient population.

2.2 Transit Dependent Permanent Residents

a. The methodology used to determine the number of transit Yes Section 8.1, Table 81 dependent residents should be discussed.

b. Transportation resources needed to evacuate this group Yes Section 8.1, Tables 85, 89 should be quantified.

c. The county/local evacuation plans for transit dependent Yes Sections 8.1, 8.4 residents should be used in the analysis.

KLD Engineering, P.C. N4 Revision 3

Turkey Point Evacuation Time Estimate NRC Review Criteria Criterion Addressed Comments in ETE Analysis

d. The methodology used to determine the number of Yes Section 8.5 people with disabilities and those with access and functional needs who may need assistance and do not reside in special facilities should be provided. Data from local/county registration programs should be used in the estimate, but should not be the only set of data.

e. Capacities should be provided for all types of Yes Section 2.3 - Assumption 10 transportation resources. Bus seating capacity of 50% Sections 3.5, 8.1, 8.2, 8.3 should be used or justification should be provided for higher values.

f. An estimate of this population should be provided and Yes Table 81 - transit dependents information should be provided that the existing Section 8.5 - special needs registration programs were used in developing the estimate.

g. A summary table of the total number of buses, Yes Section 8.4 - page 86 ambulances, or other transport needed to support Table 85 evacuation should be provided and the quantification of resources should be detailed enough to assure double counting has not occurred.

2.3 Special Facility Residents

a. A list of special facilities, including the type of facility, Yes Table E2 - list medical facilities, location, location, and average population should be provided. and population Special facility staff should be included in the total special Table E6 - list correctional facilities, facility population. location, and population KLD Engineering, P.C. N5 Revision 3

Turkey Point Evacuation Time Estimate NRC Review Criteria Criterion Addressed Comments in ETE Analysis

b. A discussion should be provided on how special facility Yes Section 3.5, Sections 8.3 data was obtained.

c. The number of wheelchair and bedbound individuals Yes Table 84, Table E2 should be provided.

d. An estimate of the number and capacity of vehicles Yes Section 3.5, Section 8.3, Section 8.6 needed to support the evacuation of the facility should be Tables 84, 85 provided.

e. The logistics for mobilizing specially trained staff (e.g., Yes Section 3.5, 8.4, 8.6 medical support or security support for prisons, jails, and other correctional facilities) should be discussed when appropriate.

2.4 Schools

a. A list of schools including name, location, student Yes Table 82, E1 population, and transportation resources required to Section 8.2 support the evacuation, should be provided. The source of this information should be provided.

b. Transportation resources for elementary and middle Yes Table 82 schools should be based on 100% of the school capacity.

c. The estimate of high school students who will use their Yes Section 8.2 personal vehicle to evacuate should be provided and a basis for the values used should be discussed.

d. The need for return trips should be identified if necessary. Yes Section 8.4 - page 89 2.5.1 Special Events

a. A complete list of special events should be provided and Yes Section 3.7 includes information on the population, estimated duration, and season of the event.

KLD Engineering, P.C. N6 Revision 3

Turkey Point Evacuation Time Estimate NRC Review Criteria Criterion Addressed Comments in ETE Analysis

b. The special event that encompasses the peak transient Yes Section 3.7 population should be analyzed in the ETE.

c. The percent of permanent residents attending the event Yes Section 3.7 should be estimated.

2.5.2 Shadow Evacuation

a. A shadow evacuation of 20 percent should be included for Yes Section 2.2 - Assumption 5 areas outside the evacuation area extending to 15 miles Figure 21 from the NPP.

Section 3.2

b. Population estimates for the shadow evacuation in the 10 Yes Section 3.2 to 15 mile area beyond the EPZ are provided by sector. Figure 34 Table 33

c. The loading of the shadow evacuation onto the roadway Yes Section 5 - Table 58 network should be 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 pass through traffic Yes Section 3.8 is based on the average daytime traffic. Values may be Table 37 reduced for nighttime scenarios.

Section 6 Table 63

b. Pass through traffic is assumed to have stopped entering Yes Section 2.3 - Assumption 5 the EPZ about two hours after the initial notification. Section 3.8 2.6 Summary of Demand Estimation KLD Engineering, P.C. N7 Revision 3

Turkey Point Evacuation Time Estimate NRC Review Criteria Criterion Addressed Comments in ETE Analysis

a. A summary table should be provided that identifies the Yes total populations and total vehicles used in analysis for Tables 37, 38 permanent residents, transients, transit dependent residents, special facilities, schools, shadow population, and passthrough demand used in each scenario.

3.0 Roadway Capacity

a. The method(s) used to assess roadway capacity should be Yes Section 4 discussed.

3.1 Roadway Characteristics

a. A field survey of key routes within the EPZ has been Yes Section 1.3 conducted.

b. Information should be provided describing the extent of Yes Section 1.3 the survey, and types of information gathered and used in the analysis.

c. A table similar to that in Appendix A, Roadway Yes Appendix K, Table K1 Characteristics, of NUREG/CR7002 should be provided.

d. Calculations for a representative roadway segment should Yes Section 4 be provided.

e. A legible map of the roadway system that identifies node Yes Appendix K, Figures K1 through K33 numbers and segments used to develop the ETE should be present the entire linknode analysis provided and should be similar to Figure 31, Roadway network at a scale suitable to identify all Network Identifying Nodes and Segments, of NUREG/CR links and nodes 7002.

3.2 Capacity Analysis KLD Engineering, P.C. N8 Revision 3

Turkey Point Evacuation Time Estimate NRC Review Criteria Criterion Addressed Comments in ETE Analysis

a. The approach used to calculate the roadway capacity for Yes Section 4 the transportation network should be described in detail and identifies factors that should be expressly used in the modeling.

b. The capacity analysis identifies where field information Yes Section 1.3, Section 4 should be used in the ETE calculation.

3.3 Intersection Control

a. A list of intersections should be provided that includes the Yes Appendix K, Table K2 total number of intersections modeled that are unsignalized, signalized, or manned by response personnel.

b. Characteristics for the 10 highest volume intersections Yes Table J1 within the EPZ are provided including the location, signal cycle length, and turn lane queue capacity.

c. Discussion should be provided on how signal cycle time is Yes Section 4.1, Appendix C.

used in the calculations.

3.4 Adverse Weather

a. The adverse weather condition should be identified and Yes Table 21, 22, Section 2.3 - Assumption 9 the effects of adverse weather on mobilization time Mobilization time - none should be considered.

b. The speed and capacity reduction factors identified in Yes Table 22 - based on HCM 2010. The Table 31, Weather Capacity Factors, of NUREG/CR7002 factors provided in Table 31 of should be used or a basis should be provided for other NUREG/CR7002 are from HCM 2000.

values.

c. The study identifies assumptions for snow removal on N/A N/A streets and driveways, when applicable.

KLD Engineering, P.C. N9 Revision 3

Turkey Point Evacuation Time Estimate NRC Review Criteria Criterion Addressed Comments in ETE Analysis 4.0 Development of Evacuation Times 4.1 Trip Generation Time

a. The process used to develop trip generation times should Yes Section 5 be identified.

b. When telephone surveys are used, the scope of the Yes Appendix F survey, area of survey, number of participants, and statistical relevance should be provided.

c. Data obtained from telephone surveys should be Yes Appendix F summarized.

d. The trip generation time for each population group should Yes Section 5, Appendix F be developed from site specific information.

4.1.1 Permanent Residents and Transient Population

a. Permanent residents are assumed to evacuate from their Yes Section 5 discusses trip generation for homes but are not assumed to be at home at all times. households with and without returning Trip generation time includes the assumption that a commuters. Table 63 presents the percentage of residents will need to return home prior to percentage of households with returning evacuating. 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.

KLD Engineering, P.C. N10 Revision 3

Turkey Point Evacuation Time Estimate NRC Review Criteria Criterion Addressed Comments in ETE Analysis

b. Discussion should be provided on the time and method Yes Section 5.4.3 used to notify transients. The trip generation time discusses any difficulties notifying persons in hard to reach areas such as on lakes or in campgrounds.

c. The trip generation time accounts for transients Yes Section 5, Figure 51 potentially returning to hotels prior to evacuating.

d. Effect of public transportation resources used during Yes Section 3.7 special events where a large number of transients should be expected should be considered.

e. The trip generation time for the transient population Yes Section 5, Table 58 should be integrated and loaded onto the transportation network with the general public.

4.1.2 Transit Dependent Residents

a. If available, existing plans and bus routes should be used Yes Section 8.4 - page 87 in the ETE analysis. If new plans should be developed with Figure 82, Table 89 the ETE, they have been agreed upon by the responsible authorities.

b. Discussion should be included on the means of evacuating Yes Section 8.4, Section 8.5 ambulatory and nonambulatory residents.

c. The number, location, and availability of buses, and other Yes Table 85 resources needed to support the demand estimation should be provided.

d. Logistical details, such as the time to obtain buses, brief Yes Section 8.4, Figure 81 drivers, and initiate the bus route should be provided.

KLD Engineering, P.C. N11 Revision 3

Turkey Point Evacuation Time Estimate NRC Review Criteria Criterion Addressed Comments in ETE Analysis

e. Discussion should identify the time estimated for transit Yes Section 8.4 dependent residents to prepare and travel to a bus pickup point, and describes the expected means of travel to the pickup point.

f. The number of bus stops and time needed to load Yes Section 8.4 passengers should be discussed.

g. A map of bus routes should be included. Yes Figure 82

h. The trip generation time for nonambulatory persons Yes Section 8.4 includes the time to mobilize ambulances or special vehicles, time to drive to the home of residents, loading time, and time to drive out of the EPZ should be provided.

i. Information should be provided to supports analysis of Yes Sections 8.4, 8.5 return trips, if necessary. Figure 81 Tables 810 through 811 4.1.3 Special Facilities

a. Information on evacuation logistics and mobilization times Yes Section 8.3, 8.6 should be provided.

b. Discussion should be provided on the inbound and Yes Section 8.4, Section 8.6 outbound speeds.

c. The number of wheelchair and bedbounds individuals Yes Section 8.3, Tables 84 should be provided, and the logistics of evacuating these residents should be discussed.

d. Time for loading of residents should be provided Yes Section 8.4 KLD Engineering, P.C. N12 Revision 3

Turkey Point Evacuation Time Estimate NRC Review Criteria Criterion Addressed Comments in ETE Analysis

e. Information should be provided that indicates whether Yes Section 8.4, Table 84 the evacuation can be completed in a single trip or if additional trips should be needed.

f. If return trips should be needed, the destination of Yes Section 8.4, 8.6 vehicles should be provided.

g. Discussion should be provided on whether special facility Yes Section 8.4, 8.6 residents are expected to pass through the reception center prior to being evacuated to their final destination.

h. Supporting information should be provided to quantify the Yes Section 8.4, 8.6 time elements for the return trips.

4.1.4 Schools

a. Information on evacuation logistics and mobilization time Yes Section 8.4 should be provided.

b. Discussion should be provided on the inbound and Yes School bus routes are presented in Table outbound speeds. 86 School bus speeds are presented in Tables 87 (good weather), and 88 (rain).

Outbound speeds are defined as the minimum of the evacuation route speed and the State school bus speed limit.

c. Time for loading of students should be provided. Yes Tables 86 through 87, Discussion in Section 8.4

d. Information should be provided that indicates whether Yes Section 8.4 - page 86 the evacuation can be completed in a single trip or if additional trips are needed.

KLD Engineering, P.C. N13 Revision 3

Turkey Point Evacuation Time Estimate NRC Review Criteria Criterion Addressed Comments in ETE Analysis

e. If return trips are needed, the destination of school buses Yes Section 8.4, Table 83 should be provided.

f. If used, reception centers should be identified. Discussion Yes Table 83. Students are evacuated to should be provided on whether students are expected to School Reception Centers where they will pass through the reception center prior to being be picked up by parents or guardians.

evacuated to their final destination.

g. Supporting information should be provided to quantify the Yes Section 8.4 - page 89 time elements for the return trips.

4.2 ETE Modeling

a. General information about the model should be provided Yes DYNEV II (Ver. 4.0.6.0). Section 1.3, Table and demonstrates its use in ETE studies. 13, Appendix B, Appendix C.

b. If a traffic simulation model is not used to conduct the ETE No Not applicable as a traffic simulation calculation, sufficient detail should be provided to validate model was used.

the analytical approach used. All criteria elements should have been met, as appropriate.

4.2.1 Traffic Simulation Model Input

a. Traffic simulation model assumptions and a representative Yes Appendices B and C describe the set of model inputs should be provided. simulation model assumptions and algorithms Table J2 KLD Engineering, P.C. N14 Revision 3

Turkey Point Evacuation Time Estimate NRC Review Criteria Criterion Addressed Comments in ETE Analysis

b. A glossary of terms should be provided for the key Yes Appendix A performance measures and parameters used in the Tables C1, C2 analysis.

4.2.2 Traffic Simulation Model Output

a. A discussion regarding whether the traffic simulation Yes Appendix B model used must be in equilibration prior to calculating the ETE should be provided.

b. The minimum following model outputs should be provided Yes 1. Table J5.

to support review: 2. Table J3.

1. Total volume and percent by hour at each EPZ exit 3. Table J1.

node. 4. Table J3.

2. Network wide average travel time. 5. Figures J1 through J12 (one plot

3. Longest queue length for the 10 intersections with the for each scenario considered).

highest traffic volume. 6. Table J4. Network wide average

4. Total vehicles exiting the network. speed also provided in Table J3.

5. A plot that provides both the mobilization curve and evacuation curve identifying the cumulative percentage of evacuees who have mobilized and exited the EPZ.

6. Average speed for each major evacuation route that exits the EPZ.

c. Color coded roadway maps should be provided for various Yes Figures 73 through 77 times (i.e., at 2, 4, 6 hrs., etc.) during a full EPZ evacuation scenario, identifying areas where long queues exist including level of service (LOS) E and LOS F conditions, if they occur.

4.3 Evacuation Time Estimates for the General Public KLD Engineering, P.C. N15 Revision 3

Turkey Point Evacuation Time Estimate NRC Review Criteria Criterion Addressed Comments in ETE Analysis

a. The ETE should include the time to evacuate 90% and Yes Tables 71, 72 100% of the total permanent resident and transient population

b. The ETE for 100% of the general public should include all Yes Section 5.4 - truncating survey data to members of the general public. Any reductions or eliminate statistical outliers truncated data should be explained. Table 72 - 100th percentile ETE for general public

c. Tables should be provided for the 90 and 100 percent ETEs Yes Tables 73, 74 similar to Table 43, ETEs for Staged Evacuation Keyhole, of NUREG/CR7002.

d. ETEs should be provided for the 100 percent evacuation of Yes Section 8.4, 8.6 - special facilities special facilities, transit dependent, and school Tables 86 through 87 schools populations.

Tables 89 through 810 - transit dependent 5.0 Other Considerations 5.1 Development of Traffic Control Plans

a. Information that responsible authorities have approved Yes Section 9, Appendix G the traffic control plan used in the analysis should be provided.

b. A discussion of adjustments or additions to the traffic Yes Appendix G control plan that affect the ETE should be provided.

5.2 Enhancements in Evacuation Time

a. The results of assessments for improvement of evacuation Yes Section 13, Appendix M time should be provided.

KLD Engineering, P.C. N16 Revision 3

Turkey Point Evacuation Time Estimate NRC Review Criteria Criterion Addressed Comments in ETE Analysis

b. A statement or discussion regarding presentation of Yes Results of the ETE study were formally enhancements to local authorities should be provided. presented to local authorities at the final project meeting. Recommended enhancements were discussed.

5.3 State and Local Review

a. A list of agencies contacted and the extent of interaction Yes Table 11 with these agencies should be discussed.

b. Information should be provided on any unresolved issues Yes No issues were determined after review that may affect the ETE. with the offsite agencies 5.4 Reviews and Updates

a. A discussion of when an updated ETE analysis is required Yes Appendix M, Section M.3 to be performed and submitted to the NRC.

5.5 Reception Centers and Congregate Care Center

a. A map of congregate care centers and reception centers Yes Figure 101 - reception centers should be provided. Figure 102 - school reception centers

b. If return trips are required, assumptions used to estimate Yes Sections 8.4 and 8.5 discuss a multiwave return times for buses should be provided. evacuation procedure. Figure 81

c. It should be clearly stated if it is assumed that passengers Yes Section 2.3 - Assumption 7h are left at the reception center and are taken by separate Section 10 buses to the congregate care center.

Technical Reviewer _______________________________ Date _________________________

KLD Engineering, P.C. N17 Revision 3

Turkey Point Evacuation Time Estimate Supervisory Review _______________________________ Date _________________________

KLD Engineering, P.C. N18 Revision 3

L-2012-398, Kld TR-509, Revision 3, Turkey Point Nuclear Power Plant, Development of Evacuation Time Estimates.

Text

SUMMARY

Reference:

Navigation menu

L-2012-398, Kld TR-509, Revision 3, Turkey Point Nuclear Power Plant, Development of Evacuation Time Estimates.

Text

SUMMARY

Reference:

Navigation menu

Search