Text

10 CFR 50 Appendix E Evacuation Time Estimate Study for Point Beach Nuclear Plant
	ML22256A127
Person / Time
Site:	Point Beach
Issue date:	09/13/2022
From:	Strand D; Point Beach
To:	; Document Control Desk, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
References
	L-2022-150
	Download: ML22256A127 (360)
	v • d • e

NEXTera~

ENERGY~

~

L-2022-150 10 CFR 50.4 10 CFR 50, Appendix E,Section IV.4 U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission ATTN: Document Control Desk Washington, DC 20555 Re: Point Beach Nuclear Plant, Units 1 and 2 Dockets 50-266 and 50-301 Renewed License Nos. DPR-24 and DPR-27 10 CFR 50 Appendix E Evacuation Time Estimate Study for Point Beach Nuclear Plant Pursuant to Part 50.4 of Title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations (10 CFR Part 50.4),

NextEra Energy Point Beach, LLC hereby submits the evacuation time estimate study (ETE) for Point Beach Nuclear Plant (PBNP). This study is submitted in accordance with the requirements of Appendix E,Section IV.4 to Part 50 of Title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations.

The regulation requires the licensee to submit an updated study "within 365 days of the later of availability of the most recent decennial census data from the U.S. Census Bureau or December 23, 2011."

The Point Beach ETE was developed in accordance with the federal guidance in NUREG/CR-7002, Rev. 1, "Criteria for Development of Evacuation Time Estimate Studies" published February 2021.

The enclosure contains the Point Beach ETE study. Note that Appendix N of the ETE Study contains the completed NUREG/CR 7002 Appendix B, Table B-1 ETE Review Criteria Checklist for the Point Beach ETE.

This letter contains no new Regulatory Commitments and no revision to existing Regulatory Commitments.

The enclosed ETE study provides the methods used to derive, for planning purposes, the time for public evacuation. The study provides an important part of the bases for development of protective action recommendations in coordination with the applicable offsite state and local emergency response agencies.

NextEra Energy Point Beach, LLC, 6610 Nuclear Road, Two Rivers, WI 54241

L-2022-150 Page 2 Should you have any questions regarding this submittal, please contact Denny Smith, Emergency Preparedness Manager, at 920-755-6001.

Very truly yours, Dianne Strand General Manager, Regulatory Affairs

Enclosure:

2022 Point Beach EPZ ETE Study cc: Ms. Kim Schmitt, Wisconsin Department of Health USNRC Project Manager, Point Beach USNRC Regional Administrator, Point Beach USNRC Senior Resident Inspector, Point Beach

ENCLOSURE NEXTERA ENERGY POINT BEACH, LLC POINT BEACH NUCLEAR PLANT, UNITS 1 AND 2 DEVELOPMENT OF EVACUATION TIME ESTIMATES AND COMPLETED TABLE B-1 EVACUATION TIME ESTIMATES REVIEW CRITERIA CHECKLIST (357 pages follow)

Point Beach Nuclear Plant Development of Evacuation Time Estimates Work performed for NextEra Energy, by:

KLD Engineering, P.C.

1601 Veterans Memorial Highway, Suite 340 Islandia, NY 11749 email: kweinisch@kldcompanies.com September 12, 2022 Final Report, Rev. 0 KLD TR - 1247

Table of Contents EXECUTIVE

SUMMARY

............................................................................................................................. ES1 1 INTRODUCTION .................................................................................................................................. 11 1.1 Overview of the ETE Process...................................................................................................... 11 1.2 The Point Beach Nuclear Plant Location .................................................................................... 13 1.3 Preliminary Activities ................................................................................................................. 13 1.4 Comparison with Prior ETE Study .............................................................................................. 16 2 STUDY ESTIMATES AND ASSUMPTIONS............................................................................................. 21 2.1 Data Estimates Assumptions...................................................................................................... 21 2.2 Methodological Assumptions .................................................................................................... 22 2.3 Assumptions on Mobilization Times .......................................................................................... 23 2.4 Transit Dependent Assumptions ................................................................................................ 24 2.5 Traffic and Access Control Assumptions .................................................................................... 25 2.6 Scenarios and Regions ............................................................................................................... 26 3 DEMAND ESTIMATION ....................................................................................................................... 31 3.1 Permanent Residents ................................................................................................................. 32 3.2 Shadow Population .................................................................................................................... 32 3.3 Transient Population .................................................................................................................. 33 3.4 Employees .................................................................................................................................. 33 3.5 Medical Facilities Population ..................................................................................................... 34 3.6 Schools and Preschools/Day Care Centers ................................................................................ 34 3.7 Transit Dependent Population ................................................................................................... 35 3.8 Access and/or Functional Needs Population ............................................................................. 37 3.9 Special Event .............................................................................................................................. 37 3.10 External Traffic ........................................................................................................................... 38 3.11 Background Traffic ..................................................................................................................... 39 3.12 Summary of Demand ................................................................................................................. 39 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 Point Beach Nuclear Plant Study Area ......................................................... 46 4.3.1 TwoLane Roads ................................................................................................................. 46 4.3.2 Multilane Highway ............................................................................................................. 47 4.3.3 Freeways ............................................................................................................................ 47 4.3.4 Intersections ...................................................................................................................... 48 4.4 Simulation and Capacity Estimation .......................................................................................... 48 4.5 Boundary Conditions .................................................................................................................. 49 5 ESTIMATION OF TRIP GENERATION TIME .......................................................................................... 51 5.1 Background ................................................................................................................................ 51 5.2 Fundamental Considerations ..................................................................................................... 53 5.3 Estimated Time Distributions of Activities Preceding Event 5 ................................................... 54 5.4 Calculation of Trip Generation Time Distribution ...................................................................... 55 Point Beach Nuclear Plant i KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

5.4.1 Statistical Outliers .............................................................................................................. 56 5.4.2 Staged Evacuation Trip Generation ................................................................................... 58 5.4.3 Trip Generation for Waterways and Recreational Areas ................................................. 510 6 EVACUATION CASES ........................................................................................................................... 61 7 GENERAL POPULATION EVACUATION TIME ESTIMATES (ETE) .......................................................... 71 7.1 Voluntary Evacuation and Shadow Evacuation ......................................................................... 71 7.2 Staged Evacuation ...................................................................................................................... 72 7.3 Patterns of Traffic Congestion during Evacuation ..................................................................... 72 7.4 Evacuation Rates ........................................................................................................................ 74 7.5 Evacuation Time Estimate (ETE) Results .................................................................................... 74 7.6 Staged Evacuation Results ......................................................................................................... 76 7.7 Guidance on Using ETE Tables ................................................................................................... 76 8 TRANSITDEPENDENT AND SPECIAL FACILITY EVACUATION TIME ESTIMATES ................................. 81 8.1 ETEs for Schools, Preschools/Day Care Centers, Transit Dependent People and Medical Facilities.................................................................................................................................................. 82 8.2 ETE for Access and/or Functional Needs Population ................................................................. 89 9 TRAFFIC MANAGEMENT STRATEGY ................................................................................................... 91 9.1 Assumptions ............................................................................................................................... 92 9.2 Additional Considerations .......................................................................................................... 92 10 EVACUATION ROUTES AND RECEPTION CENTERS ........................................................................... 101 10.1 Evacuation Routes.................................................................................................................... 101 10.2 Reception Centers/Host Schools.............................................................................................. 102 List of Appendices A. GLOSSARY OF TRAFFIC ENGINEERING TERMS .................................................................................. A1 B. DYNAMIC TRAFFIC ASSIGNMENT AND DISTRIBUTION MODEL ......................................................... B1 B.1 Overview of Integrated Distribution and Assignment Model .................................................... B1 B.2 Interfacing the DYNEV Simulation Model with DTRAD .............................................................. B2 B.2.1 DTRAD Description ............................................................................................................. B2 B.2.2 Network Equilibrium .......................................................................................................... B4 C. DYNEV TRAFFIC SIMULATION MODEL ............................................................................................... C1 C.1 Methodology .............................................................................................................................. C2 C.1.1 The Fundamental Diagram ................................................................................................. C2 C.1.2 The Simulation Model ........................................................................................................ C2 C.1.3 Lane Assignment ................................................................................................................ C6 C.2 Implementation ......................................................................................................................... C6 C.2.1 Computational Procedure .................................................................................................. C6 C.2.2 Interfacing with Dynamic Traffic Assignment (DTRAD) ..................................................... C7 D. DETAILED DESCRIPTION OF STUDY PROCEDURE .............................................................................. D1 Point Beach Nuclear Plant ii KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

E. FACILITY DATA .................................................................................................................................... E1 F. DEMOGRAPHIC SURVEY ..................................................................................................................... F1 F.1 Introduction ............................................................................................................................... F1 F.2 Survey Instrument and Sampling Plan ....................................................................................... F1 F.3 Survey Results ............................................................................................................................ F2 F.3.1 Household Demographic Results ........................................................................................... F2 F.3.2 Evacuation Response ............................................................................................................. F3 F.3.3 Time Distribution Results ....................................................................................................... F4 F.3.4 Emergency Communications ................................................................................................. F5 G. TRAFFIC MANAGEMENT PLAN .......................................................................................................... G1 G.1 Manual Traffic Control .............................................................................................................. G1 G.2 Analysis of Key TACP Locations ................................................................................................. G1 H EVACUATION REGIONS ..................................................................................................................... H1 J. REPRESENTATIVE INPUTS TO AND OUTPUTS FROM THE DYNEV II SYSTEM ..................................... J1 K. EVACUATION ROADWAY NETWORK .................................................................................................. K1 L. SUBAREA BOUNDARIES ...................................................................................................................... L1 M. EVACUATION SENSITIVITY STUDIES ................................................................................................. M1 M.1 Effect of Changes in Trip Generation Times ............................................................................ M1 M.2 Effect of Changes in the Number of People in the Shadow Region Who Relocate ................. M1 M.3 Effect of Changes in the Permanent Resident Population ....................................................... M2 M.4 Effect of Changes in Average Household Size .......................................................................... M3 M.5 Enhancements in Evacuation Time .......................................................................................... M3 N. ETE CRITERIA CHECKLIST ................................................................................................................... N1 Note: Appendix I intentionally skipped Point Beach Nuclear Plant iii KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

List of Figures Figure 11. Point Beach Nuclear Plant Location ...................................................................................... 113 Figure 12. PBNP LinkNode Analysis Network ....................................................................................... 114 Figure 21. Voluntary Evacuation Methodology ....................................................................................... 29 Figure 31. Subareas Comprising the PBNP EPZ ...................................................................................... 316 Figure 32. Permanent Resident Population by Sector ............................................................................ 317 Figure 33. Permanent Resident Vehicles by Sector ................................................................................ 318 Figure 34. Shadow Population by Sector ................................................................................................ 319 Figure 35. Shadow Vehicles by Sector .................................................................................................... 320 Figure 36. Transient Population by Sector.............................................................................................. 321 Figure 37. Transient Vehicles by Sector .................................................................................................. 322 Figure 38. Employee Population by Sector ............................................................................................. 323 Figure 39. Employee Vehicles by Sector ................................................................................................. 324 Figure 41. Fundamental Diagrams .......................................................................................................... 410 Figure 51. Events and Activities Preceding the Evacuation Trip ............................................................ 517 Figure 52. Time Distributions for Evacuation Mobilization Activities.................................................... 518 Figure 53. Comparison of Data Distribution and Normal Distribution ................................................... 519 Figure 54. Comparison of Trip Generation Distributions....................................................................... 520 Figure 55. Comparison of Staged and Unstaged Trip Generation Distributions in the 5 to 10 Mile Region .................................................................................................. 521 Figure 61. Subareas Comprising the PBNP EPZ ........................................................................................ 68 Figure 71. Voluntary Evacuation Methodology ..................................................................................... 714 Figure 72. PBNP EPZ and Shadow Region .............................................................................................. 715 Figure 73. Congestion Patterns at 45 Minutes after the Advisory to Evacuate .................................... 716 Figure 74. Congestion Patterns at 1 Hour and 45 Minutes after the Advisory to Evacuate ......................................................................................................................... 717 Figure 75. Congestion Patterns at 2 Hours and 45 Minutes after the Advisory to Evacuate ......................................................................................................................... 718 Figure 76. Congestion Patterns at 3 Hours and 45 Minutes after the Advisory to Evacuate ......................................................................................................................... 719 Figure 77. Congestion Patterns at 4 Hours and 10 Minutes after the Advisory to Evacuate ......................................................................................................................... 720 Figure 78. Evacuation Time Estimates Scenario 1 for Region R02 ...................................................... 721 Figure 79. Evacuation Time Estimates Scenario 2 for Region R02 ...................................................... 721 Figure 710. Evacuation Time Estimates Scenario 3 for Region R02 .................................................... 722 Figure 711. Evacuation Time Estimates Scenario 4 for Region R02 .................................................... 722 Figure 712. Evacuation Time Estimates Scenario 5 for Region R02 .................................................... 723 Figure 713. Evacuation Time Estimates Scenario 6 for Region R02 .................................................... 723 Figure 714. Evacuation Time Estimates Scenario 7 for Region R02 .................................................... 724 Figure 715. Evacuation Time Estimates Scenario 8 for Region R02 .................................................... 724 Figure 716. Evacuation Time Estimates Scenario 9 for Region R02 .................................................... 725 Figure 717. Evacuation Time Estimates Scenario 10 for Region R02 .................................................. 725 Figure 718. Evacuation Time Estimates Scenario 11 for Region R02 .................................................. 726 Figure 719. Evacuation Time Estimates Scenario 12 for Region R02 .................................................. 726 Figure 720. Evacuation Time Estimates Scenario 13 for Region R02 .................................................. 727 Figure 721. Evacuation Time Estimates Scenario 14 for Region R02 .................................................. 727 Point Beach Nuclear Plant iv KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

Figure 81. Chronology of Transit Evacuation Operations ...................................................................... 818 Figure 101. Evacuation Route Map......................................................................................................... 105 Figure 102. TransitDependent Bus Routes ............................................................................................ 106 Figure 103. General Population Receptions Centers and Host Schools ................................................. 107 Figure B1. Flow Diagram of SimulationDTRAD Interface........................................................................ B5 Figure C1. Representative Analysis Network ......................................................................................... C12 Figure C2. Fundamental Diagrams ......................................................................................................... C13 Figure C3. A UNIT Problem Configuration with t1 > 0 ............................................................................ C13 Figure C4. Flow of Simulation Processing (See Glossary: Table C3) .................................................... C14 Figure D1. Flow Diagram of Activities ..................................................................................................... D5 Figure E1. Schools and Preschools/Day Care Centers within the EPZ ...................................................... E5 Figure E2. Medical Facilities within the EPZ ............................................................................................. E6 Figure E3. Major Employers within the EPZ.............................................................................................. E7 Figure E4. Recreational Areas within the EPZ ........................................................................................... E8 Figure E5. Lodging Facilities within the EPZ .............................................................................................. E9 Figure F1. Household Size in the EPZ ....................................................................................................... F7 Figure F2. Household Vehicle Availability ................................................................................................ F8 Figure F3. Vehicle Availability 1 to 4 Person Households ...................................................................... F8 Figure F4. Vehicle Availability 5 to 7+ Person Households .................................................................... F9 Figure F5. Household Ridesharing Preference......................................................................................... F9 Figure F6. Commuters in Households in the EPZ ................................................................................... F10 Figure F7. Modes of Travel in the EPZ ................................................................................................... F10 Figure F8. Impact to Commuters due to the COVID19 Pandemic ......................................................... F11 Figure F9. Households with Functional or Transportation Needs .......................................................... F11 Figure F10. Number of Vehicles Used for Evacuation ........................................................................... F12 Figure F11. Percent of Households that Await Returning Commuter Evacuating ................................. F12 Figure F12. Shelter in Place Characteristics ............................................................................................ F13 Figure F13. Shelter Then Evacuate Characteristics ................................................................................. F13 Figure F14. Study Area Evacuation Destinations .................................................................................... F14 Figure F15. Households Evacuating with Pets/Animals ......................................................................... F14 Figure F16. Time Required to Prepare to Leave Work/School .............................................................. F15 Figure F17. Time to Commute Home from Work/College ..................................................................... F15 Figure F18. Time to Prepare Home for Evacuation................................................................................ F16 Figure F19. Time to Remove 6"8" Snow from Driveway ...................................................................... F16 Figure F20. Cell Phone Signal Reliability ................................................................................................. F17 Figure F21. Likelihood to Take Action Based off Emergency Management Officials Guidelines .................................................................................................................................. F17 Figure F22. Preference on Emergency Communication Alert Type........................................................ F18 Figure G1. Traffic and Access Control Points for PBNP............................................................................ G4 Figure H1. Region R01.............................................................................................................................. H3 Figure H2. Region R02.............................................................................................................................. H4 Figure H3. Region R03.............................................................................................................................. H5 Figure H4. Region R04.............................................................................................................................. H6 Figure H5. Region R05.............................................................................................................................. H7 Figure H6. Region R06.............................................................................................................................. H8 Figure H7. Region R07.............................................................................................................................. H9 Figure H8. Region R08............................................................................................................................ H10 Point Beach Nuclear Plant v KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

Figure H9. Region R09............................................................................................................................ H11 Figure H10. Region R10.......................................................................................................................... H12 Figure H11. Region R11.......................................................................................................................... H13 Figure H12. Region R12.......................................................................................................................... H14 Figure H13. Region R13.......................................................................................................................... H15 Figure H14. Region R14.......................................................................................................................... H16 Figure H15. Region R15.......................................................................................................................... H17 Figure H16. Region R16.......................................................................................................................... H18 Figure H17. Region R17.......................................................................................................................... H19 Figure H18. Region R18.......................................................................................................................... H20 Figure H19. Region R19.......................................................................................................................... H21 Figure H20. Region R20.......................................................................................................................... H22 Figure H21. Region R21.......................................................................................................................... H23 Figure J1. Network Sources/Origins.......................................................................................................... J6 Figure J2. ETE and Trip Generation: Summer, Midweek, Midday, Good Weather (Scenario 1) ....................................................................................................................... J7 Figure J3. ETE and Trip Generation: Summer, Midweek, Midday, Rain (Scenario 2) ....................................................................................................................................... J7 Figure J4. ETE and Trip Generation: Summer, Weekend, Midday, Good Weather (Scenario 3) ....................................................................................................................... J8 Figure J5. ETE and Trip Generation: Summer, Weekend, Midday, Rain (Scenario 4) ........................................................................................................................................ J8 Figure J6. ETE and Trip Generation: Summer, Midweek, Weekend, Evening, Good Weather (Scenario 5) ......................................................................................................... J9 Figure J7. ETE and Trip Generation: Winter, Midweek, Midday, Good Weather (Scenario 6) ....................................................................................................................... J9 Figure J8. ETE and Trip Generation: Winter, Midweek, Midday, Rain/Light Snow (Scenario 7) ................................................................................................................... J10 Figure J9. ETE and Trip Generation: Winter, Midweek, Midday, Heavy Snow (Scenario 8) ................... J10 Figure J10. ETE and Trip Generation: Winter, Weekend, Midday, Good Weather (Scenario 9) ..................................................................................................................... J11 Figure J11. ETE and Trip Generation: Winter, Weekend, Midday, Rain/Light Snow (Scenario 10) ................................................................................................................. J11 Figure J12. ETE and Trip Generation: Winter, Weekend, Midday, Heavy Snow (Scenario 11) ....................................................................................................................... J12 Figure J13. ETE and Trip Generation: Winter, Midweek, Weekend, Evening, Good Weather (Scenario 12) ..................................................................................................... J12 Figure J14. ETE and Trip Generation: Summer, Midweek, Midday, Good Weather, Special Event (Scenario 13) ............................................................................................ J13 Figure J15. ETE and Trip Generation: Summer, Midweek, Midday, Good Weather, Roadway Impact (Scenario 14) ...................................................................................... J13 Figure K1. PBNP LinkNode Analysis Network .......................................................................................... K2 Figure K2. LinkNode Analysis Network - Grid 1 ...................................................................................... K3 Figure K3. LinkNode Analysis Network - Grid 2 ...................................................................................... K4 Figure K4. LinkNode Analysis Network - Grid 3 ...................................................................................... K5 Figure K5. LinkNode Analysis Network - Grid 4 ...................................................................................... K6 Figure K6. LinkNode Analysis Network - Grid 5 ...................................................................................... K7 Point Beach Nuclear Plant vi KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

Figure K7. LinkNode Analysis Network - Grid 6 ...................................................................................... K8 Figure K8. LinkNode Analysis Network - Grid 7 ...................................................................................... K9 Figure K9. LinkNode Analysis Network - Grid 8 .................................................................................... K10 Figure K10. LinkNode Analysis Network - Grid 9 .................................................................................. K11 Figure K11. LinkNode Analysis Network - Grid 10 ................................................................................ K12 Figure K12. LinkNode Analysis Network - Grid 11 ................................................................................ K13 Figure K13. LinkNode Analysis Network - Grid 12 ................................................................................ K14 Figure K14. LinkNode Analysis Network - Grid 13 ................................................................................ K15 Figure K15. LinkNode Analysis Network - Grid 14 ................................................................................ K16 Figure K16. LinkNode Analysis Network - Grid 15 ................................................................................ K17 Figure K17. LinkNode Analysis Network - Grid 16 ................................................................................ K18 Figure K18. LinkNode Analysis Network - Grid 17 ................................................................................ K19 Figure K19. LinkNode Analysis Network - Grid 18 ................................................................................ K20 Figure K20. LinkNode Analysis Network - Grid 19 ................................................................................ K21 Figure K21. LinkNode Analysis Network - Grid 20 ................................................................................ K22 Figure K22. LinkNode Analysis Network - Grid 21 ................................................................................ K23 Figure K23. LinkNode Analysis Network - Grid 22 ................................................................................ K24 Figure K24. LinkNode Analysis Network - Grid 23 ................................................................................ K25 Figure K25. LinkNode Analysis Network - Grid 24 ................................................................................ K26 Figure K26. LinkNode Analysis Network - Grid 25 ................................................................................ K27 Figure K27. LinkNode Analysis Network - Grid 26 ................................................................................ K28 Figure K28. LinkNode Analysis Network - Grid 27 ................................................................................ K29 Figure K29. LinkNode Analysis Network - Grid 28 ................................................................................ K30 Figure K30. LinkNode Analysis Network - Grid 29 ................................................................................ K31 Figure K31. LinkNode Analysis Network - Grid 30 ................................................................................ K32 Figure K32. LinkNode Analysis Network - Grid 31 ................................................................................ K33 Figure K33. LinkNode Analysis Network - Grid 32 ................................................................................ K34 Figure K34. LinkNode Analysis Network - Grid 33 ................................................................................ K35 Figure K35. LinkNode Analysis Network - Grid 34 ................................................................................ K36 Figure K36. LinkNode Analysis Network - Grid 35 ................................................................................ K37 Figure K37. LinkNode Analysis Network - Grid 36 ................................................................................ K38 Figure K38. LinkNode Analysis Network - Grid 37 ................................................................................ K39 Figure K39. LinkNode Analysis Network - Grid 38 ................................................................................ K40 Figure K40. LinkNode Analysis Network - Grid 39 ................................................................................ K41 Figure K41. LinkNode Analysis Network - Grid 40 ................................................................................ K42 Point Beach Nuclear Plant vii KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

List of Tables Table 11. Stakeholder Interaction ........................................................................................................... 19 Table 12. Highway Characteristics ........................................................................................................... 19 Table 13. ETE Study Comparisons .......................................................................................................... 110 Table 21. Evacuation Scenario Definitions............................................................................................... 28 Table 22. Model Adjustment for Adverse Weather................................................................................. 28 Table 31. EPZ Permanent Resident Population ...................................................................................... 310 Table 32. Permanent Resident Population and Vehicles by Subarea ..................................................... 310 Table 33. Shadow Population and Vehicles by Sector ............................................................................ 310 Table 34. Summary of Transients and Transient Vehicles ...................................................................... 311 Table 35. Summary of Employees and Employee Vehicles Commuting into the EPZ ............................ 311 Table 36. Medical Facility Transit Demand ............................................................................................ 312 Table 37. School, Preschool/Day Care Center Population Estimates .................................................... 313 Table 38. TransitDependent Population Estimates .............................................................................. 314 Table 39. PBNP EPZ External Traffic ....................................................................................................... 314 Table 310. Summary of Population Demand ......................................................................................... 314 Table 311. Summary of Vehicle Demand ............................................................................................... 315 Table 51. Event Sequence for Evacuation Activities .............................................................................. 511 Table 52. Time Distribution for Notifying the Public ............................................................................. 511 Table 53. Time Distribution for Commuters to Prepare to Leave Work/College .................................. 512 Table 54. Time Distribution for Commuters to Travel Home ................................................................ 512 Table 55. Time Distribution for Population to Prepare Home to Evacuate ........................................... 513 Table 56. Time Distribution for Population to Clear 6"8" of Snow ...................................................... 513 Table 57. Mapping Distributions to Events ............................................................................................ 514 Table 58. Description of the Distributions ............................................................................................. 514 Table 59. Trip Generation Histograms for the EPZ Population for Unstaged Evacuation ..................... 515 Table 510. Trip Generation Histograms for the EPZ Population for Staged Evacuation ....................... 516 Table 61. Description of Evacuation Regions........................................................................................... 64 Table 62. Evacuation Scenario Definitions............................................................................................... 65 Table 63. Percent of Population Groups Evacuating for Various Scenarios ............................................ 66 Table 64. Vehicle Estimates by Scenario.................................................................................................. 67 Table 71. Time to Clear the Indicated Area of 90 Percent of the Affected Population ........................... 79 Table 72. Time to Clear the Indicated Area of 100 Percent of the Affected Population ....................... 710 Table 73. Time to Clear 90 Percent of the 2Mile/5Mile Region within the Indicated Region ............ 711 Table 74. Time to Clear 100 Percent of the 2Mile/5Mile Region within the Indicated Region .......... 712 Table 75. Description of Evacuation Regions......................................................................................... 713 Table 81. Summary of Transportation Resources .................................................................................. 810 Table 82. School and Preschool/Daycare Evacuation Time Estimates Good Weather ....................... 811 Table 83. School and Preschool/Daycare Evacuation Time Estimates - Rain/Light Snow .................... 812 Table 84. School and Preschool/Daycare Evacuation Time Estimates - Heavy Snow ........................... 813 Table 85. TransitDependent Evacuation Time Estimates Good Weather .......................................... 814 Table 86. TransitDependent Evacuation Time Estimates - Rain/Light Snow ....................................... 814 Table 87. Transit Dependent Evacuation Time Estimates - Heavy Snow .............................................. 815 Table 88. Medical Facility Evacuation Time Estimates Good Weather ............................................... 815 Table 89. Medical Facility Evacuation Time Estimates - Rain\Light Snow ............................................ 816 Table 810. Medical Facility Evacuation Time Estimates - Heavy Snow ................................................. 817 Point Beach Nuclear Plant viii KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

Table 811. Access and/or Functional Needs Population Evacuation Time Estimates ............................ 817 Table 101. Summary of TransitDependent Bus Routes ........................................................................ 103 Table 102. Bus Route Descriptions ........................................................................................................ 103 Table 103. School Host Facilities ............................................................................................................ 104 Table A1. Glossary of Traffic Engineering Terms ..................................................................................... A1 Table C1. Selected Measures of Effectiveness Output by DYNEV II ........................................................ C8 Table C2. Input Requirements for the DYNEV II Model ........................................................................... C9 Table C3. Glossary ..................................................................................................................................C10 Table E1. Schools and Preschools/Day Care Centers within the EPZ ....................................................... E2 Table E2. Medical Facilities within the EPZ............................................................................................... E3 Table E3. Major Employers within the EPZ ............................................................................................... E3 Table E4. Recreational Areas within the EPZ ............................................................................................ E4 Table E5. Lodging Facilities within the EPZ ............................................................................................... E4 Table F1. PBNP Demographic Survey Sampling Plan ............................................................................... F7 Table G1. List of Key Manual Traffic Control Locations ........................................................................... G3 Table G2. ETE with No MTC ..................................................................................................................... G3 Table H1. Percent of Subarea Population Evacuating for Each Region .................................................. H2 Table J1. Sample Simulation Model Input ............................................................................................... J3 Table J2. Selected Model Outputs for the Evacuation of the Entire EPZ (Region R02) ........................... J4 Table J3. Average Speed (mph) and Travel Time (min) for Major Evacuation Routes (Region R02, Scenario 1) ............................................................................................. J4 Table J4. Simulation Model Outputs at Network Exit Links for Region R02, Scenario 1 ......................... J5 Table K1. Summary of Nodes by the Type of Control ............................................................................... K1 Table M1. Evacuation Time Estimates for Trip Generation Sensitivity Study ........................................ M4 Table M2. Evacuation Time Estimates for Shadow Sensitivity Study ..................................................... M4 Table M3. Evacuation Time Estimates for Variation with Population Change ....................................... M5 Table M4. Evacuation Time Estimates Results for Change in Average Household Size ......................... M5 Table N1. ETE Review Criteria Checklist ................................................................................................. N1 Point Beach Nuclear Plant ix KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

EXECUTIVE

SUMMARY

This report describes the analyses undertaken and the results obtained by a study to develop Evacuation Time Estimates (ETE) for the Point Beach Nuclear Plant (PBNP) located in Manitowoc County, Wisconsin. ETE are part of the required planning basis and provide NextEra Energy and state and local governments with sitespecific information needed for Protective Action decisionmaking.

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

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

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

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

Project Activities This project began in January 2021 and extended over a period of 18 months. The major activities performed are briefly described in chronological sequence:

Conducted a virtual kickoff meeting with NextEra Energy personnel and emergency management personnel representing state and county agencies.

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

Obtained the number of employees who reside outside the Emergency Planning Zone (EPZ1) and commute to work within the EPZ based upon data provided by Kewaunee and Manitowoc Counties. The plant employee data was provided by NextEra Energy.

Studied Geographic Information Systems (GIS) maps of the area in the vicinity of the PBNP, then conducted a detailed field survey of the highway network to observe any roadway changes relative to the previous ETE study done in 2012.

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

Designed and conducted an online demographic survey of residents within the 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.

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

Point Beach Nuclear Plant ES1 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

A data needs matrix (requesting data) was provided to NextEra Energy and the OROs at the kickoff meeting. Available data was provided by Kewaunee and Manitowoc Counties for transient attractions, schools, and medical facilities. Internet searches and aerial imagery was also utilized where data was unavailable or not 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 demographic survey of EPZ residents.

Following federal guidelines, the recently approved 6 Subareas within the EPZ were grouped within circular areas or keyhole configurations (circles plus radial sectors) that define a total of 21 Evacuation Regions (numbered R01 through R21).

The timevarying external circumstances are represented as Evacuation Scenarios, each described in terms of the following factors: (1) Season (Summer, Winter); (2) Day of Week (Midweek, Weekend); (3) Time of Day (Midday, Evening); and (4) Weather (Good, Rain/Light Snow, Heavy Snow) as shown in Table 62. One special event scenario - Kites Over Lake Michigan in Two Rivers, Manitowoc County - was considered. One roadway impact scenario was considered wherein a single southbound lane on SR 42/Memorial Drive (from Columbus Street to Waldo Boulevard) was closed.

Staged evacuation was considered for those regions where the 2Mile/5Mile Region and sectors downwind to EPZ boundary were evacuated.

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

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

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 or preschools/day care centers are in session, the ETE study assumes that the children will be evacuated by bus directly to host schools located outside the EPZ. Parents, relatives, and neighbors are advised to not pick up their children at school or preschools/day care centers prior to the arrival of the buses dispatched for that purpose. The ETE for children at these facilities are calculated separately.

Evacuees who do not have access to a private vehicle will either rideshare with relatives, friends or neighbors, or be evacuated by buses provided as specified in the county evacuation plans. Those in special facilities will likewise be evacuated with public transit, as needed: bus, wheelchair transport vehicle, or ambulance, as required. Separate ETE Point Beach Nuclear Plant ES2 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

are calculated for the transitdependent evacuees, for the access and/or functional needs population, and for those evacuated from medical facilities.

Conducted a virtual final meeting with NextEra Energy personnel and emergency management personnel representing the OROs to present final results from the study.

Computation of ETE A total of 294 ETE were computed for the evacuation of the general public. Each ETE quantifies the aggregate evacuation time estimated for the population within one of the 21 Evacuation Regions to evacuate from that Region, under the circumstances defined for one of the 14 Evacuation Scenarios (21 x 14 = 294). Separate ETE are calculated for transitdependent evacuees, including schoolchildren for applicable scenarios.

Except for Region R02, which is the evacuation of the entire EPZ, only a portion of the people within the EPZ would be advised to evacuate. That is, the ATE applies only to those people occupying the specified impacted region. It is assumed that 100% of the people within the impacted region will evacuate in response to this ATE. The people occupying the remainder of the EPZ outside the impacted region may be advised to take shelter.

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

Staged evacuation is considered wherein those people within the 2Mile/5Mile Region evacuates immediately, while those beyond 5 miles, but within the EPZ, shelterinplace. Once 90% of the 2Mile/5Mile Region is evacuated, those people beyond 5 miles begin to 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.

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

Point Beach Nuclear Plant ES3 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

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

Traffic Management This study reviewed, modeled and analyzed the existing comprehensive Traffic Management Plans (TMP) provided by Kewaunee and Manitowoc Counties. Due to the limited traffic congestion within the EPZ, no additional traffic and access control points (TACP) measures have been identified as a result of this study. Refer to Section 9 and Appendix G for additional information.

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

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

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

Table 62 lists the Evacuation Scenarios.

Table 71 and Table 72 are compilations of ETE for the general population. These data are the times needed to clear the indicated regions of 90% and 100% of the population 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.

Table 73 and Table 74 present the ETE for the 2Mile/5Mile Region, when evacuating additional Subareas downwind to EPZ boundary for unstaged and staged evacuations for the 90th and 100th percentile ETE, respectively.

Table 82 presents the ETE for the children at schools and preschools/day care centers in good weather.

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

Table 88 presents the ETE for the medical facilities in good weather.

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

Figure 61 displays a map of the PBNP EPZ showing the layout of the 6 Subareas that comprise, in aggregate, the EPZ.

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

Point Beach Nuclear Plant ES4 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

Conclusions General population ETE were computed for 294 unique cases - a combination of 21 unique Evacuation Regions and 14 unique Evacuation Scenarios. Table 71 and Table 72 document these ETE for the 90th and 100th percentiles. These ETE range from 1:55 (hrs:mins) to 4:25 at the 90th percentile and 4:05 to 5:15 at the 100th percentile.

The comparison of Table 71 and Table 72 indicates that the ETE for the 100th percentile is significantly longer than those for the 90th percentile ETE. This is the result of the relatively long mobilization time (tail) of a small proportion of the resident population and significant traffic congestion at the southern periphery (south of the City of Two Rivers) of the EPZ and within the Shadow Region. When the system becomes congested, traffic exits the EPZ at rates somewhat below capacity until some evacuation routes have cleared. As more routes clear, the aggregate rate of egress slows since many vehicles have already left the EPZ. Towards the end of the process, relatively few evacuees (those with the longest mobilization times) travel freely out of the EPZ. See Figures 78 through 721. Federal guidance recommends using the 90th percentile ETE in formulating protective action decisions.

Inspection of Table 73 and Table 74 indicate that a staged evacuation provides no benefits to evacuees for the 2Mile/5Mile Region (compare Regions R02 through R11 and Region R02 with Regions R12 through R19 and R201 respectively, in Tables 71 and 72). See Section 7.6 for additional discussion.

Comparison of Scenarios 3 (summer, weekend, midday) and 13 (summer, weekend, midday, special event) in Table 72 indicates that the special event increases the 90th and 100th percentile ETE by at most 40 minutes and 25 minutes, respectively, in regions that include Two Rivers. All other regions are not impacted. See Section 7.5 for additional discussion.

Comparison of Scenarios 1 and 14 in Table 71 indicates that the roadway closure - one southbound lane on SR 42 South/Memorial Dr - has no impact to the 90th and 100th percentile ETEs, except for Regions where winds are heading toward the south carrying the plume over Two Rivers, which routes traffic on SR 42/Memorial Drive southbound.

For those regions, the 90th percentile ETE increases by at most 20 minutes and the 100th percentile ETE increases by at most 25 minutes. See Section 7.5 for additional discussion.

The population centers of Two Rivers, within the EPZ and Manitowoc, within the Shadow Region, are the only congested areas during an evacuation. SR 310 and SR 42/Memorial Dr are the primary evacuation routes out of this city and severely congested during the first 3 hours3.472222e-5 days 8.333333e-4 hours 4.960317e-6 weeks 1.1415e-6 months and 45 minutes after the ATE. See Section 7.3 and Figures 73 through 77.

Separate ETE were computed for schools/preschools/day care centers, medical facilities, transitdependent persons and the access and/or functional needs population. The average singlewave ETE for schools, medical facilities, transit dependents and homebound population with access and/or functional needs are similar or considerably less than the 90th percentile ETE for the general population ETE. See Section 8 for additional discussion.

Point Beach Nuclear Plant ES5 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

Table 81 indicates that there are enough buses, wheelchair accessible vehicles and ambulances available to evacuate the transitdependent population within the EPZ in a single wave. See Section 8.

Reducing or prolonging the trip generation time by an hour impacts the 90th percentile ETE by 5 and 55 minutes - significant increase. The 100th percentile ETE decreases by 55 minutes and increases by 1 hour1.157407e-5 days 2.777778e-4 hours 1.653439e-6 weeks 3.805e-7 months , respectively, since the trip generation dictates the ETE after 3 hours3.472222e-5 days 8.333333e-4 hours 4.960317e-6 weeks 1.1415e-6 months and 45 minutes. See Section M.1 and Table M1.

Eliminating or increasing the voluntary evacuation of vehicles in the Shadow Region has minimal to no impacts on ETE. See Section M.2 and Table M2.

An increase in permanent resident population (EPZ plus Shadow Region) of 20% or greater results in an increase in the longest 90th percentile ETE by 30 minutes for the full EPZ (Region R02), which meets the federal criterion performing a fully updated ETE study between decennial Censuses. See Section M.3 and Table M3.

Increasing the average household size (decreasing the total number of evacuating vehicles) decreases the ETE by at most 10 minutes for the 90th percentile ETE and has no impact to the 100th percentile ETE, as the trip generation dictates the ETE after 3 hours3.472222e-5 days 8.333333e-4 hours 4.960317e-6 weeks 1.1415e-6 months and 45 minutes. See Section M.4 and Table M4.

Point Beach Nuclear Plant ES6 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

Table 31. EPZ Permanent Resident Population Subarea 2010 Population2 2020 Population 5 1,895 1,845 10W 1,044 1,315 10SW 2,443 2,903 10S 13,168 12,649 10NW 1,074 532 10N 1,330 1,029 EPZ TOTAL 20,954 20,273 EPZ Population Growth (20102020): 3.25%

2 The boundaries of Subareas 5 and 10SW have changed since the previous ETE study. The 2010 population for Subareas 5 and 10SW have been adjusted to reflect this change, therefore, will not align with the numbers documented in the previous study.

Point Beach Nuclear Plant ES7 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

Table 61. Description of Evacuation Regions Radial Regions Subarea Region Description 5 10N 10NW 10W 10SW 10S R01 2Mile Region X N/A 5Mile Region Refer to Region R01 R02 Full EPZ X X X X X X Evacuate 2Mile Region and Downwind to 5Mile Region Subarea Region Wind Direction From (Degrees) 5 10N 10NW 10W 10SW 10S N/A All Directions Refer to Region R01 Evacuate 2Mile/5Mile Region and Downwind to the EPZ Boundary Subarea Region Wind Direction From (Degrees3) 5 10N 10NW 10W 10SW 10S R03 >324 9 (>351 3694) X X R04 4 X X X

>9 32 (>369 392 )

R05 4 X X X X

>32 77 (>392 437 )

R06 4 X X X X X

>77 - 81 (>437 - 441 )

R07 4 X X X X

>81 - 99 (>441 - 459 )

R08 4 X X X X X

>99 - 103 (>459 - 463 )

R09 4 X X X X

>103 - 148 (>463 - 508 )

R10 >148 - 171 (>508 - 5314) X X X R11 >171 - 189 (>531 - 5494) & >189216 X X N/A >216 - 324 Refer to Region R01 Staged Evacuation - 2Mile/5Mile Region Evacuates, then Evacuate Downwind to the EPZ Boundary Subarea Region Wind Direction From (Degrees3) 5 10N 10NW 10W 10SW 10S R12 4 X X

>324 9 (>351 369 )

R13 4 X X X

>9 32 (>369 392 )

R14 4 X X X X

>32 77 (>392 437 )

R15 >77 - 81 (>437 - 4414) X X X X X R16 4 X X X X

>81 - 99 (>441 - 459 )

R17 4 X X X X X

>99 - 103 (>459 - 463 )

R18 4 X X X X

>103 - 148 (>463 - 508 )

R19 4 X X X

>148 - 171 (>508 - 531 )

R20 >171 - 189 (>531 - 5494) & >189216 X X N/A >216 - 324 Refer to Region R01 R21 Full EPZ X X X X X X Subarea(s) ShelterinPlace until Subarea(s) Evacuate Subarea(s) ShelterinPlace 90% ETE for R01, then Evacuate 3

As read on PPCS/PI or Control Room Instruments.

4

> 360 as read on chart recorder.

Point Beach Nuclear Plant ES8 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

Table 62. Evacuation Scenario Definitions Time of Scenario Season5 Day of Week Day Weather Special 1 Summer Midweek Midday Good None 2 Summer Midweek Midday Rain None 3 Summer Weekend Midday Good None 4 Summer Weekend Midday Rain None Midweek, 5 Summer Evening Good None Weekend 6 Winter Midweek Midday Good None Rain/Light 7 Winter Midweek Midday None Snow 8 Winter Midweek Midday Heavy Snow None 9 Winter Weekend Midday Good None Rain/Light 10 Winter Weekend Midday None Snow 11 Winter Weekend Midday Heavy Snow None Midweek, 12 Winter Evening Good None Weekend Special Event: Kites 13 Summer Weekend Midday Good Over Lake Michigan Roadway Impact:

14 Summer Midweek Midday Good Lane Closure on SR 42 Southbound 5

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

Point Beach Nuclear Plant ES9 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

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

Midday Midday Evening Midday Midday Evening Midday Midday Region Good Good Good Good Rain/Light Heavy Good Rain/Light Heavy Good Special Roadway Rain Rain Weather Weather Weather Weather Snow Snow Weather Snow Snow Weather Event Impact Radial Regions R01 2:15 2:15 1:55 1:55 2:00 2:20 2:20 2:50 2:05 2:05 2:40 2:00 1:55 2:15 R02 2:55 3:05 2:55 3:10 2:55 2:55 2:55 3:25 2:45 2:55 3:20 3:00 3:30 3:10 Evacuate 2Mile/5Mile Region and Downwind to the EPZ Boundary R03 2:25 2:25 2:05 2:05 2:05 2:25 2:25 2:55 2:15 2:15 2:45 2:10 2:05 2:25 R04 2:25 2:25 2:10 2:10 2:10 2:25 2:30 3:00 2:15 2:15 2:45 2:10 2:10 2:25 R05 2:50 3:00 2:45 3:05 2:55 2:45 2:55 3:25 2:40 2:55 3:25 2:45 3:25 3:10 R06 2:55 3:00 2:55 3:05 2:55 2:50 3:00 3:25 2:50 2:55 3:25 2:55 3:30 3:15 R07 2:35 2:35 2:15 2:25 2:20 2:35 2:35 3:10 2:25 2:25 2:55 2:25 2:30 2:35 R08 2:40 2:40 2:20 2:20 2:20 2:35 2:35 3:10 2:25 2:25 2:50 2:25 2:30 2:40 R09 2:25 2:25 2:05 2:05 2:05 2:25 2:25 3:00 2:15 2:15 2:45 2:10 2:05 2:25 R10 2:20 2:20 2:05 2:05 2:05 2:20 2:25 2:55 2:10 2:10 2:45 2:05 2:05 2:20 R11 2:15 2:15 2:00 2:00 2:00 2:20 2:20 2:50 2:05 2:10 2:40 2:05 2:00 2:15 Staged Evacuation - 2Mile/5Mile Region and Downwind to the EPZ Boundary R12 2:35 2:35 2:35 2:35 2:35 2:35 2:35 3:10 2:35 2:35 3:05 2:35 2:35 2:35 R13 2:35 2:35 2:35 2:35 2:35 2:35 2:35 3:10 2:35 2:35 3:05 2:35 2:35 2:35 R14 3:35 3:35 3:45 3:45 3:40 3:40 3:40 4:25 3:35 3:40 4:25 3:40 3:45 3:50 R15 3:25 3:40 3:25 3:30 3:25 3:35 3:35 4:20 3:30 3:35 4:25 3:25 3:45 3:45 R16 3:00 3:00 3:05 3:05 3:10 3:20 3:20 3:35 2:50 3:20 3:40 3:10 3:15 3:10 R17 2:55 3:10 3:00 3:00 3:10 2:55 3:00 3:30 2:50 3:00 3:35 3:10 3:10 3:10 R18 2:35 2:35 2:30 2:30 2:30 2:35 2:35 3:05 2:30 2:30 3:05 2:30 2:30 2:35 R19 2:30 2:30 2:25 2:25 2:25 2:30 2:30 3:00 2:25 2:30 3:00 2:25 2:25 2:30 R20 2:25 2:25 2:20 2:20 2:20 2:25 2:25 2:55 2:25 2:25 2:55 2:20 2:20 2:25 R21 3:30 3:35 3:30 3:35 3:20 3:30 3:30 4:20 3:25 3:35 4:20 3:25 3:40 3:45 Point Beach Nuclear Plant ES10 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

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

Midday Midday Evening Midday Midday Evening Midday Midday Region Good Good Good Good Rain/Light Heavy Good Rain/Light Heavy Good Special Roadway Rain Rain Weather Weather Weather Weather Snow Snow Weather Snow Snow Weather Event Impact Radial Regions R01 4:05 4:05 4:05 4:05 4:05 4:05 4:05 4:50 4:05 4:05 4:50 4:05 4:05 4:05 R02 4:10 4:10 4:10 4:10 4:10 4:10 4:10 4:55 4:10 4:10 4:55 4:10 4:35 4:10 Evacuate 2Mile/5Mile Region and Downwind to the EPZ Boundary R03 4:10 4:10 4:10 4:10 4:10 4:10 4:10 4:55 4:10 4:10 4:55 4:10 4:10 4:10 R04 4:10 4:10 4:10 4:10 4:10 4:10 4:10 4:55 4:10 4:10 4:55 4:10 4:10 4:10 R05 4:10 4:10 4:10 4:10 4:10 4:10 4:10 4:55 4:10 4:10 4:55 4:10 4:25 4:10 R06 4:10 4:10 4:10 4:10 4:10 4:10 4:10 4:55 4:10 4:10 4:55 4:10 4:30 4:10 R07 4:10 4:10 4:10 4:10 4:10 4:10 4:10 4:55 4:10 4:10 4:55 4:10 4:10 4:10 R08 4:10 4:10 4:10 4:10 4:10 4:10 4:10 4:55 4:10 4:10 4:55 4:10 4:10 4:10 R09 4:10 4:10 4:10 4:10 4:10 4:10 4:10 4:55 4:10 4:10 4:55 4:10 4:10 4:10 R10 4:10 4:10 4:10 4:10 4:10 4:10 4:10 4:55 4:10 4:10 4:55 4:10 4:10 4:10 R11 4:10 4:10 4:10 4:10 4:10 4:10 4:10 4:55 4:10 4:10 4:55 4:10 4:10 4:10 Staged Evacuation - 2Mile/5Mile Region and Downwind to the EPZ Boundary R12 4:10 4:10 4:10 4:10 4:10 4:10 4:10 4:55 4:10 4:10 4:55 4:10 4:10 4:10 R13 4:10 4:10 4:10 4:10 4:10 4:10 4:10 4:55 4:10 4:10 4:55 4:10 4:10 4:10 R14 4:10 4:15 4:10 4:10 4:10 4:10 4:20 5:05 4:10 4:10 5:15 4:10 4:25 4:35 R15 4:15 4:25 4:10 4:10 4:10 4:10 4:20 5:05 4:10 4:10 5:15 4:10 4:30 4:35 R16 4:10 4:10 4:10 4:10 4:10 4:10 4:10 4:55 4:10 4:10 4:55 4:10 4:10 4:10 R17 4:10 4:10 4:10 4:10 4:10 4:10 4:10 4:55 4:10 4:10 4:55 4:10 4:10 4:10 R18 4:10 4:10 4:10 4:10 4:10 4:10 4:10 4:55 4:10 4:10 4:55 4:10 4:10 4:10 R19 4:10 4:10 4:10 4:10 4:10 4:10 4:10 4:55 4:10 4:10 4:55 4:10 4:10 4:10 R20 4:10 4:10 4:10 4:10 4:10 4:10 4:10 4:55 4:10 4:10 4:55 4:10 4:10 4:10 R21 4:15 4:25 4:10 4:15 4:10 4:20 4:20 5:15 4:10 4:10 5:15 4:10 4:35 4:35 Point Beach Nuclear Plant ES11 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

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

Midday Midday Evening Midday Midday Evening Midday Midday Region Good Good Good Good Rain/Light Heavy Good Rain/Light Heavy Good Special Roadway Rain Rain Weather Weather Weather Weather Snow Snow Weather Snow Snow Weather Event Impact UnStaged Evacuation Entire 2Mile/5Mile Region, Full EPZ, and Entire 2Mile Region and Downwind to 5Mile Region R01 2:15 2:15 1:55 1:55 2:00 2:20 2:20 2:50 2:05 2:05 2:40 2:00 1:55 2:15 R02 2:15 2:15 2:00 2:00 2:00 2:20 2:20 2:50 2:05 2:10 2:40 2:05 2:00 2:15 R03 2:15 2:15 1:55 1:55 2:00 2:20 2:20 2:50 2:05 2:05 2:40 2:00 1:55 2:15 R04 2:15 2:15 1:55 1:55 2:00 2:20 2:20 2:50 2:05 2:05 2:40 2:00 1:55 2:15 R05 2:15 2:15 2:00 2:00 2:00 2:20 2:20 2:50 2:05 2:10 2:40 2:05 2:00 2:15 R06 2:15 2:15 2:00 2:00 2:00 2:20 2:20 2:50 2:05 2:10 2:40 2:05 2:00 2:15 R07 2:15 2:15 2:00 2:00 2:00 2:20 2:20 2:50 2:05 2:10 2:40 2:05 2:00 2:15 R08 2:15 2:15 2:00 2:00 2:00 2:20 2:20 2:50 2:05 2:10 2:40 2:05 2:00 2:15 R09 2:15 2:15 2:00 2:00 2:00 2:20 2:20 2:50 2:05 2:10 2:40 2:05 2:00 2:15 R10 2:15 2:15 2:00 2:00 2:00 2:20 2:20 2:50 2:05 2:05 2:40 2:05 2:00 2:15 R11 2:15 2:15 1:55 1:55 2:00 2:20 2:20 2:50 2:05 2:05 2:40 2:00 1:55 2:15 Staged Evacuation - 2Mile/5Mile Region and Downwind to the EPZ Boundary R12 2:20 2:20 2:10 2:10 2:10 2:20 2:25 2:55 2:15 2:15 2:45 2:10 2:10 2:20 R13 2:20 2:20 2:10 2:10 2:10 2:25 2:25 2:55 2:15 2:15 2:50 2:15 2:10 2:20 R14 2:25 2:25 2:20 2:20 2:20 2:25 2:25 2:55 2:20 2:25 2:55 2:20 2:20 2:25 R15 2:25 2:25 2:20 2:20 2:20 2:25 2:25 3:00 2:25 2:25 2:55 2:25 2:20 2:25 R16 2:25 2:25 2:20 2:20 2:20 2:25 2:25 3:00 2:25 2:25 2:55 2:25 2:20 2:25 R17 2:25 2:25 2:20 2:20 2:20 2:25 2:25 3:00 2:25 2:25 2:55 2:25 2:20 2:25 R18 2:25 2:25 2:20 2:20 2:20 2:25 2:25 2:55 2:25 2:25 2:55 2:25 2:20 2:25 R19 2:20 2:20 2:15 2:15 2:15 2:25 2:25 2:55 2:20 2:20 2:50 2:20 2:15 2:20 R20 2:20 2:20 2:10 2:10 2:10 2:20 2:25 2:55 2:15 2:15 2:45 2:10 2:10 2:20 R21 2:25 2:25 2:20 2:20 2:20 2:25 2:25 3:00 2:25 2:25 2:55 2:25 2:20 2:25 Point Beach Nuclear Plant ES12 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

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

Midday Midday Evening Midday Midday Evening Midday Midday Region Good Good Good Good Rain/Light Heavy Good Rain/Light Heavy Good Special Roadway Rain Rain Weather Weather Weather Weather Snow Snow Weather Snow Snow Weather Event Impact UnStaged Evacuation Entire 5Mile Region, Full EPZ, and Entire 2Mile Region and Downwind to 5Mile Region R01 4:05 4:05 4:05 4:05 4:05 4:05 4:05 4:50 4:05 4:05 4:50 4:05 4:05 4:05 R02 4:05 4:05 4:05 4:05 4:05 4:05 4:05 4:50 4:05 4:05 4:50 4:05 4:05 4:05 R03 4:05 4:05 4:05 4:05 4:05 4:05 4:05 4:50 4:05 4:05 4:50 4:05 4:05 4:05 R04 4:05 4:05 4:05 4:05 4:05 4:05 4:05 4:50 4:05 4:05 4:50 4:05 4:05 4:05 R05 4:05 4:05 4:05 4:05 4:05 4:05 4:05 4:50 4:05 4:05 4:50 4:05 4:05 4:05 R06 4:05 4:05 4:05 4:05 4:05 4:05 4:05 4:50 4:05 4:05 4:50 4:05 4:05 4:05 R07 4:05 4:05 4:05 4:05 4:05 4:05 4:05 4:50 4:05 4:05 4:50 4:05 4:05 4:05 R08 4:05 4:05 4:05 4:05 4:05 4:05 4:05 4:50 4:05 4:05 4:50 4:05 4:05 4:05 R09 4:05 4:05 4:05 4:05 4:05 4:05 4:05 4:50 4:05 4:05 4:50 4:05 4:05 4:05 R10 4:05 4:05 4:05 4:05 4:05 4:05 4:05 4:50 4:05 4:05 4:50 4:05 4:05 4:05 R11 4:05 4:05 4:05 4:05 4:05 4:05 4:05 4:50 4:05 4:05 4:50 4:05 4:05 4:05 Staged Evacuation 5Mile Region and Downwind to the EPZ Boundary R12 4:05 4:05 4:05 4:05 4:05 4:05 4:05 4:50 4:05 4:05 4:50 4:05 4:05 4:05 R13 4:05 4:05 4:05 4:05 4:05 4:05 4:05 4:50 4:05 4:05 4:50 4:05 4:05 4:05 R14 4:05 4:05 4:05 4:05 4:05 4:05 4:05 4:50 4:05 4:05 4:50 4:05 4:05 4:05 R15 4:05 4:05 4:05 4:05 4:05 4:05 4:05 4:50 4:05 4:05 4:50 4:05 4:05 4:05 R16 4:05 4:05 4:05 4:05 4:05 4:05 4:05 4:50 4:05 4:05 4:50 4:05 4:05 4:05 R17 4:05 4:05 4:05 4:05 4:05 4:05 4:05 4:50 4:05 4:05 4:50 4:05 4:05 4:05 R18 4:05 4:05 4:05 4:05 4:05 4:05 4:05 4:50 4:05 4:05 4:50 4:05 4:05 4:05 R19 4:05 4:05 4:05 4:05 4:05 4:05 4:05 4:50 4:05 4:05 4:50 4:05 4:05 4:05 R20 4:05 4:05 4:05 4:05 4:05 4:05 4:05 4:50 4:05 4:05 4:50 4:05 4:05 4:05 R21 4:05 4:05 4:05 4:05 4:05 4:05 4:05 4:50 4:05 4:05 4:50 4:05 4:05 4:05 Point Beach Nuclear Plant ES13 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

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

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

Manitowoc County, WI Forever Friends Family Child 90 15 7.0 49.2 9 1:55 11.1 13 2:10 Care Schultz Elementary School 90 15 6.6 46.5 9 1:55 17.1 19 2:15 Mishicot High School 90 15 6.6 48.2 9 1:55 17.1 19 2:15 Mishicot Middle School 90 15 6.6 48.2 9 1:55 17.1 19 2:15 St Peter's Lutheran Tiny 90 15 7.1 49.2 9 1:55 11.1 13 2:10 Treasures Preschool Happy Hearts Day Care 90 15 7.2 50.5 9 1:55 11.1 13 2:10 Lighthouse Learning Academy Virtual School Two Rivers High School 90 15 5.8 8.1 44 2:30 9.2 11 2:45 L.B. Clarke Middle School 90 15 5.4 9.9 33 2:20 10.8 12 2:35 Creative Learning Child 90 15 5.3 9.9 33 2:20 10.8 12 2:35 Enrichment Center St. John's Lutheran School 90 15 4.8 9.9 30 2:15 10.8 12 2:30 Tiny Treasures Christian Child 90 15 6.5 6.1 65 2:50 10.8 12 3:05 Magee Elementary School 90 15 5.9 5.9 60 2:45 10.8 12 3:00 Creative Kids Club 90 15 5.9 9.5 38 2:25 10.8 12 2:40 FYHLC 90 15 6.1 5.8 64 2:50 10.8 12 3:05 CESA 7 Headstart 90 15 5.7 9.5 36 2:25 10.8 12 2:40 Koenig Elementary School 90 15 3.1 4.7 40 2:25 8.6 10 2:35 A Child's Place Day Care 90 15 3.1 4.7 40 2:25 8.6 10 2:35 Maximum for EPZ: 2:50 Maximum: 3:05 Average for EPZ: 2:20 Average: 2:35 Point Beach Nuclear Plant ES14 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

Table 85. TransitDependent Evacuation Time Estimates Good Weather OneWave TwoWave Route Route Number Route Route Travel Pickup Distance Travel Driver Travel Pickup Route of Mobilization Length Speed Time Time ETE to R.C. Time to Unload Rest Time Time ETE Number Buses (min) (miles) (mph) (min) (min) (hr:min) (miles) R.C. (min) (min) (min) (min) (min) (hr:min) 17 1 90 4.2 55.0 5 30 2:05 14.7 16 5 10 25 30 3:35 18 1 90 5.3 55.0 6 30 2:10 15.2 17 5 10 29 30 3:45 19 1 90 5.1 55.0 6 30 2:10 11.8 13 5 10 24 30 3:35 20 1 90 4.7 54.8 5 30 2:10 5.0 5 5 10 15 30 3:15 3 90 7.7 6.8 68 30 3:10 1.6 2 5 10 21 30 4:20 21 2 110 7.7 6.9 67 30 3:30 1.6 2 5 10 21 30 4:40 22 1 90 13.7 15.3 54 30 2:55 0.7 1 5 10 32 30 4:15 Maximum ETE: 3:30 Maximum ETE: 4:40 Average ETE: 2:35 Average ETE: 3:55 Table 88. Medical Facility Evacuation Time Estimates Good Weather Total Loading Loading Dist. To Travel Time to Mobilization Rate Time EPZ Bdry EPZ Boundary ETE Medical Facility Patient (min) (min per person) People (min) (mi) (min) (hr:min)

Wisteria Haus Residents Ambulatory 90 1 15 15 6.0 40 2:25 Ambulatory 90 1 15 15 5.7 40 2:25 Meadowview Assisted Living Wheelchair bound 90 5 8 10 5.7 44 2:25 Ambulatory 90 1 4 4 7.2 74 2:50 Hamilton Health Services Wheelchair bound 90 5 21 10 7.2 74 2:55 Ambulatory 90 1 8 8 6.9 70 2:50 Northland Lodge Assisted Living Wheelchair bound 90 5 24 10 6.9 70 2:50 Parkway Home Ambulatory 90 1 6 6 5.2 69 2:45 Ambulatory 90 1 11 11 0.4 14 1:55 Aurora Medical Center Wheelchair bound 90 5 12 10 0.4 11 1:55 Bedridden 90 15 9 30 0.4 13 2:15 Petrzelka Family Home Ambulatory 90 1 3 3 1.1 1 1:35 Maximum ETE: 2:55 Average ETE: 2:25 Point Beach Nuclear Plant ES15 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

Table M3. Evacuation Time Estimate for Variation with Population Change EPZ and 20% Population Change Shadow Permanent Base 18% 19% 20%

Resident Population 26,641 31,437 31,703 31,970 ETE (hrs:mins) for the 90th Percentile Population Change Region Base 18% 19% 20%

5Mile radius (R01) 2:50 2:50 2:50 2:50 Entire EPZ (R02) 3:25 3:50 3:50 3:55 ETE for the 100th Percentile Population Change Region Base 18% 19% 20%

5Mile radius (R01) 4:50 4:50 4:50 4:50 Entire EPZ (R02) 4:55 4:55 5:00 4:55 Point Beach Nuclear Plant ES16 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

Figure 61. PBNP EPZ Subareas Point Beach Nuclear Plant ES17 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

Figure H8. Region R08 Point Beach Nuclear Plant ES18 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

1 INTRODUCTION This report describes the analyses undertaken and the results obtained by a study to develop Evacuation Time Estimates (ETE) for the Point Beach Nuclear Plant (PBNP), located in Manitowoc County, Wisconsin. This ETE study provides PBNP, state and local governments with sitespecific information needed for Protective Action decisionmaking.

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

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

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

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

The work effort reported herein was supported and guided by NextEra Energy (NextEra) and the 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 NextEra Energy.

b. Attended project kickoff meeting with personnel from NextEra, the emergency planners from the Wisconsin Department of Emergency Management, and Kewaunee County Department of Emergency Management to discuss methodology, project assumptions and to identify issues to be addressed and resources available.

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

d. Reviewed the PBNP and existing county and state emergency plans.

e. Conducted an online demographic survey of EPZ residents (see Appendix F).

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

Point Beach Nuclear Plant 11 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

g. Conducted a data collection effort to update the database of schools, special facilities (i.e., schools/preschools/day care centers and medical facilities), major employers, access and/or functional needs populations, transportation providers/resources available, the special event data, and other important information.

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

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

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

5. Used the recently approved (June 10, 2021) Subarea boundaries to define Evacuation Regions. The EPZ is partitioned into 6 Subareas along jurisdictional and geographic boundaries. Regions are groups of contiguous Subareas for which ETE are calculated.

The configurations of these Regions reflect wind direction and the radial extent of the impacted area. Each Region, other than those that approximate circular areas, approximates a keyhole section within the EPZ as recommended by NUREG/CR7002, Rev. 1.

6. Estimated demand for transit services for persons at schools, preschools/day care centers, medical facilities, transitdependent people at home, and those with access and/or functional needs.

7. Prepared the input streams for DYNEV II, which computes ETE (see Appendices B and C).

a. Estimated the evacuation traffic demand, based on the available information derived from Census data, and from data provided by the emergency management of the Counties of Kewaunee and Manitowoc, NextEra and from the online demographic survey.

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

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

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

Point Beach Nuclear Plant 12 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

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

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

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

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

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

1.2 The Point Beach Nuclear Plant Location The PBNP is located along the shores of Lake Michigan near the City of Two Rivers and the Town of Two Creeks in Manitowoc County, Wisconsin. The site is approximately 30 miles southeast of Green Bay, Wisconsin. The EPZ consists of parts of Kewaunee, and Manitowoc Counties in Wisconsin. Figure 11 shows the location of the PBNP site relative to Green Bay, as well as the major population centers and roadways in the area.

1.3 Preliminary Activities These activities are described below.

Field Surveys of the Highway Network In March 2021, KLD personnel drove the entire highway system within the EPZ and the Shadow Region which consists of the area between the EPZ boundary and approximately 15 miles radially from the plant. The characteristics of each section of highway were recorded. These characteristics are shown in Table 12:

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

Point Beach Nuclear Plant 13 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

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

Freeway: limited access highway, 2 or more lanes in each direction, high free flow speeds Freeway Ramp: ramp on to or off of a limited access highway Major Arterial: 3 or more lanes in each direction Minor Arterial: 2 or more lanes in each direction Collector: single lane in each direction Local Roadway: single lane in each direction, local road with low free flow speeds As documented on page 156 of the HCM 2016, the capacity of a twolane highway is 1,700 passenger cars per hour in one direction. For freeway sections, a value of 2,250 vehicles per hour per lane is assigned, as per Exhibit 1237 of the HCM 2016. The road survey has identified several segments which are characterized by adverse geometrics on twolane highways which are reflected in reduced values for both capacity and speed. These estimates are consistent with the service volumes for LOS E presented in HCM 2016 Exhibit 1546. Link capacity is an input to DYNEV II, which computes the ETE. Further discussion of roadway capacity is provided in Section 4 of this report.

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

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

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

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

Point Beach Nuclear Plant 14 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

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

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

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

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

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

DYNEV II consists of four submodels:

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

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

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

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

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

Point Beach Nuclear Plant 15 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

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

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

1.4 Comparison with Prior ETE Study The 90th percentile ETE for the 2Mile/5Mile Region (R01) increase by at most 40 minutes and the full EPZ increases by at most 40 minutes (1:15 minutes for the special event scenario) when compared with the 2012 study (KLD TR515, dated November 2012). The 100th percentile ETE for the 2Mile/5Mile Region (R01) has increased by 30 minutes for all nonsnow and snow scenarios, which is dictated by the mobilization time of the residents with returning commuters. The 100th percentile ETE for the full EPZ (R02) has increased by 30 minutes (dictated by the trip generation time plus 10minute travel time to EPZ boundary) except for the special event scenario which increased by as much 55 minutes which is dictated by the congestion due to the additional transient vehicles within Subarea 10S.

Table 13 presents a comparison of the present ETE study with the previous study (KLD TR515, dated November 2012). The major factors contributing to the differences/similarities between Point Beach Nuclear Plant 16 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

the ETE values obtained in this study and those of the previous study can be summarized as follows:

The Manitowoc County Emergency Services Department requested to change Subarea boundaries within the PBNP EPZ, which was approved by FEMA on June 10, 2021. The area changed was located in the southwest corner of Subarea 5 near the Village of Mishicot. A portion of Subarea 5 was removed and included in Subarea 10SW. A decrease in population demand can increase the 90th percentile ET, as it may take longer to reach an evacuation of 90% of all vehicles This may reduce the 100th percentile ETE for the 2Mile Region/5Mile Regin (R01) due to the decrease in population demand located in Subarea 5 along with the less travel time to Region R01.

The permanent resident population decreased by approximately 3%. This decrease should result in less evacuating vehicles which can decrease ETE, but the persons per vehicles decreased by 13.9%, which resulted in a significant increase (11.4%) in the number of permanent resident vehicles, which can increase ETE.

The permanent resident population in the Shadow Region has increased negligibly (by 1.1%), but due to the decrease in permanent resident occupancy per vehicle, this results in a significant increase (15.1%) in the number of Shadow Region permanent resident vehicles. The increase in the number of evacuating vehicles in the Shadow Region, which reduces the available roadway capacity for EPZ evacuees, can increase ETE.

The number of employees commuting into the EPZ significantly decreased by 65.7%,

mainly due to the updated NRCs criteria for major employers from 50 or more employees per shift to 200 or more employees per shift. A decrease in this quickly mobilizing population group can increase the 90th percentile ETE to increase as it will take longer to reach an evacuation of 90% of all vehicles. A decrease in the number of employee vehicles can decrease the 100th percentile ETEs.

There are decreases in the number of transit dependent population (46.6%) and school children (11.1%) which results in less evacuating vehicles within the EPZ, can decrease the ETE.

The number of transients population increased by 27%. This results in a significant increase (29.4%) in the number of transient vehicles, which can increase ETE.

External traffic on I43 has increased by 10.3% (from 4,384 to 4,836 vehicles), which could reduce the capacity for evacuee vehicles within the EPZ, prolonging ETE.

This study considers only one special event - Kites Over Lake Michigan in Two Rivers, Manitowoc County. This event has increased the vehicles by 156%, significantly increasing (55 minutes) the ETE for Scenario 13.

Point Beach Nuclear Plant 17 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

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

o The employees and transients have decreased by 15 minutes.

o The permanent residents with commuters increased by 30 minutes during non heavy snow scenarios and 60 minutes for heavy snow scenarios.

o The permanent residents without commuters have not changed during non heavy snow scenarios and increased by 30 minutes during heavy snow scenarios.

As the mobilization time (plus travel time to the 2Mile/5Mile Region and EPZ boundary) dictates the ETE, as discussed in Section 7.3, the increases in mobilization can increase ETE, while the decreases in mobilization can decrease the ETE.

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

Point Beach Nuclear Plant 18 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

Table 11. Stakeholder Interaction Stakeholder Nature of Stakeholder Interaction Attended kickoff meeting to define project methodology and data requirements. Set up contacts with local government agencies. Provided recent plant employee data. Reviewed and NextEra Energy approved all project assumptions and draft report.

Engaged in the ETE development and was informed of the study results and coordinated with the OROs. Attended final meeting where the ETE study results were presented.

Attended kickoff meeting to discuss the project methodology, key project assumptions and to define data needs. Provided county emergency plans, special facility data and existing traffic Kewaunee County Emergency Management management plans. Reviewed and approved all project assumptions. Engaged in the ETE development and was informed of the study results. Attended final meeting where the ETE study results were presented.

Provided county emergency plans, special facility data and existing traffic management plans.

Reviewed and approved all project assumptions.

Manitowoc County Emergency Management Engaged in the ETE development and was informed of the study results. Attended final meeting where the ETE study results were presented.

Wisconsin Department of Military Affairs Division Attended kickoff meeting to discuss the project of Emergency Management methodology. Provided state emergency plan.

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.

Point Beach Nuclear Plant 19 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

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

Population Basis Population = 20,954 Population = 20,273 Vehicles = 11,136 Vehicles = 12,402 Resident 2.30 persons/household, 1.22 2.29 persons/household, 1.41 Population Vehicle evacuating vehicles/household yielding: evacuating vehicles/household yielding:

Occupancy 1.89 persons/vehicle. 1.62 persons/vehicle.

Employee estimates based on Employee estimates based on information provided about major information provided about major employers in EPZ. 1.04 employees per employers in EPZ. 1.08 employees per Employee vehicle based on telephone survey vehicle based on online demographic Population results. survey results.

Employees = 1,059 Employees = 363 Vehicles = 1,019 Vehicles = 336 Estimates based upon U.S. Census data Estimates based upon U.S. Census data and the results of the telephone survey.

and the results of the demographic A total of 373 people who do not have survey. A total of 199 people who do not access to a vehicle, requiring 13 buses to have access to a vehicle, requiring 10 TransitDependent evacuate. An additional 16 access buses to evacuate. An additional 1 Population and/or functional needs persons needed access and/or functional needs person special transportation to evacuate (14 requires a bus transport to evacuate (no required a bus, 2 required a wheelchair wheelchairaccessible vehicle or accessible vehicle, none required an ambulance required).

ambulance).

Transient estimates based upon Transient estimates based upon information provided about transient information provided about transient attractions in EPZ as well as telephone attractions in EPZ, supplemented by Transient calls to facilities, supplemented by observations during the road survey and Population observations during the road survey and from aerial photography.

from aerial photography.

Transients = 4,792 Transients = 3,773 Vehicles = 2,116 Vehicles = 1,635 Point Beach Nuclear Plant 110 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

Topic Previous ETE Study Current ETE Study Special facility population based on Special (medical) facility population information provided by each county based on information provided by each within the EPZ. county within the EPZ.

Current census = 181 Current census = 136 Special Facilities Ambulatory = 62 Ambulatory = 62 Population Wheelchair Bound = 110 Wheelchair Bound = 65 Bedridden = 9 Bedridden = 9 Buses Required = 7 Buses Required = 7 Wheelchair Vans Required = 55 Wheelchair Vehicles2 Required = 33 Ambulances Required = 5 Ambulances Required = 5 School population based on information School population based on information provided by each county within the EPZ. provided by each county within the EPZ.

School Population School enrollment = 3,039 School enrollment = 2,703 Buses required = 59 Buses required = 58 Voluntary evacuation from 20% of the population within the EPZ, 20% of the population within the EPZ, within EPZ in areas but not within the Evacuation Region but not within the Evacuation Region outside region to (see Figure 21) (see Figure 21) be evacuated ArcGIS Software using 2010 US Census ArcGIS Software using 2020 US Census blocks; area ratio method used. blocks; area ratio method used.

Shadow Population = 31,504 Population = 31,842 Evacuation and Shadow Population Vehicles = 16,734 Vehicles = 19,261 20% of people outside of the EPZ within 20% of people outside of the EPZ within the Shadow Region (see Figure 72) the Shadow Region (see Figure 72)

Network Size 874 links; 585 nodes 1045 links; 711 nodes Field surveys conducted in November Field surveys conducted in March 2021.

Roadway 2011. Roads and intersections were Roads and intersections were video Geometric Data video archived. archived.

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

Direct evacuation to designated Direct evacuation to designated School Evacuation Reception Center/Host School. Reception Center/Host School.

50 percent of transitdependent persons 79 percent of transitdependent persons Ridesharing will evacuate with a neighbor or friend. will evacuate with a neighbor or friend.

2 Vans and buses are mixed use, and each can accommodate 2 wheelchair-bound persons on average.

Point Beach Nuclear Plant 111 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

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

Residents with commuters returning Residents with commuters returning leave between 15 and 210 minutes. leave between 30 and 240 minutes.

Trip Generation for Residents without commuters returning Residents without commuters returning Evacuation leave between 0 and 180 minutes. leave between 15 and 180 minutes.

Employees and transients leave Employees and transients leave between 0 and 120 minutes. between 0 and 105 minutes.

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

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

Modeling DYNEV II System - Version 4.0.8.0 DYNEV II System - Version 4.0.21.0 Plant outage at Kewaunee Power Kites Over Lake Michigan in Two Rivers, Station Manitowoc County Special Events Special Event Population = 800 Special Event Population = 5,000 (among additional employees them 4,500 are transients)

Special Event Vehicles = 769 Additional Vehicles = 1,966 19 Regions (central sector wind 21 Regions (central sector wind direction and each adjacent sector direction and each adjacent sector Evacuation Cases technique used, in addition to PBNP technique used, in addition to PBNP specific PARs) and 14 Scenarios specific PARs) and 14 Scenarios producing 266 unique cases. producing 294 unique cases.

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

Evacuation Time Winter Weekday, Midday, Winter Weekday, Midday, Estimates for the Good Weather (Scenario 6): 2:20 Good Weather (Scenario 6): 2:55 entire EPZ, 90th Summer Weekend, Midday, Summer Weekend, Midday, percentile Good Weather (Scenario 3) = 2:25 Good Weather (Scenario 3): 2:55 Evacuation Time Winter Weekday Midday, Winter Weekday Midday, Estimates for the Good Weather (Scenario 6): 3:40 Good Weather (Scenario 6): 4:10 entire EPZ, 100th Summer Weekend, Midday, Summer Weekend, Midday, percentile Good Weather (Scenario 3): 3:40 Good Weather (Scenario 3): 4:10 Point Beach Nuclear Plant 112 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

Figure 11. Point Beach Nuclear Plant Location Point Beach Nuclear Plant 113 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

Figure 12. PBNP LinkNode Analysis Network Point Beach Nuclear Plant 114 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

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

2.1 Data Estimates Assumptions

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

2. Estimates of employees who reside outside the Emergency Planning Zone (EPZ) and commute to work within the EPZ are based upon data provided by NextEra and from the previous study (confirmed still accurate by the counties), where data was not available/provided. (See Section 3.4).

3. Population estimates at transient and special facilities are based on the data received from the counties within the EPZ, NextEra, and the previous ETE study (confirmed or updated by the counties), and supplemented by aerial imagery, internet searches and phone calls to specific facilities where data is missing. (See Sections 3.3, 3.5, and 3.6).

4. The relationship between permanent resident population and evacuating vehicles is based on the results of the 2020 Census data and the recent, online demographic survey (see Appendix F). According to the demographic survey, the average household contains 2.55 people. The estimated average household size from the 2020 Census data is 2.29 people. This issue was discussed with NextEra and it was decided that the Census estimate of 2.29 people per household and 1.41 evacuating vehicles per household will be used for the permanent resident population. See Section F.3.1 for more information.

5. On average, the relationship between persons and vehicles for transients (see Section 3.3) and the special event (see Section 3.9) is as follows:

a. Campgrounds - 2.16 person per vehicle

b. Golf Courses - 2.36 person per vehicle

c. Marinas - 1.53. person per vehicle

d. Parks - 2.90 person per vehicle

e. Lodging Facilities - 1.81 persons per vehicle

f. Special Event (Kites Over Lake Michigan) - 2.29 people per vehicle (the average household size; families will travel in one vehicle)

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

1 www.census.gov Point Beach Nuclear Plant 21 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

6. Employee vehicle occupancies are based on the results of the demographic survey. The value of 1.08 employees per vehicle is used in the study (see Appendix F.3.1 and Figure F 7). In addition, it is assumed there are two people per carpool, on average.

7. The maximum bus speed assumed within the EPZ is 55 mph based on Wisconsin state laws2 for buses and average posted speed limits on roadways within the EPZ.

8. Roadway capacity estimates are based on field surveys performed in March 2021 (verified by aerial imagery), and the application of the Highway Capacity Manual 2016.

a. In accordance with NUREG/CR7002, Rev. 1, only those roadway construction projects that will be completed prior to the finalization of the ETE report are considered in an ETE study. Major improvements were provided by the counties and did not include any that affect the roadway capacity estimates. As such, no future roadway improvement projects were considered in this study.

2.2 Methodological Assumptions

1. The Planning Basis Assumption for the calculation of ETE is a rapidly escalating accident that requires evacuation, and includes the following3 (as per NRC guidance):

a. Advisory to Evacuate (ATE) is announced coincident with the alert and notification system (i.e., Integrated Public Alert & Warning System IPAWS).

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

c. The ETE are measured relative to the ATE.

2. The centerpoint of the plant is located at the center of the containment building 44°16'51.1"N, 87°32'12.8"W.

3. The DYNEV II4 (Dynamic Network EVacuation) macroscopic simulation model is used to compute ETE in this study.

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

5. The recently proposed EPZ and Subarea boundaries approved by FEMA, on June 24, 2021, is used. See Figure 3 1.

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

2 https://wisconsindot.gov/dtsdManuals/traffic-ops/manuals-and-standards/teops/13-05.pdf 3

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

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

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

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

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

Point Beach Nuclear Plant 22 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

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

Twenty percent (20%) of the population within the Shadow Region and within Subareas of the EPZ not advised to evacuate will voluntarily evacuate, as shown in Figure 21, as per NRC guidance. Sensitivity studies explore the effect on ETE of increasing the percentage of voluntary evacuees in the Shadow Region (see Appendix M).

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

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

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

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

Rather, there is a 30minute initialization period (often referred to as fill time in traffic simulation) wherein the anticipated traffic volumes from the start of the evacuation is loaded onto roadways in the study area. The amount of initialization/fill traffic that is on the roadways in the study area at the start of the evacuation depends on the scenario and the region being evacuated (see Section 3.11).

12. To account for boundary conditions (roadway conditions outside the study area that are not specifically modeled due to the limited radius of the study area) beyond the study area, this study assumed a 25% reduction in capacity on twolane roads and multilane highways for roadways that have traffic signals downstream. The 25% reduction in capacity is based on the prevalence of actuated traffic signals in the study area and the fact that the evacuating traffic volume (main street) is more significant than the competing (side street) traffic volume at any downstream signalized intersections, thereby warranting a more significant percentage (75% in this case) of the signal green time. There is no reduction in capacity for freeways due to boundary conditions.

2.3 Assumptions on Mobilization Times

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

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

Point Beach Nuclear Plant 23 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

3. Commuter percentages (and the percentage of residents awaiting the return of a commuter) are based on the results of the demographic survey. According to the survey results, approximately 65% of the households in the EPZ have at least 1 commuter (see Appendix F.3.1 and Figure F6); about 49% of those households with commuters will await the return of a commuter before beginning their evacuation trip (see Figure F11).

Therefore, 32% (65% x 49% = 31.8%, rounded to 32%) of EPZ households will await the return of a commuter, prior to beginning their evacuation trip.

2.4 Transit Dependent Assumptions

1. The percentage of transitdependent people who will rideshare with a neighbor or friend is based on the results of the demographic survey. According to the survey results, 79%

of the transitdependent population will rideshare.

2. Transit vehicles (buses, wheelchair transport, and ambulances) are used to transport those without access to private vehicles:

a. Schools, preschools, and day care centers

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

ii. Buses will evacuate children at preschools/day care centers within the EPZ, as needed.

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

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

b. Medical Facilities

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

ii. The percent breakdown of ambulatory, wheelchair bound and bedridden patients to determine the number of ambulatory, wheelchair bound and bedridden patients at the medical facilities were provided by the county and NextEra.

c. Transitdependent permanent residents:

i. Transitdependent general population are evacuated to reception centers.

ii. Based on information provided by the counties there is only one access and/or functional needs person in Kewaunee County who may require county assistance (ambulance, bus, or wheelchair transport) to evacuate.

It is assumed the person is ambulatory and will need a bus. This will be considered separately from the general population ETE, as per NRC guidance.

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

Point Beach Nuclear Plant 24 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

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

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

3. Transit vehicle capacities:

a. School buses = 70 students per bus for primary schools/preschool/day care centers and 50 students per bus for middle/high schools

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

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

d. Wheelchair accessible vans = 2 wheelchair bound persons

4. Transit vehicle mobilization times, which will be considered in ETE calculations:

a. School/preschool/day care center buses will arrive at these facilities to be evacuated within 90 minutes of the ATE.

b. Transit dependent buses are mobilized at 90 minutes of the ATE as provided by the counties within the EPZ. This is when approximately 73% of residents without commuters have completed their mobilization. If necessary, multiple waves of buses will be utilized to gather transit dependent people who mobilize more slowly.

c. Vehicles will arrive at medical facilities to be evacuated within 90 minutes of the ATE.

5. Transit Vehicle loading times:

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

b. School, preschool, day care center buses are loaded in 15 minutes.

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

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

e. Wheelchair accessible vans require 5 minutes of loading time per passenger.

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

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

2.5 Traffic and Access Control Assumptions

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

2. The TACP are assumed to be staffed approximately 120 minutes after the ATE, as per NRC guidance. Earlier activation of TACP locations could delay returning commuters. It is assumed that no through traffic will enter the EPZ after this 120minute time period.

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

Point Beach Nuclear Plant 25 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

2.6 Scenarios and Regions

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

a. Kites Over Lake Michigan (venue at Two Rivers High School), located in Subarea 10S, are considered as the special event (single or multiday event that attracts a significant population into the EPZ; recommended by NRC guidance) for Scenario 13.

b. As per NRC guidance, one segment of one of the highest volume roadways will be out of service or one lane outbound on a freeway must be closed for a roadway impact scenario. This study considers the closure of one southbound lane on SR 42/Memorial Drive from Columbus Street (south of Two Rivers) to Waldo Boulevard for Scenario 14.

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

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

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

4. Some evacuees will need additional time to clear their driveways and access the public roadway system for heavy snow scenarios. The distribution of time for this activity was gathered through a demographic survey of the public and takes up to 1 hour1.157407e-5 days 2.777778e-4 hours 1.653439e-6 weeks 3.805e-7 months and 45 minutes. It is assumed that the time needed by evacuees to remove snow from their driveways is sufficient time for snow removal crews to mobilize and clear/treat the public roadway system.

5. Mobilization and loading times for transit vehicles are slightly longer in adverse weather.

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

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

Point Beach Nuclear Plant 26 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

7. Regions are defined by the underlying keyhole or circular configurations as specified in Section 1.4 of NUREG/CR7002, Rev. 1. These Regions, as defined, display irregular boundaries reflecting the geography of the Subareas included within these underlying configurations. All 16 cardinal and intercardinal wind direction keyhole configurations are considered. Due to the geographic boundaries of the EPZ, there is no 2Mile Region downwind to 10 Miles; instead, there is a 5Mile Region downwind to the EPZ boundary.

(For this study we will use the terminology 2Mile/5Mile Region to represent the 5Mile Region.) Regions to be considered are defined in Table 61. It is assumed that everyone within the group of Subareas forming a Region that is issued an ATE will, in fact, respond and evacuate in general accord with the planned routes.

8. Staged evacuation will be considered as defined in NUREG/CR7002, Rev. 1 - those people between 5 miles and EPZ boundary will shelterinplace until 90% of the 2Mile Region/5Mile Region has evacuated, then they will evacuate. See Regions R12 through R21 in Table 61.

Point Beach Nuclear Plant 27 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

Table 21. Evacuation Scenario Definitions Scenario Season5 Day of Week Time of Day Weather Special 1 Summer Midweek Midday Good None 2 Summer Midweek Midday Rain None 3 Summer Weekend Midday Good None 4 Summer Weekend Midday Rain None 5 Summer Midweek, Weekend Evening Good None 6 Winter Midweek Midday Good None Rain/Light 7 Winter Midweek Midday None Snow Heavy 8 Winter Midweek Midday None Snow 9 Winter Weekend Midday Good None Rain/Light 10 Winter Weekend Midday None Snow Heavy 11 Winter Weekend Midday None Snow 12 Winter Midweek, Weekend Evening Good None Special Event: Kites 13 Summer Weekend Midday Good Over Lake Michigan Roadway Impact:

14 Summer Midweek Midday Good Lane Closure on SR 42 Southbound Table 22. Model Adjustment for Adverse Weather Highway Free Flow Mobilization Time for Mobilization Time Loading Time for Scenario Capacity* Speed* General Population for Transit Vehicles6 Transit Vehicles6 Rain/Light 90% 90% No Effect 10minute increase 5minute increase Snow Heavy 10minute 75% 85% See Section 5.3 20minute increase Snow increase

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

Roads are assumed to be passable.

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

6 Transit vehicles refer to school buses, preschool/day care center buses, and transit dependent buses. Does not apply to medical facilities and those with access and/or functional needs as loading times for these people are already conservative.

Point Beach Nuclear Plant 28 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

Figure 21. Voluntary Evacuation Methodology Point Beach Nuclear Plant 29 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

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

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

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

3. An estimate of potential doublecounting of vehicles.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Estimates of the population and number of evacuating vehicles for each of the population groups are presented for each subarea and by polar coordinate representation (population rose). The PBNP EPZ is subdivided into 6 Subareas. The Subareas comprising the EPZ are shown in Figure 31.

Point Beach Nuclear Plant 31 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

3.1 Permanent Residents The primary source for estimating permanent population is the latest U.S. Census data with an availability date of September 16, 2021. The average household size (2.29 persons/household was estimated using the U.S. Census data - See Appendix F, Subsection F.3.1). The number of evacuating vehicles per household (1.41 vehicles/household - See Appendix F, Subsection F.3.2) was adapted from the demographic survey results.

The permanent resident population is estimated by cutting the census block polygons by the Subarea and EPZ boundaries using GIS software. A ratio of the original area of each census block and the updated area (after cutting) is multiplied by the total block population to estimate the population within the EPZ. This methodology (referred to as the area ratio method) assumes that the population is evenly distributed across a census block. Table 31 provides permanent resident population within the EPZ, by Subarea, for 2010 and for 2020 (based on the methodology above). As indicated, the permanent resident population within the EPZ has decreased by 3.25% since the 2010 Census.

To estimate the number of vehicles, the 2020 Census permanent resident population is divided by the average household size (2.29 persons/household) and multiplied by the average number of evacuating vehicles per household (1.41 vehicles/household). Permanent resident population and vehicle estimates are presented in Table 32. Figure 32 and Figure 33 present the permanent resident population and permanent resident vehicle estimates by sector and distance from PBNP. This population rose was constructed using GIS software. Note, the 2020 Census includes residents living in group quarters, such as skilled nursing facilities/group homes, etc. These people are transit dependent (will not evacuate in personal vehicles) and are included in the special facility evacuation demand estimates. To avoid double counting vehicles, the vehicle estimates for these people have been removed. The resident vehicles in Table 32 and Figure 33 have been adjusted accordingly.

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

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

Point Beach Nuclear Plant 32 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

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

Transients may spend less than one day or stay overnight at camping facilities, hotels, and motels. Data for transient facilities was provided by the counties within the EPZ and by NextEra Energy. For the facilities where data was not provided, it is assumed that transients travel as a family/household, therefore, the parking lot capacity and average household size (2.29 persons/household - see Section 3.1) were used to estimate the transients and vehicles.

Overall, the average transient vehicle occupancy rates vary by facility from 1 person per vehicle to 4 persons per vehicle. The transient facilities within the PBNP EPZ are summarized as follows:

Campgrounds - 974 transients and 451 vehicles; an average of 2.16 transients per vehicle Golf Courses - 189 transients and 80 vehicles; an average of 2.36 transients per vehicle Marinas - 58 transients and 38 vehicles; an average of 1.53 transients per vehicle Parks - 2,054 transients and 708 vehicles; an average of 2.90 transients per vehicle Lodging Facilities - 1,517 transients and 839 vehicles; an average of 1.81 transients per vehicle Appendix E summarizes the transient data that was estimated for the EPZ. Table E4 presents the number of transients visiting recreational areas, while Table E5 presents the number of transients at lodging facilities within the EPZ.

In total, there are 4,792 transients evacuating in 2,116 vehicles (an average of 2.26 transients per vehicle). Table 34 presents transient population and transient vehicle estimates by subarea. Figure 36 and Figure 37 present these data by sector and distance from the plant.

3.4 Employees The estimate of employees commuting into the EPZ is based on the data provided by the counties within the EPZ and by NextEra Energy. It includes the maximum shift employment and percentage of employees commuting into the EPZ for each facility.

As per the NUREG/CR7002, Rev. 1, employers with 200 or more employees working in a single shift are considered as major employers. As such, the employers with less than 200 employees (during the maximum shift) are not considered in this study. In the PBNP EPZ, two major employers are identified: Point Beach Nuclear Plant and Aurora Medical Center.

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. As discussed Point Beach Nuclear Plant 33 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

above, the percentage of employees living outside of the EPZ for each facility is included in the data provided.

To estimate the evacuating employee vehicles, a vehicle occupancy rate of 1.08 employees per vehicle obtained from the demographic survey (see Appendix F, Subsection F.3.1) was used for the major employers.

Table 35 presents employee and vehicle estimates commuting into the EPZ by Subarea. Figure 38 and Figure 39 present these data by sector.

3.5 Medical Facilities Population The data of the medical facilities, which also includes the current census for each facility were provided by Manitowoc County and NextEra for each of the medical facilities within the EPZ.

This data includes the number of ambulatory, wheelchairbound and bedridden patients at each facility. Table 36 presents the census of medical facilities in the EPZ. As shown in this table, a total of 136 people (62 ambulatory patients, 65 wheelchair bound patients, and 9 bedridden patients) has been identified as living in or being treated in these facilities.

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

36. 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 accessible vans, up to 2 people; and ambulances, up to 2 people. Seven (7) buses, 33 wheelchair vans and 5 ambulances are required to evacuate the medical facility population.

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

3.6 Schools and Preschools/Day Care Centers Table 37 presents the school population and transportation requirements for the direct evacuation of all schools and preschools/day care centers within the EPZ for the 20212022 school year. This information was provided by the local county emergency management agencies. The column in Table 37 entitled Buses Required specifies the number of buses required for each school under the following set of assumptions and estimates:

No students or children at preschools/day care centers will be picked up by their parents prior to the arrival of the buses.

While many high school students commute to school using private automobiles (as discussed in Section 2.4 of NUREG/CR7002, Rev. 1), the estimate of buses required for school/preschool/day care center 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 preschools/day care centers and 50 for middle and high schools.

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

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

Point Beach Nuclear Plant 34 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

The counties in the EPZ could introduce procedures whereby the schools, preschools/day care centers are contacted prior to the dispatch of buses from the depot, 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 (although they are not advised to do so), can be gainfully assigned to service other facilities or those persons who do not have access to private vehicles or to ridesharing.

School buses are represented as two vehicles in the ETE simulation due to their larger size and more sluggish operating characteristics.

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

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

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

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

Table 38 presents estimates of transitdependent people. Note:

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

It is reasonable and appropriate to consider that many transitdependent persons will evacuate by ridesharing with neighbors, friends or family. For example, nearly 80 percent of those who evacuated from Mississauga, Ontario1 who did not use their own cars, shared a ride with neighbors or friends. Other documents report that approximately 70 percent of transit dependent persons were evacuated via ride sharing. Based on the results of the demographic survey, approximately 79 percent of the transitdependent population will ride share.

The estimated number of bus trips needed to service transitdependent persons is based on an estimated average bus occupancy of 30 persons at the conclusion of the bus run. Transit vehicle seating capacities typically equal or exceed 60 children on average (roughly equivalent to 40 adults). If transit vehicle evacuees are two thirds adults and one third children, then the 1

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

Point Beach Nuclear Plant 35 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

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 38 by 50 percent, the demand for service can still be accommodated by the available bus seating capacity.

2 20 10 40 1.5 1.00 3

Table 38 indicates that transportation must be provided for 199 people. Therefore, a total of seven (7) bus run is required from a capacity standpoint. In order to service all of the transit dependent population and have at least one bus drive through each of the Subareas to pick up transit dependent people, 10 buses are used in the ETE calculations. See Section 8.1 for further discussion. These buses are represented as two vehicles in the ETE simulations due to their larger size and more sluggish operating characteristics.

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

Where, A = Percent of households with commuters C = Percent of households who will not await the return of a commuter 8,853 0.0145 1.25 0.223 1.72 1 0.6532 0.5178 0.488 2.62 2 0.6532 0.5178 8,853 0.10704 948 0.21 30 . 21 948 30 7 These calculations are explained as follows:

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 number of households (HH) is computed by dividing the EPZ population by the average household size (20,273 ÷ 2.29) and is 8,853.

All members (1.25 avg.) of households (HH) with no vehicles (1.45%) will evacuate by public transit or rideshare. The term 8,853 (number of households) x 0.0145 x 1.25, accounts for these people.

The members of HH with 1 vehicle away (22.30%), who are at home, equal (1.721).

The number of HH where the commuter will not return home is equal to (8,853 x 0.223 x 0.6532 x 0.5178), as 65.32% of EPZ households have a commuter, 51.78% 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.

Point Beach Nuclear Plant 36 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

The members of HH with 2 vehicles that are away (48.80%), who are at home, equal (2.62 - 2). The number of HH where neither commuter will return home is equal to 8,853 x 0.488 x (0.6532 x 0.5178)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).

Twentyone (21) percent of the permanent residents will not rideshare with other evacuees.

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

The estimate of transitdependent population in Table 38 far exceeds the number of registered transitdependent persons (access and/or functional needs population) in the EPZ (discussed in Section 3.8). This is consistent with the findings of NUREG/CR6953, Volume 2, in that a large majority of the transitdependent population within the EPZs of U.S. nuclear plants does not register with their local emergency response agency.

3.8 Access and/or Functional Needs Population The county emergency management agencies have a combined registration for transit dependent and access and/or functional needs population. Based on data provided by the counties, nobody has registered as an access and/or functional need person with Manitowoc County office for 2021. According to Kewaunee County Emergency Management, Kewaunee County does not have anyone registered as an access and/or functional need person only one such person; however, one person with Human Services would require transportation assistance to evacuate. Therefore, the study considers one (1) access and/or functional needs person. As the type of transportation needed was not provided, it is assumed that the person is ambulatory and will need a bus Buses needed to evacuate the access and functional needs population are represented as two vehicles in the ETE simulations due to their larger size and more sluggish operating characteristics.

3.9 Special Event A special event can attract large number of transits to the EPZ for short periods of time, creating a temporary surge in demand as per Section 2.5.1 of NUREG/CR7002, Rev. 1. The counties and state emergency management agencies were polled regarding potential special events in the EPZ.

Several special events were provided, by the counties within the EPZ and NextEra, as having the potential that attracts transients from outside the EPZ. The events that were considered include:

PBNP Outage - 520 transients 4th of July Event - 2,000 transients Fish Derby - 5,000 transients Point Beach Nuclear Plant 37 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

Car Show - 4,000 transients Applefest - 4,000 transients WI Heat Softball Tournaments 4,050 transients War on the Shore 4,000 transients Ethnic Fest 4,000 transients Kites Over Lake Michigan - 5,000 transients The Snow Fest - 5,000 transients Based on discussions with NextEra and Manitowoc County, the Kites Over Lake Michigan recently held at Two Rivers High School (typically held at Nashotah Beach) in Two Rivers, located within Subarea 10S, was chosen as a special event (Scenario 13) for this study, which attracts the largest number of transients to the EPZ. The Kites Over Lake Michigan is held over Labor Day Weekend (a summer, weekend, midday scenario).

According to Parks and Recreation, Two Rivers, Manitowoc County, Kites Over Lake Michigan attracts approximately 5,000 people where 10% are considered permanent residents within the EPZ and the remaining 90% are considered transients from outside the EPZ. This results in an additional 4,500 transients attending the event. It should be noted that the remaining 500 people are assumed to be permanent residents within the EPZ and are already counted as permanent resident population within the EPZ. Using an average household size of 2.29, from the Census data (see Section 3.1), the 4,500 transients would be evacuating in 1,966 vehicles (4500 ÷ 2.29; rounding up to the nearest integer). This is based on the assumptions that families travel as a household unit in a single car to the school when attending the event and they would evacuate as a family.

There are no temporary road closures used for the event. Vehicles are loaded on local streets near the school for this scenario. The special event vehicle trips were generated utilizing the same mobilization distributions for transients. No public transportation was considered for the special event, as the event has already moved to the school field from the Nashotah Beach.

3.10 External Traffic Vehicles will be traveling through the study area (externalexternal trips) at the time of an accident. After the Advisory to Evacuate (ATE) is announced, these throughtravelers will also evacuate. These through vehicles are assumed to travel on the major routes traversing the region - Interstate (I)43. It is assumed that this traffic will continue to enter the study area during the first 120 minutes following the ATE.

Average Annual Daily Traffic (AADT) data was obtained from the Wisconsin Department of Transportation Traffic Count Map (TCMap) website2 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, 2

https://wisdot.maps.arcgis.com/apps/webappviewer/index.html Point Beach Nuclear Plant 38 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

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 39, for each of the routes considered. The DDHV is then multiplied by 2 hours2.314815e-5 days 5.555556e-4 hours 3.306878e-6 weeks 7.61e-7 months (since traffic and access control point (TACPs) are assumed to be activated at 120 minutes after the ATE) to estimate the total number of external vehicles loaded on the analysis network. As indicated, there are 4,836 vehicles entering the study area as externalexternal trips prior to the activation of the TACP and the diversion of this traffic. This number is reduced by 60% for evening scenarios (Scenarios 5 and 12) as discussed in Section 6.

3.11 Background Traffic Section 5 discusses the time needed for the people in the EPZ to mobilize and begin their evacuation trips. As shown in Table 310, there are 14 time periods during which traffic is loaded on to roadways in the study area to model the mobilization time of people in the EPZ.

Note, there is no traffic generated during the 15th time period, as this time period is intended to allow traffic that has already begun evacuating to clear the study area boundaries.

This study does not assume that roadways are empty at the start of Time Period 1. Rather, there is a 30minute initialization time period (often referred to as fill time in traffic simulation) wherein the traffic volumes from Time Period 1 are loaded onto roadways in the study area. The amount of initialization/fill traffic that is on the roadways in the study area at the start of Time Period 1 depends on the scenario and the region being evacuated (see Section 6). There is 875 vehicles on the roadways in the study area at the end of fill time for an evacuation of the entire EPZ (Region R03) under Scenario 1 (summer, midweek, midday, with good weather) conditions.

3.12 Summary of Demand A summary of population and vehicle demand is summarized in Table 310 and Table 311, respectively. This summary includes all population groups described in this section. A total of 39,834 people and 25,696 vehicles are considered in this study.

Point Beach Nuclear Plant 39 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

Table 31. EPZ Permanent Resident Population Subarea 2010 Population3 2020 Population 5 1,895 1,845 10W 1,044 1,315 10SW 2,443 2,903 10S 13,168 12,649 10NW 1,074 532 10N 1,330 1,029 EPZ TOTAL 20,954 20,273 EPZ Population Growth (20102020): 3.25%

Table 32. Permanent Resident Population and Vehicles by Subarea Subarea 2020 Population 2020 Resident Vehicles 5 1,845 1,139 10W 1,315 805 10SW 2,903 1,776 10S 12,649 7,720 10NW 532 326 10N 1,029 636 EPZ TOTAL 20,273 12,402 Table 33. Shadow Population and Vehicles by Sector Sector 2020 Population Evacuating Vehicles N 3,317 1,980 NNE 0 0 NE 0 0 ENE 0 0 E 0 0 ESE 0 0 SE 0 0 SSE 0 0 S 0 0 SSW 19,544 11,824 SW 3,702 2,233 WSW 1,418 868 W 1,008 617 WNW 1,335 804 NW 661 406 NNW 857 529 TOTAL 31,842 19,261 3

The boundaries of Subareas 5 and 10SW have changed since the previous ETE study. The 2010 population for Subareas 5 and 10SW have been adjusted to reflect this change, therefore, will not align with the numbers documented in the previous study.

Point Beach Nuclear Plant 310 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

Table 34. Summary of Transients and Transient Vehicles Subarea Transients Transient Vehicles 5 1,822 609 10W 0 0 10SW 1,247 694 10S 1,663 783 10NW 0 0 10N 60 30 EPZ TOTAL 4,792 2,116 Table 35. Summary of Employees and Employee Vehicles Commuting into the EPZ Subarea Employees Employee Vehicles 5 275 255 10W 0 0 10SW 0 0 10S 88 81 10NW 0 0 10N 0 0 EPZ TOTAL 363 336 Point Beach Nuclear Plant 311 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

Table 36. Medical Facility Transit Demand Wheelchair Current Ambu Wheelchair Bed Bus Transport Ambulance Subarea Facility Name Municipality Capacity Census latory Bound ridden Runs Vehicle4 Runs Runs Manitowoc County, WI 10S Wisteria Haus Residents Two Rivers 15 15 15 0 0 1 0 0 10S Meadowview Assisted Living Two Rivers 28 23 15 8 0 1 4 0 10S Hamilton Health Services Two Rivers 60 25 4 21 0 1 11 0 10S Northland Lodge Assisted Living Two Rivers 52 32 8 24 0 1 12 0 10S Parkway Home Two Rivers 8 6 6 0 0 1 0 0 10S Aurora Medical Center Two Rivers 62 32 11 12 9 1 6 5 10W Petrzelka Family Home Whitelaw 4 3 3 0 0 1 0 0 Manitowoc County Subtotal: 229 136 62 65 9 7 33 5 TOTAL: 229 136 62 65 9 7 33 5 4

Vans and buses are mixed use and each can accommodate 2 wheelchair-bound persons on average.

Point Beach Nuclear Plant 312 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

Table 37. School, Preschool/Day Care Center Population Estimates Buses Subarea School Name Enrollment Required Manitowoc County, WI 10SW Forever Friends Family Child Care 8 1 10SW Schultz Elementary School 426 7 10SW Mishicot High School 236 5 10SW Mishicot Middle School 223 5 10SW St Peter's Lutheran Tiny Treasures Preschool 13 1 10SW Happy Hearts Day Care 7 1 10S Lighthouse Learning Academy5 0 0 10S Two Rivers High School 478 10 10S L.B. Clarke Middle School 478 10 10S Creative Learning Child Enrichment Center 80 2 10S St. John's Lutheran School 75 2 10S Tiny Treasures Christian Child 55 1 10S Magee Elementary School 318 5 10S Creative Kids Club 10 1 10S FYHLC 11 1 10S CESA 7 Headstart 18 1 10S Koenig Elementary School 259 4 10S A Child's Place Day Care 8 1 TOTAL: 2,703 58 5

Lighthouse Learning Academy is a virtual school.

Point Beach Nuclear Plant 313 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

Table 38. TransitDependent Population Estimates Survey Average HH Survey Percent Size Survey Percent HH Survey Percent HH Total People Population with Indicated No. of Estimated with Indicated No. of Percent HH with Non People Estimated Requiring Requiring 2020 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 20,273 1.25 1.72 2.62 8,853 1.45% 22.30% 48.80% 65.32% 51.78% 948 79% 199 1.0%

Table 39. PBNP EPZ External Traffic Upstream Downstream Hourly External Node Node Road Name Direction AADT6 KFactor7 DFactor7 Volume Traffic 8022 22 I43 Southbound 22,600 0.107 0.5 1,209 2,418 8311 311 I43 Northbound 22,600 0.107 0.5 1,209 2,418 TOTAL 4,836 Table 310. Summary of Population Demand Schools and Transit Medical Preschools/Day Special Shadow External Subarea Residents Dependent Transients Employees Facilities Care Centers Event Population8 Traffic Total 5 1,845 18 1,822 275 0 0 0 0 0 3,960 10W 1,315 13 0 0 3 0 0 0 0 1,331 10SW 2,903 29 1,247 0 0 913 0 0 0 5,092 10S 12,649 124 1,663 88 133 1,790 5,000 0 0 21,447 10NW 532 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 537 10N 1,029 10 60 0 0 0 0 0 0 1,099 Shadow Region 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 6,368 0 6,368 Total 20,273 199 4,792 363 136 2,703 5,000 6,368 0 39,834 6

WisDOT Traffic Counts (TCMap) 7 HCM 2016 8

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

Point Beach Nuclear Plant 314 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

Table 311. Summary of Vehicle Demand Schools and Transit Medical Preschools/Day Special Shadow External Subarea Residents Dependent9 Transients Employees Facilities9 Care Centers9 Event Population10 Traffic Total 5 1,139 2 609 255 0 0 0 0 0 2,005 10W 805 2 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 809 10SW 1,776 2 694 0 0 40 0 0 0 2,512 10S 7,720 10 783 81 50 76 1,966 0 0 10,686 10NW 326 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 328 10N 636 2 30 0 0 0 0 0 0 668 Shadow Region 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3,852 4,836 8,688 Total 12,402 20 2,116 336 52 116 1,966 3,852 4,836 25,696 9

Buses for transit-dependent population, medical facilities, and schools are represented as two passenger vehicles. Refer to Sections 3.5, 3.5, 3.7 and 8 for additional information.

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

Point Beach Nuclear Plant 315 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

Figure 31. Subareas Comprising the PBNP EPZ Point Beach Nuclear Plant 316 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

Figure 32. Permanent Resident Population by Sector Point Beach Nuclear Plant 317 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

Figure 33. Permanent Resident Vehicles by Sector Point Beach Nuclear Plant 318 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

Figure 34. Shadow Population by Sector Point Beach Nuclear Plant 319 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

Figure 35. Shadow Vehicles by Sector Point Beach Nuclear Plant 320 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

Figure 36. Transient Population by Sector Point Beach Nuclear Plant 321 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

Figure 37. Transient Vehicles by Sector Point Beach Nuclear Plant 322 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

Figure 38. Employee Population by Sector Point Beach Nuclear Plant 323 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

Figure 39. Employee Vehicles by Sector Point Beach Nuclear Plant 324 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

These factors are considered during the road survey and in the capacity estimation process; some factors have greater influence on capacity than others. For example, lane and shoulder width have only a limited influence on Base Free Flow Speed (BFFS1) according to Exhibit 157 of the HCM 2016. Consequently, lane and shoulder widths at the narrowest points were observed during the road survey and these observations were recorded, but no detailed 1

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

Point Beach Nuclear Plant 41 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

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

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

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

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

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

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

Point Beach Nuclear Plant 42 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

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

3600 3600 where:

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

m = The movement executed by vehicles after they enter the intersection:

through, leftturn, rightturn, and diagonal.

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

Formally, we can write, where:

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

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Point Beach Nuclear Plant 44 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

The value of VF can be expressed as:

where:

R = Reduction factor which is less than unity We have employed a value of R=0.90. The advisability of such a capacity reduction factor is based upon empirical studies that identified a falloff in the service flow rate when congestion occurs at bottlenecks or choke points on a freeway system. Zhang and Levinson3 describe a research program that collected data from a computerbased surveillance system (loop detectors) installed on the Interstate Highway System, at 27 active bottlenecks in the twin cities metro area in Minnesota over a 7week period. When flow breakdown occurs, queues are formed which discharge at lower flow rates than the maximum capacity prior to observed breakdown. These queue discharge flow (QDF) rates vary from one location to the next and 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. The ratio of these two numbers is 0.896 which translates into a capacity reduction factor of 0.90.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Point Beach Nuclear Plant 45 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

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

4.3 Application to the Point Beach Nuclear 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:

2016 Highway Capacity Manual (HCM 2016)

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

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

TwoLane roads: Local, State Multilane Highways (atgrade)

Freeways Each of these classifications will be discussed.

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

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

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

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

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

Point Beach Nuclear Plant 46 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

4.3.2 Multilane Highway Ref: HCM 2016 Chapter 12 Exhibit 128 of the HCM 2016 presents a set of curves that indicate a perlane capacity ranging from approximately 1,900 to 2,300 pc/h, for freespeeds of 45 to 70 mph, respectively. Based on observation, the multilane highways outside of urban areas within the study area service traffic with freespeeds in this range. The actual timevarying speeds computed by the simulation model reflect the demand and capacity relationship and the impact of control at intersections. A conservative estimate of perlane capacity of 1,900 pc/h is adopted for this study for multilane highways outside of urban areas.

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

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

Free Speed (mph): 55 60 65 70+

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

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

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

Chapter 14 of the HCM 2016 presents procedures for estimating capacities of ramps and of "merge" areas. There are three significant factors to the determination of capacity of a ramp freeway junction: The capacity of the freeway immediately downstream of an onramp or immediately upstream of an offramp; the capacity of the ramp roadway; and the maximum flow rate entering the ramp influence area. In most cases, the freeway capacity is the controlling factor. Values of this merge area capacity are presented in Exhibit 1410 of the HCM Point Beach Nuclear Plant 47 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

2016 and depend on the number of freeway lanes and on the freeway free speed. Ramp capacity is presented in Exhibit 1412 and is a function of the ramp FFS. The DYNEV II simulation model logic simulates the merging operations of the ramp and freeway traffic in accord with the procedures in Chapter 14 of the HCM 2016. If congestion results from an excess of demand relative to capacity, then the model allocates service appropriately to the two entering traffic streams and produces LOS F conditions (The HCM 2016 does not address LOS F explicitly).

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

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

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

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

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

This statement succinctly describes the analyses required to determine traffic operations across an area encompassing a study area operating under evacuation conditions. The model utilized for this study, DYNEV II, is further described in Appendix C. It is essential to recognize that simulation models do not replicate the methodology and procedures of the HCM 2016 - they replace these procedures by describing the complex interactions of traffic flow and computing Point Beach Nuclear Plant 48 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

Measures of Effectiveness (MOE) detailing the operational performance of traffic over time and by location. The DYNEV II simulation model includes some HCM 2016 procedures only for the purpose of estimating capacity.

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

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

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

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

Point Beach Nuclear Plant 49 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

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

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

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

5.1 Background

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

1. Unusual Event

2. Alert

3. Site Area Emergency

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

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

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

3. The ETE are measured relative to the ATE.

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

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

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

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

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

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

evacuate the EPZ after the ATE, will both be somewhat less than the estimates presented in this report. Consequently, the ETE presented in this report are higher than the actual evacuation time, if this hypothetical situation were to take place.

The notification process consists of two events:

1. Transmitting information using the alert and notification systems (ANS) available within the EPZ (e.g., tone alerts, EAS broadcasts by radio and cellphones, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) weather radios, loudspeakers).

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

The population within the EPZ is dispersed over an area of approximately 196 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 IPAWS, and/or tone alert and/or radio (if available). Those well outside the EPZ will be notified by telephone, radio, TV and wordofmouth, with potentially longer time lags. Furthermore, the spatial distribution of the EPZ population will differ with time of day families will be united in the evenings but dispersed during the day. In this respect, weekends will differ from weekdays.

As indicated in Section 4.3 of NUREG/CR7002, Rev. 1, the information required to compute trip generation times is typically obtained from a demographic survey of the EPZ permanent residents. Such a demographic survey was conducted in support of this ETE study. Appendix F discusses the survey sampling plan, the number of completed surveys obtained (including statistical confidence bounds), documents the survey instrument utilized, and provides the survey results. It is important to note that the shape and duration of the evacuation trip mobilization distribution is important at sites where traffic congestion is not expected to cause the ETE to extend in time well beyond the trip generation period. The remaining discussion will focus on the application of the trip generation data obtained from the online demographic survey to the development of the ETE documented in this report.

Point Beach Nuclear Plant 52 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

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

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

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

These relationships are shown graphically in Figure 51.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Furthermore, Event 5 depends, in a complicated way, on the time distributions of all activities Point Beach Nuclear Plant 53 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

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

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

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

Time Distribution No. 1, Notification Process: Activity 1 2 Federal regulations (10CFR50 Appendix E, Item IV.D.3) stipulate, [t]he design objective of the prompt public alert and notification system shall be to have the capability to essentially complete the initial alerting and initiate notification of the public within the plume exposure pathway EPZ within about 15 minutes. Furthermore, the 2019 Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) Radiological Emergency Preparedness Program Manual Part V Section B.1 Bullet 3 states that Notification methods will be established to ensure coverage within 45 minutes of essentially 100% of the population.

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

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

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

Point Beach Nuclear Plant 54 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

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

Distribution No. 5, Snow Clearance Time Distribution Inclement weather scenarios involving snowfall must address the time lags associated with snow clearance. It is assumed that snow equipment is mobilized and deployed during the snowfall to maintain passable roads. The general consensus is that the snowplowing efforts are generally successful for all but the most extreme blizzards when the rate of snow accumulation exceeds that of snow clearance over a period of many hours. Evacuation may not be a prudent protective action under extreme blizzard conditions.

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

Note that those respondents (36% - see Appendix F, Figure F19) who answered that they would not take time to clear their driveway were assumed to be ready immediately at the start of this activity. Essentially they would drive through the snow on the driveway to access the roadway and begin their evacuation trip.

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

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

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

Point Beach Nuclear Plant 55 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

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

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

In assessing outliers, there are three alternatives to consider:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

access and/or functional needs, transit dependent) or lack of realism, because the purpose is to estimate trip generation patterns for personal vehicles; Point Beach Nuclear Plant 56 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

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 3.0 standard deviations are flagged for attention, taking special note of whether there are gaps (categories with zero entries) in the histogram display.

In general, only flagged values more than 4 standard deviations from the mean are allowed to be considered outliers, with gaps in the histogram expected. However, other flagged values between 3.5 standard deviations from the mean were also removed based on careful consideration.

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

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

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

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

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

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

This is done by using the data sets and distributions under different scenarios (e.g., commuter returning, no commuter returning, no snow or snow in each). In general, these are additive, using weighting based upon the probability distributions of each element; Figure 54 presents the combined trip generation distributions designated for each population group considered. These distributions are presented on the same time scale. (As discussed earlier, the use of strictly additive activities is a conservative approach, because it makes all activities sequential - travel home from work follows preparation to leave work, preparation for departure follows the return of the commuter; snow clearance follows the preparation for departure, and so forth. In practice, it is reasonable that some of these activities are done in parallel, at least to some extent - for Point Beach Nuclear Plant 57 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

instance, preparation to depart begins by a household member at home while the commuter is still on the road.)

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

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

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

5.4.2 Staged Evacuation Trip Generation As defined in NUREG/CR7002, Rev. 1, staged evacuation consists of the prompt evacuation of the 2Mile Region, while those beyond 2 miles shelterinplace. As discussed in Section 6, the PBNP always evacuates at least the 5Mile Region. Thus, this study considers staged evacuation based on a 2Mile/5Mile Region prompt evacuation as discussed below:

1. The Subarea comprising the 2Mile/5Mile Region is advised to evacuate immediately

2. Subareas comprising regions extending from 5 to 10 miles downwind are advised to shelter inplace while the 2Mile/5Mile Region is cleared

3. As vehicles evacuate the 2Mile/5Mile region, sheltered people from 5 to 10 miles downwind continue preparation for evacuation

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

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

Assumptions

1. The EPZ population in Subareas beyond the 5Mile Region will first shelter in place, ,

with the exception of the 20% noncompliance.re

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

Point Beach Nuclear Plant 58 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

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

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

Procedure

1. Trip generation for population groups in the 2Mile/5Mile Region will be as computed based upon the results of the demographic survey and analysis.

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

a. Identify the 90th percentile evacuation time for Subarea 5 which comprises the 2 Mile/5Mile Region. This value, TScen*, is obtained from the simulation results. It will become the time at which the region being sheltered will be told to evacuate for each scenario.

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

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

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

ii. No additional trips are generated until time TScen*

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

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

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

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

The value of TScen* is 2:00 for nonsnow scenarios and 2:45 for snow scenarios (see Region R01 in Table 71).

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

a. Residents with returning commuters

b. Residents without returning commuters

c. Residents with returning commuters and snow conditions

d. Residents without returning commuters and snow conditions Figure 55 presents the staged trip generation distributions for both residents with and without returning commuters and employees/transients; the approximate 90th percentile 2Mile/5Mile Region evacuation time is 120 minutes for good weather and 165 minutes for snow scenarios.

Note that 165 minutes occurs at the midpoint of Time Period 7. Traffic volumes are distributed throughout the time period. As such, the staged loading for good weather/rain is shown in Time Period 9.) At the approximate 90th percentile evacuation time for the 2Mile/5Mile Region, approximately 20% of the permanent resident population (who normally would have completed their mobilization activities for an unstaged evacuation) advised to shelter has Point Beach Nuclear Plant 59 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

nevertheless departed the area. These people do not comply with the shelter advisory. Also included on the plot are the trip generation distributions for these groups as applied to the regions advised to evacuate immediately.

Since the 90th percentile evacuation time occurs before the end of the trip generation time, after the sheltered region is advised to evacuate, the shelter trip generation distribution rises to meet the balance of the nonstaged trip generation distribution. Following time TScen*, the balance of staged evacuation trips that are ready to depart are released within 30 minutes. After TScen*+30, the remainder of evacuation trips are generated in accordance with the unstaged trip generation distribution.

Table 510 provides the trip generation histograms for staged evacuation.

5.4.3 Trip Generation for Waterways and Recreational Areas Annex 1, Section C of the Manitowoc County Emergency Operations Plan states that warning will be accomplished by NOAA weather radios, radio pagers, public broadcasting media (i.e.,

Emergency Alert SystemEAS and cable TV systems serving the 10mile EPZs and mobile public address equipment). In addition, similarly to notifying the permanent residents within the EPZ, IPAWS is assumed to also be used for transients. People fishing on Lake Michigan will be warned by the U.S. Coast Guard using marine radio.

As discussed in Section 2.3, this study assumes a rapidly escalating accident. As indicated in Table 52, this study assumes 100% notification in 45 minutes, consistent with the FEMA REP Program Manual. Table 59 indicates that all transients will have mobilized within 105 minutes.

It is assumed that this timeframe is sufficient time for boaters, campers and other transients to return to their vehicles, pack their belongings and begin their evacuation trip.

Point Beach Nuclear Plant 510 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

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

5 7%

10 13%

15 27%

20 47%

25 66%

30 87%

35 92%

40 97%

45 100%

Point Beach Nuclear Plant 511 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

Table 53. Time Distribution for Commuters to Prepare to Leave Work/College Cumulative Cumulative Percent Percent Commuters Commuters Elapsed Time Leaving Elapsed Time Leaving (Minutes) Work/College (Minutes) Work/College 0 0.0% 35 84.4%

5 14.2% 40 89.5%

10 31.0% 45 93.2%

15 49.5% 50 95.5%

20 65.3% 55 96.8%

25 71.3% 60 99.2%

30 79.3% 75 100.0%

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

Table 54. Time Distribution for Commuters to Travel Home Cumulative Cumulative Elapsed Time Percent Elapsed Time Percent (Minutes) Returning Home (Minutes) Returning Home 0 0.0% 35 92.4%

5 35.8% 40 94.4%

10 59.3% 45 96.6%

15 73.1% 50 97.2%

20 81.6% 55 97.5%

25 85.0% 60 100.0%

30 90.5%

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

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

Table 55. Time Distribution for Population to Prepare Home to Evacuate Cumulative Cumulative Elapsed Time Percent Leaving Elapsed Time Percent Leaving (Minutes) Home (Minutes) Home 0 0% 90 86.1%

15 5.6% 105 87.9%

30 27.2% 120 93.0%

45 45.9% 135 99.0%

60 68.6% 150 100.0%

75 82.5%

NOTE: The survey data was normalized to distribute the "Decline to State" response Table 56. Time Distribution for Population to Clear 6"8" of Snow Cumulative Percent Elapsed Time Completing Snow (Minutes) Removal 0 36.3%

15 46.3%

30 67.6%

45 80.1%

60 91.4%

75 97.3%

90 99.2%

105 100.0%

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

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

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

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

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

to begin the evacuation trip (Event 5).

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

to begin the evacuation trip (Event 5).

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

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

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

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

Point Beach Nuclear Plant 514 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

Table 59. Trip Generation Histograms for the EPZ Population for Unstaged Evacuation1 Percent of Total Trips Generated Within Indicated Time Period Residents Residents with Residents with without Commuters Residents without Time Duration Employees Transients Commuters Commuters Snow Commuters Snow Period (Min) (Distribution A) (Distribution A) (Distribution C) (Distribution D) (Distribution E) (Distribution F) 1 15 3% 3% 0% 0% 0% 0%

2 15 22% 22% 0% 4% 0% 2%

3 15 37% 37% 1% 12% 0% 5%

4 15 22% 22% 5% 20% 2% 10%

5 30 15% 15% 25% 37% 13% 29%

6 15 1% 1% 17% 10% 12% 14%

7 15 0% 0% 16% 4% 13% 11%

8 30 0% 0% 19% 8% 24% 16%

9 30 0% 0% 10% 5% 18% 8%

10 30 0% 0% 5% 0% 11% 4%

11 15 0% 0% 1% 0% 3% 0%

12 15 0% 0% 1% 0% 2% 1%

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

14 15 0% 0% 0% 0% 1% 0%

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

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

Point Beach Nuclear Plant 515 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

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

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

2 15 0% 1% 0% 0%

3 15 0% 2% 0% 1%

4 15 1% 4% 0% 2%

5 30 5% 8% 3% 6%

6 15 4% 2% 2% 3%

7 15 3% 0% 3% 2%

8 30 70% 78% 5% 3%

9 30 10% 5% 69% 78%

10 30 5% 0% 11% 4%

11 15 1% 0% 3% 0%

12 15 1% 0% 2% 1%

13 30 0% 0% 1% 0%

14 15 0% 0% 1% 0%

15 600 0% 0% 0% 0%

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

Point Beach Nuclear Plant 516 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

1 2 3 4 5 Residents Households wait 1

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

5. Depart on evacuation trip Activities Consume Time 1

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

2 Applies throughout the year for transients.

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

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

Mobilization Activities 100%

Percent of Population Completing Mobilization Activity 80%

60%

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

0%

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

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

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

100.0%

90.0%

80.0%

70.0%

Cumulative Percentage (%)

60.0%

50.0%

40.0%

30.0%

20.0%

10.0%

0.0%

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

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

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

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

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

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

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

Staged and Unstaged Evacuation Trip Generation Employees / Transients Residents with Commuters Residents with no Commuters Residents with Commuters and Snow Reidents with no Commuters with Snow Staged Residents with Commuters Staged Residents with no Commuters Staged Residents with Commuters (Snow) 100 80 Percent of Population Evacuating 60 40 20 0

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

Figure 55. Comparison of Staged and Unstaged Trip Generation Distributions in the 5 to 10 Mile Region Point Beach Nuclear Plant 521 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

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

The definitions of Region and Scenario are as follows:

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

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

A total of 21 Regions were identified which encompass all the groupings of Subareas considered. These Regions are defined in Table 61. The Subarea configurations are identified in Figure 61. Each keyhole sectorbased area consists of a central circle centered at the power plant, and three adjoining sectors, each with a central angle of 22.5 degrees, as per NUREG/CR 7002, Rev. 1 guidance. The central sector coincides with the wind direction. These sectors extend to 5 miles from the plant (Region R01) or to the EPZ boundary (Regions R02 through R11).

Regions R01 and R02 represent evacuations of circular areas with radii 5 and 10 miles, respectively. Regions R12 through R20 are identical to Regions R03 through R11 respectively and R21 is identical to R02. However, in R12 through R21, those Subareas between 5 miles and 10 miles are staged until 90% of the 2Mile/5Mile Region (Region R01) has evacuated.

A total of 14 Scenarios were evaluated for all Regions. Thus, there are a total of 21 x 14=294 evacuation cases. Table 62 provides a description of all Scenarios. Each combination of Region and Scenario implies a specific population to be evacuated.

The population and vehicle estimates presented in Section 3 and in Appendix E are peak values.

These peak values are adjusted depending on the Scenario and Region being considered, using scenario and regionspecific percentages, such that the population is considered for each evacuation case. The scenario percentages are presented in Table 63, while the region percentages are provided in Table H1.

Table 64 presents the vehicle counts for each Scenario for an evacuation of Region R02 - the entire EPZ, based on the Scenario percentages in Table 63.The percentages presented in Table 63 were determined as follows:

The number of residents with commuters during the week (when workforce is at its peak) is equal to 32%, which is the product of 65% (the number of households with at least one commuter) and 49% (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 those households with returning commuters (32%)

will have a commuter at work during those times, or approximately 3% (32% x 10% = 3.2%,

rounded to 3%) of households overall.

Point Beach Nuclear Plant 61 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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 high during evening hours - 95% for summer and 70% for winter. Transient activity on winter weekends is estimated to be 45%.

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

323 20% 1 21%

3,951 8,451 One special event - Kites Over Lake Michigan - was considered as Scenario 13. Thus, the special event traffic is 100% evacuated for Scenario 13, and 0% for all other scenarios.

Vehicles evacuation medical facilities include buses, wheelchair vans and ambulances as discussed in Section 3.5. These vehicles are 100% evacuated for all scenarios as the medical facility population is present in the EPZ for all scenarios.

Point Beach Nuclear Plant 62 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

As discussed in the footnote to Table 21, schools are in session during the winter season, midweek, midday and 100% of buses will be needed under those circumstances. It is estimated that summer school enrollment is approximately 10% of enrollment during the regular school year for summer, midweek, midday scenarios. School is not in session during weekends and evenings, thus no buses for school children are needed under those circumstances.

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

Point Beach Nuclear Plant 63 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

Table 61. Description of Evacuation Regions Radial Regions Subarea Region Description 5 10N 10NW 10W 10SW 10S R01 2Mile Region X N/A 5Mile Region Refer to Region R01 R02 Full EPZ X X X X X X Evacuate 2Mile Region and Downwind to 5Mile Region Subarea Region Wind Direction From (Degrees) 5 10N 10NW 10W 10SW 10S N/A All Directions Refer to Region R01 Evacuate 2Mile/5Mile Region and Downwind to the EPZ Boundary Subarea Region Wind Direction From (Degrees1) 5 10N 10NW 10W 10SW 10S R03 >324 9 (>351 3692) X X R04 >9 32 (>369 3922) X X X R05 2 X X X X

>32 77 (>392 437 )

R06 >77 - 81 (>437 - 4412) X X X X X R07 >81 - 99 (>441 - 4592) X X X X R08 >99 - 103 (>459 - 4632) X X X X X R09 >103 - 148 (>463 - 5082) X X X X R10 >148 - 171 (>508 - 5312) X X X R11 >171 - 189 (>531 - 5492) & >189216 X X N/A >216 - 324 Refer to Region R01 Staged Evacuation - 2Mile/5Mile Region Evacuates, then Evacuate Downwind to the EPZ Boundary Subarea Region Wind Direction From (Degrees1) 5 10N 10NW 10W 10SW 10S R12 >324 9 (>351 3692) X X R13 >9 32 (>369 3922) X X X R14 >32 77 (>392 4372) X X X X R15 >77 - 81 (>437 - 4412) X X X X X R16 >81 - 99 (>441 - 4592) X X X X R17 >99 - 103 (>459 - 4632) X X X X X R18 >103 - 148 (>463 - 5082) X X X X R19 >148 - 171 (>508 - 5312) X X X R20 >171 - 189 (>531 - 5492) & >189216 X X N/A >216 - 324 Refer to Region R01 R21 Full EPZ X X X X X X Subarea(s) ShelterinPlace until Subarea(s) Evacuate Subarea(s) ShelterinPlace 90% ETE for R01, then Evacuate 1

As read on PPCS/PI or Control Room Instruments.

2

> 360 as read on chart recorder.

Point Beach Nuclear Plant 64 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

Table 62. Evacuation Scenario Definitions Scenario Season3 Day of Week Time of Day Weather Special 1 Summer Midweek Midday Good None 2 Summer Midweek Midday Rain None 3 Summer Weekend Midday Good None 4 Summer Weekend Midday Rain None Midweek, 5 Summer Evening Good None Weekend 6 Winter Midweek Midday Good None Rain/Light 7 Winter Midweek Midday None Snow 8 Winter Midweek Midday Heavy Snow None 9 Winter Weekend Midday Good None Rain/Light 10 Winter Weekend Midday None Snow 11 Winter Weekend Midday Heavy Snow None Midweek, 12 Winter Evening Good None Weekend Special Event: Kites 13 Summer Weekend Midday Good Over Lake Michigan Roadway Impact:

14 Summer Midweek Midday Good Lane Closure on SR 42 Southbound 3

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

Point Beach Nuclear Plant 65 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

Table 63. Percent of Population Groups Evacuating for Various Scenarios Households Households With Without External Returning Returning Special Medical School Transit Through Scenario Commuters Commuters Employees Transients Shadow Event Facilities Buses Buses Traffic 1 32% 68% 96% 70% 21% 0% 100% 10% 100% 100%

2 32% 68% 96% 70% 21% 0% 100% 10% 100% 100%

3 3% 97% 10% 100% 20% 0% 100% 0% 100% 100%

4 3% 97% 10% 100% 20% 0% 100% 0% 100% 100%

5 3% 97% 10% 95% 20% 0% 100% 0% 100% 40%

6 32% 68% 100% 30% 21% 0% 100% 100% 100% 100%

7 32% 68% 100% 30% 21% 0% 100% 100% 100% 100%

8 32% 68% 100% 30% 21% 0% 100% 100% 100% 100%

9 3% 97% 10% 45% 20% 0% 100% 0% 100% 100%

10 3% 97% 10% 45% 20% 0% 100% 0% 100% 100%

11 3% 97% 10% 45% 20% 0% 100% 0% 100% 100%

12 3% 97% 10% 70% 20% 0% 100% 0% 100% 40%

13 3% 97% 10% 100% 20% 100% 100% 0% 100% 100%

14 32% 68% 96% 70% 21% 0% 100% 10% 100% 100%

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

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

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

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

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

Schools, Medical and Transit Buses .............Vehicleequivalents present on the road during evacuation servicing schools (includes preschools/day care centers) 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 approximately two (2) hours after the evacuation begins.

Point Beach Nuclear Plant 66 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

Table 64. Vehicle Estimates by Scenario4 Residents Residents with without Total Returning Returning Special Medical School Transit External Scenario Scenario Commuters Commuters Employees Transients Shadow Event Facilities Buses5 Buses Traffic Vehicles 1 3,951 8,451 323 1,481 3,953 0 52 12 20 4,836 23,079 2 3,951 8,451 323 1,481 3,953 0 52 12 20 4,836 23,079 3 395 12,007 34 2,116 3,863 0 52 0 20 4,836 23,323 4 395 12,007 34 2,116 3,863 0 52 0 20 4,836 23,323 5 395 12,007 34 2,010 3,863 0 52 0 20 1,934 20,315 6 3,951 8,451 336 635 3,957 0 52 116 20 4,836 22,354 7 3,951 8,451 336 635 3,957 0 52 116 20 4,836 22,354 8 3,951 8,451 336 635 3,957 0 52 116 20 4,836 22,354 9 395 12,007 34 952 3,863 0 52 0 20 4,836 22,159 10 395 12,007 34 952 3,863 0 52 0 20 4,836 22,159 11 395 12,007 34 952 3,863 0 52 0 20 4,836 22,159 12 395 12,007 34 1,481 3,863 0 52 0 20 1,934 19,786 13 395 12,007 34 2,116 3,863 1,966 52 0 20 4,836 25,289 14 3,951 8,451 323 1,481 3,953 0 52 12 20 4,836 23,079 4

Vehicle estimates are for an evacuation of the entire EPZ (Region R02).

5 School Buses also includes buses for preschools/day care centers.

Point Beach Nuclear Plant 67 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

Figure 61. Subareas Comprising the PBNP EPZ Point Beach Nuclear Plant 68 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

7 GENERAL POPULATION EVACUATION TIME ESTIMATES (ETE)

This section presents the ETE results of the computer analyses using the DYNEV II System described in Appendices B, C and D. These results cover 21 Evacuation Regions within the PBNP EPZ, and the 14 Evacuation Scenarios discussed in Section 6.

The ETE for all Evacuation Cases are presented in Table 71 and Table 72. These tables present the estimated times to clear the indicated population percentages from the Evacuation Regions for all Evacuation Scenarios. The ETE of the 2Mile/5Mile Region in both staged and unstaged regions are presented in Table 73 and Table 74. Table 75 defines the Evacuation Regions considered. The tabulated values of ETE are obtained from the DYNEV II model outputs which are generated at 5minute intervals.

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

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

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

Figure 72 presents the area identified as the Shadow Region. This region extends radially from the plant to cover a region between the EPZ boundary and approximately 15 miles. The population and number of evacuating vehicles in the Shadow Region were estimated using the same methodology that was used for permanent residents within the EPZ (see Section 3.1). As discussed in Section 3.2, it is estimated that a total of 31,842 permanent residents reside in the Shadow Region; 20% of them would evacuate. See Table 64 for the number of evacuating vehicles from the Shadow Region.

Traffic generated within this Shadow Region, including externalexternal traffic (see Section 3.10), traveling away from the plant location, has the potential for impeding evacuating vehicles from within the Evacuation Region. All ETE calculations include this shadow traffic movement.

Point Beach Nuclear Plant 71 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

7.2 Staged Evacuation For this study, staged evacuation consists of the following:

1. Subareas comprising the 2Mile/5Mile Region are advised to evacuate immediately.

2. Subareas comprising regions extending from 5 to 10 miles downwind are advised to shelter inplace while the 2Mile/5Mile Region is cleared.

3. As vehicles evacuate the 2Mile/5Mile Region, people from 5 to 10 miles downwind continue preparation for evacuation while they shelter.

4. The population sheltering in the 5 to 10Mile Region is advised to evacuate when approximately 90% of the 2Mile/5Mile Region evacuating traffic crosses the 2Mile/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 (or absences of congestion) that arise for the case when the entire EPZ (Region R02) is advised to evacuate during the summer, midweek, midday period under good weather conditions (Scenario 1).

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

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

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

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

Spatial extent measures describe the areas affected by LOS F conditions. 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.

Point Beach Nuclear Plant 72 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

At 45 minutes after the ATE, the population is beginning to mobilize. Table 73 displays significant congestion (LOS D or worse) beginning to develop in the City of Two Rivers (located in Subarea 10S) and the City of Manitowoc (within the Shadow Region). Congestion begins to build at the roundabouts along State Road (SR) 310 with County Road (CR) B and along SR 42 with Waldo Boulevard. The 2Mile/ 5Mile Region never experiences congestion, with roadways exhibiting LOS B or better. The traffic volume (LOS B) that exists within the 2mile radius are from the evacuation of plant employees and clears 5 minutes later at 50 minutes after the ATE.

All other roads within the study area are exhibiting no congestion and are operating at LOS A.

At this time, about 18% of evacuees have begun their evacuation trips and 11% have successfully evacuated the EPZ.

At 1 hour1.157407e-5 days 2.777778e-4 hours 1.653439e-6 weeks 3.805e-7 months and 45 minutes after the ATE, Figure 74 shows that the city of Two Rivers is fully congested, and congestion persists in the City of Manitowoc in the southern portion of the Shadow Region. Congestion intensifies at the roundabouts along SR 310 with CR B and CR Q, and along SR 42 with Waldo Boulevard. Evacuees from Two Rivers are utilizing SR310 to access Interstate (I)43. Evacuating vehicles reduce their speeds to 20 mph to navigate these roundabouts causing significant congestion along this route. Evacuees have begun to seek alternate access out of the EPZ causing congestion to build along Mirro Drive and Columbus Street at the intersections with SR 42 in the south, and along SR 147, and CR VV in the north of the Two Rivers city. Since SR 42 leads to another roundabout with Waldo Boulevard, vehicles face significant congestion in this area as well. At this time, 76% of evacuees have begun their evacuation trips and 54% of evacuees have successfully evacuated the EPZ.

At 2 hours2.314815e-5 days 5.555556e-4 hours 3.306878e-6 weeks 7.61e-7 months and 45 minutes after the ATE, Figure 75 shows that congestion in Two Rivers and Manitowoc begin to dissipate. Congestion persists at the roundabouts along SR 310, and along Johnston Dr roundabout with SR 42, and along Mirro Drive and Columbus Street at the intersections with SR 42. At this time, approximately 92% of evacuees have begun their evacuation trips and 86% of evacuees have successfully evacuated the EPZ.

At 3 hours3.472222e-5 days 8.333333e-4 hours 4.960317e-6 weeks 1.1415e-6 months and 45 minutes after the ATE, Figure 76 shows congestion no longer exists within the City of Two Rivers. Thus, the EPZ is now clear of congestion and all roadways within the EPZ is operating at a LOS A. As such, evacuees who depart at this time are encountering no traffic congestion or delays within the EPZ. At this time, approximately 99% have begun their evacuation trips and 99% of evacuees have successfully evacuated the ETE. Congestion persists along Mirro Drive at the intersection with SR 42 in Manitowoc and on Waldo Boulevard and Michigan Avenue in the Shadow Region.

Figure 77 shows the EPZ and the Shadow Region are essentially clear of congestion at 4 hours4.62963e-5 days 0.00111 hours 6.613757e-6 weeks 1.522e-6 months and 10 minutes after the ATE. At this time, all EPZ evacuees have successfully evacuated the EPZ. The remaining congestion is located along Michigan Avenue, outside of the Shadow Region, which clears 5 minutes later at 4 hours4.62963e-5 days 0.00111 hours 6.613757e-6 weeks 1.522e-6 months and 15 minutes after the ATE. The stop sign at this intersection impedes the flow of evacuees who have chosen this alternate route out of the EPZ and the Shadow Region.

Point Beach Nuclear Plant 73 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

7.4 Evacuation Rates Evacuation is a continuous process, as implied by Figure 78 through Figure 721. These figures display the rate at which traffic flows out of the indicated areas for the case of an evacuation of the full EPZ (Region R02) under the indicated conditions. One figure is presented for each scenario considered.

As indicated in Figure 78 through Figure 721, there is typically a long "tail" to these distributions due to the mobilization and not congestion (low population demand), except for the special event scenario. Vehicles begin to evacuate an area slowly at first, as people respond to the ATE at different rates. Then traffic demand builds rapidly (slopes of curves increase).

When the system becomes congested, traffic exits the EPZ at rates somewhat below capacity until some evacuation routes have cleared. As more routes clear, the aggregate rate of egress slows since many vehicles have already left the EPZ. Towards the end of the process, there are a few evacuation routes servicing the remaining demand.

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

7.5 Evacuation Time Estimate (ETE) Results Table 71 and Table 72 present the ETE values for all 21 Evacuation Regions and all 14 Evacuation Scenarios. Table 73 and Table 74 present the ETE values for the 2Mile/5Mile Region (R01) for both staged and unstaged keyhole regions downwind to the EPZ boundary.

The tables are organized as follows:

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

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

The ETE represents the elapsed time required for 90% of the 73 population within the 2Mile/5Mile Region, to evacuate from that Region with both Concurrent and Staged Evacuations.

The ETE represents the elapsed time required for 100% of the 74 population within the 2Mile/5Mile Region, to evacuate from that Region with both Concurrent and Staged Evacuations.

Point Beach Nuclear Plant 74 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

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

77. There is no congestion within the 2Mile/5Mile Region for the entire evacuation. The congestion (LOS C or worse) is in the EPZ is located in Two Rivers (Subarea 10S), which clears after 3 hours3.472222e-5 days 8.333333e-4 hours 4.960317e-6 weeks 1.1415e-6 months and 45 minutes after the ATE. and Manitowoc (in the Shadow Region), which is beyond the 2Mile/5Mile Region. This is reflected in the ETE statistics:

The 90th percentile ETE for Region R01 (2Mile/5Mile Region) ranges between 1:55 (hrs:mins) and 2:50. This mimics the combination of the quick mobilizing employees/transients and the slow mobilizing permanent residents with commuters that are located within Region R01, as shown in Figure 54.

The 90th percentile ETE for Region R02 (Full EPZ) are up to 1 hour1.157407e-5 days 2.777778e-4 hours 1.653439e-6 weeks 3.805e-7 months and 15 minutes longer for all scenarios except for the special event (Scenario 13), which is up to 1 hour1.157407e-5 days 2.777778e-4 hours 1.653439e-6 weeks 3.805e-7 months and 35 minutes longer - discussed below. The 90th percentile ETE for Region R02 range from 2:45 to 3:30.

The 100th percentile ETEs for all regions and scenarios, except for the special event in Regions that contain the City of Two Rivers, parallels the mobilization time, plus the time to travel to the EPZ boundary, due to the minimal congestion within the EPZ, which clears 3 hours3.472222e-5 days 8.333333e-4 hours 4.960317e-6 weeks 1.1415e-6 months and 45 minutes after the ATE, as discussed in Section 7.3 and displayed in Figure 76. The special event and roadway impacts increases the ETE by at most 25 minutes. The 100th percentile ETE for R02 ranges from 4:00 and 4:55.

Comparison of Scenarios 3 and 13 in Table 71 and in Table 72 indicate that the Special Event -

Kites Over Lake Michigan - significantly impacts the 90th and 100th percentile ETEs for evacuating regions which include Two Rivers (Subarea 10S). As the event is held at Two Rivers High School, the additional 1,966 transient vehicles present for the event significantly increases the congestion on roadways within Two Rivers as they evacuate out of the EPZ. This congestion causes an increase to the 90th and 100th percentile ETE by at most 35 minutes and 25 minutes ,

respectively.

Comparison of Scenarios 1 and 14 in Table 71 and in Table 72 indicate that the roadway closure - a single lane on SR 42/Memorial Drive Southbound (from Columbus Street to Waldo Boulevard) - has minimal impacts to the 90th percentile ETE for evacuating regions which include Two Rivers (Subarea 10S) and increases the 90th percentile ETE at most by 20 minutes. A single lane closure, the capacity of SR 42/Memorial Drive is reduced to half or less, increasing congestion and prolonging the ETE. There are no impacts to the 100th percentile ETE, as the trip mobilization (plus the travel time to the EPZ boundary) dictates the ETE. The roadway closure has no effect on regions which do not involve the evacuation of Two Rivers.

The results of the roadway impact scenario indicate that events such as adverse weather or traffic accidents which close a lane on SR 42/Memorial Drive could minimally impact the ETE.

State and local police could consider traffic management tactics such as using the shoulder of the roadway as a travel lane to mitigate these effects or rerouting of traffic along other evacuation route to avoid overwhelming SR 42/Memorial Drive. All efforts should be made to remove the blockage, particularly within the first 3 hours3.472222e-5 days 8.333333e-4 hours 4.960317e-6 weeks 1.1415e-6 months of the evacuation..

Point Beach Nuclear Plant 75 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

7.6 Staged Evacuation Results Table 73 and Table 74 present a comparison of the ETE compiled for the concurrent (un staged) and staged evacuation results. Note that Regions R12 through R20 and R21 are the same geographic areas as Regions R03 through R11 and R02, respectively. The times shown in Table 73 and Table 74 are when the 2Mile/5Mile Region is 90% clear and 100% clear, respectively.

The objective of a staged evacuation is to show that the ETE for the 2Mile/5Mile Region can be significantly reduced (30 minutes or 25%, whichever is less) without significantly impacting people beyond the 2Mile/5Mile Region. As shown in Table 73 and Table 74, the 90th percentile ETE for the 2Mile Region/5Mile Region increases at most 25 minutes when a staged evacuation is implemented. As shown in Figure 74, congestion beyond the 2Mile/5Mile Region (within Two Rivers and Manitowoc) does not extend upstream to the extent that it penetrates the 2Mile/5Mile Region (R01). The 100th percentile ETE remains the same, as the trip generation (plus the travel time to the EPZ boundary) dictates the ETE.

To determine the effect of staged evacuation on those beyond the 2Mile/5Mile Region (R01),

the ETE for Regions R03 through R11 and R02 are compared with R12 through R20 and R21, respectively in Table 71 and Table 72. A comparison of ETE between these similar regions reveals that staging increases the 90th percentile ETE by at most 1 hour1.157407e-5 days 2.777778e-4 hours 1.653439e-6 weeks 3.805e-7 months and the 100th percentile ETE by at most 25 minutes. This extending of ETE is due to the delay in beginning the evacuation trip experienced by those who shelter, plus the effect of the tripgeneration spike (significant volume of traffic beginning the evacuation trip at the same time) that follows the eventual ATE, in creating congestion within the EPZ beyond the 2Mile/5Mile Region.

Therefore, staging evacuation provides no benefit to evacuees within the 2Mile/5Mile Region or adversely impacts many evacuees located beyond the 2Mile/5Mile Region from the PBNP.

Based on the guidance in NURGEG0654, Supplement 3, this analysis would result in staged evacuation not being implemented for this site.

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

1. Identify the applicable Scenario (Step 1):

Season Summer Winter (also Autumn and Spring)

Day of Week Midweek Weekend Point Beach Nuclear Plant 76 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

Time of Day Midday Evening

Weather Condition Good Weather Rain/Light Snow Heavy Snow

Special Event Kites Over Lake Michigan (venue at Two Rivers High School)

Roadway Impact Road Closure (A single lane southbound on SR 42/Memorial Drive from Columbus Street to Waldo Boulevard)

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

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

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

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

The seasons are defined as follows:

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

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

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

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

Determine the projected azimuth direction of the plume (coincident with the wind direction). This direction is expressed in terms of degrees (from >324 9 , >9 - 32, >32

- 77, etc.)

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

2Mile/5 Miles (Region R01)

To EPZ Boundary (Regions R02 through R21)

Point Beach Nuclear Plant 77 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

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

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

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

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

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

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

Sunday, August 10th at 4:00 AM.

It is raining.

Wind direction is from 30°.

Wind speed is such that the distance to be evacuated is judged to be a 2Mile/5Mile Region and downwind to EPZ boundary.

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

A staged evacuation is not desired.

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

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

2. Enter Table 75 and locate the Region described as Evacuate 2Mile Region/5Mile Region and Downwind to the EPZ Boundary for wind direction from 30° and read Region R04 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 R04. This data cell is in column (4) and in the row for Region R04; it contains the ETE value of 2:10.

Point Beach Nuclear Plant 78 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

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

Midday Midday Evening Midday Midday Evening Midday Midday Region Good Good Good Good Rain/Light Heavy Good Rain/Light Heavy Good Special Roadway Rain Rain Weather Weather Weather Weather Snow Snow Weather Snow Snow Weather Event Impact Radial Regions R01 2:15 2:15 1:55 1:55 2:00 2:20 2:20 2:50 2:05 2:05 2:40 2:00 1:55 2:15 R02 2:55 3:05 2:55 3:10 2:55 2:55 2:55 3:25 2:45 2:55 3:20 3:00 3:30 3:10 Evacuate 2Mile/5Mile Region and Downwind to the EPZ Boundary R03 2:25 2:25 2:05 2:05 2:05 2:25 2:25 2:55 2:15 2:15 2:45 2:10 2:05 2:25 R04 2:25 2:25 2:10 2:10 2:10 2:25 2:30 3:00 2:15 2:15 2:45 2:10 2:10 2:25 R05 2:50 3:00 2:45 3:05 2:55 2:45 2:55 3:25 2:40 2:55 3:25 2:45 3:25 3:10 R06 2:55 3:00 2:55 3:05 2:55 2:50 3:00 3:25 2:50 2:55 3:25 2:55 3:30 3:15 R07 2:35 2:35 2:15 2:25 2:20 2:35 2:35 3:10 2:25 2:25 2:55 2:25 2:30 2:35 R08 2:40 2:40 2:20 2:20 2:20 2:35 2:35 3:10 2:25 2:25 2:50 2:25 2:30 2:40 R09 2:25 2:25 2:05 2:05 2:05 2:25 2:25 3:00 2:15 2:15 2:45 2:10 2:05 2:25 R10 2:20 2:20 2:05 2:05 2:05 2:20 2:25 2:55 2:10 2:10 2:45 2:05 2:05 2:20 R11 2:15 2:15 2:00 2:00 2:00 2:20 2:20 2:50 2:05 2:10 2:40 2:05 2:00 2:15 Staged Evacuation - 2Mile/5Mile Region and Downwind to the EPZ Boundary R12 2:35 2:35 2:35 2:35 2:35 2:35 2:35 3:10 2:35 2:35 3:05 2:35 2:35 2:35 R13 2:35 2:35 2:35 2:35 2:35 2:35 2:35 3:10 2:35 2:35 3:05 2:35 2:35 2:35 R14 3:35 3:35 3:45 3:45 3:40 3:40 3:40 4:25 3:35 3:40 4:25 3:40 3:45 3:50 R15 3:25 3:40 3:25 3:30 3:25 3:35 3:35 4:20 3:30 3:35 4:25 3:25 3:45 3:45 R16 3:00 3:00 3:05 3:05 3:10 3:20 3:20 3:35 2:50 3:20 3:40 3:10 3:15 3:10 R17 2:55 3:10 3:00 3:00 3:10 2:55 3:00 3:30 2:50 3:00 3:35 3:10 3:10 3:10 R18 2:35 2:35 2:30 2:30 2:30 2:35 2:35 3:05 2:30 2:30 3:05 2:30 2:30 2:35 R19 2:30 2:30 2:25 2:25 2:25 2:30 2:30 3:00 2:25 2:30 3:00 2:25 2:25 2:30 R20 2:25 2:25 2:20 2:20 2:20 2:25 2:25 2:55 2:25 2:25 2:55 2:20 2:20 2:25 R21 3:30 3:35 3:30 3:35 3:20 3:30 3:30 4:20 3:25 3:35 4:20 3:25 3:40 3:45 Point Beach Nuclear Plant 79 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

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

Midday Midday Evening Midday Midday Evening Midday Midday Region Good Good Good Good Rain/Light Heavy Good Rain/Light Heavy Good Special Roadway Rain Rain Weather Weather Weather Weather Snow Snow Weather Snow Snow Weather Event Impact Radial Regions R01 4:05 4:05 4:05 4:05 4:05 4:05 4:05 4:50 4:05 4:05 4:50 4:05 4:05 4:05 R02 4:10 4:10 4:10 4:10 4:10 4:10 4:10 4:55 4:10 4:10 4:55 4:10 4:35 4:10 Evacuate 2Mile/5Mile Region and Downwind to the EPZ Boundary R03 4:10 4:10 4:10 4:10 4:10 4:10 4:10 4:55 4:10 4:10 4:55 4:10 4:10 4:10 R04 4:10 4:10 4:10 4:10 4:10 4:10 4:10 4:55 4:10 4:10 4:55 4:10 4:10 4:10 R05 4:10 4:10 4:10 4:10 4:10 4:10 4:10 4:55 4:10 4:10 4:55 4:10 4:25 4:10 R06 4:10 4:10 4:10 4:10 4:10 4:10 4:10 4:55 4:10 4:10 4:55 4:10 4:30 4:10 R07 4:10 4:10 4:10 4:10 4:10 4:10 4:10 4:55 4:10 4:10 4:55 4:10 4:10 4:10 R08 4:10 4:10 4:10 4:10 4:10 4:10 4:10 4:55 4:10 4:10 4:55 4:10 4:10 4:10 R09 4:10 4:10 4:10 4:10 4:10 4:10 4:10 4:55 4:10 4:10 4:55 4:10 4:10 4:10 R10 4:10 4:10 4:10 4:10 4:10 4:10 4:10 4:55 4:10 4:10 4:55 4:10 4:10 4:10 R11 4:10 4:10 4:10 4:10 4:10 4:10 4:10 4:55 4:10 4:10 4:55 4:10 4:10 4:10 Staged Evacuation - 2Mile/5Mile Region and Downwind to the EPZ Boundary R12 4:10 4:10 4:10 4:10 4:10 4:10 4:10 4:55 4:10 4:10 4:55 4:10 4:10 4:10 R13 4:10 4:10 4:10 4:10 4:10 4:10 4:10 4:55 4:10 4:10 4:55 4:10 4:10 4:10 R14 4:10 4:15 4:10 4:10 4:10 4:10 4:20 5:05 4:10 4:10 5:15 4:10 4:25 4:35 R15 4:15 4:25 4:10 4:10 4:10 4:10 4:20 5:05 4:10 4:10 5:15 4:10 4:30 4:35 R16 4:10 4:10 4:10 4:10 4:10 4:10 4:10 4:55 4:10 4:10 4:55 4:10 4:10 4:10 R17 4:10 4:10 4:10 4:10 4:10 4:10 4:10 4:55 4:10 4:10 4:55 4:10 4:10 4:10 R18 4:10 4:10 4:10 4:10 4:10 4:10 4:10 4:55 4:10 4:10 4:55 4:10 4:10 4:10 R19 4:10 4:10 4:10 4:10 4:10 4:10 4:10 4:55 4:10 4:10 4:55 4:10 4:10 4:10 R20 4:10 4:10 4:10 4:10 4:10 4:10 4:10 4:55 4:10 4:10 4:55 4:10 4:10 4:10 R21 4:15 4:25 4:10 4:15 4:10 4:20 4:20 5:15 4:10 4:10 5:15 4:10 4:35 4:35 Point Beach Nuclear Plant 710 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

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

Midday Midday Evening Midday Midday Evening Midday Midday Region Good Good Good Good Rain/Light Heavy Good Rain/Light Heavy Good Special Roadway Rain Rain Weather Weather Weather Weather Snow Snow Weather Snow Snow Weather Event Impact UnStaged Evacuation Entire 2Mile/5Mile Region, Full EPZ, and Entire 2Mile Region and Downwind to 5Mile Region R01 2:15 2:15 1:55 1:55 2:00 2:20 2:20 2:50 2:05 2:05 2:40 2:00 1:55 2:15 R02 2:15 2:15 2:00 2:00 2:00 2:20 2:20 2:50 2:05 2:10 2:40 2:05 2:00 2:15 R03 2:15 2:15 1:55 1:55 2:00 2:20 2:20 2:50 2:05 2:05 2:40 2:00 1:55 2:15 R04 2:15 2:15 1:55 1:55 2:00 2:20 2:20 2:50 2:05 2:05 2:40 2:00 1:55 2:15 R05 2:15 2:15 2:00 2:00 2:00 2:20 2:20 2:50 2:05 2:10 2:40 2:05 2:00 2:15 R06 2:15 2:15 2:00 2:00 2:00 2:20 2:20 2:50 2:05 2:10 2:40 2:05 2:00 2:15 R07 2:15 2:15 2:00 2:00 2:00 2:20 2:20 2:50 2:05 2:10 2:40 2:05 2:00 2:15 R08 2:15 2:15 2:00 2:00 2:00 2:20 2:20 2:50 2:05 2:10 2:40 2:05 2:00 2:15 R09 2:15 2:15 2:00 2:00 2:00 2:20 2:20 2:50 2:05 2:10 2:40 2:05 2:00 2:15 R10 2:15 2:15 2:00 2:00 2:00 2:20 2:20 2:50 2:05 2:05 2:40 2:05 2:00 2:15 R11 2:15 2:15 1:55 1:55 2:00 2:20 2:20 2:50 2:05 2:05 2:40 2:00 1:55 2:15 Staged Evacuation - 2Mile/5Mile Region and Downwind to the EPZ Boundary R12 2:20 2:20 2:10 2:10 2:10 2:20 2:25 2:55 2:15 2:15 2:45 2:10 2:10 2:20 R13 2:20 2:20 2:10 2:10 2:10 2:25 2:25 2:55 2:15 2:15 2:50 2:15 2:10 2:20 R14 2:25 2:25 2:20 2:20 2:20 2:25 2:25 2:55 2:20 2:25 2:55 2:20 2:20 2:25 R15 2:25 2:25 2:20 2:20 2:20 2:25 2:25 3:00 2:25 2:25 2:55 2:25 2:20 2:25 R16 2:25 2:25 2:20 2:20 2:20 2:25 2:25 3:00 2:25 2:25 2:55 2:25 2:20 2:25 R17 2:25 2:25 2:20 2:20 2:20 2:25 2:25 3:00 2:25 2:25 2:55 2:25 2:20 2:25 R18 2:25 2:25 2:20 2:20 2:20 2:25 2:25 2:55 2:25 2:25 2:55 2:25 2:20 2:25 R19 2:20 2:20 2:15 2:15 2:15 2:25 2:25 2:55 2:20 2:20 2:50 2:20 2:15 2:20 R20 2:20 2:20 2:10 2:10 2:10 2:20 2:25 2:55 2:15 2:15 2:45 2:10 2:10 2:20 R21 2:25 2:25 2:20 2:20 2:20 2:25 2:25 3:00 2:25 2:25 2:55 2:25 2:20 2:25 Point Beach Nuclear Plant 711 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

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

Midday Midday Evening Midday Midday Evening Midday Midday Region Good Good Good Good Rain/Light Heavy Good Rain/Light Heavy Good Special Roadway Rain Rain Weather Weather Weather Weather Snow Snow Weather Snow Snow Weather Event Impact UnStaged Evacuation Entire 5Mile Region, Full EPZ, and Entire 2Mile Region and Downwind to 5Mile Region R01 4:05 4:05 4:05 4:05 4:05 4:05 4:05 4:50 4:05 4:05 4:50 4:05 4:05 4:05 R02 4:05 4:05 4:05 4:05 4:05 4:05 4:05 4:50 4:05 4:05 4:50 4:05 4:05 4:05 R03 4:05 4:05 4:05 4:05 4:05 4:05 4:05 4:50 4:05 4:05 4:50 4:05 4:05 4:05 R04 4:05 4:05 4:05 4:05 4:05 4:05 4:05 4:50 4:05 4:05 4:50 4:05 4:05 4:05 R05 4:05 4:05 4:05 4:05 4:05 4:05 4:05 4:50 4:05 4:05 4:50 4:05 4:05 4:05 R06 4:05 4:05 4:05 4:05 4:05 4:05 4:05 4:50 4:05 4:05 4:50 4:05 4:05 4:05 R07 4:05 4:05 4:05 4:05 4:05 4:05 4:05 4:50 4:05 4:05 4:50 4:05 4:05 4:05 R08 4:05 4:05 4:05 4:05 4:05 4:05 4:05 4:50 4:05 4:05 4:50 4:05 4:05 4:05 R09 4:05 4:05 4:05 4:05 4:05 4:05 4:05 4:50 4:05 4:05 4:50 4:05 4:05 4:05 R10 4:05 4:05 4:05 4:05 4:05 4:05 4:05 4:50 4:05 4:05 4:50 4:05 4:05 4:05 R11 4:05 4:05 4:05 4:05 4:05 4:05 4:05 4:50 4:05 4:05 4:50 4:05 4:05 4:05 Staged Evacuation 5Mile Region and Downwind to the EPZ Boundary R12 4:05 4:05 4:05 4:05 4:05 4:05 4:05 4:50 4:05 4:05 4:50 4:05 4:05 4:05 R13 4:05 4:05 4:05 4:05 4:05 4:05 4:05 4:50 4:05 4:05 4:50 4:05 4:05 4:05 R14 4:05 4:05 4:05 4:05 4:05 4:05 4:05 4:50 4:05 4:05 4:50 4:05 4:05 4:05 R15 4:05 4:05 4:05 4:05 4:05 4:05 4:05 4:50 4:05 4:05 4:50 4:05 4:05 4:05 R16 4:05 4:05 4:05 4:05 4:05 4:05 4:05 4:50 4:05 4:05 4:50 4:05 4:05 4:05 R17 4:05 4:05 4:05 4:05 4:05 4:05 4:05 4:50 4:05 4:05 4:50 4:05 4:05 4:05 R18 4:05 4:05 4:05 4:05 4:05 4:05 4:05 4:50 4:05 4:05 4:50 4:05 4:05 4:05 R19 4:05 4:05 4:05 4:05 4:05 4:05 4:05 4:50 4:05 4:05 4:50 4:05 4:05 4:05 R20 4:05 4:05 4:05 4:05 4:05 4:05 4:05 4:50 4:05 4:05 4:50 4:05 4:05 4:05 R21 4:05 4:05 4:05 4:05 4:05 4:05 4:05 4:50 4:05 4:05 4:50 4:05 4:05 4:05 Point Beach Nuclear Plant 712 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

Table 75. Description of Evacuation Regions Radial Regions Subarea Region Description 5 10N 10NW 10W 10SW 10S R01 2Mile Region X N/A 5Mile Region Refer to Region R01 R02 Full EPZ X X X X X X Evacuate 2Mile Region and Downwind to 5Mile Region Subarea Region Wind Direction From (Degrees) 5 10N 10NW 10W 10SW 10S N/A All Directions Refer to Region R01 Evacuate 2Mile/5Mile Region and Downwind to the EPZ Boundary Subarea Region Wind Direction From (Degrees1) 5 10N 10NW 10W 10SW 10S R03 >324 9 (>351 3692) X X R04 >9 32 (>369 3922) X X X R05 2 X X X X

>32 77 (>392 437 )

R06 >77 - 81 (>437 - 4412) X X X X X R07 >81 - 99 (>441 - 4592) X X X X R08 >99 - 103 (>459 - 4632) X X X X X R09 >103 - 148 (>463 - 5082) X X X X R10 >148 - 171 (>508 - 5312) X X X R11 >171 - 189 (>531 - 5492) & >189216 X X N/A >216 - 324 Refer to Region R01 Staged Evacuation - 2Mile/5Mile Region Evacuates, then Evacuate Downwind to the EPZ Boundary Subarea Region Wind Direction From (Degrees1) 5 10N 10NW 10W 10SW 10S R12 >324 9 (>351 3692) X X R13 >9 32 (>369 3922) X X X R14 2 X X X X

>32 77 (>392 437 )

R15 >77 - 81 (>437 - 4412) X X X X X R16 >81 - 99 (>441 - 4592) X X X X R17 >99 - 103 (>459 - 4632) X X X X X R18 >103 - 148 (>463 - 5082) X X X X R19 2 X X X

>148 - 171 (>508 - 531 )

R20 >171 - 189 (>531 - 5492) & >189216 X X N/A >216 - 324 Refer to Region R01 R21 Full EPZ X X X X X X Subarea(s) Shelterin Subarea(s) ShelterinPlace until Subarea(s) Evacuate Place 90% ETE for R01, then Evacuate 1

As read on PPCS/PI or Control Room Instruments.

2

> 360 as read on chart recorder.

Point Beach Nuclear Plant 713 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

Figure 71. Voluntary Evacuation Methodology Point Beach Nuclear Plant 714 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

Figure 72. PBNP EPZ and Shadow Region Point Beach Nuclear Plant 715 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

Figure 73. Congestion Patterns at 45 Minutes after the Advisory to Evacuate Point Beach Nuclear Plant 716 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

Figure 74. Congestion Patterns at 1 Hour and 45 Minutes after the Advisory to Evacuate Point Beach Nuclear Plant 717 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

Figure 75. Congestion Patterns at 2 Hours and 45 Minutes after the Advisory to Evacuate Point Beach Nuclear Plant 718 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

Figure 76. Congestion Patterns at 3 Hours and 45 Minutes after the Advisory to Evacuate Point Beach Nuclear Plant 719 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

Figure 77. Congestion Patterns at 4 Hours and 10 Minutes after the Advisory to Evacuate Point Beach Nuclear Plant 720 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

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

16 14 12 Vehicles Evacuating 10 8

(Thousands) 6 4

2 0

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

Figure 78. Evacuation Time Estimates Scenario 1 for Region R02 Evacuation Time Estimates Summer, Midweek, Midday, Rain (Scenario 2) 2 and 5Mile Region Entire EPZ 90% 100%

16 14 12 Vehicles Evacuating 10 8

(Thousands) 6 4

2 0

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

Figure 79. Evacuation Time Estimates Scenario 2 for Region R02 Point Beach Nuclear Plant 721 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

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

16 14 12 Vehicles Evacuating 10 8

(Thousands) 6 4

2 0

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

Figure 710. Evacuation Time Estimates Scenario 3 for Region R02 Evacuation Time Estimates Summer, Weekend, Midday, Rain (Scenario 4) 2 and 5Mile Region Entire EPZ 90% 100%

18 16 14 Vehicles Evacuating 12 10 8

(Thousands) 6 4

2 0

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

Figure 711. Evacuation Time Estimates Scenario 4 for Region R02 Point Beach Nuclear Plant 722 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

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

16 14 12 Vehicles Evacuating 10 8

(Thousands) 6 4

2 0

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

Figure 712. Evacuation Time Estimates Scenario 5 for Region R02 Evacuation Time Estimates Winter, Midweek, Midday, Good Weather (Scenario 6) 2 and 5Mile Region Entire EPZ 90% 100%

16 14 12 Vehicles Evacuating 10 8

(Thousands) 6 4

2 0

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

Figure 713. Evacuation Time Estimates Scenario 6 for Region R02 Point Beach Nuclear Plant 723 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

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

16 14 12 Vehicles Evacuating 10 8

(Thousands) 6 4

2 0

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

Figure 714. Evacuation Time Estimates Scenario 7 for Region R02 Evacuation Time Estimates Winter, Midweek, Midday, Heavy Snow (Scenario 8) 2 and 5Mile Region Entire EPZ 90% 100%

16 14 12 Vehicles Evacuating 10 8

(Thousands) 6 4

2 0

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

Figure 715. Evacuation Time Estimates Scenario 8 for Region R02 Point Beach Nuclear Plant 724 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

Evacuation Time Estimates Winter, Weekend, Midday, Good Weather (Scenario 9) 2 and 5Mile Region Entire EPZ 90% 100%

16 14 12 Vehicles Evacuating 10 8

(Thousands) 6 4

2 0

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

Figure 716. Evacuation Time Estimates Scenario 9 for Region R02 Evacuation Time Estimates Winter, Weekend, Midday, Rain\Light Snow (Scenario 10) 2 and 5Mile Region Entire EPZ 90% 100%

16 14 12 Vehicles Evacuating 10 8

(Thousands) 6 4

2 0

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

Figure 717. Evacuation Time Estimates Scenario 10 for Region R02 Point Beach Nuclear Plant 725 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

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

16 14 12 Vehicles Evacuating 10 8

(Thousands) 6 4

2 0

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

Figure 718. Evacuation Time Estimates Scenario 11 for Region R02 Evacuation Time Estimates Winter, Midweek, Weekend, Evening, Good Weather (Scenario 12) 2 and 5Mile Region Entire EPZ 90% 100%

16 14 12 Vehicles Evacuating 10 8

(Thousands) 6 4

2 0

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

Figure 719. Evacuation Time Estimates Scenario 12 for Region R02 Point Beach Nuclear Plant 726 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

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

20 18 16 Vehicles Evacuating 14 12 10 (Thousands) 8 6

4 2

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

Figure 720. Evacuation Time Estimates Scenario 13 for Region R02 Evacuation Time Estimates Summer, Midweek, Midday, Good Weather, Roadway Impact (Scenario 14) 2 and 5Mile Region Entire EPZ 90% 100%

16 14 12 Vehicles Evacuating 10 8

(Thousands) 6 4

2 0

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

Figure 721. Evacuation Time Estimates Scenario 14 for Region R02 Point Beach Nuclear Plant 727 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

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

residents with no vehicles available; residents of special facilities such as schools, preschools/day care centers, medical facilities; and access and/or functional needs population.

These transit vehicles mix with the general evacuating traffic that is comprised mostly of passenger cars (pcs). The presence of each bus 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. An ambulance is treated as one pc.

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

Specifically:

Bus drivers must be alerted

They must travel to the bus depot

They must be briefed there and assigned to a route or facility These activities consume time. Based on discussion with the offsite agencies, it is estimated that bus mobilization time will average approximately 90 minutes for schools, preschools/day care centers and medical facilities extending from the ATE, to the time when buses first arrive at the facility to be evacuated. In addition, based on discussions with the offsite agencies, it is estimated that transitdependent buses and access and/or buses mobilize within 90 minutes, which is when approximately 73% of the residents with no commuters have completed their mobilization activities.

During this mobilization period, other mobilization activities are taking place. One of these is the action taken by parents, neighbors, relatives and friends to pick up children from school or preschools/day care centers 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 PBNP EPZ indicates that schoolchildren will be evacuated to host schools.

As discussed in Section 2, this study assumes a rapidly escalating accident. This report provides estimates of buses under the assumption that no children will be picked up by their parents (in accordance with NUREG/CR7002, Rev. 1), to present an upper bound estimate of buses required. Picking up children at school could add to traffic congestion at these facilities, 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. It is assumed that Point Beach Nuclear Plant 81 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

children at preschools/day care centers will also be transported to host facilities in accordance with the county emergency plans.

The procedure for computing transitdependent ETE is to:

Estimate demand for transit service (discussed in Section 3)

Estimate time to perform all transit functions

Estimate route travel times to the EPZ boundary and to the reception centers The ETE for transit trips were developed using both good weather and adverse weather conditions. Figure 81 presents the chronology of events relevant to transit operations. The elapsed time for each activity will now be discussed with reference to Figure 81.

8.1 ETEs for Schools, Preschools/Day Care Centers, Transit Dependent People and Medical Facilities The EPZ bus resources are assigned to evacuating schoolchildren (if schools are in session at the time of the ATE) as the first priority in the event of an emergency. In the event that the allocation of buses dispatched from the depots to the various facilities and to the bus routes is somewhat inefficient, or if there is a shortfall of available drivers, then there may be a need for some buses to return to the EPZ from the reception center after completing their first evacuation trip, to complete a second wave of providing transportation service to evacuees.

For this reason, the ETE for the transitdependent population will be calculated for both a single wave transit evacuation and for a second wave evacuation.

The number of available transportation resources were based on information provided by the offsite agencies. Table 81 summarizes the capacity of transportation resources. Also, included in the table is the transportation resource capacity needed to evacuate schools, preschools/day care centers, medical facilities, transitdependent population, and access and/or functional needs population (discussed below in Section 8.2). There are sufficient bus resources available to evacuate the children at schools/preschools/day care centers, patients at medical facilities, the transitdependent population and the access and/or functional needs population in the EPZ in a single wave. Furthermore, if the impacted Evacuation Region is other than R02 (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. It is assumed that there are enough drivers available to man all resources listed in Table 81.

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

Evacuation of Schools and Preschools/Day Care Centers Activity: Mobilize Drivers (ABC)

Mobilization time is the elapsed time from the ATE until the time the buses arrive at the school or preschool/day care center to be evacuated. As previously stated, it is assumed that for a Point Beach Nuclear Plant 82 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

rapidly escalating radiological emergency with no observable indication before the fact, school bus drivers would require 90 minutes to be contacted, to travel to the depot, be briefed, and to travel to the schools and preschools/day care centers. Mobilization time is slightly longer in adverse weather - 100 minutes in rain/light snow and 110 minutes in heavy snow conditions.

Activity: Board Passengers (CD)

Based on discussions with offsite agencies, a loading time of 15 minutes for good weather (20 minutes for rain/light snow and 25 minutes for heavy snow) for school and preschool/day care center buses is used.

Activity: Travel to EPZ Boundary (DE)

The buses servicing the schools and preschools/day care centers are ready to begin their evacuation trips at 105 minutes after the ATE - 90 minutes mobilization time plus 15 minutes loading time - in good weather. The UNITES software discussed in Section 1.3 was used to define bus routes along the most likely path from a school or preschool/day care center being evacuated to the EPZ boundary, traveling toward the appropriate host school. This is done in UNITES by interactively selecting the series of nodes from the school/preschool/day care center to the EPZ boundary. Each bus route is given an identification number and is written to the DYNEV II input stream. DYNEV computes the route length and outputs the average speed for each 5minute interval, for each bus route. The specified bus routes are documented in Section 10 in Table 102 (refer to the maps of the linknode analysis network in Appendix K for node locations). Data provided by DYNEV during the appropriate timeframe depending on the mobilization and loading times (i.e., 105 minutes after the ATE for good weather) were used to compute the average speed for each route, as follows:

. . 60 .

. 1 .

60 .

1 .

The average speed computed (using this methodology) for the buses servicing each of the schools and preschool/day care centers in the EPZ is shown in Table 82 through Table 84 for school evacuation, and in Table 85 through Table 87 for the transit vehicles evacuating transit dependent persons, which are discussed later. The travel time to the EPZ boundary was computed for each bus using the computed average speed and the distance to the EPZ boundary along the most likely route out of the EPZ. The travel time from the EPZ boundary to the host school was computed assuming an average speed of 55 mph, 50 mph, and 47 mph for Point Beach Nuclear Plant 83 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

good weather, rain/light snow and heavy snow, respectively. Wisconsin state law prohibits school buses from operating above the posted speed limit, which is, at most, 55 mph within the study area (see assumption 7 in Section 2.1). Therefore, all speeds in Table 82 through Table 84 were reduced to 55 mph (50 mph for rain/light snow - 10% decrease - and 47 mph for heavy snow - 15% decrease) for those calculated bus speeds which exceed 55 mph (50 mph in rain/light snow and 47 mph in heavy snow).

Table 82 (good weather), Table 83 (rain/light snow) and Table 84 (heavy snow) present the following ETEs (rounded up to the nearest 5 minutes) for schools 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: 90 minutes + 15 + 44 = 2:30 (rounded to the nearest 5 minutes) for Two Rivers High School, in good weather).

The average ETE for schools and preschools/daycares are 35 minutes less than the 90th percentile ETE for Region R02 for the general population during Scenario 6 conditions (2:55 -

2:20 = 0:35) in good weather. Hence, ETE is not likely to impact protective action decision making.

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.

Activity: Travel to Host Schools (EF)

The distances from the EPZ boundary to the host schools are measured using geographic information system (GIS) software along the most likely route from the EPZ exit point to the reception center. The host schools are mapped in Figure 103. For a single wave evacuation, this travel time outside the EPZ does not contribute to the ETE. Assumed bus speeds of 55 mph, 50 mph, and 47 mph for good weather, rain/light snow, and heavy snow, respectively, are applied for this activity, for the buses servicing the schools and preschools/daycares in the EPZ.

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

A detailed computation of the transit dependent population was performed and is discussed in Section 3.7. The total number of transit dependent people per Subarea was determined using a weighted distribution based on population. The number of buses required to evacuate this population was determined by the capacity of 30 people per bus.

Those buses servicing the transitdependent evacuees will first travel along their pickup routes, then proceed out of the EPZ. The public information and emergency plans do not identify pick up locations for persons without access to a personal vehicle. The six (6) bus routes (Route Number 17 through 22) described in Table 101 and mapped in Figure 102, were designed as part of this study to service the major routes through each Subarea and to service population along major routes in each Subarea. It is assumed that residents will walk to and flag buses along these routes, and that they can arrive at the stops within the 90minute bus mobilization time (good weather).

Point Beach Nuclear Plant 84 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

The ETEs for the transit trips were developed using both good weather, rain/light snow and heavy snow conditions. Table 85 (good weather), Table 86 (rain/light snow), and Table 87 (heavy snow) show the ETE breakdown for each step (discussed below) in the transit dependent evacuation process. 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 and shown in Table 81.

Activity: Mobilize Drivers (ABC)

Mobilization time is the elapsed time from the ATE until the time the buses arrive at their designated route. The buses dispatched from the depots to service the transitdependent evacuees will be scheduled so that they arrive at their respective routes after their passengers have completed their mobilization. As shown in Figure 54 (Residents with no Commuters),

approximately 73% of the evacuees will complete their mobilization when the buses begin their routes, approximately 90 minutes after the ATE. Subarea 10S has a higher number of transit dependent populations and requires four (4) buses where other Subareas require only 1 bus each (see table 101). The route for Subarea 10S has been designed such that buses are dispatched using a 20minute headway. The start of service on these routes is separated by 20 minute headways, as shown in Table 85 through Table 87. The use of bus headways ensures that those people who take longer to mobilize will be picked up. Mobilization times are 10 and 20 minutes longer in rain/light snow and heavy snow, respectively, to account for slower travel speeds and reduced roadway capacity.

Activity: Board Passengers (CD)

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

2 ,

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

Assigning reasonable estimates:

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

v = 25 mph = 37 ft/sec

a = 4 ft/sec/sec, a moderate average rate Point Beach Nuclear Plant 85 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

Then, P 1 minute per stop. Allowing 30 minutes pickup time per bus run implies 30 stops per run, for good weather. It is assumed that bus acceleration and speed will be less in rain/light snow; total loading time is 35 minutes per bus in rain/light snow, 40 minutes in heavy snow.

As previously discussed, a pickup time of 30 minutes (good weather) is estimated for 30 individual stops to pick up passengers, with an average of one minute of delay associated with each stop. A longer pickup time of 35 minutes and 40 minutes are used for rain/light snow and heavy snow, respectively.

Activity: Travel to EPZ Boundary (DE)

The travel distance along the respective pickup routes within the EPZ is estimated using the GIS Software. Bus travel times within the EPZ are computed using average speeds computed by DYNEV, using the aforementioned methodology that was used for school evacuation.

Table 85 through Table 87 present the transitdependent population ETE for each bus route calculated using the above procedures for good weather, rain/light snow and heavy snow, respectively.

For example, the ETE for Route 18 is computed as 90 + 6 + 30 = 2:10 (rounded up to the nearest 5 minutes) for good weather. Here, 6 minutes is the time to travel 5.3 miles at 55 mph, the average speed output by the model for this route starting at 90 minutes.

The average single wave ETE (2 hours2.314815e-5 days 5.555556e-4 hours 3.306878e-6 weeks 7.61e-7 months and 35 minutes) for the transit dependent population does not exceed the 90th percentile ETE for the general population which is 2:55 minutes for a winter, midweek, midday, with good weather scenario (Scenario 6) and R02. Hence, Transit dependent population ETE is not likely to impact the protective action decision making.

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

Activity: Travel to Reception Centers (EF)

The distances from the EPZ boundary to the reception centers are measured using GIS software along the most likely route from the EPZ exit point to the reception center. The reception centers are mapped in Figure 103. For a single wave evacuation, this travel time outside the EPZ does not contribute to the ETE. For a second wave evacuation, the ETE for buses must be considered separately, since it could exceed the ETE for the general population. Assumed bus speeds of 55 mph, 50 mph, and 47 mph for good weather, rain/light snow, and heavy snow, respectively, will be applied for this activity for buses servicing the transitdependent population.

Activity: Passengers Leave Bus (FG)

A bus can empty within 5 minutes. The driver takes a 10minute break.

Activity: Bus Returns to Route for 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 departs the bus, and the Point Beach Nuclear Plant 86 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

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.

The second wave ETE for Route 18 is computed as follows for good weather:

Bus arrives at reception center at 2:27 in good weather (2:10 to exit EPZ + 17 minutes 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: 6 minute (equal to travel time to reception center) + 6 minutes (5.3 miles @ 55 mph) + 17 minutes (15.2 miles @ 55 mph) = 29 minutes

Bus completes pickups along route: 30 minutes.

Bus exits EPZ at time 2:27 + 0:15 + 0:29 + 0:30 = 3:45 (rounded up to the nearest 5 minutes) after the ATE.

The ETE for the completion of the second wave for all transitdependent bus routes are provided in Table 85 through Table 87. The average ETE for a second wave evacuation of transitdependent people exceeds the ETE for the general population at the 90th percentile.

The average second wave ETE (3 hours3.472222e-5 days 8.333333e-4 hours 4.960317e-6 weeks 1.1415e-6 months and 5 minutes) for the transit dependent population does exceed the 90th percentile ETE by an hour for the general population which is 2:55 minutes for a winter, midweek, midday, with good weather scenario (Scenario 6) and R02.

Hence, the second wave transitdependent population ETE is likely to impact the protective action decision making.

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.

Evacuation of Medical Facilities The evacuation of these facilities is similar to school evacuation except:

Buses are assigned on the basis of 30 patients to allow for staff to accompany the patients. Wheelchair accessible vans can accommodate 2 patients, and ambulances can accommodate 2 patients.

Loading times of 1 minute, 5 minutes, and 15 minutes per patient are assumed for ambulatory patients, wheelchair bound patients, and bedridden patients, respectively.

The vehicles available by the various transportation providers are equipped to carry both ambulatory and wheelchairbound persons. The exact capacities for each type of vehicle varied across the different fleets. Therefore, the total available capacity for each mobility class is also provided in Table 81. There exists a sufficient amount of transportation resources, from a capacity standpoint, to evacuate the ambulatory, wheelchairbound and bedridden persons from within the EPZ in a single wave.

Point Beach Nuclear Plant 87 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

Activity: Mobilize Drivers (ABC)

As discussed in Section 2, it is assumed that the mobilization time for medical facilities average 90 minutes in good weather, 100 minutes in rain/light snow and 110 minutes in heavy snow.

Specially trained medical support staff (working their regular shift) will be on site to assist in the evacuation of patients. Additional staff (if needed) could be mobilized over this same 90minute timeframe.

Activity: Board Passengers (CD)

Item 5 of Section 2.4 discusses transit vehicle loading times for medical facilities. Loading times are assumed to be 1 minute per ambulatory passenger, 5 minutes per wheelchair bound passenger, and 15 minutes per bedridden passenger for buses, wheelchair accessible buses/vans, and ambulances, respectively. Item 3 of Section 2.4 discusses transit vehicle capacities to cap loading times per vehicle type.

Activity: Travel to EPZ Boundary (DE)

The travel distance along the respective evacuation routes within the EPZ is estimated using the UNITES software. Bus travel times within the EPZ are computed using average speeds computed by DYNEV, using the aforementioned methodology that was used for school and preschool evacuation.

Table 88 through Table 810 summarize the ETE for medical facilities within the EPZ for good weather, rain/light snow, and heavy snow. Average speeds output by the model for Scenario 6 (Scenario 7 for rain/light snow and Scenario 8 for heavy snow) Region 3, capped at 55 mph (50 mph for rain/light snow and 47 mph for heavy snow), are used to compute travel time to EPZ boundary. The travel time to the EPZ boundary is computed by dividing the distance to the EPZ boundary by the average travel speed. The ETE is the sum of the mobilization time, total passenger loading time, and travel time out of the EPZ. Concurrent loading on multiple buses, wheelchair buses, and ambulances at capacity is assumed. All ETE are rounded up to the nearest 5 minutes.

For example, the calculation of ETE for Aurora Medical Center with 11 ambulatory residents during good weather is:

ETE: 90 + 11x1 + 14 = 115 min. or 1:55 rounded up to the nearest 5 minutes.

It is assumed that medical facility population is directly evacuated to appropriate host medical facility. 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.

The average ETE (2:25) for medical facilities is 30 minutes less than the 90th percentile ETE (2:55) for Region R02 for the general population during Scenario 6 conditions in good weather.

Hence, ETE is not likely to impact protective action decision making.

Point Beach Nuclear Plant 88 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

8.2 ETE for Access and/or Functional Needs Population The county emergency management agencies have a combined registration for transit dependent and access and/or functional needs people. Based on data provided by the counties, there is one (1) access and/or functional needs person within the Kewaunee County portion of the EPZ, and no one registered within the Manitowoc County portion of the EPZ, who require transportation assistance to evacuate. As the type of assistance needed was not provided, it was assumed Hence, there is only a single (1) ambulatory person in the entire EPZ. (See Section 3.8.)

Table 811 summarizes the ETE for a single ambulatory access and/or functional needs person.

The table is categorized by weather condition. Bus speeds approximate 20 mph (10% slower in rain/light snow, 15% slower in heavy snow). Mobilization times of 90 minutes were used (100 minutes for rain/light snow, and 110 minutes for heavy snow). The HH is assumed to be 5 miles from the EPZ boundary, and the networkwide average speed, capped at 55 mph (50 mph for rain/light snow and 47 mph for heavy snow), is used to compute travel time. The ETE is computed by summing mobilization time, loading time and travel time to EPZ boundary. All ETE are rounded to the nearest 5 minutes.

The following outlines the ETE calculations:

1. Assume 1 bus is deployed, with 1 stop, to service the only HH with an access and/or functional needs person.

2. The ETE is calculated as follows:

a. Bus arrives at the HH: 90 minutes

b. Load HH members: 1 minutes

c. Travel to subsequent pickup locations: none = Not Applicable (N/A) as only 1 stop exists.

d. Load HH members at subsequent pickup locations: N/A as only 1 HH member exists

e. Travel to EPZ boundary: 9 minutes (5 miles @ 35 mph).

ETE: 90 + 1 + 9 = 1:40 (rounded up to nearest 5 minutes) after the ATE.

The average single wave ETE (1 hour1.157407e-5 days 2.777778e-4 hours 1.653439e-6 weeks 3.805e-7 months and 55 minutes) for the access and functional needs person which does not exceed the 90th percentile ETE for the general population for a winter, midweek, midday, with good weather scenario (Scenario 6) and R02. Therefore,, the single wave ETE is not likely to impact the protective action decision making.

Point Beach Nuclear Plant 89 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

Table 81. Summary of Transportation Resources Resources Available Transportation Ambulatory Wheelchair Bedridden Resource Provider Buses Vans Ambulances Capacity Capacity Capacity Brandt Buses 40 0 0 1,620 15 0 AssistToTransport 7 4 0 112 29 0 Mishicot School District 13 5 0 936 20 0 Maritime Buses 9 0 0 304 36 0 Two Rivers Buses 23 0 0 1,260 30 0 Manitowoc Fire 0 0 11 0 0 22 Two Rivers FD 0 0 3 0 0 6 Mishicot Ambulance 0 0 2 0 0 4 Valders Ambulance 0 0 2 0 0 4 Kiel Ambulance 0 0 2 0 0 4 Viking Ambulance 0 0 2 0 0 4 LuxemburgCasco School District 32 0 0 2,304 0 0 Dvorak Bus Service 15 0 0 750 0 0 East Shore Industry 4 4 0 0 10 0 Kewaunee Rescue 0 0 3 0 0 6 Luxemburg Rescue 0 0 2 0 0 2 Algoma Rescue 0 0 2 0 0 4 Algoma School District 4 0 0 267 2 0 TOTAL: 147 13 29 7,553 142 56 Resources Needed Ambulatory Wheelchair Bedridden Transportation Resource User Group Demand bound Demand Demand Schools and Preschools/Day Care Centers (Table 37): 2,703 0 0 TransitDependent Population (Table 38): 199 0 0 Medical Facilities (Table 36): 62 65 9 Access and/or Functional Needs Population (Section 3.8): 0 1 0 TOTAL TRANSPORTATION NEEDS: 2,964 66 9 Point Beach Nuclear Plant 810 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

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

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

Manitowoc County, WI Forever Friends Family Child 90 15 7.0 49.2 9 1:55 11.1 13 2:10 Care Schultz Elementary School 90 15 6.6 46.5 9 1:55 17.1 19 2:15 Mishicot High School 90 15 6.6 48.2 9 1:55 17.1 19 2:15 Mishicot Middle School 90 15 6.6 48.2 9 1:55 17.1 19 2:15 St Peter's Lutheran Tiny 90 15 7.1 49.2 9 1:55 11.1 13 2:10 Treasures Preschool Happy Hearts Day Care 90 15 7.2 50.5 9 1:55 11.1 13 2:10 Lighthouse Learning Academy Virtual School Two Rivers High School 90 15 5.8 8.1 44 2:30 9.2 11 2:45 L.B. Clarke Middle School 90 15 5.4 9.9 33 2:20 10.8 12 2:35 Creative Learning Child 90 15 5.3 9.9 33 2:20 10.8 12 2:35 Enrichment Center St. John's Lutheran School 90 15 4.8 9.9 30 2:15 10.8 12 2:30 Tiny Treasures Christian Child 90 15 6.5 6.1 65 2:50 10.8 12 3:05 Magee Elementary School 90 15 5.9 5.9 60 2:45 10.8 12 3:00 Creative Kids Club 90 15 5.9 9.5 38 2:25 10.8 12 2:40 FYHLC 90 15 6.1 5.8 64 2:50 10.8 12 3:05 CESA 7 Headstart 90 15 5.7 9.5 36 2:25 10.8 12 2:40 Koenig Elementary School 90 15 3.1 4.7 40 2:25 8.6 10 2:35 A Child's Place Day Care 90 15 3.1 4.7 40 2:25 8.6 10 2:35 Maximum for EPZ: 2:50 Maximum: 3:05 Average for EPZ: 2:20 Average: 2:35 Point Beach Nuclear Plant 811 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

Table 83. School and Preschool/Daycare Evacuation Time Estimates - Rain/Light Snow Travel Dist. Travel Dist. To Time to EPZ Time Driver Loading EPZ Average EPZ Bdry to from EPZ ETA to Mobilization Time Bdry Speed Bdry ETE H.S. Bdry to H.S.

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

Manitowoc County, WI Forever Friends Family Child Care 100 20 7.0 47.5 9 2:10 11.1 14 2:25 Schultz Elementary School 100 20 6.6 44.6 9 2:10 17.1 21 2:35 Mishicot High School 100 20 6.6 46.5 9 2:10 17.1 21 2:35 Mishicot Middle School 100 20 6.6 46.5 9 2:10 17.1 21 2:35 St Peter's Lutheran Tiny Treasures Preschool 100 20 7.1 47.5 9 2:10 11.1 14 2:25 Happy Hearts Day Care 100 20 7.2 48.7 9 2:10 11.1 14 2:25 Lighthouse Learning Academy Virtual School Two Rivers High School 100 20 5.8 5.9 60 3:00 9.2 12 3:15 L.B. Clarke Middle School 100 20 5.4 8.2 40 2:40 10.8 13 2:55 Creative Learning Child Enrichment Center 100 20 5.3 8.2 39 2:40 10.8 13 2:55 St. John's Lutheran School 100 20 4.8 8.2 36 2:40 10.8 13 2:55 Tiny Treasures Christian Child 100 20 6.5 7.5 53 2:55 10.8 13 3:10 Magee Elementary School 100 20 5.9 4.9 73 3:15 10.8 13 3:30 Creative Kids Club 100 20 5.9 8.7 41 2:45 10.8 13 3:00 FYHLC 100 20 6.1 4.9 76 3:20 10.8 13 3:35 CESA 7 Headstart 100 20 5.7 8.7 40 2:40 10.8 13 2:55 Koenig Elementary School 100 20 3.1 3.4 55 2:55 8.6 11 3:10 A Child's Place Day Care 100 20 3.1 3.4 55 2:55 8.6 11 3:10 Maximum for EPZ: 3:20 Maximum: 3:35 Average for EPZ: 2:40 Average: 2:55 Point Beach Nuclear Plant 812 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

Table 84. School and Preschool/Daycare Evacuation Time Estimates - Heavy Snow Travel Travel Dist. Time Dist. Time to EPZ from EPZ Driver Loading To EPZ Average EPZ Bdry to Bdry to ETA 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)

Manitowoc County, WI Forever Friends Family Child Care 110 25 7.0 44.0 10 2:25 11.1 15 2:40 Schultz Elementary School 110 25 6.6 41.4 10 2:25 17.1 22 2:50 Mishicot High School 110 25 6.6 42.9 10 2:25 17.1 22 2:50 Mishicot Middle School 110 25 6.6 42.9 10 2:25 17.1 22 2:50 St Peter's Lutheran Tiny Treasures Preschool 110 25 7.1 44.0 10 2:25 11.1 15 2:40 Happy Hearts Day Care 110 25 7.2 45.0 10 2:25 11.1 15 2:40 Lighthouse Learning Academy Virtual School Two Rivers High School 110 25 5.8 5.0 70 3:25 9.2 12 3:40 L.B. Clarke Middle School 110 25 5.4 6.6 50 3:05 10.8 14 3:20 Creative Learning Child Enrichment Center 110 25 5.3 6.6 49 3:05 10.8 14 3:20 St. John's Lutheran School 110 25 4.8 6.4 45 3:00 10.8 14 3:15 Tiny Treasures Christian Child 110 25 6.5 6.1 65 3:20 10.8 14 3:35 Magee Elementary School 110 25 5.9 4.9 73 3:30 10.8 14 3:45 Creative Kids Club 110 25 5.9 6.7 53 3:10 10.8 14 3:25 FYHLC 110 25 6.1 4.6 80 3:35 10.8 14 3:50 CESA 7 Headstart 110 25 5.7 6.4 54 3:10 10.8 14 3:25 Koenig Elementary School 110 25 3.1 2.7 70 3:25 8.6 11 3:40 A Child's Place Day Care 110 25 3.1 2.7 70 3:25 8.6 11 3:40 Maximum for EPZ: 3:35 Maximum: 3:50 Average for EPZ: 3:00 Average: 3:15 Point Beach Nuclear Plant 813 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

Table 85. TransitDependent Evacuation Time Estimates Good Weather OneWave TwoWave Route Route Number Route Route Travel Pickup Distance Travel Driver Travel Pickup Route of Mobilization Length Speed Time Time ETE to R.C. Time to Unload Rest Time Time ETE Number Buses (min) (miles) (mph) (min) (min) (hr:min) (miles) R.C. (min) (min) (min) (min) (min) (hr:min) 17 1 90 4.2 55.0 5 30 2:05 14.7 16 5 10 25 30 3:35 18 1 90 5.3 55.0 6 30 2:10 15.2 17 5 10 29 30 3:45 19 1 90 5.1 55.0 6 30 2:10 11.8 13 5 10 24 30 3:35 20 1 90 4.7 54.8 5 30 2:10 5.0 5 5 10 15 30 3:15 3 90 7.7 6.8 68 30 3:10 1.6 2 5 10 21 30 4:20 21 2 110 7.7 6.9 67 30 3:30 1.6 2 5 10 21 30 4:40 22 1 90 13.7 15.3 54 30 2:55 0.7 1 5 10 32 30 4:15 Maximum ETE: 3:30 Maximum ETE: 4:40 Average ETE: 2:35 Average ETE: 3:55 Table 86. TransitDependent Evacuation Time Estimates - Rain/Light Snow OneWave TwoWave Route Distance Travel Route Number Route Route Travel Pickup to Rec. Time to Driver Travel Pickup Route of Mobilization Length Speed Time Time ETE Ctr. Rec. Ctr. Unload Rest Time Time ETE Number Buses (min) (miles) (mph) (min) (min) (hr:min) (miles) (min) (min) (min) (min) (min) (hr:min) 17 1 100 4.2 50.0 5 35 2:25 14.7 18 5 10 28 35 4:05 18 1 100 5.3 50.0 6 35 2:25 15.2 18 5 10 31 35 4:05 19 1 100 5.1 50.0 6 35 2:25 11.8 14 5 10 27 35 4:00 20 1 100 4.7 50.0 6 35 2:25 5.0 6 5 10 17 35 3:40 3 100 7.7 6.6 70 35 3:25 1.6 2 5 10 22 35 4:40 21 2 120 7.7 8.2 56 35 3:35 1.6 2 5 10 23 35 4:50 22 1 100 13.7 14.1 58 35 3:15 0.7 1 5 10 36 35 4:45 Maximum ETE: 3:35 Maximum ETE: 4:50 Average ETE: 2:50 Average ETE: 4:20 Point Beach Nuclear Plant 814 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

Table 87. Transit Dependent Evacuation Time Estimates - Heavy Snow OneWave TwoWave Route Distance Travel Route Number Route Route Travel Pickup to Rec. Time to Driver Travel Pickup Route of Mobilization Length Speed Time Time ETE Ctr. Rec. Ctr. Unload Rest Time Time ETE Number Buses (min) (miles) (mph) (min) (min) (hr:min) (miles) (min) (min) (min) (min) (min) (hr:min) 17 1 110 4.2 47.0 5 40 2:40 14.7 19 5 10 29 40 4:25 18 1 110 5.3 47.0 7 40 2:40 15.2 19 5 10 32 40 4:30 19 1 110 5.1 45.5 7 40 2:40 11.8 15 5 10 27 40 4:20 20 1 110 4.7 46.6 6 40 2:40 5.0 6 5 10 17 40 4:00 3 110 7.7 7.4 63 40 3:35 1.6 2 5 10 23 40 4:55 21 2 130 7.7 6.8 68 40 4:00 1.6 2 5 10 22 40 5:20 22 1 110 13.7 13.2 62 40 3:35 0.7 1 5 10 36 40 5:10 Maximum ETE: 4:00 Maximum ETE: 5:20 Average ETE: 3:10 Average ETE: 4:40 Table 88. Medical Facility Evacuation Time Estimates Good Weather Total Loading Loading Dist. To Travel Time to Mobilization Rate Time EPZ Bdry EPZ Boundary ETE Medical Facility Patient (min) (min per person) People (min) (mi) (min) (hr:min)

Wisteria Haus Residents Ambulatory 90 1 15 15 6.0 40 2:25 Ambulatory 90 1 15 15 5.7 40 2:25 Meadowview Assisted Living Wheelchair bound 90 5 8 10 5.7 44 2:25 Ambulatory 90 1 4 4 7.2 74 2:50 Hamilton Health Services Wheelchair bound 90 5 21 10 7.2 74 2:55 Ambulatory 90 1 8 8 6.9 70 2:50 Northland Lodge Assisted Living Wheelchair bound 90 5 24 10 6.9 70 2:50 Parkway Home Ambulatory 90 1 6 6 5.2 69 2:45 Ambulatory 90 1 11 11 0.4 14 1:55 Aurora Medical Center Wheelchair bound 90 5 12 10 0.4 11 1:55 Bedridden 90 15 9 30 0.4 13 2:15 Petrzelka Family Home Ambulatory 90 1 3 3 1.1 1 1:35 Maximum ETE: 2:55 Average ETE: 2:25 Point Beach Nuclear Plant 815 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

Table 89. Medical Facility Evacuation Time Estimates - Rain\Light Snow Total Loading Loading Dist. To Travel Time to Mobilization Rate Time EPZ Bdry EPZ Boundary ETE Medical Facility Patient (min) (min per person) People (min) (mi) (min) (hr:min)

Wisteria Haus Residents Ambulatory 100 1 15 15 6.0 45 2:40 Ambulatory 100 1 15 15 5.7 45 2:40 Meadowview Assisted Living Wheelchair bound 100 5 8 10 5.7 46 2:40 Ambulatory 100 1 4 4 7.2 71 2:55 Hamilton Health Services Wheelchair bound 100 5 21 10 7.2 59 2:50 Northland Lodge Assisted Ambulatory 100 1 8 8 6.9 68 3:00 Living Wheelchair bound 100 5 24 10 6.9 68 3:00 Parkway Home Ambulatory 100 1 6 6 5.2 65 2:55 Ambulatory 100 1 11 11 0.4 13 2:05 Aurora Medical Center Wheelchair bound 100 5 12 10 0.4 13 2:05 Bedridden 100 15 9 30 0.4 13 2:25 Petrzelka Family Home Ambulatory 100 1 3 3 1.1 1 1:45 Maximum ETE: 3:00 Average ETE: 2:35 Point Beach Nuclear Plant 816 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

Table 810. Medical Facility Evacuation Time Estimates - Heavy Snow Total Travel Time Loading Loading to EPZ Mobilization Rate Time Dist. To EPZ Boundary Medical Facility Patient (min) (min per person) People (min) Bdry (mi) (min) ETE (hr:min)

Wisteria Haus Residents Ambulatory 110 1 15 15 6.0 54 3:00 Meadowview Assisted Ambulatory 110 1 15 15 5.7 55 3:00 Living Wheelchair bound 110 5 8 10 5.7 55 2:55 Ambulatory 110 1 4 4 7.2 64 3:00 Hamilton Health Services Wheelchair bound 110 5 21 10 7.2 67 3:10 Northland Lodge Assisted Ambulatory 110 1 8 8 6.9 64 3:05 Living Wheelchair bound 110 5 24 10 6.9 64 3:05 Parkway Home Ambulatory 110 1 6 6 5.2 61 3:00 Ambulatory 110 1 11 11 0.4 8 2:10 Aurora Medical Center Wheelchair bound 110 5 12 10 0.4 11 2:15 Bedridden 110 15 9 30 0.4 14 2:35 Petrzelka Family Home Ambulatory 110 1 3 3 1.1 1 1:55 Maximum ETE: 3:10 Average ETE: 2:45 Table 811. Access and/or Functional Needs Population Evacuation Time Estimates Total Travel Mobiliza Loading Loading Time to People tion Time at Travel to Time at EPZ Requiring Vehicles Weather Time 1st Stop Subsequent Subsequent Boundary ETE Vehicle Type Vehicle deployed Stops Conditions (min) (min) Stops (min) Stops (min) (min) (hr:min)

Good 90 9 1:40 Buses 1 1 1 Rain/Light Snow 100 1 N/A N/A 10 1:55 Heavy Snow 110 10 2:05 Maximum ETE: 2:05 Average ETE: 1:55 Point Beach Nuclear Plant 817 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

(Subsequent Wave)

A B C D E F G Time Event A Advisory to Evacuate B Bus Dispatched from Depot C Bus Arrives at Facility/Pickup Route D Bus Departs for Reception Center E Bus Exits Region F Bus Arrives at Reception Center/Host Facility 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 Point Beach Nuclear Plant 818 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

9 TRAFFIC MANAGEMENT STRATEGY This section discusses the suggested Traffic Management Plan (TMP) that is designed to expedite the movement of evacuating traffic. The resources required to implement the TMP include:

Personnel with the capabilities of performing the planned control functions of traffic guides (preferably, not necessarily, law enforcement officers).

The Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD) published by the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) of the U.S.D.O.T. provides guidance for Traffic Control Devices to assist these personnel in the performance of their tasks. All state and most county transportation agencies have access to the MUTCD, which is available online:

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

A written plan that defines all Traffic and Access Control Point (TACP) locations, provides necessary details and is documented in a format that is readily understood by those assigned to perform traffic control.

The functions to be performed in the field are:

1. Facilitate evacuating traffic movements that safely expedite travel out of the EPZ.

2. Discourage traffic movements that move evacuating vehicles in a direction which takes them significantly closer to the power plant, or which interferes with the efficient flow of other evacuees.

The terms "facilitate" and "discourage" are employed rather than "enforce" and "prohibit" to indicate the need for flexibility in performing the traffic control function. There are always legitimate reasons for a driver to prefer a direction other than that indicated. For example:

A driver may be traveling home from work or from another location, to join other family members prior to evacuating.

An evacuating driver may be travelling to pick up a relative, or other evacuees.

The driver may be an emergency worker entering the area being evacuated to perform an important emergency service.

The implementation of a TMP must also be flexible enough for the application of sound judgment by the traffic guide.

The TMP is the outcome of the following process:

1. The existing TACPs identified by the offsite agencies in their existing emergency plans serve as the basis of the TMP, as per NUREG/CR7002, Rev. 1. The ETE analysis treated all controlled intersections that are existing TACP locations in the offsite agency plans as being controlled by actuated signals. Appendix K, Table K1 identifies the number of intersections that were modeled as TCPs.

2. Evacuation simulations were run using DYNEV II to predict traffic congestion during evacuation (see Section 7.3 and Figure 73 through Figure 77). These simulations help to identify the best routing and critical intersections that experience pronounced Point Beach Nuclear Plant 91 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

congestion during evacuation. Any critical intersections that would benefit from traffic or access control which are not already identified in the existing offsite agency plans are examined. No additional TACPs were identified, as part of this study.

3. Prioritization of TACPs. Application of traffic and access control at some TACPs will have a more pronounced influence on expediting traffic movements than at other 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 TACPs located farther from the power plant. Key locations for Manual Traffic Control (MTC) were analyzed and their impact to ETE was quantified, as per NUREG/CR7002, Rev. 1. See Appendix G for more detail.

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

9.1 Assumptions The following are TMP assumptions made for this study:

The ETE calculations documented in Sections 7 and 8 assume that the TMP is implemented during evacuation.

The ETE calculations reflect the assumptions that all externalexternal trips are interdicted and diverted after 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 TACPs.

Study assumptions 1 through 3 in Section 2.5 further discuss TACP operations.

9.2 Additional Considerations The use of Intelligent Transportation Systems (ITS) technologies can reduce the manpower and equipment needs, while still facilitating the evacuation process. Dynamic Message Signs (DMS) can also be placed within the EPZ to provide information to travelers regarding traffic conditions, route selection, and reception center information. DMS placed outside of the EPZ will warn motorists to avoid using routes that may conflict with the flow of evacuees away from the power plant. Highway Advisory Radio (HAR) can be used to broadcast information to evacuees during egress through their vehicles stereo systems. Automated Traveler Information Systems (ATIS) can also be used to provide evacuees with information. Internet websites can provide traffic and evacuation route information before the evacuee begins their trip, while the onboard navigation systems (GPS units) and smartphones can be used to provide information during the evacuation trip.

These are only some 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.

Point Beach Nuclear Plant 92 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

10 EVACUATION ROUTES AND RECEPTION CENTERS 10.1 Evacuation Routes Evacuation routes are comprised of two distinct components:

Routing from a Subarea being evacuated to the boundary of the Evacuation Region and thence out of the EPZ.

Routing of transitdependent evacuees (schools, preschools/day care centers, medical facilities, employees, transients, or permanent residents who do not own or have access to private vehicles) from the EPZ boundary to reception centers.

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

This expectation is met by the DYNEV II model routing traffic away from the location of the plant to the extent practicable. The DTRAD model satisfies this behavior by routing traffic so as to balance traffic demand relative to the available highway capacity to the extent possible. See Appendices B through D for further discussion.

The major evacuation routes for the EPZ are presented in Figure 101. These routes will be used by the general population evacuating in private vehicles and by the transitdependent population evacuating in buses. Transitdependent evacuees will be routed towards a reception center located within the appropriate reception community. General population may evacuate to either a reception center or some alternate destination (i.e., lodging facility, relatives home, campground) outside the EPZ.

The routing of transitdependent evacuees from the EPZ boundary to reception centers or host facilities is designed to minimize the amount of travel outside the EPZ, from the points where these routes cross the EPZ boundary. The 6 bus routes shown graphically in Figure 102 and described in Table 101 were designed by KLD, as no preestablished transitdependent bus routes exist within the EPZ or identified within the county emergency plans, in order to compute ETE. The routes were designed to service the transitdependent population within each Subarea along major evacuation routes and then proceed to the reception centers. This does not imply that these exact routes would be used in an emergency. It is assumed that residents will walk along to the nearest major roadway and flag down a passing bus, and that they can arrive at the roadway within the 90minute bus mobilization time (good weather).

Schools, preschools/day care centers, and medical facilities were routed along the most likely path from the facility being evacuated to the EPZ boundary, traveling toward the appropriate host facility.

The specified bus routes for all the transitdependent population are documented in Table 102 (refer to the maps of the linknode analysis network in Appendix K for node locations). Transit dependent evacuees are transported to the nearest reception center. It is assumed that all school evacuees will be taken to their appropriate host schools. This study does not consider the transport of evacuees from reception centers to congregate care centers Point Beach Nuclear Plant 101 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

10.2 Reception Centers/Host Schools According to the current public information for EPZ residents, evacuees will be directed to the reception centers dedicated for Kewaunee County and Manitowoc County, based on the Sub Area being evacuated. Note that some reception centers are designated for the general population and special facilities. Transitdependent evacuees are transported to the reception center. It is assumed that all special facility evacuees will be taken to the appropriate host facility. Figure 103 maps the general population reception centers for evacuees and host schools for school evacuation.

Table 103 presents a list of the host schools for each school and preschool/day care centers in the EPZ. Host schools for schools and preschool/day care centers within Manitowoc County, are based on the public information and data provided by the client. There are no schools or day care centers that evacuates with Kewaunee Countys portion of the EPZ. It is assumed that all school/preschool/daycare evacuees will be taken to the appropriate host school and will be subsequently picked up by parents or legal guardians. No children at these facilities will be picked up by parents prior to the arrival of the buses.

Point Beach Nuclear Plant 102 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

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

17 1 Servicing communities in Subarea 10N 4.2 18 1 Servicing communities in Subarea 10NW 5.3 19 1 Servicing communities in Subarea 10W 5.1 20 1 Servicing communities in Subarea 10SW 4.7 21 5 Servicing communities in Subarea 10S 7.7 22 1 Servicing communities in Subarea 5 13.7 Total: 10 Table 102. Bus Route Descriptions Bus Route Number Description Nodes Traversed from Route Start to EPZ Boundary Transit Dependent Routes 17 Transit Dependent Route for Subarea 10N 29, 326, 327, 328 18 Transit Dependent Route for Subarea 10NW 536, 33, 510, 34, 35, 36, 37 19 Transit Dependent Route for Subarea 10W 112, 113, 89, 90, 91, 73 20 Transit Dependent Route for Subarea 10SW 126, 120, 119, 118, 105, 106 146, 449, 455, 452, 169, 195, 170, 541, 176, 178, 182, 21 Transit Dependent Route for Subarea 10S 184, 637, 190, 186, 187, 578, 160, 683, 524 137, 129, 168, 659, 660, 146, 193, 145, 194, 144, 318, 22 Transit Dependent Route for Subarea 5 609, 143, 142, 140, 157, 158, 159, 523, 526, 511, 154 School, Preschool/Daycare Routes 1 Happy Hearts Day Care 110, 109, 121, 540, 108, 139, 118, 105, 106 2 Koenig Elementary School 519, 520, 181, 188, 197, 196 318, 609, 143, 142, 140, 157, 158, 159, 523, 526, 525, 3 L.B. Clarke Middle School 551 173, 317, 672, 171, 170, 541, 176, 178, 182, 183, 180, 4 Magee Elementary School 181, 188, 197, 196 455, 452, 169, 195, 170, 541, 176, 178, 182, 183, 180, 6 Two Rivers High School 181, 188, 197, 196 7 Mishicot High School 128, 110, 109, 121, 540, 108, 139, 118 8 Mishicot Middle School 128, 110, 109, 121, 540, 108, 139, 118 9 Schultz Elementary School 539, 581, 110, 109, 121, 540, 108, 139, 118 318, 609, 143, 142, 140, 157, 158, 159, 523, 526, 525, 11 Creative Learning Child Enrichment Center 551 12 CESA 7 Headstart 143, 142, 140, 157, 158, 159, 523, 526, 525, 551 455, 452, 169, 195, 170, 541, 176, 178, 172, 179, 186, 14 Tiny Treasures Christian Child 187, 578, 160, 683, 524, 523, 526, 525, 551 318, 609, 143, 142, 140, 157, 158, 159, 523, 526, 525, 15 St. John's Lutheran School 551 Point Beach Nuclear Plant 103 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

Bus Route Number Description Nodes Traversed from Route Start to EPZ Boundary 16 Creative Kids Club 143, 142, 140, 157, 158, 159, 523, 526, 525, 551 33 A Child's Place Day Care 519, 520, 181, 188, 197, 196 174, 317, 672, 171, 543, 542, 172, 179, 184, 180, 181, 34 FYHLC 188, 197, 196 35 St Peter's Lutheran Tiny Treasures Preschool 581, 110, 109, 121, 540, 108, 139, 118, 105, 106 36 Forever Friends Family Child Care 581, 110, 109, 121, 540, 108, 139, 118, 105, 106 N/A Lighthouse Learning Academy N/A - It is a fully virtual school Medical Facility Routes 10 Aurora Medical Center 518, 197, 196 452, 169, 195, 170, 541, 176, 178, 182, 184, 637, 190, 27 Hamilton Health Services 186, 187, 578, 160, 683, 524, 523, 526, 511, 154, 513 28 Meadowview Assisted Living 143, 142, 140, 157, 158, 159, 523, 526, 511, 154, 513 452, 169, 195, 170, 541, 176, 178, 182, 184, 637, 190, 29 Northland Lodge Assisted Living 186, 187, 578, 160, 683, 524, 523, 526, 511, 154, 513 190, 186, 187, 578, 160, 683, 524, 523, 526, 511, 154, 30 Parkway Home 513 318, 609, 143, 142, 140, 157, 158, 159, 523, 526, 511, 32 Wisteria Haus Residents 154, 513 37 Petrzelka Family Home 130, 86, 655 Table 103. School Host Facilities School Host School Happy Hearts Day Care Koenig Elementary School L.B. Clarke Middle School Silver Lake College Magee Elementary School Two Rivers High School Mishicot High School Mishicot Middle School Valders Schools Schultz Elementary School Creative Learning Child Enrichment Center CESA 7 Headstart Tiny Treasures Christian Child St. John's Lutheran School Creative Kids Club Silver Lake College A Child's Place Day Care FYHLC St Peter's Lutheran Tiny Treasures Preschool Forever Friends Family Child Care Lighthouse Learning Academy N/A (Fully Virtual School)

Point Beach Nuclear Plant 104 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

Figure 101. Evacuation Route Map Point Beach Nuclear Plant 105 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

Figure 102. TransitDependent Bus Routes Point Beach Nuclear Plant 106 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

Figure 103. General Population Receptions Centers and Host Schools Point Beach Nuclear Plant 107 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

APPENDIX A Glossary of Traffic Engineering Terms

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

Free Speed The average speed that a motorist would travel if there were no congestion or other adverse conditions (such as bad weather).

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Service Volume is usually expressed as vph.

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

The cycle length is expressed in seconds.

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

Point Beach Nuclear Plant A1 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

Term Definition Signal Phase A set of signal indications (and intervals) which services a particular combination of traffic movements on selected approaches to the intersection. The phase duration is expressed in seconds.

Traffic (Trip) Assignment A process of assigning traffic to paths of travel in such a way as to satisfy all trip objectives (i.e., the desire of each vehicle to travel from a specified origin in the network to a specified destination) and to optimize some stated objective or combination of objectives. In general, the objective is stated in terms of minimizing a generalized "cost". For example, "cost" may be expressed in terms of travel time.

Traffic Density The number of vehicles that occupy one lane of a roadway section of specified length at a point in time, expressed as vehicles per mile (vpm).

Traffic (Trip) Distribution A process for determining the destinations of all traffic generated at the origins. The result often takes the form of a Trip Table, which is a matrix of origindestination traffic volumes.

Traffic Simulation A computer model designed to replicate the realworld operation of vehicles on a roadway network, so as to provide statistics describing traffic performance. These statistics are called Measures of Effectiveness (MOE).

Traffic Volume The number of vehicles that pass over a section of roadway in one direction, expressed in vph. Where applicable, traffic volume may be stratified by turn movement.

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

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

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

Point Beach Nuclear Plant A2 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

APPENDIX B DTRAD: Dynamic Traffic Assignment and Distribution Model

B. DYNAMIC TRAFFIC ASSIGNMENT AND DISTRIBUTION MODEL This appendix describes the integrated dynamic trip assignment and distribution model named DTRAD (Dynamic TRaffic Assignment and Distribution) that is expressly designed for use in analyzing evacuation scenarios. DTRAD employs logitbased pathchoice principles and is one of the models of the DYNEV II System. The DTRAD module implements pathbased Dynamic Traffic Assignment (DTA) so that time dependent OriginDestination (OD) trips are assigned to routes over the network based on prevailing traffic conditions.

To apply the DYNEV II System, the analyst must specify the highway network, link capacity information, the timevarying volume of traffic generated at all origin centroids and, optionally, a set of accessible candidate destination nodes on the periphery of the Emergency Planning Zone (EPZ) for selected origins. DTRAD calculates the optimal dynamic trip distribution (i.e., trip destinations) and the optimal dynamic trip assignment (i.e., trip routing) of the traffic generated at each origin node traveling to its set of candidate destination nodes, so as to minimize evacuee travel cost.

B.1 Overview of Integrated Distribution and Assignment Model The underlying premise is that the selection of destinations and routes is intrinsically coupled in an evacuation scenario. That is, people in vehicles seek to travel out of an area of potential risk as rapidly as possible by selecting the best routes. The model is designed to identify these best routes in a manner that realistically distributes vehicles from origins to destinations and routes them over the highway network, in a consistent and optimal manner, reflecting evacuee behavior.

For each origin, a set of candidate destination nodes is selected by the software logic and by the analyst to reflect the desire by evacuees to travel away from the power plant and to access major highways. The specific destination nodes within this set that are selected by travelers and the selection of the connecting paths of travel, are both determined by DTRAD. This determination is made by a logitbased path choice model in DTRAD, so as to minimize the trip cost, as discussed later.

The traffic loading on the network and the consequent operational traffic environment of the network (density, speed, throughput on each link) vary over time as the evacuation takes place.

The DTRAD model, which is interfaced with the DYNEV simulation model, executes a succession of sessions wherein it computes the optimal routing and selection of destination nodes for the conditions that exist at that time.

Point Beach Nuclear Plant B1 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

B.2 Interfacing the DYNEV Simulation Model with DTRAD The DYNEV II system reflects Nuclear Regulatory Commission (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 (O D matrix) over time from one DTRAD session to the next. Another algorithm executes a mapping from the specified geometric network (linknode analysis network) that represents the physical highway system, to a path network that represents the vehicle [turn]

movements. DTRAD computations are performed on the path network: DYNEV simulation model, on the geometric network.

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

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

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

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

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

Point Beach Nuclear Plant B2 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

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

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

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

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

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

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

= Scaling factor The value of do = 12miles, the outer distance of the EPZ. Note that the supplemental cost, sa, of link, a, is (high, low), if its downstream node, n, is (near, far from) the power plant.

Point Beach Nuclear Plant B3 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

B.2.2 Network Equilibrium In 1952, John Wardrop wrote:

Under equilibrium conditions traffic arranges itself in congested networks in such a way that no individual tripmaker can reduce his path costs by switching routes.

The above statement describes the User Equilibrium definition, also called the Selfish Driver Equilibrium. It is a hypothesis that represents a [hopeful] condition that evolves over time as drivers search out alternative routes to identify those routes that minimize their respective costs. It has been found that this equilibrium objective to minimize costs is largely realized by most drivers who routinely take the same trip over the same network at the same time (i.e.,

commuters). Effectively, such drivers learn which routes are best for them over time. Thus, the traffic environment settles down to a nearequilibrium state.

Clearly, since an emergency evacuation is a sudden, unique event, it does not constitute a long term learning experience which can achieve an equilibrium state. Consequently, DTRAD was not designed as an equilibrium solution, but to represent drivers in a new and unfamiliar situation, who respond in a flexible manner to realtime information (either broadcast or observed) in such a way as to minimize their respective costs of travel.

Point Beach Nuclear Plant B4 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

Start of next DTRAD Session A

Set T0 Clock time.

Archive System State at T0 Define latest Link Turn Percentages Execute Simulation Model from B time, T0 to T1 (burn time)

Provide DTRAD with link MOE at time, T1 Execute DTRAD iteration; Get new Turn Percentages Retrieve System State at T0 ;

Apply new Link Turn Percents DTRAD iteration converges?

No Yes Next iteration Simulate from T0 to T2 (DTA session duration)

Set Clock to T2 B A Figure B1. Flow Diagram of SimulationDTRAD Interface Point Beach Nuclear Plant B5 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

APPENDIX C DYNEV Traffic Simulation Model

C. DYNEV TRAFFIC SIMULATION MODEL This appendix describes the DYNEV traffic simulation model. The DYNEV traffic simulation model is a macroscopic model that describes the operations of traffic flow in terms of aggregate variables: vehicles, flow rate, mean speed, volume, density, queue length, on each link, for each turn movement, during each Time Interval (simulation time step). The model generates trips from sources and from Entry Links and introduces them onto the analysis network at rates specified by the analyst based on the mobilization time distributions. The model simulates the movements of all vehicles on all network links over time until the network is empty. At intervals, the model outputs Measures of Effectiveness (MOE) such as those listed in Table C1.

Model Features Include:

Explicit consideration is taken of the variation in density over the time step; an iterative procedure is employed to calculate an average density over the simulation time step for the purpose of computing a mean speed for moving vehicles.

Multiple turn movements can be serviced on one link; a separate algorithm is used to estimate the number of (fractional) lanes assigned to the vehicles performing each turn movement, based, in part, on the turn percentages provided by the Dynamic TRaffic Assignment and Distribution (DTRAD) model.

At any point in time, traffic flow on a link is subdivided into two classifications: queued and moving vehicles. The number of vehicles in each classification is computed. Vehicle spillback, stratified by turn movement for each network link, is explicitly considered and quantified. The propagation of stopping waves from link to link is computed within each time step of the simulation. There is no vertical stacking of queues on a link.

Any link can accommodate source flow from zones via side streets and parking facilities that are not explicitly represented. This flow represents the evacuating trips that are generated at the source.

The relation between the number of vehicles occupying the link and its storage capacity is monitored every time step for every link and for every turn movement. If the available storage capacity on a link is exceeded by the demand for service, then the simulator applies a metering rate to the entering traffic from both the upstream feeders and source node to ensure that the available storage capacity is not exceeded.

A path network that represents the specified traffic movements from each network link is constructed by the model; this path network is utilized by the DTRAD model.

A twoway interface with DTRAD: (1) provides link travel times; (2) receives data that translates into link turn percentages.

Provides MOE to animation software, EVacuation Animator (EVAN).

Calculates Evacuation Time Estimate (ETE) statistics.

All traffic simulation models are dataintensive. Table C2 outlines the necessary input data elements.

Point Beach Nuclear Plant C1 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

To provide an efficient framework for defining these specifications, the physical highway environment is represented as a network. The unidirectional links of the network represent roadway sections: rural, multilane, urban streets or freeways. The nodes of the network generally represent intersections or points along a section where a geometric property changes (e.g. a lane drop, change in grade or free flow speed).

Figure C1 is an example of a small network representation. The freeway is defined by the sequence of links, (20,21), (21,22), and (22,23). Links (8001, 19) and (3, 8011) are Entry and Exit links, respectively. An arterial extends from node 3 to node 19 and is partially subsumed within a grid network. Note that links (21,22) and (17,19) are gradeseparated.

C.1 Methodology C.1.1 The Fundamental Diagram It is necessary to define the fundamental diagram describing flowdensity and speeddensity relationships. Rather than settling for a triangular representation, a more realistic representation that includes a capacity drop, (IR)Qmax, at the critical density when flow conditions enter the forced flow regime, is developed and calibrated for each link. This representation, shown in Figure C2, asserts a constant free speed up to a density, k , and then a linear reduction in speed in the range, k k k 45 vpm, the density at capacity. In the flowdensity plane, a quadratic relationship is prescribed in the range, k k 95 vpm which roughly represents the stopandgo condition of severe congestion. The value of flow rate, Q , corresponding to k , is approximated at 0.7 RQ . A linear relationship between k and k completes the diagram shown in Figure C2. Table C3 is a glossary of terms.

The fundamental diagram is applied to moving traffic on every link. The specified calibration values for each link are: (1) Free speed, v ; (2) Capacity, Q ; (3) Critical density, k 45 vpm ; (4) Capacity Drop Factor, R = 0.9 ; (5) Jam density, k . Then, v , k k

. Setting k k k , then Q RQ k for 0 k k 50 . It can be shown that Q 0.98 0.0056 k RQ for k k k , where k 50 and k 175.

C.1.2 The Simulation Model The simulation model solves a sequence of unit problems. Each unit problem computes the movement of traffic on a link, for each specified turn movement, over a specified time interval (TI) which serves as the simulation time step for all links. Figure C3 is a representation of the unit problem in the timedistance plane. Table C3 is a glossary of terms that are referenced in the following description of the unit problem procedure.

The formulation and the associated logic presented below are designed to solve the unit problem for each sweep over the network (discussed below), for each turn movement serviced on each link that comprises the evacuation network, and for each TI over the duration of the evacuation.

Point Beach Nuclear Plant C2 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

Given Q , M , L , TI , E , LN , G C , h , L , R , L , E , M Compute O , Q , M Define O O O O ; E E E

1. For the first sweep, s = 1, of this TI, get initial estimates of mean density, k , the R - factor, R and entering traffic, E , using the values computed for the final sweep of the prior TI.

For each subsequent sweep, s 1 , calculate E P O S where P , O are the relevant turn percentages from feeder link, i , and its total outflow (possibly metered) over this TI; S is the total source flow (possibly metered) during the current TI.

Set iteration counter, n = 0, k k , and E E .

2. Calculate v k such that k 130 using the analytical representations of the fundamental diagram.

Q TI G Calculate Cap C LN , in vehicles, this value may be reduced 3600 due to metering Set R 1.0 if G C 1 or if k k ; Set R 0.9 only if G C 1 and k k L

Calculate queue length, L Q LN

3. Calculate t TI . If t 0 , set t E O 0 ; Else, E E .

4. Then E E E ; t TI t

5. If Q Cap , then O Cap , O O 0 If t 0 , then Q Q M E Cap Else Q Q Cap End if Calculate Q and M using Algorithm A below

6. Else Q Cap O Q , RCap Cap O

7. If M RCap , then t Cap

8. If t 0, O M ,O min RCap M , 0 TI Q E O If Q 0 , then Point Beach Nuclear Plant C3 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

Calculate Q , M with Algorithm A Else Q 0, M E End if Else t 0 O M and O 0 M M O E; Q 0 End if

9. Else M O 0 If t 0 , then O RCap , Q M O E Calculate Q and M using Algorithm A

10. Else t 0 M M If M ,

O RCap Q M O Apply Algorithm A to calculate Q and M Else O M M M O E and Q 0 End if End if End if End if

11. Calculate a new estimate of average density, k k 2k k ,

where k = density at the beginning of the TI k = density at the end of the TI k = density at the midpoint of the TI All values of density apply only to the moving vehicles.

If k k and n N where N max number of iterations, and is a convergence criterion, then

12. set n n 1 , and return to step 2 to perform iteration, n, using k k .

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

Point Beach Nuclear Plant C4 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

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

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

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

Algorithm A This analysis addresses the flow environment over a TI during which moving vehicles can join a standing or discharging queue. For the case Qb vQ shown, Q Cap, with t 0 and a queue of Qe Qe length, Q , formed by that portion of M and E that reaches the stopbar within the TI, but could v not discharge due to inadequate capacity. That is, Mb Q M E . This queue length, Q v Q M E Cap can be extended to Q by L3 traffic entering the approach during the current TI, traveling at speed, v, and reaching the rear of the t1 t3 queue within the TI. A portion of the entering TI vehicles, E E , will likely join the queue. This analysis calculates t , Q and M for the input values of L, TI, v, E, t, L , LN, Q .

When t 0 and Q Cap:

L L Define: L Q . From the sketch, L v TI t t L Q E .

LN LN Substituting E E yields: vt E L v TI t L . Recognizing that the first two terms on the right hand side cancel, solve for t to obtain:

L t such that 0 t TI t E L v

TI LN If the denominator, v 0, set t TI t .

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.

Point Beach Nuclear Plant C5 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

C.1.3 Lane Assignment The unit problem is solved for each turn movement on each link. Therefore it is necessary to calculate a value, LN , of allocated lanes for each movement, x. If in fact all lanes are specified by, say, arrows painted on the pavement, either as full lanes or as lanes within a turn bay, then the problem is fully defined. If however there remain unchannelized lanes on a link, then an analysis is undertaken to subdivide the number of these physical lanes into turn movement specific virtual lanes, LNx.

C.2 Implementation C.2.1 Computational Procedure The computational procedure for this model is shown in the form of a flow diagram as Figure C4. As discussed earlier, the simulation model processes traffic flow for each link independently over TI that the analyst specifies; it is usually 60 seconds or longer. The first step is to execute an algorithm to define the sequence in which the network links are processed so that as many links as possible are processed after their feeder links are processed, within the same network sweep. Since a general network will have many closed loops, it is not possible to guarantee that every link processed will have all of its feeder links processed earlier.

The processing then continues as a succession of time steps of duration, TI, until the simulation is completed. Within each time step, the processing performs a series of sweeps over all network links; this is necessary to ensure that the traffic flow is synchronous over the entire network. Specifically, the sweep ensures continuity of flow among all the network links; in the context of this model, this means that the values of E, M, and S are all defined for each link such that they represent the synchronous movement of traffic from each link to all of its outbound links. These sweeps also serve to compute the metering rates that control spillback.

Within each sweep, processing solves the unit problem for each turn movement on each link.

With the turn movement percentages for each link provided by the DTRAD model, an algorithm allocates the number of lanes to each movement serviced on each link. The timing at a signal, if any, applied at the downstream end of the link, is expressed as a G/C ratio, the signal timing needed to define this ratio is an input requirement for the model. The model also has the capability of representing, with macroscopic fidelity, the actions of actuated signals responding to the timevarying competing demands on the approaches to the intersection.

The solution of the unit problem yields the values of the number of vehicles, O, that discharge from the link over the time interval and the number of vehicles that remain on the link at the end of the time interval as stratified by queued and moving vehicles: Q and M . The procedure considers each movement separately (multipiping). After all network links are processed for a given network sweep, the updated consistent values of entering flows, E; metering rates, M; and source flows, S are defined so as to satisfy the no spillback condition.

The procedure then performs the unit problem solutions for all network links during the following sweep.

Point Beach Nuclear Plant C6 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

Experience has shown that the system converges (i.e., the values of E, M and S settle down for all network links) in just two sweeps if the network is entirely undersaturated or in four sweeps in the presence of extensive congestion with link spillback. (The initial sweep over each link uses the final values of E and M, of the prior TI). At the completion of the final sweep for a TI, the procedure computes and stores all MOEs for each link and turn movement for output purposes. It then prepares for the following time interval by defining the values of Q and M for the start of the next TI as being those values of Q and M at the end of the prior TI. In this manner, the simulation model processes the traffic flow over time until the end of the run.

Note that there is no spacediscretization other than the specification of network links.

C.2.2 Interfacing with Dynamic Traffic Assignment (DTRAD)

The DYNEV II system reflects Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) guidance that evacuees will seek to travel in a general direction away from the location of the hazardous event. Thus, an algorithm was developed to identify an appropriate set of destination nodes for each origin based on its location and on the expected direction of travel. This algorithm also supports the DTRAD model in dynamically varying the Trip Table (OD matrix) over time from one DTRAD session to the next.

Figure B1 depicts the interaction of the simulation model with the DTRAD model in the DYNEV II system. As indicated, DYNEV II performs a succession of DTRAD sessions; each such session computes the turn link percentages for each link that remain constant for the session duration, T , T , specified by the analyst. The end product is the assignment of traffic volumes from each origin to paths connecting it with its destinations in such a way as to minimize the networkwide cost function. The output of the DTRAD model is a set of updated link turn percentages which represent this assignment of traffic.

As indicated in Figure B1, the simulation model supports the DTRAD session by providing it with operational link MOE that are needed by the path choice model and included in the DTRAD cost function. These MOE represent the operational state of the network at a time, T T , which lies within the session duration, T , T . This burn time, T T , is selected by the analyst. For each DTRAD iteration, the simulation model computes the change in network operations over this burn time using the latest set of link turn percentages computed by the DTRAD model. Upon convergence of the DTRAD iterative procedure, the simulation model accepts the latest turn percentages provided by the Dynamic Traffic Assignment (DTA) model, returns to the origin time, T , and executes until it arrives at the end of the DTRAD session duration at time, T . At this time the next DTA session is launched and the whole process repeats until the end of the DYNEV II run.

Additional details are presented in Appendix B.

Point Beach Nuclear Plant C7 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

Table C1. Selected Measures of Effectiveness Output by DYNEV II Measure Units Applies To Vehicles Discharged Vehicles Link, Network, Exit Link Speed Miles/Hours (mph) Link, Network Density Vehicles/Mile/Lane Link Level of Service LOS Link Content Vehicles Network Travel Time Vehiclehours Network Evacuated Vehicles Vehicles Network, Exit Link Trip Travel Time Vehicleminutes/trip Network Capacity Utilization Percent Exit Link Attraction Percent of total evacuating vehicles Exit Link Max Queue Vehicles Node, Approach Time of Max Queue Hours:minutes Node, Approach Length (mi); Mean Speed (mph); Travel Route Statistics Route Time (min)

Mean Travel Time Minutes Evacuation Trips; Network Point Beach Nuclear Plant C8 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

Table C2. Input Requirements for the DYNEV II Model HIGHWAY NETWORK Links defined by upstream and downstream node numbers Link lengths Number of lanes (up to 9) and channelization Turn bays (1 to 3 lanes)

Destination (exit) nodes Network topology defined in terms of downstream nodes for each receiving link Node Coordinates (X, Y)

Nuclear Power Plant Coordinates (X, Y)

GENERATED TRAFFIC VOLUMES On all entry links and source nodes (origins), by Time Period TRAFFIC CONTROL SPECIFICATIONS Traffic signals: linkspecific, turn movement specific Signal control treated as fixed time or actuated Location of traffic control points (these are represented as actuated signals)

Stop and Yield signs Rightturnonred (RTOR)

Route diversion specifications Turn restrictions Lane control (e.g., lane closure, movementspecific)

DRIVERS AND OPERATIONAL CHARACTERISTICS Drivers (vehiclespecific) response mechanisms: freeflow speed, discharge headway Bus route designation.

DYNAMIC TRAFFIC ASSIGNMENT Candidate destination nodes for each origin (optional)

Duration of DTA sessions Duration of simulation burn time Desired number of destination nodes per origin INCIDENTS Identify and Schedule of closed lanes Identify and Schedule of closed links Point Beach Nuclear Plant C9 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

Table C3. Glossary The maximum number of vehicles, of a particular movement, that can discharge Cap from a link within a time interval.

The number of vehicles, of a particular movement, that enter the link over the E

time interval. The portion, ETI, can reach the stopbar within the TI.

The green time: cycle time ratio that services the vehicles of a particular turn G/C movement on a link.

h The mean queue discharge headway, seconds.

k Density in vehicles per lane per mile.

The average density of moving vehicles of a particular movement over a TI, on a k

link.

L The length of the link in feet.

The queue length in feet of a particular movement, at the [beginning, end] of a L ,L time interval.

The number of lanes, expressed as a floating point number, allocated to service a LN particular movement on a link.

L The mean effective length of a queued vehicle including the vehicle spacing, feet.

M Metering factor (Multiplier): 1.

The number of moving vehicles on the link, of a particular movement, that are M ,M moving at the [beginning, end] of the time interval. These vehicles are assumed to be of equal spacing, over the length of link upstream of the queue.

The total number of vehicles of a particular movement that are discharged from a O

link over a time interval.

The components of the vehicles of a particular movement that are discharged from a link within a time interval: vehicles that were Queued at the beginning of O ,O ,O the TI; vehicles that were Moving within the link at the beginning of the TI; vehicles that Entered the link during the TI.

The percentage, expressed as a fraction, of the total flow on the link that P

executes a particular turn movement, x.

Point Beach Nuclear Plant C10 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

The number of queued vehicles on the link, of a particular turn movement, at the Q ,Q

[beginning, end] of the time interval.

The maximum flow rate that can be serviced by a link for a particular movement in the absence of a control device. It is specified by the analyst as an estimate of Q

link capacity, based upon a field survey, with reference to the Highway Capacity Manual (HCM) 2016.

R The factor that is applied to the capacity of a link to represent the capacity drop when the flow condition moves into the forced flow regime. The lower capacity at that point is equal to RQ .

RCap The remaining capacity available to service vehicles of a particular movement after that queue has been completely serviced, within a time interval, expressed as vehicles.

S Service rate for movement x, vehicles per hour (vph).

t Vehicles of a particular turn movement that enter a link over the first t seconds of a time interval, can reach the stopbar (in the absence of a queue down stream) within the same time interval.

TI The time interval, in seconds, which is used as the simulation time step.

v The mean speed of travel, in feet per second (fps) or miles per hour (mph), of moving vehicles on the link.

v The mean speed of the last vehicle in a queue that discharges from the link within the TI. This speed differs from the mean speed of moving vehicles, v.

W The width of the intersection in feet. This is the difference between the link length which extends from stopbar to stopbar and the block length.

Point Beach Nuclear Plant C11 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

8011 8009 2 3 8104 8107 6 5 8008 8010 8 9 10 8007 8012 12 11 8006 8005 13 14 8014 15 25 8004 16 24 8024 17 8003 23 22 21 20 8002 Entry, Exit Nodes are 19 numbered 8xxx 8001 Figure C1. Representative Analysis Network Point Beach Nuclear Plant C12 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

Volume, vph Capacity Drop Qmax R Qmax Qs Density, vpm Flow Regimes Speed, mph Free Forced vf R vc Density, vpm kf kc kj ks Figure C2. Fundamental Diagrams Distance OQ OM OE Down Qb vQ Qe v

v L

Mb Me Up t1 t2 Time E1 E2 TI Figure C3. A UNIT Problem Configuration with t1 > 0 Point Beach Nuclear Plant C13 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

Sequence Network Links Next Timestep, of duration, TI A

Next sweep; Define E, M, S for all B

Links C Next Link D Next Turn Movement, x Get lanes, LNx Service Rate, Sx ; G/Cx Get inputs to Unit Problem:

Q b , Mb , E Solve Unit Problem: Q e , Me , O No D Last Movement ?

Yes No Last Link ? C Yes No B Last Sweep ?

Yes Calc., store all Link MOE Set up next TI :

No A Last Time - step ?

Yes DONE Figure C4. Flow of Simulation Processing (See Glossary: Table C3)

Point Beach Nuclear Plant C14 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

APPENDIX D Detailed Description of Study Procedure

D. DETAILED DESCRIPTION OF STUDY PROCEDURE This appendix describes the activities that were performed to compute Evacuation Time Estimates (ETE). The individual steps of this effort are represented as a flow diagram in Figure D1. Each numbered step in the description that follows corresponds to the numbered element in the flow diagram.

Step 1 The first activity was to obtain 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 The 2020 Census block information was obtained in GIS format. This information was used to estimate the permanent resident population within the EPZ and Shadow Region and to define the spatial distribution and demographic characteristics of the population within the study area. Employee data was estimated based on data provided by the Counties of Kewaunee, and Manitowoc and NextEra (plant employment data). Data for schools, preschools/day care centers medical facilities and transient facilities were obtained from the Counties of Kewaunee and Manitowoc, and the previous ETE study (reviewed and confirmed still accurate),

supplemented by internet searches and aerial imagery for parking lot capacities, where data was missing. In addition, transportation resources available during an emergency were also provided by the Counties of Kewaunee and Manitowoc.

Step 3 A kickoff meeting was conducted with major stakeholders (state and local emergency officials, onsite and offsite NextEra personnel). The purpose of the kickoff meeting was to present an overview of the work effort, identify key agency personnel, and indicate the data requirements for the study. Specific requests for information were presented to the state and county emergency officials and NextEra personnel. Unique features of the study area were discussed to identify the local concerns that should be addressed by the ETE study.

Step 4 Next, a physical survey of the roadway system in the study area was conducted to determine any changes to the roadway network since the previous study. This survey included consideration of the geometric properties of the highway sections, the channelization of lanes on each section of roadway, whether there are any turn restrictions or special treatment of traffic at intersections, the type and functioning of traffic control devices, gathering signal timings for pretimed traffic signals (if any exist within the study area), and to make the necessary observations needed to estimate realistic values of roadway capacity. Roadway characteristics were also verified using aerial imagery.

Point Beach Nuclear Plant D1 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

Step 5 A demographic survey of households within the EPZ was conducted to identify household dynamics, trip generation characteristics, and evacuationrelated demographic information of the EPZ population of this study. This information was used to determine important study factors including the average number of evacuating vehicles used by each household, and the time required to perform preevacuation mobilization activities.

Step 6 A computerized representation of the physical roadway system, called a linknode analysis network, was updated using the most recent UNITES software (see Section 1.3) developed by KLD. Once the geometry of the network was completed, the network was calibrated using the information gathered during the road survey (Step 4) and information obtained from aerial imagery. Estimates of highway capacity for each link and other linkspecific characteristics were introduced to the network description. Traffic signal timings were input accordingly. The link node analysis network was imported into a GIS map. The 2020 permanent resident population estimates (Step 2) were overlaid in the map, and origin centroids where trips would be generated during the evacuation process were assigned to appropriate links.

Step 7 The EPZ is subdivided into 6 Subareas. Based on wind direction and speed, Regions (groupings of Subareas) that may be advised to evacuate, were developed.

The need for evacuation can occur over a range of timeofday, dayofweek, seasonal and weatherrelated conditions. Scenarios were developed to capture the variation in evacuation demand, highway capacity and mobilization time, for different time of day, day of the week, time of year, and weather conditions.

Step 8 The input stream for the DYNEV II system, which integrates the dynamic traffic assignment and distribution model, DTRAD, with the evacuation simulation model, was created for a prototype evacuation case - the evacuation of the entire EPZ for a representative scenario.

Step 9 After creating this input stream, the DYNEV II model was executed on the prototype evacuation case to compute evacuating traffic routing patterns consistent with the appropriate NRC guidelines. DYNEV II contains an extensive suite of data diagnostics which check the completeness and consistency of the input data specified. The analyst reviews all warning and error messages produced by the model and then corrects the database to create an input stream that properly executes to completion.

The model assigns destinations to all origin centroids consistent with a (general) radial evacuation of the EPZ and Shadow Region. The analyst may optionally supplement and/or 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.

Point Beach Nuclear Plant D2 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

Step 10 The results generated by the prototype evacuation case are critically examined. The examination includes observing the animated graphics (using the EVAN software - see Section 1.3) produced by DYNEV II and reviewing the statistics output by the model. This is a labor intensive activity, requiring the direct participation of skilled engineers who possess the necessary practical experience to interpret the results and to determine the causes of any problems reflected in the results.

Essentially, the approach is to identify those bottlenecks in the network that represent locations where congested conditions are pronounced and to identify the cause of this congestion. This cause can take many forms, either as excess demand due to high rates of trip generation, improper routing, a shortfall of capacity, or as a quantitative flaw in the way the physical system was represented in the input stream. This examination leads to one of two conclusions:

The results are satisfactory; or The input stream must be modified accordingly.

This decision requires, of course, the application of the user's judgment and experience based upon the results obtained in previous applications of the model and a comparison of the results of the latest prototype evacuation case iteration with the previous ones. If the results are satisfactory in the opinion of the user, then the process continues with Step 13. Otherwise, proceed to Step 11.

Step 11 There are many "treatments" available to the user in resolving apparent problems. These treatments range from decisions to reroute the traffic by assigning additional evacuation destinations for one or more sources, imposing turn restrictions where they can produce significant improvements in capacity, changing the control treatment at critical intersections so as to provide improved service for one or more movements, adding routes (which are paved and traversable) that were not previously modelled but may assist in an evacuation and increase the available roadway network capacity, or in prescribing specific treatments for channelizing the flow so as to expedite the movement of traffic along major roadway systems.

Such "treatments" take the form of modifications to the original prototype evacuation case input stream. All treatments are designed to improve the representation of evacuation behavior.

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.

Point Beach Nuclear Plant D3 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

Step 13 Evacuation of transitdependent evacuees and special facilities are included in the evacuation analysis. Fixed routing for transit buses 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.

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. Traffic management plans are analyzed, and traffic control points are prioritized, if applicable.

Additional analysis is conducted to identify the sensitivity of the ETE to changes in some base evacuation conditions and model assumptions.

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, preschools/day care centers, and medical facilities.

Step 17 The simulation results are analyzed, tabulated and graphed. The results were then documented, as required by NUREG/CR7002, Rev. 1.

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.

Point Beach Nuclear Plant D4 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

A Step 1 Step 10 Create GIS Base Map Examine Prototype Evacuation Case using EVAN and DYNEV II Output Step 2 Gather Census Block and Demographic Data for Study Results Satisfactory Area Step 11 Step 3 Modify Evacuation Destinations and/or Develop Traffic Conduct Kickoff Meeting with Stakeholders Control Treatments Step 4 Step 12 Field Survey of Roadways within Study Area Modify Database to Reflect Changes to Prototype Evacuation Case Step 5 Conduct and Analyze Demographic Survey and Develop Trip Generation Characteristics B Step 13 Step 6 Establish Transit and Special Facility Evacuation Routes Update and Calibrate LinkNode Analysis Network 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 Use DYNEV II to Simulate All Evacuation Cases and Create and Debug DYNEV II Input Stream Compute ETE Step 16 Step 9 Use DYNEV II Results to Estimate Transit and Special Facilities Evacuation Time Estimates B Execute DYNEV II for Prototype Evacuation Case Step 17 Documentation A Step 18 Complete ETE Criteria Checklist Figure D1. Flow Diagram of Activities Point Beach Nuclear Plant D5 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

APPENDIX E Facility Data

E. FACILITY DATA The following tables list population information, as of April 2022, for special facilities, transient attractions and major employers that are located within the PBNP EPZ. Special facilities are defined as schools, preschools/day care centers, and medical facilities. Transient population data is included in the tables for recreational areas (campgrounds, golf courses, marinas, parks) and lodging facilities. Employment data is included in the table 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, preschool/day care center, recreational area (campground, golf course, marina, park), lodging facility, and major employer are also provided.

Point Beach Nuclear Plant E1 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

Table E1. Schools and Preschools/Day Care Centers within the EPZ Distance Dire Enroll Subarea (miles) ction School Name Street Address Municipality ment Manitowoc County 10SW 5.4 WSW Forever Friends Family Child Care 824 Randolph St Mishicot 8 10SW 5.5 SW Schultz Elementary School 510 Woodlawn Dr Mishicot 426 10SW 5.6 WSW Mishicot High School 660 Washington St Mishicot 236 10SW 5.6 WSW Mishicot Middle School 660 Washington St Mishicot 223 10SW 5.8 WSW St Peter's Lutheran Tiny Treasures Preschool 325 Randolph St Mishicot 13 10SW 5.9 WSW Happy Hearts Day Care 440 Elizabeth St Mishicot 7 10S 7.3 S Lighthouse Learning Academy 4519 Lincoln Ave Two Rivers 01 10S 7.3 S Two Rivers High School 4519 Lincoln Ave Two Rivers 478 10S 7.6 SSW L.B. Clarke Middle School 4608 Bellevue Pl Two Rivers 478 10S 7.7 SSW Creative Learning Child Enrichment Center 4404 Bellevue Pl Two Rivers 80 10S 8.0 SSW St. John's Lutheran School 3607 45th St Two Rivers 75 10S 8.2 S Tiny Treasures Christian Child 1029 33rd St Two Rivers 55 10S 8.2 SSW Magee Elementary School 3502 Glenwood St Two Rivers 318 10S 8.2 SSW Creative Kids Club 3502 Glenwood St Two Rivers 10 10S 8.4 SSW FYHLC 2132 32nd St Two Rivers 11 10S 8.4 SSW CESA 7 Headstart 3234 Mishicot Rd Two Rivers 18 10S 9.8 SSW Koenig Elementary School 1114 Lowell St Two Rivers 259 10S 9.8 SSW A Child's Place Day Care 2611 11th St Two Rivers 8 Manitowoc County Subtotal: 2,703 EPZ TOTAL: 2,703 1

Lighthouse Learning Academy is a virtual school and there are no students on site.

Point Beach Nuclear Plant E2 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

Table E2. Medical Facilities within the EPZ Ambul Wheel Bed Distance Dire Cap Current atory chair ridden Subarea (miles) ction Facility Name Street Address Municipality acity Census Patients Patients Patients Manitowoc County 10S 7.7 SSW Wisteria Haus Residents 2741 45th St Two Rivers 15 15 15 0 0 10S 7.8 SSW Meadowview Assisted Living 4606 Mishicot Rd Two Rivers 28 23 15 8 0 10S 8.5 S Hamilton Health Services 1 Hamilton Dr Two Rivers 60 25 4 21 0 10S 8.6 S Northland Lodge Assisted Living 2500 Garfield St Two Rivers 52 32 8 24 0 10S 9.7 S Parkway Home 1110 Victory St Two Rivers 8 6 6 0 0 10S 11.4 SSW Aurora Medical Center 5000 Memorial Dr Two Rivers 62 32 11 12 9 10W 10.7 WSW Petrzelka Family Home 12112 Melnik Rd Whitelaw 4 3 3 0 0 Manitowoc County Subtotal: 229 136 62 65 9 EPZ TOTAL: 229 136 62 65 9 Table E3. Major Employers within the EPZ

% Employee Employees Employees Vehicles Distance Dire Employees Commuting Commuting Commuting Subarea (miles) ction Facility Name Street Address Municipality (Max Shift) into the EPZ into the EPZ into the EPZ Manitowoc County 5 Point Beach Nuclear Plant 6610 Nuclear Rd Two Rivers 450 61% 275 255 10S 11.4 SSW Aurora Medical Center 5000 Memorial Dr Two Rivers 305 29% 88 81 Manitowoc County Subtotal: 755 363 336 EPZ TOTAL: 755 363 336 Point Beach Nuclear Plant E3 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

Table E4. Recreational Areas within the EPZ Distance Dire Subarea (miles) ction Facility Name Street Address Municipality Facility Type Transients Vehicles Kewaunee County 10N 6.9 NNW Maple View Campground N1267 Norman Rd Kewaunee Campground 60 30 Kewaunee County Subtotal: 60 30 Manitowoc County 5 4.6 SSE Outdoor Group Camp 9710 S State St Two Rivers Campground 60 26 5 4.9 SSE Point Beach State Forest 9400 County Rd O Two Rivers Park 1,000 250 5 4.9 SSE Point Beach Campground 9400 County Rd O Two Rivers Campground 762 333 10SW 6.6 WSW Par 5 Resort 300 Church St Mishicot Golf Course 120 50 10S 7.0 SSW Eastwin Valley Golf & Foot Golf Course 3012 Riverdale Ln Two Rivers Golf Course 69 30 10S 7.2 S Scheffel's Hideaway Campground 6511 County Rd O Two Rivers Campground 50 20 10S 8.8 SSW Scenic River StopNDock RV Park & Marina 2510 W River St Two Rivers Campground 42 42 10S 8.9 S Neshotah Park 500 Zlatnik Dr Two Rivers Park 1,054 458 10S 9.5 S Seagull Marina, LLC 1400 Lake St Two Rivers Marina 58 38 Manitowoc County Subtotal: 3,215 1,247 EPZ TOTAL: 3,275 1,277 Table E5. Lodging Facilities within the EPZ Distance Dire Subarea (miles) ction Facility Name Street Address Municipality Transients Vehicles Manitowoc County 10SW 6.5 WSW Par 5 Resort 250 W Church St Mishicot 1,127 644 10S 8.4 S Cool City Motel 3009 Lincoln Ave Two Rivers 42 21 10S 8.7 S Red Forest Bed & Breakfast 1421 25th St Two Rivers 8 4 10S 9.3 S Cobblestone Hotel & Suites Two Rivers 1407 16th St Two Rivers 110 55 10S 9.7 S Lighthouse Inn 1515 Memorial Dr Two Rivers 134 67 10S 10.2 SSW Lakeview Motel 2702 Memorial Dr Two Rivers 24 12 10S 10.7 SSW Village Inn on the Lake 3310 Memorial Dr Two Rivers 72 36 Manitowoc County Subtotal: 1,517 839 EPZ TOTAL: 1,517 839 Point Beach Nuclear Plant E4 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

Figure E1. Schools and Preschools/Day Care Centers within the EPZ Point Beach Nuclear Plant E5 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

Figure E2. Medical Facilities within the EPZ Point Beach Nuclear Plant E6 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

Figure E3. Major Employers within the EPZ Point Beach Nuclear Plant E7 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

Figure E4. Recreational Areas within the EPZ Point Beach Nuclear Plant E8 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

Figure E5. Lodging Facilities within the EPZ Point Beach Nuclear Plant E9 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

APPENDIX F Demographic Survey

F. DEMOGRAPHIC SURVEY F.1 Introduction The development of evacuation time estimate (ETE) for the PBNP EPZ requires the identification of travel patterns, car ownership and household size of the population within the EPZ. Demographic information can be obtained from Census data. The use of this data has several limitations when applied to emergency planning. First, the Census data do not encompass the range of information needed to identify the time required for preliminary activities (mobilization) that must be undertaken prior to evacuating the area. Secondly, Census data do not contain attitudinal responses needed from the population of the EPZ and consequently may not accurately represent the anticipated behavioral characteristics of the evacuating populace.

These concerns are addressed by conducting a demographic survey of a representative sample of the EPZ population. The survey is designed to elicit information from the public concerning family demographics and estimates of response times to well defined events. The design of the survey includes a limited number of questions of the form What would you do if ? and other questions regarding activities with which the respondent is familiar (How long does it take you to ?).

F.2 Survey Instrument and Sampling Plan Attachment A presents the final survey instrument used for the demographic survey. A draft of the instrument was submitted to stakeholders for comment. Comments were received and the survey instrument was modified accordingly, prior to conducting the survey.

Following the completion of the instrument, a sampling plan was developed. Since the demographic survey discussed herein began prior to the release of the 2020 Census data, the 2010 Census data was used to develop the sampling plan. A sample size of approximately 450 completed survey forms yields results with a sampling error of +/-4.5% at the 95% confidence level. The sample must be drawn from the EPZ population. Consequently, a list of zip codes in the EPZ was developed using GIS software. This list is shown in Table F1. Along with each zip code, an estimate of the population and number of households in each area was determined by overlaying 2010 Census data and the EPZ boundary, again using GIS software. The proportional number of desired completed survey interviews for each zip code was identified, as shown in Table F1. Note that the average household size computed in Table F1 was an estimate for sampling purposes and was not used in the ETE study.

A total of 556 completed samples within the EPZ were obtained, corresponding to a sampling error of +/-4.1% at the 95% confidence level based on the 2010 Census data. This is slightly less than the 4.5% sampling plan and is acceptable for this study. Table F1 shows the number of samples obtained within each zip code.

Point Beach Nuclear Plant F1 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

F.3 Survey Results The results of the survey fall into two categories. First, the household demographics of the area can be identified. Demographic information includes such factors as household size, automobile ownership, and automobile availability. The distributions of the time to perform certain pre evacuation activities are the second category of survey results. These data are processed to develop the trip generation distributions used in the evacuation modeling effort, as discussed in Section 5.

A review of the survey instrument reveals that several questions have a I would rather not answer entry for a response. It is accepted practice in conducting surveys of this type to accept the answers of a respondent who offers a would rather not answer response for a few questions or who refuses to answer a few questions. To address the issue of occasional would rather not answer 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 would rather not answer responses are ignored, and the distributions are based upon the positive data that is acquired.

F.3.1 Household Demographic Results Household Size Figure F1 presents the distribution of household size within the EPZ based on the responses to the demographic survey. According to the responses, the average household contains 2.55 people. The estimated average household size from the 2020 Census data is 2.29 people. The percent difference between the Census data and survey data is approximately 11%. This issue was discussed with NextEra and it was decided that the Census estimate of 2.29 people per household should be used for this study, as it results in a more conservative number evacuating vehicles (see Section 3.1 - the number of evacuating vehicles is determined by dividing population by average household size and then multiplying by the number of vehicles per household. Using a smaller average household size will results in a larger number of evacuating vehicles). A sensitivity study was conducted to estimate the impact of using the demographic survey household size on ETE - see Appendix M.

Automobile Ownership The average number of automobiles available per household in the EPZ is 2.21. It should be noted that 1.4% of households do not 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.

Ridesharing Approximately 79% of the households surveyed responded that they would share a ride with a neighbor, relative, or friend if a car was not available to them when asked to evacuate in the event of an emergency, as shown in Figure F5.

Point Beach Nuclear Plant F2 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

Commuters Figure F6 presents the distribution of the number of commuters in each household.

Commuters are defined as household members who travel to work or college on a daily basis.

The data shows an average of 1.24 commuters per household in the EPZ, and approximately 65% of households have at least one commuter.

Commuter Travel Modes Figure F7 presents the mode of travel that commuters use on a daily basis. The vast majority (85%) of commuters use their private automobiles to travel to work. The data shows an average of 1.08 employees per vehicle, assuming 2 people per vehicle - on average - for carpools.

Impact of COVID19 on Commuters Figure F8 presents the distribution of the number of commuters in each household that were temporarily impacted by the COVID19 pandemic. The data shows an average of 0.45 commuters per household were affected by the COVID19 pandemic. Approximately 29% of households indicated someone in their household had a work and/or school commute that was temporarily impacted by the COVID19 pandemic.

Functional and/or Transportation Needs Figure F9 presents the distribution of the number of individuals with functional or transportation need. As discussed in Section 3.8, there is only a single person with access and/or functional needs within the EPZ. However, the survey results show that 87 households (15.6% of the total surveyed) have functional or transportation needs. Of those with functional or transportation needs, 28 homes (32%) require a bus, 21 homes (24%) require a medical bus/van, 17 homes (20%) require a wheelchair accessible vehicle, 10 homes (11%) require an ambulance, and 11 homes (13%) require some other transportation mode that was not specified.

F.3.2 Evacuation Response Several questions were asked to gauge the populations response to an emergency. These are now discussed:

How many of the vehicles would your household use during an evacuation for an emergency with no prior warning? The response is shown in Figure F10. On average, evacuating households would use 1.41 vehicles.

If members of your household are in different locations when an evacuation is recommended, what would you do? Of the survey participants who responded, approximately 49% said they would await the return of other family members before evacuating and about 51% indicated that they would not await the return of other family members before evacuating, as shown in Figure F11.

Point Beach Nuclear Plant F3 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

Emergency officials advise you to shelterinplace in an emergency because you are not in the affected area. Would you? This question is designed to elicit information regarding compliance with instructions to shelter in place.

As shown in Figure F12, the results indicate that 92% of households who are advised to shelter in place would do so; the remaining 8% would choose to evacuate the area.

Note the baseline ETE study assumes 20% of households will not comply with the shelter advisory, as per Section 2.5.2 of NUREG/CR7002, Rev. 1. Thus, the noncompliance rate obtained through the survey is lower (12% less) than the federal guidance recommendation. A sensitivity study was conducted to estimate the impact of shadow evacuation (noncompliance to a shelter advisory) on ETE - see Appendix M.

Emergency officials advise you to take shelter while people in other areas are advised to evacuate now. Would you? This question is designed to elicit information specifically related to the possibility of a staged evacuation. That is, asking a population to shelter in place now and then to evacuate after a specified period of time. As shown in Figure F13, about 75% of households would follow instructions and delay the start of evacuation until so advised, while the balance of 25% would choose to begin evacuating immediately.

Emergency officials advise you to evacuate. Where would you evacuate to? This question is designed to elicit information regarding the destination of evacuees in case of an evacuation.

Approximately 45% of households indicated that they would evacuate to a friend or relatives home, 5% to a reception center, 14% to a hotel, motel or campground, 6% to a second or seasonal home, 2% state they would not evacuate, and the remaining 28% answered other/dont know to this question, as shown in Figure F14. no If you had a household pet, would you take your pet with you if you were asked to evacuate the area? Based on the responses to the survey, 68% of households have a family pet. Of the households with pets, about 25% indicated that they would take their pets with them to a shelter, about 70% indicated that they would take their pets somewhere else and about 5%

would leave their pet at home, as shown in Figure F15. Of the households that would evacuate with their pets, approximately 95% indicated that they have sufficient room in their vehicle to evacuate with their pets/animals, 2.3% said they did not, and 2.0% would use a trailer.

What type of pet(s) and/or animal(s) do you have? Based on responses from the survey, about 90% of households have a household pet (dog, cat, bird, reptile, and/or fish), about 8% of households have farm animals (horse, chicken, goat, and/or pig), and about 2% have other small pets/animals.

F.3.3 Time Distribution Results The survey asked several questions about the amount of time it takes to perform certain pre evacuation activities. These activities involve actions taken by residents during the course of their daytoday lives. Thus, the answers fall within the realm of the responders experience.

Point Beach Nuclear Plant F4 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

As discussed in Section F.3.1 and shown in Figure F8, the majority of respondents (71%)

indicated no commuters were impacted by the COVID19 pandemic; therefore, the results for the time distribution of commuters (time to prepare to leave work and time to travel home from work) were used as is in this study.

The mobilization distributions provided below are the result of having applied the analysis described in Section 5.4.1 on the component activities of the mobilization.

How long does it take the commuter to complete preparation for leaving work/college?

Figure F16 presents the cumulative distribution for the survey responses. Approximately 80%

of households have commuters who can leave work within 30 minutes, the remaining require up to an additional 45 minutes.

How long would it take the commuter to travel home? Figure F17 presents the work/college to home travel time for the EPZ. About 90% of commuters can arrive home within about 30 minutes of leaving work/college; all within 60 minutes.

How long would it take the family to pack clothing, secure the house, and load the car?

Figure F18 presents the time required to prepare for leaving on an evacuation trip. In many ways this activity mimics a familys preparation for a short holiday or weekend away from home. Hence, the responses represent the experience of the responder in performing similar activities.

The distribution shown in Figure F18 has a long tail. About 83% of households can be ready to leave home within 75 minutes; the remaining households require up to an additional 75 minutes.

How long would it take you to clear 6 to 8 inches of snow from your driveway? During adverse, snowy weather conditions, an additional activity must be performed before residents can depart on the evacuation trip. Although snow scenarios assume that the roads and highways have been plowed and are passable (albeit at lower speeds and capacities), it may be necessary to clear a private driveway prior to leaving the home so that the vehicle can access the street.

Figure F19 presents the time distribution for removing 6 to 8 inches of snow from a driveway.

Approximately 80% of driveways are passable within 45 minutes. The last driveway is cleared one hour and 45 minutes after the start of this activity. Note that those respondents (approximately 36%) who answered that they would not take time to clear their driveway were assumed to be ready immediately at the start of this activity. Essentially, they would drive through the snow on the driveway to access the roadway and begin their evacuation trip.

F.3.4 Emergency Communications At your place of residence, how reliable is your cell phone signal? This question is designed to elicit information regarding the ability to be notified in case of an evacuation.

Approximately 84% of households indicated that they have very reliable signal to receive texts and phone calls, 4% indicated that their signal is reliable for text messages only, 11% indicated Point Beach Nuclear Plant F5 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

that they do not always receive cell communications at their residence, and about 1% indicated that they do not have cell service at their residence, as shown in Figure F20.

If you receive a text message similar to an AMBER Alert from emergency officials with directions for you to respond to an active radiological emergency at Point Beach Nuclear Plant, how likely is it you would follow these directions? This question is designed to elicit information regarding the likelihood of an individual to take action based on emergency management officials guidelines.

Approximately 69% of households indicated that they are highly likely to take action on these directions, about 25% indicated likely, 4% indicated neither likely nor unlikely, 2% indicated unlikely, and less than 1% indicated highly unlikely for them to take action on emergency management officials directions, as shown in Figure F21.

Which of the following emergency communication methods do you think is most likely to alert you at your residence? This question is designed to elicit information regarding the most efficient way to alert residents within the EPZ.

Approximately 65% of households indicated that a text message from emergency officials would be most likely to alert them at their residence, 21% indicated that a siren sounding near their home would be the most likely method, 9% indicated an alert broadcast on the TV/Radio, 3% indicated that a phone call/text message from a family member, friend or neighbor, less than 1% indicated that information on Twitter or Facebook, and another less than 1% answered other/all the above to this question, as shown in Figure F22.

Point Beach Nuclear Plant F6 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

Table F1. PBNP Demographic Survey Sampling Plan Population Households Desired Obtained Zip Code within EPZ within EPZ Number of Samples (2010) (2010) Samples 54208 652 264 13 17 54216 1,444 557 28 36 54220 689 279 14 229 54227 311 123 6 7 54228 2,682 1,115 57 58 54241 14,881 6,403 326 195 54247 295 109 6 14 Total EPZ 20,954 8,850 450 556 1

Average HH Size : 2.37 Household Size 60%

50% 48.2%

Percent of Households 40%

30%

20% 15.7% 15.3%

13.2%

10%

5.1%

2.5%

0%

1 2 3 4 5 6+

Household Size Figure F1. Household Size in the EPZ 1

It is an estimate for sampling purposes and was not used in the ETE study Point Beach Nuclear Plant F7 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

Vehicle Availability 60%

48.6%

50%

Percent of Households 40%

30%

22.4%

18.6%

20%

10% 6.3%

1.4% 2.5%

0%

0 1 2 3 4 5+

Vehicles Figure F2. Household Vehicle Availability Distribution of Vehicles by HH Size 14 Person Households 1 Person 2 People 3 People 4 People 100%

80%

Percent of Households 60%

40%

20%

0%

0 1 2 3 4 5+

Vehicles Figure F3. Vehicle Availability 1 to 4 Person Households Point Beach Nuclear Plant F8 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

Distribution of Vehicles by HH Size 57+ Person Households 5 People 6 People 7+ People 100%

80%

Percent of Households 60%

40%

20%

0%

1 2 3 4 5+

Vehicles Figure F4. Vehicle Availability 5 to 7+ Person Households Rideshare with Neighbor/Friend 100%

78.9%

80%

Percent of Households 60%

40%

21.1%

20%

0%

Yes No Figure F5. Household Ridesharing Preference Point Beach Nuclear Plant F9 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

Commuters per Household 50%

40%

34.7%

Percent of Households 30.6%

30%

23.1%

20%

10% 6.4%

5.1%

0%

0 1 2 3 4+

Commuters Figure F6. Commuters in Households in the EPZ Travel Mode to Work 100%

85.1%

80%

Percent of Commuters 60%

40%

20%

7.0%

3.2% 4.0%

0.7%

0%

Rail Bus Walk/Bike Drive Alone Carpool (2+)

Mode of Travel Figure F7. Modes of Travel in the EPZ Point Beach Nuclear Plant F10 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

COVID19 Impact to Commuters 80%

71.1%

70%

60%

Percent of Households 50%

40%

30%

20% 16.9%

9.4%

10%

1.3% 1.3%

0%

0 1 2 3 4+

Commuters Figure F8. Impact to Commuters due to the COVID19 Pandemic Functional Vehicle Transportation Needs 30 28 25 21 Number of Households 20 17 15 11 10 10 5

0 Bus Medical Bus/Van Wheelchair Ambulance Other Accessible Vehicle Figure F9. Households with Functional or Transportation Needs Point Beach Nuclear Plant F11 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

Evacuating Vehicles Per Household 100%

80%

65.6%

Percent of Households 60%

40%

28.8%

20%

3.4% 1.4%

0.7%

0%

0 1 2 3 4+

Evacuating Vehicles Figure F10. Number of Vehicles Used for Evacuation Await Returning Commuter Before Leaving 100%

80%

Percent of Households 60%

49.2% 50.8%

40%

20%

0%

Yes, would await return No, would evacuate Figure F11. Percent of Households that Await Returning Commuter Evacuating Point Beach Nuclear Plant F12 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

Shelter in Place Characteristics 100%

92.0%

Percent of Households 80%

60%

40%

20%

8.0%

0%

Shelter Evacuate Figure F12. Shelter in Place Characteristics Shelter then Evacuate Characteristics 100%

80% 74.6%

Percent of Households 60%

40%

25.4%

20%

0%

Shelter, then Evacuate Evacuate Immediately Figure F13. Shelter Then Evacuate Characteristics Point Beach Nuclear Plant F13 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

Shelter Locations 50%

44.7%

40%

Percent of Households 30% 27.7%

20%

13.8%

10% 6.5%

5.6%

1.7%

0%

Friend/Relative's Reception Center Hotel, Motel, or A Second/Seasonal Other/Don't Know Would not Home Campground Home Evacuate Figure F14. Study Area Evacuation Destinations Households Evacuating with Pets/Animals 80%

70.3%

60%

Percent of Households 40%

24.5%

20%

5.2%

0%

Take with me to a Shelter Take with me to Somewhere Leave Pet at Home Else Figure F15. Households Evacuating with Pets/Animals Point Beach Nuclear Plant F14 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

Time to Prepare to Leave Work/College 100%

80%

Percent of Commuters 60%

40%

20%

0%

0 15 30 45 60 75 Preparation Time (min)

Figure F16. Time Required to Prepare to Leave Work/School Time to Commute Home From Work/College 100%

80%

Percent of Commuters 60%

40%

20%

0%

0 15 30 45 60 Travel Time (min)

Figure F17. Time to Commute Home from Work/College Point Beach Nuclear Plant F15 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

Time to Prepare to Leave Home 100%

80%

Percent of Households 60%

40%

20%

0%

0 30 60 90 120 150 Preparation Time (min)

Figure F18. Time to Prepare Home for Evacuation Time to Remove Snow from Driveway 100%

80%

Percent of Households 60%

40%

20%

0%

0 15 30 45 60 75 90 105 Time (min)

Figure F19. Time to Remove 6"8" Snow from Driveway Point Beach Nuclear Plant F16 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

Cell Phone Signal Reliability 100%

83.9%

80%

Percent of Households 60%

40%

20%

11.1%

4.2%

0.9%

0%

Reliable Reliable Unreliable service No service (text and call) (text only)

Figure F20. Cell Phone Signal Reliability Resident's Compliance to Given Instruction 80%

68.8%

60%

Percent of Households 40%

24.8%

20%

4.0%

1.7% 0.7%

0%

Highly Likely Likely Neutral Highly Unlikely Unlikely Figure F21. Likelihood to Take Action Based off Emergency Management Officials Guidelines Point Beach Nuclear Plant F17 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

Perception of Public Alert Method 80%

65.1%

60%

Percent of Households 40%

20.8%

20%

9.3%

3.1%

0.7% 0.9%

0%

Siren Emergency Alert TV/Radio Twitter/Facebook Phone Call/Text Other/All of the Text Message Message from Above Family /Friend Figure F22. Preference on Emergency Communication Alert Type Point Beach Nuclear Plant F18 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

ATTACHMENT A Demographic Survey Instrument Point Beach Nuclear Plant F19 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

UV62W6XYZÿ\6534X56ÿ]12^6Z

_ÿ9a 9

0123456 789ÿ 9ÿÿ8ÿ 9ÿÿÿ9ÿÿ98ÿ ÿ999ÿÿ8ÿÿ ÿÿ 8ÿÿÿ9ÿ89ÿ ÿÿÿ99ÿ789ÿÿ899ÿÿ8ÿ 9ÿ

ÿ9ÿ89ÿ8ÿÿ999ÿÿ99ÿÿ989ÿ999ÿ9 9ÿÿÿ ÿ9ÿ! ÿ9 9ÿÿ9ÿ 9ÿÿÿ999ÿ 9 99ÿ"#$%&$ÿ'(#)ÿ

'+,#$-$ÿ'($ÿ&./0$)ÿ,$/ÿ1'.&$1'#2ÿ"#$%&$ÿ1%0$ÿ-1$ÿ1$%2ÿ'3ÿ-1$ÿ1'.&$1'#2ÿ456ÿ)$%/&ÿ'/ÿ'#2$/7ÿ*'+,#$-$ÿ-1$ÿ&./0$)ÿ8ÿÿ 9ÿ ÿ9ÿÿÿ9ÿÿÿ89ÿ 9ÿÿ

99ÿ9ÿ8ÿ9ÿ 9ÿÿ 99

bcÿdefgÿh5ÿZ412ÿW6Xi62j

<=>ÿ@ABCÿ@ADÿ@E<BF I9 J99 Kÿ ÿ89ÿÿ9 G89H L kcÿdefgÿh5ÿZ412ÿe4V6ÿlh3ÿY4i6j_

M mncÿoXÿg4gfpqÿe4rÿVfXZÿ^6ehYp65ÿf26ÿ151fppZÿf^fhpfsp6ÿg4ÿZ412ÿe4156e4pij

<=>ÿ@ABCÿ@ADÿ@E<BF G9 7

7899 J

J9 NO N99

P8

Q9ÿÿ9 R9ÿ497 Kÿ ÿ89ÿÿ9 S mtcÿoXÿfXÿ6V62W6XYZqÿY41piÿZ41ÿW6gÿfÿ2hi6ÿ41gÿ4uÿge6ÿf26fÿrhgeÿfÿX6hWes42ÿ42ÿu2h6Xij

<=>ÿ@ABCÿ@ADÿ@E<BF

!9

Q

Kÿ ÿ89ÿÿ9 T vcÿw4rÿVfXZÿ^6ehYp65ÿr41piÿZ412ÿe4156e4piÿ156ÿi12hXWÿfXÿ6^fY1fgh4Xÿu42ÿfXÿ6V62W6XYZÿrhgeÿX4ÿ32h42ÿrf2XhXWj

<=>ÿ@ABCÿ@ADÿ@E<BF G9 7

7899 J

J9 NO N99

P8

Q9ÿÿ9 R9ÿ497 Kÿ ÿ9 9ÿÿ9 Kÿ ÿ9 9ÿÿ

Kÿ ÿ89ÿÿ9

01 UVÿW=Xÿ>PYZÿ[A=[RAÿ?C?PRRZÿR\QAÿ\YÿZ=?Bÿ]=?CA]=RL^

2345ÿ789ÿ78ÿ739

!

ÿÿ#

$ÿ%ÿ&ÿÿ&'

(5)*ÿ+7ÿ,- .+)78ÿ/

01234567 81 _VÿW=Xÿ>PYZÿPL?R@Cÿ\YÿZ=?Bÿ]=?CA]=RLÿ]PLÿ@=ÿ]PYaAÿ@]A\BÿX=Bbÿ=BÿC`]==Rÿ=>>?@AÿL?Aÿ@=ÿ@]Aÿ01234567ÿ[PYLA>\`^

2345ÿ789ÿ78ÿ739 9ÿ:;

ÿÿ#

$ÿ%ÿ&ÿÿ&'

(5)*ÿ+7ÿ,- .+)78ÿ<

0=>>?@ABC D1 cVÿdAN=BAÿ01234567eÿ]=Xÿ>PYZÿPL?R@Cÿ\YÿZ=?Bÿ]=?CA]=RLÿX=?RLÿY=B>PRRZÿ=>>?@AÿN=BÿX=Bbÿ=BÿC`]==Rÿ=YÿPÿLP\RZÿfPC\C^g 2345ÿ789ÿ78ÿ739 9ÿ:; (5)*ÿ+7ÿ,-.+)78ÿEF

(5)*ÿ+7ÿ,-.+)78ÿG

(5)*ÿ+7ÿ,-.+)78ÿHI

(5)*ÿ+7ÿ,-.+)78ÿHH

ÿÿ# (5)*ÿ+7ÿ,-.+)78ÿHJ

$ÿ%ÿ&ÿÿ&' (5)*ÿ+7ÿ,-.+)78ÿEF K=LAÿ=NÿOBPQAR S1 hVÿO]\Yb\YaÿPf=?@ÿAP`]ÿ=>>?@ABeÿ]=XÿL=ACÿAP`]ÿ[ABC=Yÿ?C?PRRZÿ@BPQARÿ@=ÿX=Bbÿ=BÿC`]==R^

2345ÿ789ÿ78 ÿ739ÿ* 4ÿ47T i& j' k&lmjnon pÿq r&stuÿÿ#ÿss $ÿ%ÿ&ÿÿ&'

r##ÿv (5)*ÿ+7ÿ,- .+)78ÿHF K=LAÿ=NÿOBPQAR

012 MNÿ1*+-*+Oÿ!PQ)ÿ!01ÿ0RRQ)Sÿ1TÿUÿ!01ÿ(U+ÿQUQ!##Vÿ)!"#ÿ)ÿT-ÿÿU01#W 3456ÿ89 ÿ89 ÿ84ÿ 5ÿ58

XG6> H8; YG>Z[H6\]\>: ^=6D:ÿ_><7: `G=a<<>@%ÿ<=ÿ5<=:ÿa:<a>: KÿI<8>Jÿ=G9B:=ÿ7<9ÿG7;I:=

`<5589:=ÿ0

`<5589:=ÿ%

6ÿ8ÿ 89ÿ

ÿÿ!"#

002 MNÿ1*+-*+Oÿ!PQ)ÿ!01ÿ0RRQ)Sÿ1TÿUÿ!01ÿ(U+ÿQUQ!##Vÿ)!"#ÿ)ÿT-ÿÿU01#W 3456ÿ89 ÿ89 ÿ84ÿ 5ÿ58

XG6> H8; YG>Z[H6\]\>: ^=6D:ÿ_><7: `G=a<<>@%ÿ<=ÿ5<=:ÿa:<a>: KÿI<8>Jÿ=G9B:=ÿ7<9ÿG7;I:=

`<5589:=ÿ0

`<5589:=ÿ%

`<5589:=ÿ2

6ÿ8ÿ 89ÿ$

ÿÿ!"#

0%2 MNÿ1*+-*+Oÿ!PQ)ÿ!01ÿ0RRQ)Sÿ1TÿUÿ!01ÿ(U+ÿQUQ!##Vÿ)!"#ÿ)ÿT-ÿÿU01#W 3456ÿ89 ÿ89 ÿ84ÿ 5ÿ58

XG6> H8; YG>Z[H6\]\>: ^=6D:ÿ_><7: `G=a<<>@%ÿ<=ÿ5<=:ÿa:<a>: KÿI<8>Jÿ=G9B:=ÿ7<9ÿG7;I:=

`<5589:=ÿ0

`<5589:=ÿ%

`<5589:=ÿ2

`<5589:=ÿA

6ÿ8ÿ 89ÿ&

'(!!)*+ÿ)ÿ#!"ÿ,-./01#

022 bcdNÿÿfQ*+Oÿ!+ÿRO+0Vÿ"+)ÿT*)1ÿ+ÿ(*ÿT!+*+OSÿ!PQ)ÿ1TÿRQ01ÿ)*RÿTQ#ÿ*)ÿ)!-ÿgRRQ)ÿhdÿ)ÿU)(ÿT-*+OSÿO!PÿUU+)*!#USÿ!+ÿT!#-ÿ)ÿ)1*ÿ"1*0#ÿ)ÿU)!)ÿ)1*

)*(ÿ1RW 3456ÿ89 ÿ89ÿ84

3ÿ56789:;ÿ<=ÿ>:;;

?@01ÿ56789:;

00@03ÿ56789:;

0?@%1ÿ56789:;

%0@%3ÿ56789:;

%?@21ÿ56789:;

20@23ÿ56789:;

2?@A1ÿ56789:;

A0@A3ÿ56789:;

A?@31ÿ56789:;

30@33ÿ56789:;

3?ÿ56789:;ÿ@ÿ0ÿB<8=

CD:=ÿ0ÿB<8=EÿF89ÿ>:;;ÿ9BG7ÿ0ÿB<8=ÿ03ÿ56789:;

H:9I::7ÿ0ÿB<8=ÿ0?ÿ56789:;ÿG7Jÿ0ÿB<8=ÿ21ÿ56789:;

H:9I::7ÿ0ÿB<8=ÿ20ÿ56789:;ÿG7Jÿ0ÿB<8=ÿA3ÿ56789:;

H:9I::7ÿ0ÿB<8=ÿA?ÿ56789:;ÿG7Jÿ%ÿB<8=;

CD:=ÿ%ÿB<8=;

KÿI<8>Jÿ=G9B:=ÿ7<9ÿG7;I:=

0A2 iÿ"ÿjÿ1QUÿÿkQU)*+ÿbcdSÿU(0*Vÿ)*Rÿ1

>:GD:ÿF>G7Zÿ6lÿ]<8=ÿG7;I:=ÿl<=ÿm8:;96<7ÿn@0Eÿ6;ÿ87J:=ÿ%ÿB<8=;2

6ÿ8ÿ 89ÿLL

01234145678ÿ57ÿ242ÿ 7177

GHIJÿÿLM168Nÿ48ÿ2O21N28Pÿ2285ÿQ65ÿ87ÿ31671ÿQ41868NRÿ4S7M5ÿ7QÿOMÿ56O2ÿQ7MTÿ65ÿ54 2ÿU7OOM521ÿVIÿ57ÿW573ÿQ7168NRÿN14Sÿ2WW28564WRÿ48TÿQ4 ÿ57ÿ5261ÿ262ÿ57ÿW5415ÿ5261 5163ÿ7O2X

ÿÿÿ

ÿ"#$%&'(ÿ)*ÿ+'((

,-.ÿ"#$%&'(

-ÿ"#$%&'(

,-/.ÿ"#$%&'(

/-/ÿ"#$%&'(

/,-0.ÿ"#$%&'(

0-0ÿ"#$%&'(

0,-1.ÿ"#$%&'(

1-1ÿ"#$%&'(

1,-.ÿ"#$%&'(

-ÿ"#$%&'(

,ÿ"#$%&'(ÿ-ÿÿ2)%*

34'*ÿÿ2)%*5ÿ6%&ÿ+'((ÿ&27$ÿÿ2)%*ÿÿ"#$%&'(

8'&9$ÿÿ2)%*ÿ,ÿ"#$%&'(ÿ7$:ÿÿ2)%*ÿ0.ÿ"#$%&'(

8'&9$ÿÿ2)%*ÿ0ÿ"#$%&'(ÿ7$:ÿÿ2)%*ÿ1ÿ"#$%&'(

8'&9$ÿÿ2)%*ÿ1,ÿ"#$%&'(ÿ7$:ÿ/ÿ2)%*(

34'*ÿ/ÿ2)%*(

ÿ9)%+: ÿ*7&2'*ÿ$)&ÿ7$(9'*

, YZÿ721ÿ[ÿ7M1WÿZ71ÿ\M2W5678ÿGHIRÿW326ZPÿ56O2ÿ212

+'74'ÿ6+7$]ÿ#^ÿ_)%*ÿ7$(9'*ÿ^)*ÿ%'(&#)$ÿa-5ÿ#(ÿ%$:'*ÿ/ÿ2)%*(

< GH[JÿÿLM168Nÿ48ÿ2O21N28Pÿ2285ÿQ65ÿ87ÿ31671ÿQ41868NRÿ4S7M5ÿ7QÿOMÿ56O2ÿQ7MTÿ65ÿ54 2ÿU7OOM521ÿV[ÿ57ÿW573ÿQ7168NRÿN14Sÿ2WW28564WRÿ48TÿQ4 ÿ57ÿ5261ÿ262ÿ57ÿW5415ÿ5261 5163ÿ7O2X

ÿÿÿ

ÿ"#$%&'(ÿ)*ÿ+'((

,-.ÿ"#$%&'(

-ÿ"#$%&'(

,-/.ÿ"#$%&'(

/-/ÿ"#$%&'(

/,-0.ÿ"#$%&'(

0-0ÿ"#$%&'(

0,-1.ÿ"#$%&'(

1-1ÿ"#$%&'(

1,-.ÿ"#$%&'(

-ÿ"#$%&'(

,ÿ"#$%&'(ÿ-ÿÿ2)%*

34'*ÿÿ2)%*5ÿ6%&ÿ+'((ÿ&27$ÿÿ2)%*ÿÿ"#$%&'(

8'&9$ÿÿ2)%*ÿ,ÿ"#$%&'(ÿ7$:ÿÿ2)%*ÿ0.ÿ"#$%&'(

8'&9$ÿÿ2)%*ÿ0ÿ"#$%&'(ÿ7$:ÿÿ2)%*ÿ1ÿ"#$%&'(

8'&9$ÿÿ2)%*ÿ1,ÿ"#$%&'(ÿ7$:ÿ/ÿ2)%*(

34'*ÿ/ÿ2)%*(

ÿ9)%+: ÿ*7&2'*ÿ$)&ÿ7$(9'*

= YZÿ721ÿ[ÿ7M1WÿZ71ÿ\M2W5678ÿGH[RÿW326ZPÿ56O2ÿ212

+'74'ÿ6+7$]ÿ#^ÿ_)%*ÿ7$(9'*ÿ^)*ÿ%'(&#)$ÿa-/5ÿ#(ÿ%$:'*ÿ/ÿ2)%*(

>?@ÿAÿBCDA?ÿEF 01234145678ÿ57ÿ242ÿ 7177

012 +,-.ÿÿ123456ÿ75ÿ8983685:;ÿ8<85=ÿ>4=?ÿ5@ÿA34@3ÿ>735456Bÿ7C@2=ÿ?@>ÿ92:?ÿ=498ÿ>@2DEÿ4=ÿ=7F8ÿG@992=83ÿH-ÿ=@ÿI=@Aÿ>@3F456Bÿ637Cÿ8II85=47DIBÿ75Eÿ>7DFÿ=@ÿ=?843ÿ<8?4:D8ÿ=@ÿI=73=ÿ=?843

=34Aÿ?@98J 3456ÿ89 ÿ89ÿ84

ÿÿÿ

0ÿ

000ÿ

0ÿ

ÿ

0ÿ

ÿ

0ÿ

ÿ

0ÿ

ÿÿÿ0ÿ!

"#ÿ0ÿ!$ÿ%ÿÿ!&ÿ0ÿ!ÿ0ÿ

'(ÿ0ÿ!ÿ0ÿÿ&)ÿ0ÿ!ÿÿ

'(ÿ0ÿ!ÿÿÿ&)ÿÿ!

"#ÿÿ!

ÿ()ÿ&!ÿÿ&(

2 KLÿ@<83ÿMÿ?@23IÿL@3ÿN28I=4@5ÿ+,-BÿIA8:4L;ÿ=498ÿ?838

&#ÿ%&OÿPÿQÿ&(ÿPÿRÿ10$ÿÿ)ÿÿ!2

02 +,M.ÿÿ123456ÿ75ÿ8983685:;ÿ8<85=ÿ>4=?ÿ5@ÿA34@3ÿ>735456Bÿ7C@2=ÿ?@>ÿ92:?ÿ=498ÿ>@2DEÿ4=ÿ=7F8ÿG@992=83ÿHMÿ=@ÿI=@Aÿ>@3F456Bÿ637Cÿ8II85=47DIBÿ75Eÿ>7DFÿ=@ÿ=?843ÿ<8?4:D8ÿ=@ÿI=73=ÿ=?843

=34Aÿ?@98J 3456ÿ89 ÿ89ÿ84

ÿÿÿ

0ÿ

000ÿ

0ÿ

ÿ

0ÿ

ÿ

0ÿ

ÿ

0ÿ

ÿÿÿ0ÿ!

"#ÿ0ÿ!$ÿ%ÿÿ!&ÿ0ÿ!ÿ0ÿ

'(ÿ0ÿ!ÿ0ÿÿ&)ÿ0ÿ!ÿÿ

'(ÿ0ÿ!ÿÿÿ&)ÿÿ!

"#ÿÿ!

ÿ()ÿ&!ÿÿ&(

2 KLÿ@<83ÿMÿ?@23IÿL@3ÿN28I=4@5ÿ+,MBÿIA8:4L;ÿ=498ÿ?838

&#ÿ%&OÿPÿQÿ&(ÿPÿRÿ1$ÿÿ)ÿÿ!2

012 EFGHÿÿJK49;Lÿ7;ÿ5M54L5;CNÿ5>5;8ÿO98Dÿ;:ÿ649:4ÿO74;9;LPÿ7Q:K8ÿD:OÿMKCDÿ89M5ÿO:K=Rÿ98ÿ87@5ÿS:MMK854ÿTGÿ8:ÿU8:6ÿO:4@9;LPÿL47Qÿ5UU5;897=UPÿ7;RÿO7=@ÿ8:ÿ8D594ÿ>5D9C=5ÿ8:ÿU8748ÿ8D594 8496ÿD:M5V 3456ÿ89 ÿ89ÿ84

ÿÿÿ

ÿ

0ÿ

00ÿ

01ÿ

11ÿ

1ÿ

ÿ

ÿÿÿÿ

!"ÿÿ#ÿ$ÿÿ%ÿÿÿÿ

&'ÿÿÿÿÿ%(ÿÿÿ1ÿ

&'ÿÿÿ1ÿÿ%(ÿÿÿÿ

&'ÿÿÿÿÿ%(ÿ0ÿ

!"ÿ0ÿ

)ÿ'(ÿ%ÿÿ%'

02 WXÿ:>54ÿYÿD:K4UÿX:4ÿZK5U89:;ÿEFGPÿU65C9XNÿ89M5ÿD545

%"ÿ$%[ÿ\ÿ]ÿ%'ÿ\ÿ^ÿ_1#ÿÿ(ÿ0ÿ2

6+,ÿ-8ÿ./ 0-+89ÿ12 345674789:;ÿ8:ÿ=57>5ÿ?:4@ABCD::=

02 EFHÿÿJK49;Lÿ7;ÿ5M54L5;CNÿ5>5;8ÿO98Dÿ;:ÿ649:4ÿO74;9;LPÿ7Q:K8ÿD:OÿMKCDÿ89M5ÿO:K=Rÿ98ÿ87@5ÿS:MMK854ÿT`ÿ8:ÿU8:6ÿO:4@9;LPÿL47Qÿ5UU5;897=UPÿ7;RÿO7=@ÿ8:ÿ8D594ÿ>5D9C=5ÿ8:ÿU8748ÿ8D594 8496ÿD:M5V 3456ÿ89 ÿ89ÿ84

ÿÿÿ

ÿ

0ÿ

00ÿ

01ÿ

11ÿ

1ÿ

ÿ

ÿÿÿÿ

!"ÿÿ#ÿ$ÿÿ%ÿÿÿÿ

&'ÿÿÿÿÿ%(ÿÿÿ1ÿ

&'ÿÿÿ1ÿÿ%(ÿÿÿÿ

&'ÿÿÿÿÿ%(ÿ0ÿ

!"ÿ0ÿ

)ÿ'(ÿ%ÿÿ%'

02 WXÿ:>54ÿYÿD:K4UÿX:4ÿZK5U89:;ÿEFPÿU65C9XNÿ89M5ÿD545

%"ÿ$%[ÿ\ÿ]ÿ%'ÿ\ÿ^ÿ_#ÿÿ(ÿ0ÿ2

012 -./0ÿÿ345678ÿ97ÿ:;:58:7<=ÿ:>:7?ÿ@6?Aÿ7BÿC56B5ÿ@957678Dÿ9EB4?ÿAB@ÿ;4<Aÿ?6;:ÿ@B4FGÿ6?ÿ?9H:ÿIB;;4?:5ÿJ/ÿ?BÿK?BCÿ@B5H678Dÿ859Eÿ:KK:7?69FKDÿ97Gÿ@9FHÿ?Bÿ?A:65ÿ>:A6<F:ÿ?BÿK?95?ÿ?A:65

?56CÿAB;:L 3456ÿ89 ÿ89ÿ84

ÿÿÿ

ÿ

0ÿ

00ÿ

0ÿ

ÿ

ÿÿÿÿ!

"#ÿÿ!$ÿ%ÿÿ!&ÿÿ!ÿÿ

'(ÿÿ!ÿÿÿ&)ÿÿ!ÿÿ

'(ÿÿ!ÿÿÿ&)ÿ0ÿ!

"#ÿ0ÿ!

ÿ()ÿ&!ÿÿ&(

0+2 MNÿB>:5ÿ/ÿAB45KÿNB5ÿO4:K?6B7ÿ-./DÿKC:<6N=ÿ?6;:ÿA:5:

&#ÿ%&PÿQÿRÿ&(ÿQÿSÿ,0$ÿÿ)ÿ0ÿ!2 0,2 -.T0ÿÿ345678ÿ97ÿ:;:58:7<=ÿ:>:7?ÿ@6?Aÿ7BÿC56B5ÿ@957678Dÿ9EB4?ÿAB@ÿ;4<Aÿ?6;:ÿ@B4FGÿ6?ÿ?9H:ÿIB;;4?:5ÿJTÿ?BÿK?BCÿ@B5H678Dÿ859Eÿ:KK:7?69FKDÿ97Gÿ@9FHÿ?Bÿ?A:65ÿ>:A6<F:ÿ?BÿK?95?ÿ?A:65

?56CÿAB;:L 3456ÿ89 ÿ89ÿ84

ÿÿÿ

ÿ

0ÿ

00ÿ

0ÿ

ÿ

ÿÿÿÿ!

"#ÿÿ!$ÿ%ÿÿ!&ÿÿ!ÿÿ

'(ÿÿ!ÿÿÿ&)ÿÿ!ÿÿ

'(ÿÿ!ÿÿÿ&)ÿ0ÿ!

"#ÿ0ÿ!

ÿ()ÿ&!ÿÿ&(

2 MNÿB>:5ÿ/ÿAB45KÿNB5ÿO4:K?6B7ÿ-.TDÿKC:<6N=ÿ?6;:ÿA:5:

&#ÿ%&PÿQÿRÿ&(ÿQÿSÿ,$ÿÿ)ÿ0ÿ!2

012 EFGHÿÿJK4LMNÿ5Mÿ7<74N7MBOÿ767MPÿQLPCÿM;ÿR4L;4ÿQ54MLMNSÿ5T;KPÿC;Qÿ<KBCÿPL<7ÿQ;K8UÿLPÿP5?7ÿV;<<KP74ÿWGÿP;ÿXP;RÿQ;4?LMNSÿN45Tÿ7XX7MPL58XSÿ5MUÿQ58?ÿP;ÿPC7L4ÿ67CLB87ÿP;ÿXP54PÿPC7L4 P4LRÿC;<7Y 3456ÿ89 ÿ89ÿ84

ÿÿÿ

1ÿ

111ÿ

1ÿ

0ÿ

010ÿ

0ÿ

1ÿ

ÿ

1ÿ

ÿÿÿ1ÿ

!"ÿ1ÿ#ÿ$ÿÿ%ÿ1ÿÿ1ÿ

&'ÿ1ÿÿ1ÿÿ%(ÿ1ÿÿ0ÿ

&'ÿ1ÿÿ01ÿÿ%(ÿ1ÿÿÿ

&'ÿ1ÿÿÿÿ%(ÿÿ

!"ÿÿ

)ÿ'(ÿ%ÿÿ%'

02 Z=ÿ;674ÿ[ÿC;K4Xÿ=;4ÿ\K7XPL;MÿEFGSÿXR7BL=OÿPL<7ÿC747

%"ÿ$%]ÿ^ÿ_ÿ%'ÿ^ÿÿa#ÿÿ(ÿÿ2

6+,ÿ-8ÿ./ 0-+89ÿ12 345678ÿ:;<7ÿ=4;<ÿ>;4?@ABC;;8 002 bcFbHÿdMÿ56745N7SÿC;Qÿ<KBCÿPL<7ÿQ;K8UÿLPÿP5?7ÿV;<<KP74ÿWbÿP;ÿP45678ÿC;<7ÿ=4;<ÿQ;4?ÿ;4ÿXBC;;8Y 3456ÿ89 ÿ89ÿ84

ÿÿÿ

1ÿ

111ÿ

1ÿ

0ÿ

010ÿ

0ÿ

1ÿ

ÿ

1ÿ

ÿÿÿ1ÿ

!"ÿ1ÿ#ÿ$ÿÿ%ÿ1ÿÿ1ÿ

&'ÿ1ÿÿ1ÿÿ%(ÿ1ÿÿ0ÿ

&'ÿ1ÿÿ01ÿÿ%(ÿ1ÿÿÿ

&'ÿ1ÿÿÿÿ%(ÿÿ

!"ÿÿ

)ÿ'(ÿ%ÿÿ%'

02 Z=ÿ;674ÿ[ÿC;K4Xÿ=;4ÿ\K7XPL;MÿbcFbSÿXR7BL=OÿPL<7ÿC747

%"ÿ$%]ÿ^ÿ_ÿ%'ÿ^ÿÿ11#ÿÿ(ÿÿ2

6+,ÿ-8ÿ./ 0-+89ÿ2D 345678ÿ:;<7ÿ=4;<ÿ>;4?@ABC;;8

012 FGHFIÿJKÿ78967L9MÿE=Nÿ>ODEÿPQ>9ÿN=O:RÿQPÿP7A9ÿS=>>OP96ÿTFÿP=ÿP6789:ÿE=>9ÿ?6=>ÿN=6Aÿ=6ÿUDE==:V 3456ÿ89 ÿ89ÿ84

1ÿÿÿ

ÿ

1ÿ

ÿ

1ÿ

0ÿ

001ÿ

0ÿ

1ÿ

111ÿ

1ÿÿÿÿ

!"ÿÿ#ÿ$ÿÿ%ÿÿÿ1ÿ

&'ÿÿÿÿÿ%(ÿÿÿ0ÿ

&'ÿÿÿ0ÿÿ%(ÿÿÿ1ÿ

&'ÿÿÿÿÿ%(ÿÿ

!"ÿÿ

)ÿ'(ÿ%ÿÿ%'

02 W?ÿ=896ÿXÿE=O6Uÿ?=6ÿYO9UPQ=KÿFGHFMÿUZ9DQ?[ÿPQ>9ÿE969

%"ÿ$%\ÿ]ÿ^ÿ%'ÿ]ÿ_ÿ#ÿÿ(ÿÿ2 0*2 FGHXIÿJKÿ78967L9MÿE=Nÿ>ODEÿPQ>9ÿN=O:RÿQPÿP7A9ÿS=>>OP96ÿTXÿP=ÿP6789:ÿE=>9ÿ?6=>ÿN=6Aÿ=6ÿUDE==:V 3456ÿ89 ÿ89ÿ84

1ÿÿÿ

ÿ

1ÿ

ÿ

1ÿ

0ÿ

001ÿ

0ÿ

1ÿ

111ÿ

1ÿÿÿÿ

!"ÿÿ#ÿ$ÿÿ%ÿÿÿ1ÿ

&'ÿÿÿÿÿ%(ÿÿÿ0ÿ

&'ÿÿÿ0ÿÿ%(ÿÿÿ1ÿ

&'ÿÿÿÿÿ%(ÿÿ

!"ÿÿ

)ÿ'(ÿ%ÿÿ%'

0+2 W?ÿ=896ÿXÿE=O6Uÿ?=6ÿYO9UPQ=KÿFGHXMÿUZ9DQ?[ÿPQ>9ÿE969

%"ÿ$%\ÿ]ÿ^ÿ%'ÿ]ÿ_ÿ#ÿÿ(ÿÿ2

,6-.ÿ/8ÿ01 2/-89ÿ34 56789:ÿ<=>9ÿ?6=>ÿ@=6ABCDE==:

012 +,-+.ÿ01ÿ23452647ÿ89:ÿ;<=8ÿ>?;4ÿ:9<@Aÿ?>ÿ>2B4ÿC9;;<>45ÿD+ÿ>9ÿ>5234@ÿ89;4ÿE59;ÿ:95Bÿ95ÿF=899@G 3456ÿ89 ÿ89ÿ84

ÿÿÿ

ÿ

0ÿ

00ÿ

0ÿ

ÿ

ÿÿÿÿ!

"#ÿÿ!$ÿ%ÿÿ!&ÿÿ!ÿÿ

'(ÿÿ!ÿÿÿ&)ÿÿ!ÿ0ÿ

'(ÿÿ!ÿ0ÿÿ&)ÿÿ!ÿÿ

'(ÿÿ!ÿÿÿ&)ÿÿ!

"#ÿÿ!

ÿ()ÿ&!ÿÿ&(

2 HEÿ9345ÿIÿ89<5FÿE95ÿJ<4F>?91ÿ+,-+7ÿFK4=?ELÿ>?;4ÿ8454

&#ÿ%&MÿNÿOÿ&(ÿNÿPÿ$ÿÿ)ÿÿ!2

2 +,-I.ÿ01ÿ23452647ÿ89:ÿ;<=8ÿ>?;4ÿ:9<@Aÿ?>ÿ>2B4ÿC9;;<>45ÿDIÿ>9ÿ>5234@ÿ89;4ÿE59;ÿ:95Bÿ95ÿF=899@G 3456ÿ89 ÿ89ÿ84

ÿÿÿ

ÿ

0ÿ

00ÿ

0ÿ

ÿ

ÿÿÿÿ!

"#ÿÿ!$ÿ%ÿÿ!&ÿÿ!ÿÿ

'(ÿÿ!ÿÿÿ&)ÿÿ!ÿ0ÿ

'(ÿÿ!ÿ0ÿÿ&)ÿÿ!ÿÿ

'(ÿÿ!ÿÿÿ&)ÿÿ!

"#ÿÿ!

ÿ()ÿ&!ÿÿ&(

2 HEÿ9345ÿIÿ89<5FÿE95ÿJ<4F>?91ÿ+,-I7ÿFK4=?ELÿ>?;4ÿ8454

&#ÿ%&MÿNÿOÿ&(ÿNÿPÿ$ÿÿ)ÿÿ!2

012 DEFGHÿIJÿ56745K7LÿC;Mÿ<NBCÿOP<7ÿM;N8QÿPOÿO5?7ÿR;<<NO74ÿSGÿO;ÿO45678ÿC;<7ÿ=4;<ÿM;4?ÿ;4ÿTBC;;8U 3456ÿ89 ÿ89ÿ84

ÿÿÿ

ÿ

1ÿ

11ÿ

10ÿ

00ÿ

0ÿ

ÿ

ÿÿÿÿ

!"ÿÿ#ÿ$ÿÿ%ÿÿÿÿ

&'ÿÿÿÿÿ%(ÿÿÿ1ÿ

&'ÿÿÿ1ÿÿ%(ÿÿÿ0ÿ

&'ÿÿÿ0ÿÿ%(ÿÿ

!"ÿÿ

)ÿ'(ÿ%ÿÿ%'

002 V=ÿ;674ÿWÿC;N4Tÿ=;4ÿXN7TOP;JÿDEFGLÿTY7BP=ZÿOP<7ÿC747

%"ÿ$%[ÿ\ÿ]ÿ%'ÿ\ÿ^ÿ1#ÿÿ(ÿÿ2

6+,ÿ-8ÿ./ 0-+89ÿ12 345678ÿ:;<7ÿ=4;<ÿ>;4?@ABC;;8 02 DEFDHÿIJÿ56745K7LÿC;Mÿ<NBCÿOP<7ÿM;N8QÿPOÿO5?7ÿR;<<NO74ÿSDÿO;ÿO45678ÿC;<7ÿ=4;<ÿM;4?ÿ;4ÿTBC;;8U 3456ÿ89 ÿ89ÿ84

ÿÿÿ

ÿ

1ÿ

11ÿ

10ÿ

00ÿ

0ÿ

ÿ

ÿÿÿÿ

!"ÿÿ#ÿ$ÿÿ%ÿÿÿÿ

&'ÿÿÿÿÿ%(ÿÿÿ1ÿ

&'ÿÿÿ1ÿÿ%(ÿÿÿ0ÿ

&'ÿÿÿ0ÿÿ%(ÿÿ

!"ÿÿ

)ÿ'(ÿ%ÿÿ%'

02 V=ÿ;674ÿWÿC;N4Tÿ=;4ÿXN7TOP;JÿDEFDLÿTY7BP=ZÿOP<7ÿC747

%"ÿ$%[ÿ\ÿ]ÿ%'ÿ\ÿ^ÿ#ÿÿ(ÿÿ2

012 -./01ÿ34ÿ5678597:ÿ;<=ÿ>?@;ÿAB>7ÿ=<?CDÿBAÿA5E7ÿF<>>?A78ÿG0ÿA<ÿA8567Cÿ;<>7ÿH8<>ÿ=<8Eÿ<8ÿI@;<<CJ 3456ÿ89 ÿ89ÿ84

ÿÿÿ

ÿ

0ÿ

00ÿ

0ÿ

ÿ

ÿÿÿÿ!

"#ÿÿ!$ÿ%ÿÿ!&ÿÿ!ÿÿ

'(ÿÿ!ÿÿÿ&)ÿÿ!ÿÿ

'(ÿÿ!ÿÿÿ&)ÿÿ!ÿ0ÿ

'(ÿÿ!ÿ0ÿÿ&)ÿÿ!

"#ÿÿ!

ÿ()ÿ&!ÿÿ&(

0+2 KHÿ<678ÿ0ÿ;<?8IÿH<8ÿL?7IAB<4ÿ-./0:ÿIM7@BHNÿAB>7ÿ;787

&#ÿ%&OÿPÿQÿ&(ÿPÿRÿ$ÿÿ)ÿÿ!2 0,2 -./S1ÿ34ÿ5678597:ÿ;<=ÿ>?@;ÿAB>7ÿ=<?CDÿBAÿA5E7ÿF<>>?A78ÿGSÿA<ÿA8567Cÿ;<>7ÿH8<>ÿ=<8Eÿ<8ÿI@;<<CJ 3456ÿ89 ÿ89ÿ84

ÿÿÿ

ÿ

0ÿ

00ÿ

0ÿ

ÿ

ÿÿÿÿ!

"#ÿÿ!$ÿ%ÿÿ!&ÿÿ!ÿÿ

'(ÿÿ!ÿÿÿ&)ÿÿ!ÿÿ

'(ÿÿ!ÿÿÿ&)ÿÿ!ÿ0ÿ

'(ÿÿ!ÿ0ÿÿ&)ÿÿ!

"#ÿÿ!

ÿ()ÿ&!ÿÿ&(

2 KHÿ<678ÿ0ÿ;<?8IÿH<8ÿL?7IAB<4ÿ-./S:ÿIM7@BHNÿAB>7ÿ;787

&#ÿ%&OÿPÿQÿ&(ÿPÿRÿ$ÿÿ)ÿÿ!2

012 CDEFGÿH8ÿ9I>J9K>LÿM7NÿO=PMÿ65O>ÿN7=:4ÿ56ÿ69Q>ÿR7OO=6>JÿSFÿ67ÿ6J9I>:ÿM7O>ÿTJ7OÿN7JQÿ7Jÿ?PM77:U 3456ÿ89 ÿ89ÿ84

0ÿÿÿ

1ÿ

1110ÿ

1ÿ

10ÿ

ÿ

10ÿ

ÿ

10ÿ

0ÿ

0100ÿ

0ÿÿÿ1ÿ

!"ÿ1ÿ#ÿ$ÿÿ%ÿ1ÿÿ10ÿ

&'ÿ1ÿÿ1ÿÿ%(ÿ1ÿÿÿ

&'ÿ1ÿÿ1ÿÿ%(ÿ1ÿÿ0ÿ

&'ÿ1ÿÿÿÿ%(ÿÿ

!"ÿÿ

)ÿ'(ÿ%ÿÿ%'

02 VTÿ7I>JÿWÿM7=J?ÿT7Jÿ<=>?6578ÿCDEFLÿ?X>P5TYÿ65O>ÿM>J>

%"ÿ$%Zÿ[ÿ\ÿ%'ÿ[ÿ]ÿ1#ÿÿ(ÿÿ2

6+,ÿ-8ÿ./ 0-+89ÿ12 344565789:ÿ<=>?6578?

02 CCGÿVTÿY7=ÿN>J>ÿ94I5?>4ÿ^Yÿ:7P9:ÿ9=6M7J565>?ÿ67ÿ>I9P=96>LÿM7NÿO=PMÿ65O>ÿN7=:4ÿ56ÿ69Q>ÿY7=JÿM7=?>M7:4ÿ67ÿX9PQÿ>??>8659:?Lÿ?>P=J>ÿY7=JÿM7O>Lÿ:794ÿ6M>ÿP9JLÿ984ÿ?69J6ÿ>I9P=9658Kÿ6M>

9J>9U 3456ÿ89 ÿ89ÿ84

@ÿ%ÿ10ÿ

10ÿ

ÿÿÿ1ÿ

1ÿÿÿ1ÿÿ10ÿ

1ÿÿ1ÿÿÿ1ÿÿÿ

1ÿÿ1ÿÿÿ1ÿÿ0ÿ

1ÿÿÿÿÿÿ

ÿÿÿÿÿ10ÿ

ÿÿ1ÿÿÿÿÿÿ

ÿÿ1ÿÿÿÿÿ0ÿ

ÿÿÿÿÿÿ

ÿÿÿÿÿ10ÿ

ÿÿ1ÿÿÿÿÿÿ

ÿÿ1ÿÿÿÿÿ0ÿ

ÿÿÿÿÿÿ

ÿÿÿÿÿ10ÿ

ÿÿ1ÿÿÿÿÿÿ

ÿÿ1ÿÿÿÿÿ0ÿ

ÿÿÿÿÿ0ÿ

0ÿÿÿ0ÿÿÿ

0ÿÿ1ÿÿÿÿ

!"ÿÿ

Aÿÿ"%B%

)ÿ'(ÿ%ÿÿ%'

02 VTÿ7I>Jÿ_ÿM7=J?ÿT7Jÿ<=>?6578ÿCCLÿ?X>P5TYÿ65O>ÿM>J>

%"ÿ$%Zÿ[ÿ\ÿ%'ÿ[ÿ]ÿ11#ÿÿ(ÿÿ2

001 789ÿ;<ÿ=>?@?ÿA@?ÿBCDÿEFG>?HÿI<ÿHFIJÿIFÿKIL@ÿM@EN?JAKÿI@ÿGL@OPÿJILQMÿKILÿF??Mÿ=IÿH>IN?QÿIL=ÿ=Iÿ?NAGLA=?Rÿ;<ÿK?HPÿ>IJÿSLG>ÿ=ES?PÿIFÿAN?@AT?PÿJILQMÿE=ÿ=AU?ÿKILÿ=IÿGQ?A@ÿ=>?ÿBCD EFG>?HÿI<ÿHFIJÿ=IÿSIN?ÿ=>?ÿGA@ÿ<@ISÿ=>?ÿM@EN?JAKÿI@ÿGL@Oÿ=IÿO?TEFÿ=>?ÿ?NAGLA=EIFÿ=@EVRÿWHHLS?ÿ=>?ÿ@IAMHÿA@?ÿVAHHAOQ?9 2345ÿ789ÿ78ÿ739

ÿÿÿÿ

ÿÿ0ÿ

0!"ÿ

!#0ÿ

$ÿÿÿÿ%

ÿ%ÿÿÿ%ÿ0ÿ

ÿ%ÿ$ÿÿÿÿ%ÿ!"ÿ

ÿ%ÿ!ÿÿÿÿ%ÿ#0ÿ

ÿ%ÿ#$ÿÿÿ&ÿ%

&ÿ%ÿÿ&ÿ%ÿ0ÿ

&ÿ%ÿ$ÿÿÿ&ÿ%ÿ!"ÿ

&ÿ%ÿ!ÿÿÿ&ÿ%ÿ#0ÿ

&ÿ%ÿ#$ÿÿÿ!ÿ%

'%ÿ!ÿ%

(ÿ)ÿ%%ÿÿ%

0$1 ;<ÿIN?@ÿXÿ>IL@Hÿ<I@ÿYL?H=EIFÿ78PÿHV?GE<Kÿ=ES?ÿ>?@?

ÿ0Zÿ/ÿ1%ÿ%ÿ/%ÿ[ÿ&ÿÿ)%ÿ!ÿ%1 0*1 7X9ÿ\IJÿSAFKÿV?IVQ?ÿEFÿKIL@ÿ>ILH?>IQMÿJILQMÿ@?]LE@?ÿAFKÿI<ÿ=>?ÿ<IQQIJEFTÿ<LFG=EIFAQÿI@ÿ=@AFHVI@=A=EIFÿAHHEH=AFG?ÿML@EFTÿAFÿ?NAGLA=EIF^

2345ÿ789ÿ78 ÿ739ÿ+ 4ÿ47,

" & ! # _%ÿÿ#

`

_)2ÿab

c2%

d220ÿb2

d02

'%

0-1 eV?GE<Kÿfg=>?@fÿ=@AFHVI@=A=EIFÿF??MÿO?QIJ 0.1 7h9ÿ;<ÿS?SO?@HÿI<ÿKIL@ÿ>ILH?>IQMÿA@?ÿEFÿME<<?@?F=ÿQIGA=EIFHÿJ>?FÿAFÿ?NAGLA=EIFÿEHÿ@?GISS?FM?MPÿJ>A=ÿJILQMÿKILÿMIR 2345ÿ789ÿ78ÿ739

(ÿ)ÿÿ/%ÿÿ0%ÿ/ÿ1ÿ)ÿ)ÿ2ÿ3%1

(ÿ)ÿ2ÿ)4)1ÿ)ÿÿ%ÿ0%ÿ/ÿ1ÿ)ÿ%1

(ÿ)ÿ%%ÿÿ%

$"1 7iW9ÿ;<ÿ?S?@T?FGKÿIjGEAQHÿAMNEH?ÿKILÿ=IÿH>?Q=?@CEFCVQAG?ÿML@EFTÿAFÿ?S?@T?FGKÿO?GALH?ÿKILÿA@?ÿFI=ÿEFÿ=>?ÿA<<?G=?MÿA@?APÿJILQMÿKIL^

2345ÿ789ÿ78ÿ739 5%42

62

(ÿ)ÿ%%ÿÿ%

$1 7ik9ÿlL@EFTÿAFÿ?S?@T?FGKPÿE<ÿ?S?@T?FGKÿIjGEAQHÿAMNEH?ÿKILÿ=IÿH>?Q=?@CEFCVQAG?ÿJ>EQ?ÿV?IVQ?ÿEFÿI=>?@ÿA@?AHÿA@?ÿAMNEH?Mÿ=Iÿ?NAGLA=?PÿJILQMÿKIL^ÿ 2345ÿ789ÿ78ÿ739 5%42

62

(ÿ)ÿ%%ÿÿ%

012 YZW[ÿ\0S24TÿX4ÿ,R,ST,4UV]ÿ2^ÿ3_U2X1ÿXab21,ÿV30ÿ-3ÿ,bXU0X-,]ÿcd,S,ÿc30aÿV30ÿT3e 3456ÿ89 ÿ89ÿ84

ÿÿÿ ÿ!

ÿ"#ÿ"

ÿ$ÿ!$ÿÿ"!#%&

ÿ" 'ÿ!

(ÿ)&ÿÿ"&

(ÿÿÿ*)

(ÿ)&ÿÿÿ)

+,-ÿ/0,1-2341 052 Yfg[ÿ\3ÿV30ÿdXb,ÿX4Vÿh,-1ÿ3SÿX42RX1e 3456ÿ89 ÿ89ÿ84

6

7 869:ÿ;8ÿ<=>;989ÿ?@

(ÿ)&ÿÿÿ) 869:ÿ;8ÿ<=>;989ÿ?@

869:ÿ;8ÿ<= >;989ÿ?@

+,-ÿ/0,1-2341 0A2 Yfi[ÿjdX-ÿ-Vh,ÿ3^ÿh,-1ÿ3SÿX42RX1ÿa3ÿV30ÿdXb,eÿWd,UkÿX`ÿ-dX-ÿXhhV[

BC D6ÿ4ÿ;C4;ÿ4::

E%

F

G

H#

I

J

F"*

K

L%

+,-ÿ/0,1-2341 0M2 YfW[ÿjdX-ÿc30aÿV30ÿa3ÿc2-dÿV30Sÿh,-1ÿ3SÿX42RX1ÿ2^ÿV30ÿdXaÿ-3ÿ,bXU0X-,e 3456ÿ89 ÿ89ÿ84

N*ÿ!ÿ)ÿ!ÿÿÿ

N*ÿ!ÿ)ÿ!ÿÿ!)ÿ

Oÿ!ÿÿ! 869:ÿ;8ÿ<=>;989ÿ?@

(ÿ)&ÿÿÿ) 869:ÿ;8ÿ<=>;989ÿ?@

+,-ÿ/0,1-2341 002 Yf\[ÿ\3ÿV30ÿdXb,ÿ,430TdÿS33Rÿ24ÿV30Sÿb,d2U,l1mÿ-3ÿ,bXU0X-,ÿc2-dÿV30Sÿh,-1ÿ3SÿX42RX1e 3456ÿ89 ÿ89ÿ84

6

7

Pÿ&ÿÿ

(ÿ)&ÿÿÿ)

QR,ST,4UVÿW3RR042UX-2341

012 89:;ÿ=>ÿ?@ABÿC@DEFÿC@GÿBEHIJKHEÿILÿ?@ABÿMEHHNC@>EÿLIO>JHP 3456ÿ89 ÿ89ÿ84

ÿÿÿÿÿÿ!ÿ

"ÿ#ÿÿ$%ÿ

&ÿÿÿ'ÿÿÿ$$(ÿÿ$ÿ!$

&ÿÿÿ!ÿÿÿÿ$ÿ!$

&ÿ'(ÿ!ÿÿ'

0)2 89Q;ÿ=Rÿ?@AÿBEMEISEÿJÿTEUTÿDELLJOEÿLIDIHJBÿT@ÿJ>ÿ:VQWXÿ:HEBTÿRB@DÿEDEBOE>M?ÿ@YMIJHLÿGITCÿZIBEMTI@>LÿR@Bÿ?@AÿT@ÿBELN@>ZÿT@ÿJ>ÿJMTISEÿBJZI@H@OIMJHÿEDEBOE>M?ÿJTÿ[@I>TÿQEJMC

\AMHEJBÿ[HJ>TFÿC@GÿHI]EH?ÿILÿITÿ?@AÿG@AHZÿR@HH@GÿTCELEÿZIBEMTI@>LP 3456ÿ89 ÿ89ÿ84

%!ÿ+

,+

-!ÿ+ÿÿ(+

.+

%!ÿ(+

&ÿ'(ÿ!ÿÿ'

0/2 89^;ÿ_CIMCÿ@RÿTCEÿR@HH@GI>OÿILÿTCEÿKELTÿGJ?ÿT@ÿ>@TIR?ÿ?@Aÿ@RÿJ>ÿEDEBOE>M?ÿGCIHEÿ?@AÿJBEÿC@DEP 3456ÿ89 ÿ89ÿ84

2ÿÿ(%ÿÿ(ÿ!$

2ÿÿ$%ÿ#$ÿ$%ÿ3

2ÿÿÿ

2ÿÿÿ4

&#$ÿÿ'ÿÿ#+

5!ÿ6ÿ$%ÿ#$ÿ#$7ÿ#ÿÿ%!

&ÿ'(ÿ!ÿÿ'

0!1

APPENDIX G Traffic Management Plan

G. TRAFFIC MANAGEMENT PLAN NUREG/CR7002, Rev. 1 indicates that the existing Traffic and Access Control Points (TACPs) identified by the offsite agencies should be used in the evacuation simulation modeling. The traffic and access control plans for the Emergency Planning Zone (EPZ) were provided in the emergency plans from the counties within the EPZ.

These plans were reviewed and the TACPs were modeled accordingly. An analysis of the TACP locations was performed, and it was determined to model the ETE simulations with existing TACPs that were provided in the approved county emergency plans, with no additional TACPs recommended.

G.1 Manual Traffic Control The TACPs are forms of manual traffic control (MTC). As discussed in Section 9, MTC at intersections (which are controlled) are modeled as actuated signals. If an intersection has a pretimed signal, stop, or yield control, and the intersection is identified as a TACP, the control type was changed to an actuated signal in the DYNEV II system, in accordance with Section 3.3 of NUREG/CR7002, Rev. 1. MTCs at existing actuated traffic signalized intersections were essentially left alone.

Table K1 provides the number of nodes with each control type. If the existing control was changed due to the point being a TACP, the control type is indicated as TACP in Table K1. The TACPs within the emergency plans are mapped as aqua dots in Figure G1. These TCPs are concentrated on roadways giving access to the EPZ and would be manned during evacuation by traffic guides who would direct evacuees in the proper direction away from PBNP and facilitate the flow of traffic through the intersections. No additional locations for MTC are suggested in this study.

It is assumed that the TACPs will be established within 120 minutes of the advisory to evacuate (ATE) to discourage through travelers from using major through routes which traverse the study area. As discussed in Section 3.10, external traffic was considered on Interstate (I)43 in this analysis.

G.2 Analysis of Key TACP Locations As discussed in Section 5.2 of NUREG/CR7002, Rev. 1, MTC at intersections could benefit from the ETE analysis. The MTC locations contained within the traffic management plans (TMPs) were analyzed to determine key locations where MTC would be most useful and can be readily implemented. As previously mentioned, signalized intersections that were actuated based on field data collection were essentially left as actuated traffic signals in the model, with modifications to green time allocation as needed. Other controlled intersections (pretimed signals, stop signs and yield signs) were changed to actuated traffic signals to represent the MTC that would be implemented according to the TMPs.

Point Beach Nuclear Plant G1 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

The majority of the TCPs identified in the TMP were located at intersections with stop control.

Table G1 shows a list of the controlled intersections that were identified as MTC points in the TMPs that were not previously actuated signals, including the type of control that currently exists at each location. To determine the impact of MTC at these locations, a summer, midweek, midday, with good weather scenario (Scenario 1) evacuation of the 2Mile/5Mile Region and the Entire EPZ (Region R01 and R02) were simulated wherein these intersections were left as is (without MTC). The results were compared to the results presented in Section 7 for Scenario 1 and Regions R01 and R02. The ETE remained unchanged when compared to the cases wherein these controlled intersections were modeled as actuated signals (with MTC) presented in Table G2. Although localized congestion worsened, there is no impact to the 90th and 100th percentile ETE when MTC was not present at these intersections. The remaining TACPs at controlled intersections were left as actuated signals in the model and, therefore, had no impact to ETE.

As shown in Figure 73 through Figure 77, majority of the study area does not experience any congestion (LOS B or better) except for the City of Two Rivers (within the EPZ, Subarea 10S),

City of Manitowoc (within the Shadow Region) and along SR 310 westbound, which clears by 3 hours3.472222e-5 days 8.333333e-4 hours 4.960317e-6 weeks 1.1415e-6 months and 45 minutes after the ATE and the Shadow Region clears at 4 hours4.62963e-5 days 0.00111 hours 6.613757e-6 weeks 1.522e-6 months and 15 minutes.

As a result, the TACPs within the EPZ do very little to reduce the 90th percentile ETE as there is very little congestion in the EPZ as a whole. In addition, congestion within the EPZ clears prior to the completion of the trip generation time (the time to mobilize, plus travel time to EPZ boundary), dictates the 100th percentile ETE; as a result, the MTC has no impact on the 100th percentile ETE.

Although there is no reduction in ETE when MTC is implemented, traffic and access control can be beneficial in the reduction of localized congestion and driver confusion and can be extremely helpful for fixed point surveillance and the prevention of vehicles entering various Subareas (as majority of TACPs are located at the Subarea boundaries), amongst other things. Should there be a shortfall of personnel to staff the TACPs, the list of locations provided in Table G1 could be considered as priority locations when implementing the TMP.

Point Beach Nuclear Plant G2 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

Table G1. List of Key Manual Traffic Control Locations Node Number Type of Control TACP Number (See Appendix K) (Prior to being a TACP)

K09 26 Stop Control K10 27 Stop Control K12 66 Stop Control K19 44 Stop Control K21 47 Stop Control K23 32 Stop Control M1 81 Stop Control M9 120 Stop Control M23 523 Yield Control/Traffic Circle M27 154 Yield Control/Traffic Circle M36 86 Stop Control M37 130 Stop Control M41 126 Stop Control M47 73 Stop Control Table G2. ETE with No MTC Scenario 1 th 90 Percentile ETE 100th Percentile ETE Region No No Base Difference Base Difference MTC MTC R01 (2Mile/5Mile Region) 2:15 2:15 0:00 4:05 4:05 0:00 R02 (Full EPZ) 2:55 2:55 0:00 4:10 4:10 0:00 Point Beach Nuclear Plant G3 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

Figure G1. Traffic and Access Control Points for PBNP Point Beach Nuclear Plant G4 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

APPENDIX H Evacuation Regions

H EVACUATION REGIONS This appendix presents the evacuation percentages for each Evacuation Region (Table H1) and maps of all Evacuation Regions (Figure H1 through Figure H21). The percentages presented in Table H1 are based on the methodology discussed in assumption 7 of Section 2.2 and shown in Figure 21.

Note the baseline ETE study assumes 20 percent of households will not comply with the shelter advisory, as per Section 2.5.2 of NUREG/CR7002, Rev. 1.

Point Beach Nuclear Plant H1 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

Table H1. Percent of Subarea Population Evacuating for Each Region Radial Regions Subarea Region Description 5 10N 10NW 10W 10SW 10S R01 2Mile Region 100% 20% 20% 20% 20% 20%

N/A 5Mile Region Refer to Region R01 R02 Full EPZ 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100%

Evacuate 2Mile Region and Downwind to 5Mile Region Subarea Region Wind Direction From (Degrees) 5 10N 10NW 10W 10SW 10S N/A All Directions Refer to Region R01 Evacuate 2Mile/5Mile Region and Downwind to the EPZ Boundary Subarea Region Wind Direction From (Degrees1) 5 10N 10NW 10W 10SW 10S R03 >324 9 (>351 3692) 100% 20% 20% 20% 20% 100%

R04 >9 32 (>369 3922) 100% 20% 20% 20% 100% 100%

R05 >32 77 (>392 4372) 100% 20% 20% 100% 100% 100%

2 R06 >77 - 81 (>437 - 441 ) 100% 20% 100% 100% 100% 100%

R07 >81 - 99 (>441 - 4592) 100% 20% 100% 100% 100% 20%

R08 >99 - 103 (>459 - 4632) 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 20%

2 R09 >103 - 148 (>463 - 508 ) 100% 100% 100% 100% 20% 20%

R10 >148 - 171 (>508 - 5312) 100% 100% 100% 20% 20% 20%

R11 >171 - 189 (>531 - 5492) & >189216 100% 100% 20% 20% 20% 20%

N/A >216 - 324 Refer to Region R01 Staged Evacuation - 2Mile/5Mile Region Evacuates, then Evacuate Downwind to the EPZ Boundary Subarea Region Wind Direction From (Degrees1) 5 10N 10NW 10W 10SW 10S R12 >324 9 (>351 3692) 100% 20% 20% 20% 20% 100%

R13 >9 32 (>369 3922) 100% 20% 20% 20% 100% 100%

R14 >32 77 (>392 4372) 100% 20% 20% 100% 100% 100%

2 R15 >77 - 81 (>437 - 441 ) 100% 20% 100% 100% 100% 100%

R16 >81 - 99 (>441 - 4592) 100% 20% 100% 100% 100% 20%

2 R17 >99 - 103 (>459 - 463 ) 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 20%

R18 >103 - 148 (>463 - 5082) 100% 100% 100% 100% 20% 20%

R19 >148 - 171 (>508 - 5312) 100% 100% 100% 20% 20% 20%

R20 >171 - 189 (>531 - 5492) & >189216 100% 100% 20% 20% 20% 20%

N/A >216 - 324 Refer to Region R01 R21 Full EPZ 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100%

Subarea(s) ShelterinPlace until Subarea(s) Evacuate Subarea(s) ShelterinPlace 90% ETE for R01, then Evacuate 1

As read on PPCS/PI or Control Room Instruments.

2

> 360 as read on chart recorder.

Point Beach Nuclear Plant H2 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

Figure H1. Region R01 Point Beach Nuclear Plant H3 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

Figure H2. Region R02 Point Beach Nuclear Plant H4 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

Figure H3. Region R03 Point Beach Nuclear Plant H5 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

Figure H4. Region R04 Point Beach Nuclear Plant H6 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

Figure H5. Region R05 Point Beach Nuclear Plant H7 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

Figure H6. Region R06 Point Beach Nuclear Plant H8 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

Figure H7. Region R07 Point Beach Nuclear Plant H9 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

Figure H8. Region R08 Point Beach Nuclear Plant H10 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

Figure H9. Region R09 Point Beach Nuclear Plant H11 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

Figure H10. Region R10 Point Beach Nuclear Plant H12 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

Figure H11. Region R11 Point Beach Nuclear Plant H13 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

Figure H12. Region R12 Point Beach Nuclear Plant H14 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

Figure H13. Region R13 Point Beach Nuclear Plant H15 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

Figure H14. Region R14 Point Beach Nuclear Plant H16 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

Figure H15. Region R15 Point Beach Nuclear Plant H17 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

Figure H16. Region R16 Point Beach Nuclear Plant H18 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

Figure H17. Region R17 Point Beach Nuclear Plant H19 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

Figure H18. Region R18 Point Beach Nuclear Plant H20 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

Figure H19. Region R19 Point Beach Nuclear Plant H21 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

Figure H20. Region R20 Point Beach Nuclear Plant H22 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

Figure H21. Region R21 Point Beach Nuclear Plant H23 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

APPENDIX J Representative Inputs to and Outputs from the DYNEV II System

J. REPRESENTATIVE INPUTS TO AND OUTPUTS FROM THE DYNEV II SYSTEM This appendix presents data input to and output from the DYNEV II System.

Table J1 provides source (vehicle loading) and destination information for several roadway segments (links) in the analysis network. In total, there are 312 source links (origins) in the model. The source links are shown as centroid points in Figure J1. On average, evacuees travel a straightline distance of 3.9 miles to exit the study area.

Table J2 provides network-wide statistics (average travel time, average delay time1, average speed and number of vehicles) for an evacuation of the entire EPZ (Region R02) for each scenario. As expected, adverse weather scenarios (Scenarios 2, 4, 7, 8, and 10) exhibit slower average speeds, higher delays and longer average travel times than the corresponding good weather scenarios. Scenario 11 is somewhat anomalous in that the average speed (25.0 mph) is higher than the average speed (23.6 mph) for the comparable rain/light snow scenario (Scenario 10). This anomaly is caused by the elongation of the mobilization time for heavy snow scenarios shown graphically in Figure 54. The elongation of mobilization time (caused by the snow removal from the driveway activity) spreads the evacuation demand over a longer time resulting in less congestion, less delay, and higher travel speeds. This anomaly does not happen when comparing Scenarios 7 and 8 because those are midweek scenarios and schools are considered at normal enrollment which causes additional congestion within Twin Rivers. When comparing Scenario 13 (special event) and Scenario 3, evacuees during the special event experience slower average speeds, longer delays and increased travel times as a result of the approximately 2,000 additional evacuating vehicles attending the special event in Two Rivers.

When comparing Scenario 14 (roadway closure) and Scenario 1, the lane closure on SR 42 SB reduces the average speed, causes longer delays and increases travel time.

Table J3 provides statistics (average speed and travel time) for the major evacuation routes -

SR 42 NB, SR 42 SB, SR 310 WB and SR 147 WB - for an evacuation of the entire EPZ (Region R02) under Scenario 1 (summer, midweek, midday with good weather) conditions. As discussed in Section 7.3 and shown in Figures 73 through 77, SR 42 SB and SR 310 WB are congested for most of the evacuation. As such, the average speeds are significantly slower (and travel times longer) than the other evacuation routes, particularly during the first 2 hours2.314815e-5 days 5.555556e-4 hours 3.306878e-6 weeks 7.61e-7 months and 30 minutes of the evacuation. Therefore, after this time, the speeds are relatively close to free flow speeds.

SR 310 WB, displays the lowest speeds due to the congestion along this route and the existing three consecutive roundabouts which reduces the speeds and capacity of SR 310.

Table J4 provides the number of vehicles discharged and the cumulative percent of total vehicles discharged for each link exiting the analysis network, for an evacuation of the entire EPZ (Region R02) under Scenario 1 conditions.

Figure J2 through Figure J15 plot the trip generation time versus the ETE for each of the 14 Scenarios considered. The distance between the trip generation and ETE curves is the travel time. Plots of trip generation versus ETE are indicative of the level of traffic congestion during 1

Computed as the difference of the average travel time and the average ideal travel time under free flow conditions.

Point Beach Nuclear Plant J1 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

evacuation. For low population density sites, the curves are close together, indicating short travel times and minimal traffic congestion. For higher population density sites, the curves are farther apart indicating longer travel times and the presence of traffic congestion.

As seen in Figure J2 through Figure J15, the curves are spatially separated as a result of the traffic congestion in the EPZ, which was discussed in detail in Section 7.3. As expected, the special event (Scenario 13) experiences the longest travel times due to the delays caused by the additional 2,000 vehicles evacuating from Twin Rivers, as seen in Figure J14.

Point Beach Nuclear Plant J2 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

Table J1. Sample Simulation Model Input Vehicles Entering Upstream Downstream Network Directional Destination Destination Route Name Node Node on this Link Preference Nodes Capacity 8316 1,275 Two Rivers High 677 676 2 S 8311 4,500 School Driveway 8280 1,700 8079 1,700 CR Q 131 132 54 W 8076 1,700 8022 4,500 8316 1,275 SR 310 683 524 78 SW 8311 4,500 8280 1,700 8316 1,275 SR 147 317 672 469 S 8311 4,500 8280 1,700 8075 1,700 CR Q 664 35 62 W 8076 1,700 8079 1,700 8280 1,700 N 11th St 226 648 81 SW 8311 4,500 8312 1,700 8280 1,700 N 11th St 272 226 36 SW 8311 4,500 8312 1,700 8430 1,700 CR C 365 394 4 N 8002 1,700 8433 1,700 8312 1,700 S 21st St 497 241 14 SW 8686 1,700 8311 4,500 Point Beach Nuclear Plant J3 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

Table J2. Selected Model Outputs for the Evacuation of the Entire EPZ (Region R02)

Scenario 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 NetworkWide Average 2.2 2.5 2.3 2.7 2.7 2.1 2.4 Travel Time (Min/VehMi)

NetworkWide Average 0.9 1.2 1.1 1.5 1.4 0.8 1.1 Delay Time (Min/VehMi)

NetworkWide Average 27.6 24.1 25.6 21.9 22.3 28.7 25.1 Speed (mph)

Total Vehicles 24,717 24,918 24,968 25,072 21,470 23,995 23,856 Exiting Network Scenario 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 NetworkWide Average 2.7 2.4 2.6 2.4 2.7 2.9 2.3 Travel Time (Min/VehMi)

NetworkWide Average 1.4 1.1 1.3 1.1 1.4 1.7 1.0 Delay Time (Min/VehMi)

NetworkWide Average 22.1 25.4 23.6 25.0 22.5 20.5 26.2 Speed (mph)

Total Vehicles 23,941 23,820 23,947 23,732 20,848 26,978 24,476 Exiting Network Table J3. Average Speed (mph) and Travel Time (min) for Major Evacuation Routes (Region R02, Scenario 1)

Elapsed Time (hours) 1:00 2:00 3:00 4:00 4:10 Travel Route Length Speed Time Travel Travel Travel Travel Route# Name (miles) (mph) (min) Speed Time Speed Time Speed Time Speed Time 23 SR 42 N 13.5 60.1 13.4 62.7 12.9 63.4 12.7 63.6 12.7 63.6 12.7 24 SR 42 SB 12.1 47.6 15.2 18.2 39.7 22.8 31.8 52.0 13.9 52.8 13.7 25 SR 147 WB 7.2 53.8 8.0 53.1 8.1 53.4 8.1 54.3 7.9 54.3 7.9 26 SR 310 WB 5.5 4.9 67.8 4.8 68.2 4.9 67.2 51.6 6.4 52.8 6.3 Point Beach Nuclear Plant J4 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

Table J4. Simulation Model Outputs at Network Exit Links for Region R02, Scenario 1 Elapsed Time (hours) 1 2 3 4 5 Network Route Upstream Downstream Cumulative Vehicles Discharged by the Indicated Time Exit Link Name Node Node Cumulative Percent of Vehicles Discharged by the Indicated Time 158 822 1,327 1,447 1,448 1 US 10 1 316 3.5% 5.8% 6.4% 5.9% 5.9%

1,307 2,849 4,241 5,399 5,461 39 I43 21 22 29.1% 20.0% 20.4% 22.2% 22.1%

33 198 261 274 274 94 CR 96 50 78 0.7% 1.4% 1.3% 1.1% 1.1%

20 160 242 257 257 104 CR R 55 79 0.5% 1.1% 1.2% 1.1% 1.0%

21 157 218 229 229 127 CR T 71 75 0.5% 1.1% 1.1% 0.9% 0.9%

39 294 409 436 436 128 SR 29 71 76 0.9% 2.1% 2.0% 1.8% 1.8%

1,705 5,083 7,120 8,128 8,295 505 I43 304 311 38.0% 35.7% 34.2% 33.4% 33.6%

38 232 316 334 334 576 CR N 355 359 0.8% 1.6% 1.5% 1.4% 1.4%

8 107 139 146 146 664 SR 54 422 433 0.2% 0.8% 0.7% 0.6% 0.6%

56 305 430 458 458 668 CR D 425 2 1.2% 2.1% 2.1% 1.9% 1.9%

56 281 402 429 429 672 SR 42 429 430 1.3% 2.0% 1.9% 1.8% 1.7%

546 1,744 2,916 3,756 3,881 797 SR 42 531 280 12.2% 12.3% 14.0% 15.4% 15.7%

50 268 347 357 357 800 CR Z 534 114 1.1% 1.9% 1.7% 1.5% 1.4%

4 74 113 121 121 825 SR 54 553 560 0.1% 0.5% 0.5% 0.5% 0.5%

4 49 72 77 77 826 CR AB 553 561 0.1% 0.4% 0.3% 0.3% 0.3%

S 10th 0 0 0 0 0 846 565 568 St 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%

188 713 1,107 1,285 1,296 890 SR 42 597 686 4.2% 5.0% 5.3% 5.3% 5.2%

212 628 771 809 809 907 CR K 613 97 4.7% 4.4% 3.7% 3.3% 3.3%

49 260 360 408 409 1003 US 151 687 312 1.1% 1.8% 1.7% 1.7% 1.7%

Point Beach Nuclear Plant J5 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

Figure J1. Network Sources/Origins Point Beach Nuclear Plant J6 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

ETE and Trip Generation Summer, Midweek, Midday, Good Weather (Scenario 1)

Trip Generation ETE 100%

Percent of Total Vehicles 80%

60%

40%

20%

0%

0:00 0:30 1:00 1:30 2:00 2:30 3:00 3:30 4:00 4:30 Elapsed Time (h:mm)

Figure J2. ETE and Trip Generation: Summer, Midweek, Midday, Good Weather (Scenario 1)

ETE and Trip Generation Summer, Midweek, Midday, Rain (Scenario 2)

Trip Generation ETE 100%

Percent of Total Vehicles 80%

60%

40%

20%

0%

0:00 0:30 1:00 1:30 2:00 2:30 3:00 3:30 4:00 4:30 Elapsed Time (h:mm)

Figure J3. ETE and Trip Generation: Summer, Midweek, Midday, Rain (Scenario 2)

Point Beach Nuclear Plant J7 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

ETE and Trip Generation Summer, Weekend, Midday, Good Weather (Scenario 3)

Trip Generation ETE 100%

Percent of Total Vehicles 80%

60%

40%

20%

0%

0:00 0:30 1:00 1:30 2:00 2:30 3:00 3:30 4:00 4:30 Elapsed Time (h:mm)

Figure J4. ETE and Trip Generation: Summer, Weekend, Midday, Good Weather (Scenario 3)

ETE and Trip Generation Summer, Weekend, Midday, Rain (Scenario 4)

Trip Generation ETE 100%

Percent of Total Vehicles 80%

60%

40%

20%

0%

0:00 0:30 1:00 1:30 2:00 2:30 3:00 3:30 4:00 4:30 Elapsed Time (h:mm)

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

Point Beach Nuclear Plant J8 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

ETE and Trip Generation Summer, Midweek, Weekend, Evening, Good Weather (Scenario 5)

Trip Generation ETE 100%

Percent of Total Vehicles 80%

60%

40%

20%

0%

0:00 0:30 1:00 1:30 2:00 2:30 3:00 3:30 4:00 4:30 Elapsed Time (h:mm)

Figure J6. ETE and Trip Generation: Summer, Midweek, Weekend, Evening, Good Weather (Scenario 5)

ETE and Trip Generation Winter, Midweek, Midday, Good Weather (Scenario 6)

Trip Generation ETE 100%

Percent of Total Vehicles 80%

60%

40%

20%

0%

0:00 0:30 1:00 1:30 2:00 2:30 3:00 3:30 4:00 4:30 Elapsed Time (h:mm)

Figure J7. ETE and Trip Generation: Winter, Midweek, Midday, Good Weather (Scenario 6)

Point Beach Nuclear Plant J9 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

ETE and Trip Generation Winter, Midweek, Midday, Rain/Light Snow (Scenario 7)

Trip Generation ETE 100%

Percent of Total Vehicles 80%

60%

40%

20%

0%

0:00 0:30 1:00 1:30 2:00 2:30 3:00 3:30 4:00 4:30 Elapsed Time (h:mm)

Figure J8. ETE and Trip Generation: Winter, Midweek, Midday, Rain/Light Snow (Scenario 7)

ETE and Trip Generation Winter, Midweek, Midday, Heavy Snow (Scenario 8)

Trip Generation ETE 100%

Percent of Total Vehicles 80%

60%

40%

20%

0%

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

Figure J9. ETE and Trip Generation: Winter, Midweek, Midday, Heavy Snow (Scenario 8)

Point Beach Nuclear Plant J10 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

ETE and Trip Generation Winter, Weekend, Midday, Good Weather (Scenario 9)

Trip Generation ETE 100%

Percent of Total Vehicles 80%

60%

40%

20%

0%

0:00 0:30 1:00 1:30 2:00 2:30 3:00 3:30 4:00 4:30 Elapsed Time (h:mm)

Figure J10. ETE and Trip Generation: Winter, Weekend, Midday, Good Weather (Scenario 9)

ETE and Trip Generation Winter, Weekend, Midday, Rain/Light Snow (Scenario 10)

Trip Generation ETE 100%

Percent of Total Vehicles 80%

60%

40%

20%

0%

0:00 0:30 1:00 1:30 2:00 2:30 3:00 3:30 4:00 4:30 Elapsed Time (h:mm)

Figure J11. ETE and Trip Generation: Winter, Weekend, Midday, Rain/Light Snow (Scenario 10)

Point Beach Nuclear Plant J11 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

ETE and Trip Generation Winter, Weekend, Midday, Heavy Snow (Scenario 11)

Trip Generation ETE 100%

Percent of Total Vehicles 80%

60%

40%

20%

0%

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

Figure J12. ETE and Trip Generation: Winter, Weekend, Midday, Heavy Snow (Scenario 11)

ETE and Trip Generation Winter, Midweek, Weekend, Evening, Good Weather (Scenario 12)

Trip Generation ETE 100%

Percent of Total Vehicles 80%

60%

40%

20%

0%

0:00 0:30 1:00 1:30 2:00 2:30 3:00 3:30 4:00 4:30 Elapsed Time (h:mm)

Figure J13. ETE and Trip Generation: Winter, Midweek, Weekend, Evening, Good Weather (Scenario 12)

Point Beach Nuclear Plant J12 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

ETE and Trip Generation Summer, Weekend, Midday, Good Weather, Special Event (Scenario 13)

Trip Generation ETE 100%

Percent of Total Vehicles 80%

60%

40%

20%

0%

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

Figure J14. ETE and Trip Generation: Summer, Midweek, Midday, Good Weather, Special Event (Scenario 13)

ETE and Trip Generation Summer, Midweek, Midday, Good Weather, Roadway Impact (Scenario 14)

Trip Generation ETE 100%

Percent of Total Vehicles 80%

60%

40%

20%

0%

0:00 0:30 1:00 1:30 2:00 2:30 3:00 3:30 4:00 4:30 Elapsed Time (h:mm)

Figure J15. ETE and Trip Generation: Summer, Midweek, Midday, Good Weather, Roadway Impact (Scenario 14)

Point Beach Nuclear Plant J13 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

APPENDIX K Evacuation Roadway Network

K. EVACUATION ROADWAY NETWORK As discussed in Section 1.3, a linknode analysis network was constructed to model the roadway network within the study area. Figure K1 provides an overview of the linknode analysis network. The figure has been divided up into 40 more detailed figures (Figure K2 through Figure K41) which show each of the links and nodes in the network.

The analysis network was calibrated using the observations made during the field surveys conducted in March 2021.

Table K1 summarizes the number of nodes by the type of control (stop sign, yield sign, pre timed signal, actuated signal, traffic and access control point [TACP], uncontrolled).

Table K1. Summary of Nodes by the Type of Control Number of Control Type Nodes Uncontrolled 463 Pretimed 13 Actuated 33 Stop 159 TACP 31 Yield 12 Total: 711 Point Beach Nuclear Plant K1 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

Figure K1. PBNP LinkNode Analysis Network Point Beach Nuclear Plant K2 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

Figure K2. LinkNode Analysis Network - Grid 1 Point Beach Nuclear Plant K3 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

Figure K3. LinkNode Analysis Network - Grid 2 Point Beach Nuclear Plant K4 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

Figure K4. LinkNode Analysis Network - Grid 3 Point Beach Nuclear Plant K5 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

Figure K5. LinkNode Analysis Network - Grid 4 Point Beach Nuclear Plant K6 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

Figure K6. LinkNode Analysis Network - Grid 5 Point Beach Nuclear Plant K7 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

Figure K7. LinkNode Analysis Network - Grid 6 Point Beach Nuclear Plant K8 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

Figure K8. LinkNode Analysis Network - Grid 7 Point Beach Nuclear Plant K9 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

Figure K9. LinkNode Analysis Network - Grid 8 Point Beach Nuclear Plant K10 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

Figure K10. LinkNode Analysis Network - Grid 9 Point Beach Nuclear Plant K11 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

Figure K11. LinkNode Analysis Network - Grid 10 Point Beach Nuclear Plant K12 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

Figure K12. LinkNode Analysis Network - Grid 11 Point Beach Nuclear Plant K13 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

Figure K13. LinkNode Analysis Network - Grid 12 Point Beach Nuclear Plant K14 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

Figure K14. LinkNode Analysis Network - Grid 13 Point Beach Nuclear Plant K15 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

Figure K15. LinkNode Analysis Network - Grid 14 Point Beach Nuclear Plant K16 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

Figure K16. LinkNode Analysis Network - Grid 15 Point Beach Nuclear Plant K17 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

Figure K17. LinkNode Analysis Network - Grid 16 Point Beach Nuclear Plant K18 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

Figure K18. LinkNode Analysis Network - Grid 17 Point Beach Nuclear Plant K19 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

Figure K19. LinkNode Analysis Network - Grid 18 Point Beach Nuclear Plant K20 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

Figure K20. LinkNode Analysis Network - Grid 19 Point Beach Nuclear Plant K21 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

Figure K21. LinkNode Analysis Network - Grid 20 Point Beach Nuclear Plant K22 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

Figure K22. LinkNode Analysis Network - Grid 21 Point Beach Nuclear Plant K23 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

Figure K23. LinkNode Analysis Network - Grid 22 Point Beach Nuclear Plant K24 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

Figure K24. LinkNode Analysis Network - Grid 23 Point Beach Nuclear Plant K25 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

Figure K25. LinkNode Analysis Network - Grid 24 Point Beach Nuclear Plant K26 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

Figure K26. LinkNode Analysis Network - Grid 25 Point Beach Nuclear Plant K27 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

Figure K27. LinkNode Analysis Network - Grid 26 Point Beach Nuclear Plant K28 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

Figure K28. LinkNode Analysis Network - Grid 27 Point Beach Nuclear Plant K29 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

Figure K29. LinkNode Analysis Network - Grid 28 Point Beach Nuclear Plant K30 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

Figure K30. LinkNode Analysis Network - Grid 29 Point Beach Nuclear Plant K31 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

Figure K31. LinkNode Analysis Network - Grid 30 Point Beach Nuclear Plant K32 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

Figure K32. LinkNode Analysis Network - Grid 31 Point Beach Nuclear Plant K33 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

Figure K33. LinkNode Analysis Network - Grid 32 Point Beach Nuclear Plant K34 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

Figure K34. LinkNode Analysis Network - Grid 33 Point Beach Nuclear Plant K35 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

Figure K35. LinkNode Analysis Network - Grid 34 Point Beach Nuclear Plant K36 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

Figure K36. LinkNode Analysis Network - Grid 35 Point Beach Nuclear Plant K37 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

Figure K37. LinkNode Analysis Network - Grid 36 Point Beach Nuclear Plant K38 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

Figure K38. LinkNode Analysis Network - Grid 37 Point Beach Nuclear Plant K39 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

Figure K39. LinkNode Analysis Network - Grid 38 Point Beach Nuclear Plant K40 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

Figure K40. LinkNode Analysis Network - Grid 39 Point Beach Nuclear Plant K41 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

Figure K41. LinkNode Analysis Network - Grid 40 Point Beach Nuclear Plant K42 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

APPENDIX L Subarea Boundaries

L. SUBAREA BOUNDARIES Subarea 5 Counties: Kewaunee and Manitowoc Defined as the area within the following boundary: Bounded on the north by Sandy Bay Road; on the east by Lake Michigan to Park Road; on the south by Neshotah Road extended to Sandy Bar Road/County Road O to E Hillcrest Road to State Highway 147; and on the west by State Highway 147 and then along the Village of Mishicot northern and eastern boundary line to State Highway 147 along the Town of Gibson/Mishicot boundary line to Assman Road and along the N State Street/Highway B County Trunk extended to County Road AB.

Subarea 10N County: Kewaunee Defined as the area within the following boundary: Bounded on the north by Krok Road and Wisconsin Route 42; on the east by Lake Michigan; on the south by Sandy Bay Road; and on the west by County Road AB, County Road G and Rangeline Road.

Subarea 10NW County: Kewaunee Defined as the area within the following boundary: Bounded on the north by County Road J; on the east by Ridgeline Road, County Road G and County Road AB; on the south by West County Road BB; and on the west by Harpt Lake Road, Dufeck Road and Schweiner Road.

Subarea 10W County: Manitowoc Defined as the area within the following boundary: Bounded on the north by West County Road BB; on the east by N State Street/Highway B County Trunk to Assman Road; on the south by Fisherville Road; and on the west by the Town of Gibson/Cooperstown boundary line.

Subarea 10SW County: Manitowoc Defined as the area within the following boundary: Bounded on the north by Fisherville Road/County Road Y to the Town of Gibson/Mishicot boundary line; on the east by State Highway 147 and then along the Village of Mishicot northern and eastern boundary line to State Highway 147; on the south by E Hillcrest Road extended to County Road V and then along the Town of Kossuth/Two Rivers boundary line to Route 310; and on the west by County Road Q to Rockwood Road and County Road R and along the Francis Creek Village eastern border to County Road R/N Packer Drive.

Point Beach Nuclear Plant L1 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

Subarea 10S County: Manitowoc Defined as the area within the following boundary: Bounded on the north by County Road V extended to E Hillcrest Road; on the east by County Road O and Sandy Bar Road extended to Neshotah Road and to Park Road; on the south by Lake Michigan to Woodland Drive; and on the west by Woodland Drive and Mirro Drive to State Highway 310 to County Road B, then along the Town of Kossuth/Two Rivers boundary line to County Road V.

Point Beach Nuclear Plant L2 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

APPENDIX M Evacuation Sensitivity Studies

M. EVACUATION SENSITIVITY STUDIES This appendix presents the results of a series of sensitivity analyses. These analyses are designed to identify the sensitivity of the Evacuation Time Estimates (ETE) to changes in some base evacuation conditions.

M.1 Effect of Changes in Trip Generation Times A sensitivity study was performed to determine whether changes in the estimated trip generation time have an effect on the ETE for the entire Emergency Planning Zone (EPZ). Specifically, if the tail of the mobilization distribution were truncated (i.e., if those who responded most slowly to the Advisory to Evacuate (ATE), could be persuaded to respond much more rapidly) or if the tail were elongated (i.e., spreading out the departure of evacuees to limit the demand during peak times), how would the ETE be affected? The case considered was Scenario 1, Region 2; a summer, midweek, midday, with good weather evacuation of the entire EPZ. Table M1 presents the results of this study.

If evacuees mobilize one hour quicker, the 90th percentile ETE is reduced by 5 minutes and the 100th percentile ETE are reduced by 35 minutes (a significant change), respectively. If evacuees mobilize one hour slower, the 90th and 100th percentile ETE are increased by 55 minutes and 1 hour1.157407e-5 days 2.777778e-4 hours 1.653439e-6 weeks 3.805e-7 months , respectively - a significant change.

As discussed in Section 7.3, traffic congestion persists within the EPZ for about 3 hours3.472222e-5 days 8.333333e-4 hours 4.960317e-6 weeks 1.1415e-6 months and 45 minutes after the ATE, before the completion of trip generation time. As such, congestion dictates the 90th and 100th percentile ETE until 3 hours3.472222e-5 days 8.333333e-4 hours 4.960317e-6 weeks 1.1415e-6 months and 45 minutes after the ATE. After this time, trip generation (plus a 10minute travel time to the EPZ boundary). As such, the 100th percentile ETE are sensitive to changes in the trip generation time. See Table M1.

M.2 Effect of Changes in the Number of People in the Shadow Region Who Relocate A sensitivity study was conducted to determine the effect on ETE due to changes in the percentage of people who decide to relocate from the Shadow Region. The case considered was Scenario 1, Region 2; a summer, midweek, midday, with good weather evacuation for the entire EPZ. The movement of people in the Shadow Region has the potential to impede vehicles evacuating from an Evacuation Region within the EPZ. Refer to Section 3.2 and Section 7.1 for additional information on population within the Shadow Region.

Table M2 presents the ETE for each of the cases considered. The results show that eliminating (0%)

the shadow evacuation decreases the 90th percentile ETE by 5 minutes and has no effect on the 100th percentile ETE. Tripling (60%) the shadow evacuation results in the 90th percentile ETE increasing by 10 minutes and no change in the 100th percentile ETE. A full shadow evacuation (100%)

increases both the 90th and 100th percentile ETEs by 15 minutes.

Point Beach Nuclear Plant M1 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

Note the demographic survey results presented in Appendix F, indicate that 8% of households would elect to evacuate if advised to shelter, which is significantly less than the base assumption of 20%

noncompliance suggested in the NUREG/CR7002, Rev. 1. A sensitivity study was run using 8%

shadow evacuation and the 90th and 100th percentile ETE were not impacted.

The Shadow Region for PBNP is sparsely populated except near population centers like Manitowoc and Kewaunee. As shown in Figure 73 through Figure 77, the congestion within the City of Manitowoc in the Shadow Region does not propagate into the EPZ after 3 hours3.472222e-5 days 8.333333e-4 hours 4.960317e-6 weeks 1.1415e-6 months and 45 minutes of the evacuation such that EPZ evacuees would be delayed. Therefore, any additional shadow residents that decide to voluntarily evacuate increases this congestion, delay the egress of EPZ evacuees and prolong ETE.

M.3 Effect of Changes in the Permanent Resident Population A sensitivity study was conducted to determine the effect on ETE due to changes in the permanent resident population within the study area (EPZ plus Shadow Region). As population in the study area changes over time, the time required to evacuate the public may increase, decrease, or remain the same. Since the ETE is related to the demand to capacity ratio present within the study area, changes in population will cause the demand side of the equation to change and could impact ETE.

As per the NRCs response to the Emergency Planning Frequently Asked Question (EPFAQ) 2013 001, the ETE population sensitivity study must be conducted to determine what percentage increase in permanent resident population causes an increase in the 90th percentile ETE of 25%

or 30 minutes, whichever is less. The sensitivity study must use the scenario with the longest 90th percentile ETE (excluding the roadway impact scenario and the special event scenario if it is a one day per year special event).

Thus, the sensitivity study was conducted using the following planning assumptions:

1. The percent change in population within the study area was increased by up to 20%.

Changes in population were applied to permanent residents only (as per federal guidance), in both the EPZ and the Shadow Region.

2. The transportation infrastructure (as presented in Appendix K) remained fixed; the presence of future proposed roadway changes and/or highway capacity improvements were not considered.

3. The study was performed for the 2Mile/5Mile Region (R01) and the entire EPZ (R02).

4. The scenario (excluding roadway impact and special event) which yielded the longest 90th percentile ETE values was selected as the case to be considered in this sensitivity study (Scenario 8- Winter, Midweek, Midday with Heavy Snow).

Table M3 presents the results of the sensitivity study.Section IV of Appendix E to 10 CFR Part 50, and NUREG/CR7002, Rev. 1, Section 5.4, require licensees to provide an updated ETE analysis to the NRC when a population increase within the EPZ causes the longest 90th percentile ETE values (for the 2Mile/5Mile Region or entire EPZ) to increase by 25% or 30 minutes, whichever is less. Base ETE value for the 2Mile/5Mile Region (R01) and for the Entire EPZ (R02) are greater Point Beach Nuclear Plant M2 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

than 2 hours2.314815e-5 days 5.555556e-4 hours 3.306878e-6 weeks 7.61e-7 months ; 25 percent of these base ETE is always equal or greater than 30 minutes. Therefore, the R01 and R02 criteria for updating is 30 minutes.

Those percent population changes which result in the longest 90th percentile ETE change greater than 30 minutes for each region are highlighted in red in Table M3 - a 20% or greater increase in the Entire EPZ (includes 20% of the Shadow permanent resident population). NextEra Energy will have to estimate the full EPZ population on an annual basis. If the entire EPZ population increases by 20% or more, an updated ETE analysis will be needed.

M.4 Effect of Changes in Average Household Size As discussed in Appendix F, the average household size obtained from the results of the demographic survey is 2.55 persons per household. The 2020 Census indicates an average household size of 2.29 persons per household. The difference between the Census data and survey data is 11.4%, which exceeds the sampling error of 4.0%. Upon discussions with NextEra Energy, it was decided that the estimated household size from the 2020 Census estimate of 2.29 persons per household would be used in the study. A sensitivity study was performed to determine how sensitive the ETE is to changes in the average household size. It should be noted that only resident and shadow vehicles were changed for this sensitivity study. The case considered was Scenario 1; a summer, midweek, midday, with good weather evacuation of the 2Mile/5Mile Region (R01) and Entire EPZ (R02). Table M4 presents the results of this study.

Increasing the average household size (decreasing the total number of evacuating vehicles) by 11.4%

has little impact on ETE (decreasing the 90th percentile ETE by 10 minutes at most) because the traffic congestion in the major population centers within the EPZ is slight and trip generation dictates the ETE. As previously stated, the 100th percentile ETE is dictated by rip mobilization time. As a results, regardless of the reduction in vehicles, the 100th percentile ETE remains the same.

M.5 Enhancements in Evacuation Time This appendix documents sensitivity studies on critical variables that could potentially impact ETE.

Possible improvements to ETE are further discussed below:

Reducing or prolonging the trip generation time by an hour impacts the 90th percentile ETE by 5 and 55 minutes - significant increase. The 100th percentile ETE decreases by 55 minutes and increases by 1 hour1.157407e-5 days 2.777778e-4 hours 1.653439e-6 weeks 3.805e-7 months , respectively, since the trip generation dictates the ETE after 3 hours3.472222e-5 days 8.333333e-4 hours 4.960317e-6 weeks 1.1415e-6 months and 45 minutes (Section M.1). Public outreach encouraging evacuees to mobilize more quickly or in a timely manner will decrease ETE.

Increasing the shadow evacuation percent has minimal to considerable impacts on ETE (Section M.2). Public outreach could be considered to inform those people within the EPZ (and potentially beyond the EPZ) that if they are not advised to evacuate, they should not.

Population growth results in more evacuating vehicles, which could significantly increase ETE (Section M.3). Public outreach to inform people within the EPZ to evacuate as a family in a single vehicle would reduce the number of evacuating vehicles and could reduce ETE or offset the impact of population growth.

Point Beach Nuclear Plant M3 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

Increasing the average household size (decreasing the total number of evacuating vehicles) decreases the ETE by at most 10 minutes for the 90th percentile ETE and has no impact to the 100th percentile ETE, as the trip generation dictates the ETE after 3 hours3.472222e-5 days 8.333333e-4 hours 4.960317e-6 weeks 1.1415e-6 months and 45 minutes.

(Section M.4). Thus, public outreach to inform people within the EPZ to evacuate as a family in a single vehicle would reduce the number of evacuating vehicles and could reduce the 90th percentile ETE.

Table M1. Evacuation Time Estimates for Trip Generation Sensitivity Study Trip Generation Evacuation Time Estimate for Entire EPZ Period th 90 Percentile 100th Percentile 3 Hours 2:50 3:35 4 Hours (Base) 2:55 4:10 5 Hours 3:50 5:10 Table M2. Evacuation Time Estimates for Shadow Sensitivity Study Percent Shadow Evacuating Shadow Evacuation Time Estimate for Entire EPZ Evacuation Vehicles1 90th Percentile 100th Percentile 0 0 2:45 4:10 8 (Survey) 1,581 2:55 4:10 20 (Base) 3,953 2:55 4:10 40 7,906 2:55 4:10 60 11,859 3:05 4:10 80 15,812 3:05 4:10 100 19,765 3:10 4:25 1

The Evacuating Shadow Vehicles, in Table M-2, represent the residents and employees who will spontaneously decide to relocate during the evacuation. The basis, for the base values shown, is a 20% relocation of shadow residents along with a proportional percentage of shadow employees. See Section 6 for further discussion.

Point Beach Nuclear Plant M4 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

Table M3. Evacuation Time Estimates for Variation with Population Change EPZ and 20% Population Change Shadow Permanent Base 18% 19% 20%

Resident Population 26,641 31,437 31,703 31,970 ETE (hrs:mins) for the 90th Percentile Population Change Region Base 18% 19% 20%

5Mile radius (R01) 2:50 2:50 2:50 2:50 Entire EPZ (R02) 3:25 3:50 3:50 3:55 ETE (hrs:mins) for the 100th Percentile Population Change Region Base 18% 19% 20%

5Mile radius (R01) 4:50 4:50 4:50 4:50 Entire EPZ (R02) 4:55 4:55 5:00 4:55 Table M4. Evacuation Time Estimates Results for Change in Average Household Size Base Case Average Sensitivity Case EPZ and 20% Shadow Household Size Average Household Size Permanent Resident (2.29 people per (2.55 people per Population household) household) 26,641 people 23,925 people ETE for the 90th Percentile 2Mile/5Mile Region (R01) 2:15 2:10 Entire EPZ (R02) 2:55 2:45 ETE for the 100th Percentile 2Mile/5Mile Region (R01) 4:05 4:05 Entire EPZ (R02) 4:10 4:10 Point Beach Nuclear Plant M5 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

APPENDIX N ETE Criteria Checklist

N. ETE CRITERIA CHECKLIST Table N1. ETE Review Criteria Checklist Addressed in NRC Review Criteria ETE Analysis Comments (Yes/No/NA) 1.0 Introduction

a. The emergency planning zone (EPZ) and surrounding area is Yes Section 1 described.

b. A map is included that identifies primary features of the site Yes Figures 11, 31, 61 including major roadways, significant topographical features, boundaries of counties, and population centers within the EPZ.

c. A comparison of the current and previous ETE is provided Yes Section 1.4, Table 13 including information similar to that identified in Table 11, ETE Comparison.

1.1 Approach

a. The general approach is described in the report as outlined Yes Section 1.1, Section 1.3, Appendix D, Table 11 in Section 1.1, Approach.

1.2 Assumptions

a. Assumptions consistent with Table 12, General Yes Section 2 Assumptions, of NUREG/CR7002 are provided and include the basis to support use.

1.3 Scenario Development

a. The scenarios in Table 13, Evacuation Scenarios, are Yes Table 21, Section 6, Table 62 developed for the ETE analysis. A reason is provided for use of other scenarios or for not evaluating specific scenarios.

Point Beach Nuclear Plant N1 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

Addressed in NRC Review Criteria ETE Analysis Comments (Yes/No/NA) 1.4 Evacuation Planning Areas

a. A map of the EPZ with emergency response planning areas Yes Figure 31, Figure 61 (ERPAs) is included.

1.4.1 Keyhole Evacuation

a. A table similar to Table 14 Evacuation Areas for a Keyhole Yes Table 61, Table 75, Table H1 Evacuation, is provided identifying the ERPAs considered for each ETE calculation by downwind direction.

1.4.2 Staged Evacuation

a. The approach used in development of a staged evacuation is Yes Section 7.2, Section 5.4.2 discussed.

b. A table similar to Table 15, Evacuation Areas for a Staged Yes Table 61, Table 75, Table H1 Evacuation, is provided for staged evacuations identifying the ERPAs considered for each ETE calculation by downwind direction.

2.0 Demand Estimation

a. Demand estimation is developed for the four population Yes Section 3 groups (permanent residents of the EPZ, transients, special facilities, and schools).

2.1 Permanent Residents and Transient Population

a. The U.S. Census is the source of the population values, or Yes Section 3.1 another credible source is provided.

b. The availability date of the census data is provided. Yes Section 3.1 Point Beach Nuclear Plant N2 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

Addressed in NRC Review Criteria ETE Analysis Comments (Yes/No/NA)

c. Population values are adjusted as necessary for growth to N/A N/A 2020 Census used as the base year of the reflect population estimates to the year of the ETE. analysis

d. A sector diagram, similar to Figure 21, Population by Yes Figure 32 Sector, is included showing the population distribution for permanent residents.

2.1.1 Permanent Residents with Vehicles

a. The persons per vehicle value is between 1 and 3 or Yes Section 3.1 justification is provided for other values.

2.1.2 Transient Population

a. A list of facilities that attract transient populations is Yes Section 3.3, Table E4 and Table E5 included, and peak and average attendance for these facilities is listed. The source of information used to develop attendance values is provided.

b. Major employers are listed. Yes Section 3.4, Table E3

c. The average population during the season is used, itemized Yes Table 34, Table 35 and Appendix E itemize the and totaled for each scenario. peak transient population and employee estimates. These estimates are multiplied by the scenario specific percentages provided in Table 63 to estimate average transient population and employee by scenario - see Table 64.

d. The percentage of permanent residents assumed to be at Yes Section 3.3 and Section 3.4 facilities is estimated.

Point Beach Nuclear Plant N3 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

Addressed in NRC Review Criteria ETE Analysis Comments (Yes/No/NA)

e. The number of people per vehicle is provided. Numbers Yes Section 3.3 and Section 3.4 may vary by scenario, and if so, reasons for the variation are discussed.

f. A sector diagram is included, similar to Figure 21, Yes Figure 36 (transients) and Figure 38 Population by Sector, is included showing the population (employees) distribution for the transient population.

2.2 Transit Dependent Permanent Residents

a. The methodology (e.g., surveys, registration programs) used Yes Section 3.7 to determine the number of transit dependent residents is discussed.

b. The State and local evacuation plans for transit dependent Yes Section 8.1 residents are used in the analysis.

c. The methodology used to determine the number of people Yes Section 3.8 with disabilities and those with access and functional needs who may need assistance and do not reside in special facilities is provided. Data from local/county registration programs are used in the estimate.

d. Capacities are provided for all types of transportation Yes Item 3 of Section 2.4 resources. Bus seating capacity of 50 percent is used or justification is provided for higher values.

e. An estimate of the transit dependent population is Yes Section 3.7, Table 38, Table 311 provided.

Point Beach Nuclear Plant N4 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

Addressed in NRC Review Criteria ETE Analysis Comments (Yes/No/NA)

f. A summary table showing the total number of buses, Yes Table 312, Table 81 ambulances, or other transport assumed available to support evacuation is provided. The quantification of resources is detailed enough to ensure that double counting has not occurred.

2.3 Special Facility Residents

a. Special facilities, including the type of facility, location, and Yes Table E2 lists all medical facilities by facility average population, are listed. Special facility staff is name, location, and average population.

included in the total special facility population.

b. The method of obtaining special facility data is discussed. Yes Section 3.5

c. An estimate of the number and capacity of vehicles Yes Table 36 assumed available to support the evacuation of the facility is provided.

d. The logistics for mobilizing specially trained staff (e.g., Yes Section 8.1 - under Evacuation of Medical medical support or security support for prisons, jails, and Facilities other correctional facilities) are discussed when There are no Correctional Facilities within the appropriate. EPZ 2.4 Schools

a. A list of schools including name, location, student Yes Table 37, Table E1, Section 3.6 population, and transportation resources required to support the evacuation, is provided. The source of this information should be identified.

b. Transportation resources for elementary and middle schools Yes Section 3.6 are based on 100 percent of the school capacity.

Point Beach Nuclear Plant N5 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

Addressed in NRC Review Criteria ETE Analysis Comments (Yes/No/NA)

c. The estimate of high school students who will use personal Yes Section 3.6 vehicle to evacuate is provided and a basis for the values used is given.

d. The need for return trips is identified. Yes Section 8.1 2.5 Other Demand Estimate Considerations 2.5.1 Special Events

a. A complete list of special events is provided including Yes Section 3.9 information on the population, estimated duration, and season of the event.

b. The special event that encompasses the peak transient Yes Section 3.9 population is analyzed in the ETE.

c. The percentage of permanent residents attending the event Yes Section 3.9 is estimated.

2.5.2 Shadow Evacuation

a. A shadow evacuation of 20 percent is included consistent Yes Item 7 of Section 2.2, Figure 21 and Figure 71, with the approach outlined in Section 2.5.2, Shadow Section 3.2 Evacuation.

b. Population estimates for the shadow evacuation in the Yes Section 3.2, Table 33, Figure 34 shadow region beyond the EPZ are provided by sector.

c. The loading of the shadow evacuation onto the roadway Yes Section 5 - Table 59 (footnote) network is consistent with the trip generation time generated for the permanent resident population.

Point Beach Nuclear Plant N6 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

Addressed in NRC Review Criteria ETE Analysis Comments (Yes/No/NA) 2.5.3 Background and Pass Through Traffic

a. The volume of background traffic and passthrough traffic is Yes Section 3.10 and Section 3.11 based on the average daytime traffic. Values may be reduced for nighttime scenarios.

b. The method of reducing background and passthrough Yes Section 2.2 - Assumptions 10 and 11 traffic is described. Section 2.5 Section 3.10 and Section 3.11 Table 63 - External Through Traffic footnote

c. Passthrough traffic is assumed to have stopped entering Yes Section 2.5, Section 3.10 the EPZ about two (2) hours after the initial notification.

2.6 Summary of Demand Estimation

a. A summary table is provided that identifies the total Yes Table 311, Table 312, and Table 64 populations and total vehicles used in the analysis for permanent residents, transients, transit dependent residents, special facilities, schools, shadow population, and passthrough demand in each scenario.

3.0 Roadway Capacity

a. The method(s) used to assess roadway capacity is discussed. Yes Section 4 3.1 Roadway Characteristics

a. The process for gathering roadway characteristic data is Yes Section 1.3, Appendix D described including the types of information gathered and how it is used in the analysis.

Point Beach Nuclear Plant N7 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

Addressed in NRC Review Criteria ETE Analysis Comments (Yes/No/NA)

b. Legible maps are provided that identify nodes and links of Yes Appendix K the modeled roadway network similar to Figure A1, Roadway Network Identifying Nodes and Links, and Figure A2, Grid Map Showing Detailed Nodes and Links.

3.2 Model Approach

a. The approach used to calculate the roadway capacity for the Yes Section 4 transportation network is described in detail, and the description identifies factors that are expressly used in the modeling.

b. Route assignment follows expected evacuation routes and Yes Appendix B and Appendix C traffic volumes.

c. A basis is provided for static route choices if used to assign N/A Static route choices are not used to assign evacuation routes. evacuation routes. Dynamic traffic assignment is used.

d. Dynamic traffic assignment models are described including Yes Appendix B and Appendix C calibration of the route assignment.

3.3 Intersection Control

a. A list that includes the total numbers of intersections Yes Table K1 modeled that are unsignalized, signalized, or manned by response personnel is provided.

b. The use of signal cycle timing, including adjustments for Yes Section 4, Appendix G manned traffic control, is discussed.

3.4 Adverse Weather

a. The adverse weather conditions are identified. Yes Assumptions 2, 3, 4 and 5 of Section 2.6 Point Beach Nuclear Plant N8 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

Addressed in NRC Review Criteria ETE Analysis Comments (Yes/No/NA)

b. The speed and capacity reduction factors identified in Table Yes Table 22 31, Weather Capacity Factors, are used or a basis is provided for other values, as applicable to the model.

c. The calibration and adjustment of driver behavior models N/A Driver behavior is not adjusted for adverse for adverse weather conditions are described, if applicable. weather conditions.

d. The effect of adverse weather on mobilization is considered Yes Assumption 4 of Section 2.6, Table 22 and assumptions for snow removal on streets and driveways are identified, when applicable.

4.0 Development of Evacuation Times 4.1 Traffic Simulation Models

a. General information about the traffic simulation model used Yes Section 1.3, Table 13, Appendix B, Appendix C in the analysis is provided.

b. If a traffic simulation model is not used to perform the ETE N/A Not applicable since a traffic simulation model calculation, sufficient detail is provided to validate the was used.

analytical approach used.

4.2 Traffic Simulation Model Input

a. Traffic simulation model assumptions and a representative Yes Section 2, Appendix J set of model inputs are provided.

b. The number of origin nodes and method for distributing Yes Appendix J, Appendix C vehicles among the origin nodes are described.

c. A glossary of terms is provided for the key performance Yes Appendix A, Table C1, and Table C3 measures and parameters used in the analysis.

Point Beach Nuclear Plant N9 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

Addressed in NRC Review Criteria ETE Analysis Comments (Yes/No/NA) 4.3 Trip Generation Time

a. The process used to develop trip generation times is Yes Section 5 identified.

b. When surveys are used, the scope of the survey, area of the Yes Appendix F survey, number of participants, and statistical relevance are provided.

c. Data used to develop trip generation times are summarized. Yes Appendix F, Section 5

d. The trip generation time for each population group is Yes Section 5 developed from sitespecific information.

e. The methods used to reduce uncertainty when developing Yes Appendix F trip generation times are discussed, if applicable.

4.3.1 Permanent Residents and Transient Population

a. Permanent residents are assumed to evacuate from their Yes Section 5 discusses trip generation for homes but are not assumed to be at home at all times. Trip households with and without returning generation time includes the assumption that a percentage commuters. Table 63 presents the percentage of residents will need to return home before evacuating. of households with returning commuters and the percentage of households either without returning commuters or with no commuters.

Appendix F presents the percent households who will await the return of commuters.

Section 2.3, Assumption 3

b. The trip generation time accounts for the time and method Yes Section 5 to notify transients at various locations.

Point Beach Nuclear Plant N10 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

Addressed in NRC Review Criteria ETE Analysis Comments (Yes/No/NA)

c. The trip generation time accounts for transients potentially Yes Section 5, Figure 51 returning to hotels before evacuating.

d. The effect of public transportation resources used during Yes Section 3.9 special events where a large number of transients are Public Transportation is not provided for the expected is considered. special event and was therefore not considered.

4.3.2 Transit Dependent Permanent Residents

a. If available, existing and approved plans and bus routes are N/A Established bus routes do not exist.

used in the ETE analysis. Section 8.1 under Evacuation of Transit Dependent People (Residents without access to a vehicle)

b. The means of evacuating ambulatory and nonambulatory Yes Section 8.1 under Evacuation of Transit residents are discussed. Dependent People (Residents without access to a vehicle), Section 8.2

c. Logistical details, such as the time to obtain buses, brief Yes Section 8.1, Figure 81 drivers and initiate the bus route are used in the analysis.

d. The estimated time for transit dependent residents to Yes Section 8.1 under Evacuation of Transit prepare and then travel to a bus pickup point, including the Dependent People (Residents without access to expected means of travel to the pickup point, is described. a vehicle)

e. The number of bus stops and time needed to load Yes Section 8.1, Table 85 though Table 87 passengers are discussed.

f. A map of bus routes is included. Yes Figure 102 Point Beach Nuclear Plant N11 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

Addressed in NRC Review Criteria ETE Analysis Comments (Yes/No/NA)

g. The trip generation time for nonambulatory persons Yes Section 8.2 including the time to mobilize ambulances or special vehicles, time to drive to the home of residents, time to load, and time to drive out of the EPZ, is provided.

h. Information is provided to support analysis of return trips, if Yes Section 8.1 necessary.

4.3.3 Special Facilities

a. Information on evacuation logistics and mobilization times is Yes Section 2.4, Section 8.1, Table 88 through Table provided. 810

b. The logistics of evacuating wheelchair and bed bound Yes Section 8.1, Table 88 through Table 810 residents are discussed.

c. Time for loading of residents is provided. Yes Section 2.4, Section 8.1, Table 88 through Table 810

d. Information is provided that indicates whether the Yes Section 8.1 evacuation can be completed in a single trip or if additional trips are needed.

e. Discussion is provided on whether special facility residents Yes Section 8.1 are expected to pass through the reception center before being evacuated to their final destination.

f. Supporting information is provided to quantify the time Yes Section 8.1 elements for each trip, including destinations if return trips are needed.

Point Beach Nuclear Plant N12 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

Addressed in NRC Review Criteria ETE Analysis Comments (Yes/No/NA) 4.3.4 Schools

a. Information on evacuation logistics and mobilization times is Yes Section 2.4, Section 8.1, Table 82 through Table provided. 84

b. Time for loading of students is provided. Yes Section 2.4, Section 8.1, Table 82 through Table 84

c. Information is provided that indicates whether the Yes Section 8.1 evacuation can be completed in a single trip or if additional trips are needed.

d. If used, reception centers should be identified. A discussion Yes Section 8.1, Table 103 is provided on whether students are expected to pass through the reception center before being evacuated to their final destination.

e. Supporting information is provided to quantify the time Yes Section 8.1, Table 82 through Table 84 elements for each trip, including destinations if return trips are needed.

4.4 Stochastic Model Runs

a. The number of simulation runs needed to produce average N/A DYNEV does not rely on simulation averages or results is discussed. random seeds for statistical confidence. For Point Beach Nuclear Plant N13 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

Addressed in NRC Review Criteria ETE Analysis Comments (Yes/No/NA)

b. If one run of a single random seed is used to produce each N/A DYNEV/DTRAD, it is a mesoscopic simulation ETE result, the report includes a sensitivity study on the 90 and uses dynamic traffic assignment model to percent and 100 percent ETE using 10 different random obtain the "average" (stable) network work flow seeds for evacuation of the full EPZ under Summer, distribution. This is different from microscopic Midweek, Daytime, Normal Weather conditions. simulation, which is montecarlo random sampling by nature relying on different seeds to establish statistical confidence. Refer to Appendix B for more details 4.5 Model Boundaries

a. The method used to establish the simulation model Yes Section 4.5 boundaries is discussed.

b. Significant capacity reductions or population centers that Yes Section 4.5 may influence the ETE and that are located beyond the evacuation area or shadow region are identified and included in the model, if needed.

4.6 Traffic Simulation Model Output

a. A discussion of whether the traffic simulation model used Yes Appendix B must be in equilibration prior to calculating the ETE is provided.

Point Beach Nuclear Plant N14 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

Addressed in NRC Review Criteria ETE Analysis Comments (Yes/No/NA)

b. The minimum following model outputs for evacuation of the Yes 1. Appendix J, Table J2 entire EPZ are provided to support review: 2. Table J2

1. Evacuee average travel distance and time. 3. Table J4

2. Evacuee average delay time. 4. None and 0%. 100 percent ETE is based

3. Number of vehicles arriving at each destination node. on the time the last vehicle exits the

4. Total number and percentage of evacuee vehicles not evacuation zone exiting the EPZ. 5. Figures J2 through J15 (one plot for

5. A plot that provides both the mobilization curve and each scenario considered) evacuation curve identifying the cumulative percentage 6. Table J3 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 are provided for various times Yes Figure 73 through Figure 77 (e.g., at 2, 4, 6 hrs.) during a full EPZ evacuation scenario, identifying areas where congestion exists.

4.7 Evacuation Time Estimates for the General Public

a. The ETE includes the time to evacuate 90 percent and 100 Yes Table 71 and Table 72 percent of the total permanent resident and transient population.

b. Termination criteria for the 100 percent ETE are discussed, if N/A 100 percent ETE is based on the time the last not based on the time the last vehicle exits the evacuation vehicle exits the evacuation zone.

zone.

Point Beach Nuclear Plant N15 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

Addressed in NRC Review Criteria ETE Analysis Comments (Yes/No/NA)

c. The ETE for 100 percent of the general public includes all Yes Section 5.4.1 - truncating survey data to members of the general public. Any reductions or truncated eliminate statistical outliers data is explained. Table 72 - 100th percentile ETE for general population

d. Tables are provided for the 90 and 100 percent ETEs similar Yes Table 73 and Table 74 to Table 43, ETEs for a Staged Evacuation, and Table 44, ETEs for a Keyhole Evacuation.

e. ETEs are provided for the 100 percent evacuation of special Yes Section 8 facilities, transit dependent, and school populations.

5.0 Other Considerations 5.1 Development of Traffic Control Plans

a. Information that responsible authorities have approved the Yes Section 9, Appendix G traffic control plan used in the analysis are discussed.

b. Adjustments or additions to the traffic control plan that Yes Section 9, Appendix G affect the ETE is provided.

5.2 Enhancements in Evacuation Time

a. The results of assessments for enhancing evacuations are Yes Appendix M provided.

5.3 State and Local Review

a. A list of agencies contacted is provided and the extent of Yes Table 11 interaction with these agencies is discussed.

Point Beach Nuclear Plant N16 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

Addressed in NRC Review Criteria ETE Analysis Comments (Yes/No/NA)

b. Information is provided on any unresolved issues that may Yes Results of the ETE study were formally affect the ETE. presented to state and local agencies at the final project meeting. Comments on the draft report were provided and were addressed in the final report. There are no unresolved issues.

5.4 Reviews and Updates

a. The criteria for when an updated ETE analysis is required to Yes Appendix M, Section M.3 be performed and submitted to the NRC is discussed.

5.4.1 Extreme Conditions

a. The updated ETE analysis reflects the impact of EPZ N/A This ETE is being updated as a result of the conditions not adequately reflected in the scenario availability of US Census Bureau decennial variations. census data.

5.5 Reception Centers and Congregate Care Center

a. A map of congregate care centers and reception centers is Yes Figure 103 provided.

Point Beach Nuclear Plant N17 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

L-2022-150, 10 CFR 50 Appendix E Evacuation Time Estimate Study for Point Beach Nuclear Plant

Contents

Text

Enclosure:

SUMMARY

SUMMARY

5.1 Background

Navigation menu

L-2022-150, 10 CFR 50 Appendix E Evacuation Time Estimate Study for Point Beach Nuclear Plant

Text

Enclosure:

SUMMARY

SUMMARY

5.1 Background

Navigation menu

Search