ML12356A131

Kld TR-515, Development of Evacuation Time Estimates and Completed Table B-1 Evacuation Time Estimates Review Criteria Checklist. Part 1 of 6

ML12356A131
Person / Time
Site:	Point Beach
Issue date:	10/31/2012
From:	KLD Engineering, PC
To:	Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation, Nextera Energy
References
KLD TR-515
Download: ML12356A131 (77)

Text

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 384 pages follow

I Point Beach Nuclear Plant Development of Evacuation Time Estimates Work performedfor NextEra Energy, by:

KLD Engineering, P.C.

43 Corporate Drive Hauppauge, NY 11788 mailto:kweinischCkldcompanies.com October 2012 Final Report, Rev. 1 KLD TR - 515

Table of Contents 1 INTRODUCTION .................................................................................................................................. 1-1 1.1 Overview of the ETE Process ...................................................................................................... 1-1 1.2 The Point Beach Nuclear Plant Location .................................................................................... 1-3 1.3 Prelim inary Activities ................................................................................................................. 1-5 1.4 Com parison w ith Prior ETE Study .............................................................................................. 1-9 2 STUDY ESTIM ATES AND ASSUM PTIONS ............................................................................................. 2-1 2.1 Data Estim ates ........................................................................................................................... 2-1 2.2 Study M ethodological Assum ptions .......................................................................................... 2-2 2.3 Study Assum ptions ..................................................................................................................... 2-5 3 DEM AND ESTIM ATION ....................................................................................................................... 3-1 3.1 Perm anent Residents ................................................................................................................. 3-2 3.2 Shadow Population .................................................................................................................... 3-7 3.3 Transient Population ................................................................................................................ 3-10 3.4 Em ployees ................................................................................................................................ 3-14 3.5 M edical Facilities ...................................................................................................................... 3-18 3.6 Total Dem and in Addition to Perm anent Population .............................................................. 3-18 3.7 Special Event ............................................................................................................................ 3-18 3.8 Sum mary of Dem and ............................................................................................................... 3-20 4 ESTIM ATION OF HIGHW AY CAPACITY ................................................................................................ 4-1 4.1 Capacity Estim ations on Approaches to Intersections .............................................................. 4-2 4.2 Capacity Estim ation along Sections of Highway ........................................................................ 4-4 4.3 Application to the Point Beach Nuclear Plant Study Area ......................................................... 4-6 4.3.1 Two-Lane Roads ................................................................................................................. 4-6 4.3.2 M ulti-Lane Highway ........................................................................................................... 4-6 4.3.3 Freeways ............................................................................................................................ 4-7 4.3.4 Intersections ...................................................................................................................... 4-8 4.4 Sim ulation and Capacity Estim ation .......................................................................................... 4-8 5 ESTIM ATION OF TRIP GENERATION TIM E.......................................................................................... 5-1 5.1 Background ................................................................................................................................ 5-1 5.2 Fundam ental Considerations ..................................................................................................... 5-3 5.3 Estim ated Tim e Distributions of Activities Preceding Event 5 ................................................... 5-6 5.4 Calculation of Trip Generation Tim e Distribution .................................................................... 5-12 5.4.1 Statistical Outliers ............................................................................................................ 5-13 5.4.2 Staged Evacuation Trip Generation ................................................................................. 5-17 5.4.3 Trip Generation for W aterw ays and Recreational Areas ................................................. 5-18 6 DEM AND ESTIM ATION FOR EVACUATION SCENARIOS ..................................................................... 6-1 7 GENERAL POPULATION EVACUATION TIM E ESTIM ATES (ETE) .......................................................... 7-1 7.1 Voluntary Evacuation and Shadow Evacuation ......................................................................... 7-1 7.2 Staged Evacuation ...................................................................................................................... 7-1 7.3 Patterns of Traffic Congestion during Evacuation ..................................................................... 7-2 7.4 Evacuation Rates ........................................................................................................................ 7-3 7.5 Evacuation Tim e Estim ate (ETE) Results .................................................................................... 7-4 7.6 Staged Evacuation Results ......................................................................................................... 7-5 7.7 Guidance on Using ETE Tables ................................................................................................... 7-6 8 TRANSIT-DEPENDENT AND SPECIAL FACILITY EVACUATION TIME ESTIMATES ................................. 8-1 Point Beach Nuclear Plant i KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 1

8,1 Transit Dependent People Dem and Estim ate ............................................................................ 8-2 8,2 School Population - Transit Dem and ......................................................................................... 8-4 83 M edical Facility Dem and ............................................................................................................ 8-4 8,4 Evacuation Tim e Estim ates for Transit Dependent People .................................................. 8-5 8,5 Special Needs Population ......................................................................................................... 8-10 9 TRAFFIC M ANAGEM ENT STRATEGY .............................................................................................. 9-1 10 EVACUATION RO UTES .................................................................................................................. 10-1 ii SURVEILLANCE O F EVACUATIO N OPERATIO NS ...................................................................... ii-i 12 CO NFIRM ATION TIM E .................................................................................................................. 12-1 13 RECOM M ENDATIONS ................................................................................................................... 13-1 List of Appendices A. GLOSSARY OF TRAFFIC ENGINEERING TERM S ............................................................................... A-1 B. DYNAMIC TRAFFIC ASSIGNMENT AND DISTRIBUTION MODEL ..................................................... B-1 C. DYNEV TRAFFIC SIM ULATION M O DEL ............................................................................................ C-1 C.1 M ethodology .............................................................................................................................. C-5 C.1.1 The Fundam ental Diagram ................................................................................................. C-5 C.1.2 The Sim ulation M odel ........................................................................................................ C-5 C.1.3 Lane Assignm ent .............................................................................................................. C-13 C.2 Im plem entation ....................................................................................................................... C-13 C.2.1 Com putational Procedure ................................................................................................ C-13 C.2.2 Interfacing w ith Dynam ic Traffic Assignm ent (DTRAD) .............................................. C-16 D. DETAILED DESCRIPTION O F STUDY PROCEDURE .............................................................................. D-1 E. SPECIAL FACILITY DATA ...................................................................................................................... E-I F. TELEPHO NE SURVEY ........................................................................................................................... F-1 F.1 Introduction ............................................................................................................................... F-1 F,2 Survey Instrum ent and Sam pling Plan ................................................................................... F-2 F S3 Survey Results ............................................................................................................................ F-3 F.3.1 Household Dem ographic Results ........................................................................................... F-3 F.3.2 Evacuation Response ............................................................................................................. F-8 F.3.3 Tim e Distribution Results ................................................................................................ F-10 F.4 Conclusions .............................................................................................................................. F-13 G. TRAFFIC M ANAGEM ENT PLAN .......................................................................................................... G-1 G.1 Traffic Control Points ................................................................................................................ G-1 H EVACUATION REGIONS ..................................................................................................................... H-1 J. REPRESENTATIVE INPUTS TO AND OUTPUTS FROM THE DYNEV II SYSTEM ................................. J-1 K. EVACUATION ROADW AY NETW O RK .............................................................................................. K-1 L. SUBAREA BOUNDARIES ...................................................................................................................... L-1 M. EVACUATION SENSITIVITY STUDIES ......................................................................................... M -1 M .1 Effect of Changes in Trip Generation Tim es ........................................................................ M -1 M.2 Effect of Changes in the Number of People in the Shadow Region Who Relocate ................. M-2 M .3 Effect of Changes in EPZ Resident Population ......................................................................... M -3 N. ETE CRITERIA CHECKLIST ................................................................................................................... N-1 Note: Appendix I intentionallyskipped Point Beach Nuclear Plant ii KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 1

List of Figures Figure 1-1. Point Beach Nuclear Plant Location ........................................................................................ 1-4 Figure 1-2. PBNP Link-Node Analysis Netw ork ......................................................................................... 1-7 Figure 2-1. Voluntary Evacuation M ethodology ....................................................................................... 2-4 Figure 3-1. Point Beach N uclear Plant EPZ ................................................................................................ 3-3 Figure 3-2. Perm anent Resident Population by Sector ............................................................................. 3-5 Figure 3-3. Perm anent Resident Vehicles by Sector ................................................................................. 3-6 Figure 3-4. Shadow Population by Sector ................................................................................................. 3-8 Figure 3-5. Shadow Vehicles by Sector ..................................................................................................... 3-9 Figure 3-6. Transient Population by Sector ............................................................................................. 3-12 Figure 3-7. Transient Vehicles by Sector ................................................................................................. 3-13 Figure 3-8. Em ployee Population by Sector ............................................................................................ 3-16 Figure 3-9. Em ployee Vehicles by Sector ................................................................................................ 3-17 Figure 4-1. Fundam ental Diagram s .......................................................................................................... 4-10 Figure 5-1. Events and Activities Preceding the Evacuation Trip .............................................................. 5-5 Figure 5-2. Evacuation M obilization Activities ........................................................................................ 5-11 Figure 5-3. Comparison of Data Distribution and Normal Distribution ....................................................... 5-15 Figure 5-4. Com parison of Trip Generation Distributions ....................................................................... 5-21 Figure 5-5. Comparison of Staged and Unstaged Trip Generation Distributions in the 5 to 10 M ile Region .................................................................................................................................. 5-23 Figure 6-1. PBNP EPZ Subareas ....................................................................................... 6-4 Figure 7-1. Voluntary Evacuation M ethodology ..................................................................................... 7-14 Figure 7-2. PBN P Shadow Region ............................................................................................................ 7-15 Figure 7-3. Congestion Patterns at 30 Minutes after the Advisory to Evacuate .................................... 7-16 Figure 7-4. Congestion Patterns at 1 Hour after the Advisory to Evacuate ............................................ 7-17 Figure 7-5. Congestion Patterns at 2 Hours after the Advisory to Evacuate ......................................... 7-18 Figure 7-6. Congestion Patterns at 2 Hours, 30 Minutes after the Advisory to Evacuate ...................... 7-19 Figure 7-7. Congestion Patterns at 3 Hour after the Advisory to Evacuate ............................................ 7-20 Figure 7-8. Evacuation Time Estimates - Scenario 1 for Region R02 ...................................................... 7-21 Figure 7-9. Evacuation Time Estimates - Scenario 2 for Region R02 ...................................................... 7-21 Figure 7-10. Evacuation Time Estimates - Scenario 3 for Region R02 .................................................... 7-22 Figure 7-11. Evacuation Time Estimates - Scenario 4 for Region R02 .................................................... 7-22 Figure 7-12. Evacuation Time Estimates - Scenario 5 for Region R02 .................................................... 7-23 Figure 7-13. Evacuation Time Estimates - Scenario 6 for Region R02 .................................................... 7-23 Figure 7-14. Evacuation Time Estimates - Scenario 7 for Region R02 .................................................... 7-24 Figure 7-15. Evacuation Time Estimates - Scenario 8 for Region R02 .................................................... 7-24 Figure 7-16. Evacuation Time Estimates - Scenario 9 for Region R02 .................................................... 7-25 Figure 7-17. Evacuation Time Estimates - Scenario 10 for Region R02 .................................................. 7-25 Figure 7-18. Evacuation Time Estimates - Scenario 11 for Region R02 .................................................. 7-26 Figure 7-19. Evacuation Time Estimates - Scenario 12 for Region R02 .................................................. 7-26 Figure 7-20. Evacuation Time Estimates - Scenario 13 for Region R02 .................................................. 7-27 Figure 7-21. Evacuation Time Estimates - Scenario 14 for Region R02 .................................................. 7-27 Figure 8-1. Chronology of Transit Evacuation Operations ...................................................................... 8-12 Figure 8-2. Transit-Dependent Bus Routes ............................................................................................. 8-13 Figure 10-1. General Population Receptions Centers and Host Schools ............................................... 10-2 Figure 10-2. Evacuation Route M ap ........................................................................................................ 10-3 Point Beach Nuclear Plant iii KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 1

Figure B-1. Flow Diagram of Sim ulation-DTRAD Interface ........................................................................ B-5 Figure C-i. Representative Analysis Network ........................................................................................... C-4 Figure C-2. Fundam ental Diagram s ........................................................................................................... C-6 Figure C-3. A UNIT Problem Configuration w ith t, > 0 .............................................................................. C-7 Figure C-4. Flow of Sim ulation Processing (See Glossary: Table C-3) .............................................. C-15 Figure D-1. Flow Diagram of Activities ................................................................................................ D-5 Figure E-i. Schools, Preschools and Daycares w ithin Subarea 5 .............................................................. E-7 Figure E-2. Schools, Pre-Schools and Daycares w ithin Subarea i0S ......................................................... E-8 Figure E-3. M edical Facilities w ithin the EPZ ............................................................................................ E-9 Figure E-4. M ajor Em ployers w ithin the EPZ ....................................................................................... E-i0 Figure E-5. Recreational Areas w ithin the EPZ .................................................................................. E-11 Figure E-6. Lodging within the EPZ ..................................................................................................... E-12 Figure F-i. Household Size in the EPZ ....................................................................................................... F-3 Figure F-2. Household Vehicle Availability ................................................................................................ F-4 Figure F-3. Vehicle Availability - 1 to 5 Person Households ................................................................. F-5 Figure F-4. Vehicle Availability - 6 to 9+ Person Households ............................................................... F-5 Figure F-5. Household Ridesharing Preference ......................................................................................... F-6 Figure F-6. Com m uters in Households in the EPZ ..................................................................................... F-7 Figure F-7. M odes of Travel in the EPZ ..................................................................................................... F-8 Figure F-8. Num ber of Vehicles Used for Evacuation ............................................................................... F-9 Figure F-9. Households Evacuating w ith Pets ........................................................................................... F-9 Figure F-iO. Tim e Required to Prepare to Leave W ork/School .......................................................... F-11 Figure F-11. W ork to Hom e Travel Tim e ........................................................................................... F-11 Figure F-12. Tim e to Prepare Hom e for Evacuation ........................................................................... F-12 Figure F-13. Tim e to Clear Drivew ay of 6"-8" of Snow ........................................................................... F-13 Figure G-i. Traffic Control Points for the Point Beach Nuclear Plant ...................................................... G-2 Figure H-i. Region R01 ............................................................................................................................. H-3 Figure H-2. Region R02 ............................................................................................................................. H-4 Figure H-3. Region R03 ............................................................................................................................. H-5 Figure H-4. Region R04 ............................................................................................................................. H-6 Figure H-5. Region R05 ............................................................................................................................. H-7 Figure H-6. Region R06 ............................................................................................................................. H-8 Figure H-7. Region R07 ............................................................................................................................. H-9 Figure H-8. Region R08 ........................................................................................................................... H-iO Figure H-9. Region R09 ........................................................................................................................... H-11 Figure H-l0. Region RiO ......................................................................................................................... H-12 Figure H-11. Region R11 ......................................................................................................................... H-13 Figure H-12. Region R12 ......................................................................................................................... H-14 Figure H-13. Region R13 ......................................................................................................................... H-15 Figure H-14. Region R14 ......................................................................................................................... H-16 Figure H-i5. Region R15 ......................................................................................................................... H-17 Figure H-16. Region R16 ......................................................................................................................... H-18 Figure H-17. Region R17 ......................................................................................................................... H-19 Figure H-18. Region R18 ......................................................................................................................... H-20 Figure H-19. Region R19 ........................................................................................................................ H-21 Figure J-1. ETE and Trip Generation: Summer, Midweek, Midday, Good Weather (Scenario 1) .............. J-8 Figure J-2. ETE and Trip Generation: Sum m er, M idw eek, M idday, Rain (Scenario 2) ............................... J-8 Point Beach Nuclear Plant iv KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 1

Figure J-3. ETE and Trip Generation: Summer, Weekend, Midday, Good Weather (Scenario 3) .............. J-9 Figure J-4. ETE and Trip Generation: Summer, Weekend, Midday, Rain (Scenario 4) .............................. J-9 Figure J-5. ETE and Trip Generation: Summer, Midweek, Weekend, Evening, Good W eather (Scenario 5) ............................................................................................................ J-lO Figure J-6. ETE and Trip Generation: Winter, Midweek, Midday, Good Weather (Scenario 6) .............. J-10 Figure 1-7. ETE and Trip Generation: Winter, Midweek, Midday, Rain (Scenario 7) ........................... J-11 Figure J-8. ETE and Trip Generation: Winter, Midweek, Midday, Snow (Scenario 8) ......................... J-11 Figure J-9. ETE and Trip Generation: Winter, Weekend, Midday, Good Weather (Scenario 9) .............. J-12 Figure J-10. ETE and Trip Generation: Winter, Weekend, Midday, Rain (Scenario 10) ........................... J-12 Figure J-11. ETE and Trip Generation: Winter, Weekend, Midday, Snow (Scenario 11) ......................... J-13 Figure J-12. ETE and Trip Generation: Winter, Midweek, Weekend, Evening, G ood W eather (Scenario 12) ................................................................................................................... J-13 Figure J-13. ETE and Trip Generation: Winter, Midweek, Midday, Good Weather, Special Event (Scenario 13) ...................................................................................................................... J-14 Figure J-14. ETE and Trip Generation: Summer, Midweek, Midday, Good Weather, Roadw ay Im pact (Scenario 14) ................................................................................................................ J-14 Figure K-1. Point Beach Link-Node Analysis Netw ork ............................................................................... K-2 Figure K-2. Link-Node Analysis Netw ork - Grid 1 ..................................................................................... K-3 Figure K-3. Link-Node Analysis Netw ork - Grid 2 ..................................................................................... K-4 Figure K-4. Link-Node Analysis Netw ork- Grid 3 ..................................................................................... K-5 Figure K-5. Link-Node Analysis Netw ork - Grid 4 ..................................................................................... K-6 Figure K-6. Link-Node Analysis Netw ork - Grid 5 ..................................................................................... K-7 Figure K-7. Link-Node Analysis Network -Grid 6 ............................................................................... K-8 Figure K-8. Link-Node Analysis Netw ork - Grid 7 ..................................................................................... K-9 Figure K-9. Link-Node Analysis Network- Grid 8 ............................................................................. K-l0 Figure K-l0. Link-Node Analysis Network - Grid 9 ............................................................................. K-11 Figure K-11. Link-Node Analysis Network - Grid 10 ............................................................................... K-12 Figure K-12. Link-Node Analysis Network - Grid 11 ............................................................................... K-13 Figure K-13. Link-Node Analysis Network- Grid 12 ............................................................................... K-14 Figure K-14. Link-Node Analysis Network - Grid 13 .......................................................................... K-15 Figure K-15. Link-Node Analysis Network- Grid 14 ............................................................................... K-16 Figure K-16. Link-Node Analysis Netw ork - Grid 15 .............................................................................. K-17 Figure K-17. Link-Node Analysis Network - Grid 16 .......................................................................... K-18 Figure K-18. Link-Node Analysis Network- Grid 17 ............................................................................... K-19 Figure K-19. Link-Node Analysis Network - Grid 18 ............................................................................... K-20 Figure K-20. Link-Node Analysis Network - Grid 19 ............................................................................... K-21 Figure K-21. Link-Node Analysis Network - Grid 20 ............................................................................... K-22 Figure K-22. Link-Node Analysis Network - Grid 21 ............................................................................... K-23 Figure K-23. Link-Node Analysis Network - Grid 22 ............................................................................... K-24 Figure K-24. Link-Node Analysis Network - Grid 23 ............................................................................... K-25 Figure K-25. Link-Node Analysis Network - Grid 24 ............................................................................... K-26 Figure K-26. Link-Node Analysis Network - Grid 25 ............................................................................... K-27 Figure K-27. Link-Node Analysis Network- Grid 26 ............................................................................... K-28 Figure K-28. Link-Node Analysis Netw ork - Grid 27 ............................................................................... K-29 Figure K-29. Link-Node Analysis Network - Grid 28 ............................................................................... K-30 Figure K-30. Link-Node Analysis Network - Grid 29 ............................................................................... K-31 Figure K-31. Link-Node Analysis Network - Grid 30 ............................................................................... K-32 Point Beach Nuclear Plant v KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 1

Figure K-32. Link-Node Analysis Network - Grid 31 ............................................................................... K-33 Figure K-33. Link-Node Analysis Network - Grid 32 ............................................................................... K-34 Figure K-34. Link-Node Analysis Network - Grid 33 ............................................................................... K-35 Point Beach Nuclear Plant vi KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 1

List of Tables Table 1-1. Stakeholder Interaction ........................................................................................................... 1-1 Table 1-2. Highw ay Characteristics ........................................................................................................... 1-5 Table 1-3. ETE Study Com parisons ............................................................................................................ 1-9 Table 2-1. Evacuation Scenario Definitions ............................................................................................... 2-3 Table 2-2. M odel Adjustment for Adverse W eather ................................................................................. 2-7 Table 3-1. EPZ Perm anent Resident Population ....................................................................................... 3-4 Table 3-2. Permanent Resident Population and Vehicles by Subarea ...................................................... 3-4 Table 3-3. Shadow Population and Vehicles by Sector ............................................................................. 3-7 Table 3-4. Summary of Transients and Transient Vehicles ..................................................................... 3-11 Table 3-5. Summary of Non-EPZ Resident Employees and Employee Vehicles ...................................... 3-15 Table 3-6. Point Beach Nuclear Plant EPZ External Traffic ...................................................................... 3-19 Table 3-7. Sum m ary of Population Dem and ........................................................................................... 3-21 Table 3-8. Sum m ary of Vehicle Dem and ................................................................................................. 3-22 Table 5-1. Event Sequence for Evacuation Activities ................................................................................ 5-3 Table 5-2. Tim e Distribution for Notifying the Public ............................................................................... 5-6 Table 5-3. Time Distribution for Employees to Prepare to Leave Work ................................................... 5-7 Table 5-4. Time Distribution for Commuters to Travel Home .................................................................. 5-8 Table 5-5. Time Distribution for Population to Prepare to Evacuate ....................................................... 5-9 Table 5-6. Time Distribution for Population to Clear 6"-8" of Snow ...................................................... 5-10 Table 5-7. M apping Distributions to Events ............................................................................................ 5-12 Table 5-8. Description of the Distributions ............................................................................................. 5-13 Table 5-9. Trip Generation Histograms for the EPZ Population for Unstaged Evacuation ..................... 5-20 Table 5-10. Trip Generation Histograms for the EPZ Population for Staged Evacuation ....................... 5-22 Table 6-1. Description of Evacuation Regions ........................................................................................... 6-3 Table 6-2. Evacuation Scenario Definitions ............................................................................................... 6-5 Table 6-3. Percent of Population Groups Evacuating for Various Scenarios ............................................ 6-6 Table 6-4. Vehicle Estim ates by Scenario .................................................................................................. 6-7 Table 7-1. Time to Clear the Indicated Area of 90 Percent of the Affected Population ........................... 7-9 Table 7-2. Time to Clear the Indicated Area of 100 Percent of the Affected Population ....................... 7-10 Table 7-3. Time to Clear 90 Percent of the 5-Mile Area within the Indicated Region ............................ 7-11 Table 7-4. Time to Clear 100 Percent of the 5-Mile Area within the Indicated Region .......................... 7-12 Table 7-5. Description of Evacuation Regions ......................................................................................... 7-13 Table 8-1. Transit-Dependent Population Estim ates .............................................................................. 8-14 Table 8-2. School Population Dem and Estim ates ................................................................................... 8-15 Table 8-3. School Reception Centers ...................................................................................................... 8-16 Table 8-4. M edical Facility Transit Dem and ............................................................................................ 8-17 Table 8-5. Sum m ary of Transportation Resources .................................................................................. 8-18 Table 8-6. Bus Route Descriptions .......................................................................................................... 8-19 Table 8-7. School and Daycare Evacuation Time Estimates - Good Weather ......................................... 8-20 Table 8-8. School and Daycare Evacuation Time Estimates - Rain ......................................................... 8-21 Table 8-9. School and Daycare Evacuation Time Estimates - Snow ....................................................... 8-22 Table 8-10. Summary of Transit-Dependent Bus Routes ........................................................................ 8-23 Table 8-11. Transit-Dependent Evacuation Time Estimates - Good Weather ........................................ 8-24 Table 8-12. Transit-Dependent Evacuation Time Estimates - Rain ........................................................ 8-25 Table 8-13. Transit Dependent Evacuation Time Estimates - Snow ....................................................... 8-26 Point Beach Nuclear Plant vii KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. I

Table 8-14. Medical Facility Evacuation Time Estimates - Good Weather ............................................. 8-27 Table 8-15. Medical Facility Evacuation Time Estimates - Rain .............................................................. 8-28 Table 8-16. Medical Facility Evacuation Time Estimates - Snow ............................................................ 8-29 Table 8-17. Homebound Special Needs Population Evacuation Time Estimates .................................... 8-30 Table 12-1. Estimated Number of Telephone Calls Required for Confirmation of Evacuation .............. 12-2 Table A-1. Glossary of Traffic Engineering Terms ............................................................................... A-1 Table C-1. Selected Measures of Effectiveness Output by DYNEV II ........................................................ C-2 Table C-2. Input Requirem ents for the DYNEV II M odel ........................................................................... C-3 Ta b le C-3 . G lo ssary .................................................................................................................................... C-8 Table E-1. Schools, Preschools and Daycares within the EPZ ................................................................... E-2 Table E-2. M edical Facilities w ithin the EPZ .............................................................................................. E-3 Table E-3. M ajor Em ployers within the EPZ .............................................................................................. E-4 Table E-4. Parks/Recreational Attractions within the EPZ ........................................................................ E-5 Table E-5. Lodging Facilities w ithin the EPZ .............................................................................................. E-6 Table F-1. PBNP Telephone Survey Sam pling Plan ................................................................................... F-2 Table H-1. Percent of Subarea Population Evacuating for Each Region .................................................. H-2 Table J-1. Characteristics of the Ten Highest Volume Signalized Intersections ........................................ J-2 Table J-2. Sam ple Sim ulation M odel Input ............................................................................................... J-3 Table J-3. Selected Model Outputs for the Evacuation of the Entire EPZ (Region R02) ........................... J-4 Table J-4. Average Speed (mph) and Travel Time (min) for Major Evacuation Routes (Region R02, Scenario 1) ............................................................................................................................ J-5 Table J-5. Simulation Model Outputs at Network Exit Links for Region R02, Scenario 1 .................... J-6 Table K-1. Evacuation Roadway Network Characteristics ....................................................................... K-36 Table K-2. Nodes in the Link-Node Analysis Network which are Controlled ........................................... K-71 Table M-1. Evacuation Time Estimates for Trip Generation Sensitivity Study .................................. M-1 Table M-2. Evacuation Time Estimates for Shadow Sensitivity Study .................................................... M-2 Table M -3. ETE Variation with Population Change ................................................................................. M -4 Table N-1. ETE Review Criteria Checklist ............................................................................................. N-1 Point Beach Nuclear Plant viii KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 1

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 site-specific information needed for Protective Action decision-making.

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

• Criteria for Development of Evacuation Time Estimate Studies, NUREG/CR-7002, November 2011.

• Criteria for Preparation and Evaluation of Radiological Emergency Response Plans and Preparedness in Support of Nuclear Power Plants, NUREG-0654/FEMA-REP-1, Rev. 1, November 1980.

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

• 10CFR50, Appendix E - "Emergency Planning and Preparedness for Production and Utilization Facilities" Overview of Proiect Activities This project began in November, 2011 and extended over a period of 9 months. The major activities performed are briefly described in chronological sequence:

• Attended "kick-off" meetings with NextEra Energy personnel and emergency management personnel representing state and county governments.

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

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

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

" Data collection forms (provided to the OROs at the kickoff meeting) were returned with data pertaining to employment, transients, and special facilities in each county.

Point Beach Nuclear Plant ES-i KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. I

Telephone calls to specific facilities supplemented the data provided.

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

• Following federal guidelines, the EPZ is subdivided into 6 subareas. These subareas are then grouped within circular areas or "keyhole" configurations (circles plus radial sectors) that define a total of 19 Evacuation Regions.

• The time-varying external circumstances are represented as Evacuation Scenarios, each described in terms of the following factors: (1) Season (Summer, Winter); (2) Day of Week (Midweek, Weekend); (3) Time of Day (Midday, Evening); and (4) Weather (Good, Rain, Snow) as shown in Table 6-2. One special event scenario involving an outage at Kewaunee Power Station was considered. One roadway impact scenario was considered wherein a southbound lane on SR 42/Memorial Dr. was closed.

• Staged evacuation was considered for those regions wherein the 5 mile radius and sectors downwind to 10 miles were evacuated.

• As per NUREG/CR-7002, the Planning Basis for the calculation of ETE is:

" A rapidly escalating accident at the PBNP that quickly assumes the status of General Emergency such that the Advisory to Evacuate is virtually coincident with the siren alert, and no early protective actions have been implemented.

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

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

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

Computation of ETE A total of 266 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 19 Evacuation Point Beach Nuclear Plant ES-2 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 1

Regions to evacuate from that Region, under the circumstances defined for one of the 14 Evacuation Scenarios (19 x 14 = 266). Separate ETE are calculated for transit-dependent evacuees, including schoolchildren for applicable scenarios.

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

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

Staged evacuation is considered wherein those people within the 5-mile region evacuate immediately, while those beyond 5 miles, but within the EPZ, shelter-in-place. Once 90% of the 5-mile region is evacuated, those people beyond 5 miles begin to evacuate. As per federal guidance, 20% of people beyond 5 miles will evacuate (non-compliance) even though they are advised to shelter-in-place.

The computational procedure is outlined as follows:

• A link-node 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.

The ETE statistics provide the elapsed times for 90 percent and 100 percent, respectively, of the population within the impacted region, to evacuate from within the impacted region. These statistics are presented in tabular and graphical formats. The 90'h 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/CR-7002.

The use of a public outreach (information) program to emphasize the need for evacuees to Point Beach Nuclear Plant ES-3 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 1

minimize the time needed to prepare to evacuate (secure the home, assemble needed clothes, medicines, etc.) should also be considered.

Traffic Management This study references the comprehensive traffic management plan provided by Kewaunee and Manitowoc Counties. No additional traffic or access control measures have been identified as a result of this study.

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

• Figure 6-1 displays a map of the PBNP EPZ showing the layout of the 6 subareas that comprise, in aggregate, the EPZ.

• Table 3-1 presents the estimates of permanent resident population in each subarea based on the 2010 Census data.

• Table 6-1 defines each of the 19 Evacuation Regions in terms of their respective groups of subareas.

• Table 6-2 lists the Evacuation Scenarios.

• Table 7-1 and Table 7-2 are compilations of ETE. These data are the times needed to clear the indicated regions of 90 and 100 percent of the population occupying these regions, respectively. These computed ETE include consideration of mobilization time and of estimated voluntary evacuations from other regions within the EPZ and from the Shadow Region.

• Table 7-3 and Table 7-4 present ETE for the 5-mile region for un-staged and staged evacuations for the 9 0 th and 1 0 0 th percentiles, respectively.

• Table 8-7 presents ETE for the schoolchildren in good weather.

" Table 8-11 presents ETE for the transit-dependent population in good weather.

• Figure H-8 presents an example of an Evacuation Region (Region R08) to be evacuated under the circumstances defined in Table 6-1. Maps of all regions are provided in Appendix H.

Conclusions

" General population ETE were computed for 266 unique cases - a combination of 19 unique Evacuation Regions and 14 unique Evacuation Scenarios. Table 7-1 and Table 7-2 document these ETE for the 901h and 100th percentiles. These ETE range from 1:30 (hr:min) to 2:45 (slightly higher for snow) at the 90th percentile.

• Inspection of Table 7-1 and Table 7-2 indicates that the ETE for the 100th percentile are significantly longer than those for the 9 0 th percentile. This is the result of the long trip generation "tail". As these stragglers mobilize, the aggregate rate of egress slows since many vehicles have already left the EPZ. Towards the end of the process, relatively few evacuation routes service the remaining demand. See Figures 7-8 through 7-21.

• Inspection of Table 7-3 and Table 7-4 indicates that a staged evacuation provides no Point Beach Nuclear Plant ES-4 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. I

benefits to evacuees from within the 5 mile region (compare Regions R02 through R09 with Regions R17 and RiO through R16, respectively, in Tables 7-1 and 7-2). See Section 7.6 for additional discussion.

" Comparison of Scenarios 6 (winter, midweek, midday) and 13 (winter, midweek, midday, special event) in Table 7-2 indicates that the special event does not materially affect the ETE. See Section 7.5 for additional discussion.

• Comparison of Scenarios 1 and 14 in Table 7-1 indicates that the roadway closure - one southbound lane on SR 42 South/Memorial Dr- Increases the 9 0 th and 1 0 0 th percentile ETE for all regions including Two Rivers by 45 and 25 minutes respectively. Winds toward the south carry the plume over Two Rivers, which routes traffic onto SR 42/Memorial Dr southbound. With one lane closed, the capacity of SR 42/Memorial Dr is reduced to half, increasing congestion and prolonging ETE. The roadway closure has no effect on regions which do not involve the evacuation of Two Rivers.

" Two Rivers is the only congested area during an evacuation. SR 310 and SR 42/Memorial Dr are the primary evacuation routes out of this city and congested during the first 3 hours3.472222e-5 days <br />8.333333e-4 hours <br />4.960317e-6 weeks <br />1.1415e-6 months <br /> after the Advisory to Evacuate. See Section 7.3 and Figures 7-3 through 7-7.

• Separate ETE were computed for schools, medical facilities, transit-dependent persons and homebound special needs persons. The average single-wave ETE for schools, medical facilities, transit dependents and homebound special needs persons are within a similar range as the general population ETE at the 90th percentile. See Section 8.

• Table 8-5 indicates that there are enough buses and wheelchair accessible vans and ambulances available to evacuate the transit-dependent population within the EPZ in a single wave.

• The general population ETE at the 90th percentile is insensitive to reductions in the base trip generation time of 3 hours3.472222e-5 days <br />8.333333e-4 hours <br />4.960317e-6 weeks <br />1.1415e-6 months <br />, 30 minutes. The general population ETE at the 1 0 0 th percentile, however, closely mirrors trip generation time. See Table M-1.

• The general population ETE is insensitive to the voluntary evacuation of vehicles in the Shadow Region (tripling the shadow evacuation percentage results in no change in the 9 0 th percentile ETE). See Table M-2.

" An increase in permanent resident population of 30% or more, or a decrease in population of 40% or more results in ETE changes which meet the NRC criteria for updating ETE between decennial Censuses. See Section M.3.

Point Beach Nuclear Plant ES-5 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. I

Figure 6-1. PBNP EPZ Subareas Point Beach Nuclear Plant ES-6 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 1

Table 3-1. EPZ Permanent Resident Population 5 4,096 3,794 1ON 1,030 1,044 1ONW 563 544 lOS 14,128 13,168 lOSW 1,057 1,074 lOW 1,352 1,330 EPZ Population -5.72%

Growth:

Point Beach Nuclear Plant ES-7 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 1

Table 6-1. Description of Evacuation Regions I N/A I 5-Mile Ring Refer to Region R01 R02 Full EPZ Evacuate 2-Mile Radius and Downwind to 5-Mile Radius R03 NNW,RNNE R06R0 NE, EENE R07 ESE, SE R08 SSE R09 S, SSW N/A SW, WSW, W, WNW, NW Refer to Region RO0 Staged Evacuation 5-Mile Radius Evacuates, then Evacuate Downwind to the EPZ Boundary

- 40er R10 NNW, N R12 NE, ENE R13 E R14 ESE, SE -

RI5 SSE R16 S, SSW N/A SW, WSW, W, WNW, NW Refer to Region RO0 R17 Full EPZ Subarea(s) Shelter-in-Place KID Engineering, P.C.

Point Beach Nuclear Plant ES-8 ES-8 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 1

Table 6-2. Evacuation Scenario Definitions 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 7 Winter Midweek Midday Rain None 8 Winter Midweek Midday Snow None 9 Winter Weekend Midday Good None 10 Winter Weekend Midday Rain None 11 Winter Weekend Midday Snow None 12 Winter Midweek, Weekend Evening Good None Plant outage at 13 Winter Midweek Midday Good Kewaunee Power Station Roadway Impact -

14 Summer Midweek Midday Good Close SB lane on SR 42 I Winter means that school is in session (also applies to spring and autumn). Summer means that school is not in session.

Point Beach Nuclear Plant ES-9 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 1

Table 7-1. Time to Clear the Indicated Area of 90 Percent of the Affected Population Summer Summer Lsummer Winter Winter Winter Winter Summer Miwekj Weed MdekMdekWeedMdekMidweek Midweek Weekend Weekend Midday Midday Evening Midday Midday Evening Midday Midday Region Goo Rain Good Rain Good Good Rain Snow Good I Rain Snow Good Special Roadway IWeather -Weather IWeather Weather IIWeather IIWeather Event Impact Entire 5-Mile Region, and EPZ R01 1:40 1 1:40 1:30 1:30 1:35 1:45 1 1:45 2:10 1:35 1:35 2:10 1:35 1:35 1:40 RO2 2:25 I 2:35 1 2:25 j 2:35 [ 2:25 [ 2:20 2:30 I 2:55 I 2:20 2:35 2:55 I 2:20 2:15 I 3:00 5-Mile Region and Keyhole to EPZ Boundary R03 2:25 2:40 2:30 2:45 2:25 2:20 2:40 2:55 2:25 2:40 3:00 2:20 2:25 3:10 R04 2:25 2:35 2:25 2:45 2:25 2:25 2:35 2:50 2:20 2:35 2:55 2:20 2:20 3:10 ROS 2:25 2.35 2:25 2:35 2:25 2:20 2:35 2:55 2:25 2:35 2:55 2:20 2:20 3:05 R06 1:50 1:50 1:40 1:40 1:40 1:50 1:55 2:20 1:40 1:45 2:15 1:45 1:50 1:50 R07 1:50 1:50 1:35 1:40 1:40 1:50 1:50 2:20 1:40 1:40 2:15 1:40 1:45 1:50 R08 1:45 1:45 1:35 1:35 1:35 1:50 1:50 2:15 1:35 1:40 2:10 1:40 1:45 1:45 R09 1:45 1:45 1:35 1:35 1:35 1:45 1:45 2:15 1:35 1:35 2:10 1:40 1:40 1:45 Staged Evacuation Mile Region and Keyhole to EPZ Boundary R10 3:00 3:10 2:55 3:05 2:55 3:00 3:10 3:50 2:55 3:05 3:55 3:'00 3:00 3:30 R11 3:00 3:05 2:55 3:00 2:55 3:00 3:10 3:45 2:55 3:05 3:45 2:55 3:00 3:30 R12 3:00 3:05 2:50 3:00 2:55 3:00 3:10 3:45 2:55 3:00 3:45 2:55 2:55 3:25 R13 2:00 2:00 2:00 2:00 2:00 2:00 2:00 2:30 2:00 2:00 2:30 2:00 2:00 2:00 R14 2:00 2:00 2:00 2:00 2:00 2:00 2:00 2:30 2:00 2:00 2:30 2:00 2:00 2:00 R15 1:55 2:00 1:55 1:55 1:55 2:00 2:00 2:30 2:00 2:00 2:30 2:00 1:55 1:55 R16 1:55 1:55 1:55 1:55 1:55 1:55 1:55 2:25 1:55 1:55 2:25 1:55 1:55 1:55 R17 3:00 3:05 2:50 3:00 2:50 2:55 3:10 3:45 2:50 3:00 3:40 2:50 2:55 3:25 PBNP Specific Regions Ri 12:25 12:35 12:25 2:35 2:25 2:20 2:35 2:55 2:25 2:35 2:55 12:20 2:20 3:05 R19 I1:50 1:50 1:40 1:40 1:40 1:55 11:55 12:20 1:40 1:45 2:15 1:45 1:50 1:50 P.C.1 Rev.

KLD Engineering, Point Beach Nuclear Plant ES-10 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Evacuation Time Time Estimate Rev. 1

Table 7-2. Time to Clear the Indicated Area of 100 Percent of the Affected Population Summer Summer Summer Winter Winter Winter Winter ummer Midweek Midweek Midweek Weekend Weekend Midweek EPe Weekend Midweek Midweek-Midday Midday Evening Midday Midday Evening Midday Midday Region Good Rain Rin Good Good Rain Snow Good Ri Snw Good Special Roadway WahWeather etr Ran Weather Weather. Weather Ri Snw Weather Event Impact Entire 5-Mile Region, and EPZ ROI 3:35 3:35 3:35 13:35 13:35 J3:35 13:35 4:20 13:35 3:35 4:20 3:35 3:35 3:35 R02 3:40 3:40 3:40 3:40 / 3:40 3:40 J 3:40 4:25 1 3:40 3:40 4:25 [ 3:40 3:40 4:00 5-Mile Region and Keyhole to EPZ Boundary R03 3:40 3:40 3:40 3:40 3:40 3:40 3:40 4:25 3:40 3:40 4:25 3:40 3:40 4:05 R04 3:40 3:40 3:40 3:40 3:40 3:40 3:40 4:25 3:40 3:40 4:25 3:40 3:40 4:00 R05 3:40 3:40 3:40 3:40 3:40 3:40 3:40 4:25 3:40 3:40 4:25 3:40 3:40 4:05 R06 3:40 3:40 3:40 3:40 3:40 3:40 3:40 4:25 3:40 3:40 4:25 3:40 3:40 3:40 R07 3:40 3:40 3:40 3:40 3:40 3:40 3:40 4:25 3:40 3:40 4:25 3:40 3:40 3:40 R08 3:40 3:40 3:40 3:40 3:40 3:40 3:40 4:25 3:40 3:40 4:25 3:40 3:40 3:40 R09 3:40 3:40 3:40 3:40 3:40 3:40 3:40 4:25 3:40 3:40 4:25 3:40 3:40 3:40 Staged Evacuation Mile Region and Keyhole to EPZ Boundary RIO 3:50 4:00 3:50 3:50 3:45 3:50 4:00 4:40 3:45 3:55 4:30 3:45 3:50 4:15 R11 3:50 4:00 3:50 3:50 3:45 3:55 4:00 4:35 3:45 3:50 4:25 3:45 3:55 4:20 R12 3:50 3:55 3:50 3:55 3:45 3:55 4:00 4:35 3:45 3:50 4:25 3:45 3:55 4:20 R13 3:40 3:40 3:40 3:40 3:40 3:40 3:40 4:25 3:40 3:40 4:25 3:40 3:40 3:40 R14 3:40 3:40 3:40 3:40 3:40 3:40 3:40 4:25 3:40 3:40 4:25 3:40 3:40 3:40 R15 3:40 3:40 3:40 3:40 3:40 3:40 3:40 4:25 3:40 3:40 4:25 3:40 3:40 3:40 R16 3:40 3:40 3:40 3:40 3:40 3:40 3:40 4:25 3:40 3:40 4:25 3:40 3:40 3:40 R17 3:50 3:50 3:50 3:55 3:45 3:55 4:00 4:35 3:45 3:45 4:25 3:45 3:55 4:20 PBNP Specific Regions R19 3:40 3:40 3:40 3:40 3:40 3:40 1 3:40 4:2:25  : 3:40 3:40 4:00 R19 3:40 3:40 3:40 3:40 3:40 3:40 3:40 4:25 3:40 3:40 4:25 3:40 3:40 3:40 Point Beach Nuclear Plant ES-11 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 1

Table 7-3. Time to Clear 90 Percent of the 5-Mile Area within the Indicated Region Summer Summer Summer Winter Winter Winter Winter Summer Midweek Weekend Midweek Midweek Weekend Midweek Midweek Midweek Weekend Weekend Midday Midday Evening Midday Midday Evening Midday Midday Region Good Rain Good R Good Good Rain Snow Good Good Special Roadway Weather Weather Rain Weather Weather S Weather Sno Weather Event Impact Entire S-Mile Region, and EPZ R~l 1:40 1:40 1:30 1:30 113S11:4S5 1:451 2:1011:35 1:3S 2:1011:3511:3511:40 R02 1:40 1:40 1:30 1:35 1:35 1:45 1:45 2:15 1 1:35 1:35 2:10 J 1:40 1:40 1:40 Unstaged Evacuation Mile Region and Keyhole to EPZ Boundary R03 1:40 1:40 1:30 1:30 1:35 1:45 1:45 2:10 1:35 1:35 2:10 1:35 1:40 1:40 R04 1:40 1:40 1:30 1:35 1:35 1:45 1:45 2:10 1:35 1:35 2:10 1:40 1:40 1:40 ROS 1:40 1:40 1:30 1:35 1:35 1:45 1:45 2:10 1:35 1:35 2:10 1:40 1:40 1:40 R06 1:40 1:40 1:30 1:30 1:35 1:45 1:45 2:10 1:35 1:35 2:10 1:35 1:40 1:40 R07 1:40 1:40 1:30 1:30 1:35 1:45 1:45 2:10 1:35 1:35 2:10 1:35 1:40 1:40 ROB 1:40 1:40 1:30 1:30 1:35 1:45 1:45 2:10 1:35 1:35 2:10 1:35 1:40 1:40 RO 1:40 1:40 1:30 1:30 1:35 1:45 1:45 2:10 1:35 1:35 2:10 1:35 1.40 1:40 Staged Evacuation Mile Region and Keyhole to EPZ Boundary R1O 1:45 1:45 1:35 1:35 1.40 1:50 1:50 2:15 1:40 1:40 2:15 1:45 1:40 1:45 R11 1:45 1:45 1:40 1:40 1:45 1:50 1:50 2:20 1:45 1:45 2:15 1:45 1:45 1:45 R1Z 1:50 1:50 1:45 1:45 1:45 1:50 1:50 2:20 1:50 1:50 2:20 1:50 1:45 1:50 R13 1:50 1:50 1:45 1:45 1:45 1:50 1:50 2:20 1:45 1:45 2:20 1:50 1:45 1:50 R14 1:45 1:45 1:40 1:40 1:45 1:50 1:50 2:20 1:45 1:45 2:20 1:50 1:45 1:45 RIS 1:45 1:45 1:35 1:35 1:40 1:45 1:50 2:15 1:40 1:40 2:15 1:45 1:40 1:45 R16 1:40 1:45 1:35 1:35 1:40 1:45 1:45 2:15 1:40 1:40 2:10 1:40 1:40 1:40 R17 1:50 1:50 1:45 1:45 1:50 1:50 1:50 2:20 1:50 1:50 2:20 1:50 1:45 1:50 Point Beach Specific Regions R19 1: 1:40 1:30 1 1:35 1:35 1:45 11:45 12:15 1:35 1:35 2:10 1:40 1:40 1:40 R19 1:440 1:40 1:30 1:30 1:35 1:45 J1:45 J2:10 1:35 1:35 2:10 1:35 1:40 1:40 Point Beach Nuclear Plant ES-12 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 1

Table 7-4. Time to Clear 100 Percent of the S-Mile Area within the Indicated Region Summer Summer Summer Winter Winter Winter Winter Summer Midweek Weekend MdekMidweek Weekend MdekMidweek Midweek Weekend Weekend Midday Midday Evening Midweek_____ Enie5MieRgondnwPZeek_____________________

Midday Midday Evening Midday Midday Region Good Rain Good Ran Good Good Rain Snow Good Rain Snow Good Special Roadway Weather Weather Weather Weather F Entire 5-Mile Region, and EPZ Weather Weather Event Impact 001 J 3:3 3:35 f3:35 3:35 J3:35 3:35 1 3:35 1 4:20 13:35 3:35 4:20 3:35 J3:35 3:35 R02 3:35 3:35 3:35 3:35 3:35 3:35 3:35 4:20 3:35 3:35 4:20 3:35 3:35 3:35 5-Mile Region and Keyhole to EPZ Boundary R03 3:35 3:35 3:35 3:35 3:35 335 3:35 4:20 3:35 3:35 4:20 3:35 3:35 3:35 R04 3:35 3:35 3:35 3:35 3:35 3:35 3:35 4:20 3:35 3:35 4:20 3:35 3:35 3:35 ROS 3:35 3:35 3:35 3:35 3:35 3:35 3:35 4:20 3:35 3:35 4:20 3:35 3:35 3:35 R06 3:35 3:35 3:35 3:35 3:35 3:35 3:35 4:20 3:35 3:35 4:20 3:35 3:35 3:35 R07 3:35 3:35 33 3:35 3:35 3:35 3:35 4:20 3:35 3:35 4:20 3:35 3:35 3:35 R08 3:35 3:35 3:35 3:35 3:35 3:35 3:35 4:20 3:35 3:35 4:20 3:35 3:35 3:35 R09 3:35 3:35 3:35 3.35 3:35 3:35 3:35 4:20 3:35 3:35 4:20 3:35 3:35 3:35 Staged Evacuation Mile Region and Keyhole to EPZ Boundary R10 3:35 3:35 3:35 3.35 3:35 3:35 3:35 4:20 3:35 3:35 4:20 3:35 3:35 3:35 R11 3:35 3:35 3:35 3:35 3:35 3:35 3:35 4:20 3:35 3:35 4:20 3:35 3:35 3:35 RfL 3:35 3:35 3:35 3:35 3:35 3:35 3:35 4:20 3:35 3:35 4:20 3:35 3:35 3:35 R13 3:35 3:35 3:35 3:35 3:35 3:35 3:35 4:20 3:35 3:35 4:20 3:35 3:35 3:35 R14 3:35 3:35 3:35 3:35 3:35 3:35 3:35 4:20 3:35 3:35 4:20 3:35 3:35 3:35 R15 3:35 3:35 3:35 3:35 3:35 3:35 3:35 4:20 3:35 3:35 4:20 3:35 3:35 3:35 R16 3:35 3:35 3:35 3:35 3:35 3:35 3:35 4:20 3:35 3:35 4:20 3:35 3:35 3:35 R17 3:35 3:35 3:35 3:35 3:35 3:35 3:35 4:20 3:35 3:35 4:20 3:35 3:35 3:35 Point Beach Specific Regions RILS 3:35 3:35 3:35 3:35 3:35 3:35 3:35 4:20 3:35 3:35 4:20 3:35 3:35 3:35 R19 3:35 3:35 3:35 3:35 3:35 3:35 3:35 1 4:20 3:35 3:35 4:20 3:35 3:35 3:35 Point Beach Nuclear Plant ES-13 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 1

Table 8-7. School Evacuation Time Estimates - Good Weather Children's House ot Manitowoc 9U 15 0 8.7 12 Creative Kids Club 90 15 6.7 10.6 38 14.1 19 Creative Learning Child Enrichment 90 15 5.4 10.4 32 11.0 15 Center East Twin Lutheran School 90 15 6.2 49.3 8 17.1 23 Good Shepherd Lutheran Church 90 15 5.8 10.6 33 11.0 15 Koenig Elementary School 90 15 2.4 7.0 21 8.7 12 L.B. Clarke Middle School 90 15 6.2 11.2 34 8.9 12 Magee Elementary School 90 15 5.1 7.3 43 8.7 12 Mishicot High School 90 15 6.6 48.1 9 17.1 23 Mishicot Middle School 90 15 6.6 48.1 9 17.1 23 Schultz Elementary School 90 15 6.6 45.8 9 17.1 23 St. John's Lutheran School 90 15 5.6 10.4 33 8.9 12 St. Peter the Fisherman School 90 15 5.0 10.4 29 8.7 12 Tiny Tots Child Care Services 90 15 5.2 33.9 10 11.0 15 Tiny Treasures Christian Child 90 15 6.3 33.2 12 11.0 15 Two Rivers High School 90 15 5.2 8.7 12 Maximum-Aveage:

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

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 1

Table 8-11. Transit-Dependent Evacuation Time Estimates - Good Weather Point Beach Nuclear Plant ES-15 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 1

Figure H-8. Region R08 Point Beach Nuclear Plant ES-16 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 1

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

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

• Criteria for Development of Evacuation Time Estimate Studies, NUREG/CR-7002, November 2011.

Criteria for Preparation and Evaluation of Radiological Emergency Response Plans and Preparedness in Support of Nuclear Power Plants, NUREG 0654/FEMA REP 1, Rev. 1, November 1980.

Analysis of Techniques for Estimating Evacuation Times for Emergency Planning Zones, NUREG/CR 1745, November 1980.

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

The work effort reported herein was supported and guided by local stakeholders who contributed suggestions, critiques, and the local knowledge base required. Table 1-1 presents a summary of stakeholders and interactions.

Table 1-1. Stakeholder Interaction NextEra Energy emergency planning personnel Meetings to define data requirements and set up contacts with local government agencies Kewaunee County Department of Emergency Meetings to define data requirements and set up Management contacts with local government agencies. Obtain local emergency plans, special facility data, major Manitowoc County Division of Emergency Services employment data Wisconsin Department of Military Affairs Division Obtain state emergency plan of Emergency Management Local and State Police Agencies Obtain existing traffic management plans 1.1 Overview of the ETE Process The following outline presents a brief description of the work effort in chronological sequence:

1. Information Gathering:

Point Beach Nuclear Plant 1-1 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 1

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

b. Attended meetings with emergency planners from the Wisconsin Department of Military Affairs Division of Emergency Management, Kewaunee County Department of Emergency Management, and Manitowoc County Division of Emergency Services to identify issues to be addressed and resources available.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

5. Used existing subareas 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 "key-hole section" within the EPZ as recommended by NUREG/CR-7002.

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

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

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

Point Beach Nuclear Plant 1-2 KLD Engineering. P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 1

b. Applied the procedures specified in the 2010 Highway Capacity Manual (HCM1) to the data acquired during the field survey, to estimate the capacity of all highway segments comprising the evacuation routes.

c. Developed the link-node representation of the evacuation network, which is used as the basis for the computer analysis that calculates the ETE.

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

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

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

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

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

1.2 The Point Beach Nuclear Plant Location The PBNP is located along the shores of Lake Michigan in the town of Two Creeks in Manitowoc County, Wisconsin. The site is approximately 30 miles southeast of Green Bay, Wl. The Emergency Planning Zone (EPZ) consists of parts of Kewaunee, and Manitowoc Counties in Wisconsin. Figure 1-1 displays the area surrounding the PBNP. This map identifies the communities in the area and the major roads.

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

Point Beach Nuclear Plant 1-3 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 1

Figure 1-1. Point Beach Nuclear Plant Location Point Beach Nuclear Plant 1-4 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 1

1.3 Preliminary Activities These activities are described below.

Field Surveys of the Highway Network KLD personnel drove the entire highway system within the EPZ and the Shadow Region which consists of the area between the EPZ boundary and approximately 15 miles radially from the plant. The characteristics of each section of highway were recorded. These characteristics are shown in Table 1-2:

Table 1-2. Highway Characteristics

" Number of lanes

• Posted speed

• Lane width 0 Actual free speed

• Shoulder type & width 0 Abutting land use

• Interchange geometries 0 Control devices

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

• Geometrics: curves, grades (>4%) 0 Traffic signal type

• Unusual characteristics: Narrow bridges, sharp curves, poor pavement, flood warning signs, inadequate delineations, toll booths, etc.

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 15-7 in the HCM 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 two-lane highways. Exhibit 15-30 in the HCM shows little sensitivity for the estimates of Service Volumes at Level of Service (LOS) E (near capacity), with respect to FFS, for two-lane highways.

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

As documented on page 15-5 of the HCM 2010, the capacity of a two-lane highway is 1700 passenger cars per hour in one direction. For freeway sections, a value of 2250 vehicles per hour per lane is assigned, as per Exhibit 11-17 of the HCM 2010. The road survey has identified several segments which are characterized by adverse geometrics on two-lane 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 Exhibit 15-30. These links may be Point Beach Nuclear Plant 1-5 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 1

identified by reviewing Appendix K. Link capacity is an input to DYNEV II which computes the ETE. Further discussion of roadway capacity is provided in Section 4 of this report.

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

These detectors are typically magnetic loops in the roadway, or video cameras mounted on the signal masts and pointed toward the intersection approaches. If detectors were observed on the approaches to a signalized intersection during the road survey, detailed signal timings were not collected as the timings vary with traffic volume. TCPs 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 pre-timed, 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/CR-7002 guidance.

Figure 1-2 presents the link-node 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 1-2 to clarify the figure. The detailed figures provided in Appendix K depict the analysis network with directional arrows shown and node numbers provided. The observations made during the field survey were used to calibrate the analysis network.

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

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

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

This database was also referenced to estimate the number of transit-dependent 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).

Point Beach Nuclear Plant 1-6 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 1

Figure 1-2. PBNP Link-Node Analysis Network Point Beach Nuclear Plant 1-7 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 1

DYNEV II consists of four sub-models:

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

" A Trip Distribution (TD), model that assigns a set of candidate destination (D) nodes for each "origin" (0) located within the analysis network, where evacuation trips are 1igenerated" over time. This establishes a set of O-D tables.

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

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

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

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

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

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

• NUREG/CR-4873 - Benchmark Study of the I-DYNEV Evacuation Time Estimate Computer Code

• NUREG/CR-4874 - The Sensitivity of Evacuation Time Estimates to Changes in Input Parameters for the I-DYNEV 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 Point Beach Nuclear Plant 1-8 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 1

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

1.4 Comparison with Prior ETE Study Table 1-3 presents a comparison of the present ETE study with the 2005 study. The major factors contributing to the differences between the ETE values obtained in this study and those of the previous study can be summarized as follows:

0 A slight decrease in permanent resident population.

0 Vehicle occupancy and Trip-generation rates are based on the results of a telephone survey of EPZ residents.

S Voluntary and shadow evacuations are considered.

0 The highway representation is far more detailed.

0 Dynamic evacuation modeling.

Table 1-3. ETE Study Comparisons To-ic P eviu T td urn td ArcGIS Software using 2010 US Resident Population 2000 US Census Data; Census blocks; area ratio method Basis Population = 22,886 used.

Population = 20,954 Vehicle occupancy based upon the average number of registered vehicles per household and average household size for each county.

Resident Population It was assumed all vehicles registered to a 2.30 persons/household, 1.22 Vehicle Occupancy household would be used during the evacuating vehicles/household evacuation, yielding: 1.89 persons/vehicle.

Kewaunee County: 2.05 persons/vehicle Manitowoc County: 2.0 persons/vehicle Employee estimates based on information Employee estimates based on Emplyeeestiate basd o infrmaion information provided about major ajor em ployers in EPZ. 1.0 empo r sain e d1.04 mploy provided about m employers in EPZ. 1.04 employees Employee employees/vehicle was used for all major Population employers. per vehicle based on telephone survey results.

Employees = 1,490 Employees = 1,059 Point Beach Nuclear Plant 1-9 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 1

To-ic Prviu Std0urn 0T T td Estimates based upon U.S. Census data and the results of the telephone survey. A total of 373 people who do not have access to Considers 64 homebound special needs a vehicle, requiring 13 buses to Transit-Dependent evacuate. An additional 16 individuals.

Population homebound special needs persons needed special transportation to evacuate (14 required a bus, 2 required a wheelchair-accessible vehicle, none required an ambulance).

Populations and vehicle estimates for parks and recreational facilities based on telephone conversations, Internet searches Transient estimates based upon and available parking spaces along with the information provided about assumption of 4 persons/parking space. transient attractions in EPZ as well Transient as telephone calls to facilities, Population Populations and vehicle estimates for motels supplemented by observations and hotels were based on the following during the road survey and from assumptions: aerial photography.

2 persons/room Transients = 3,773 1 vehicle/room Transients = 880 Special facility population based on Special facility population based information provided by each facility within on information provided by each the EPZ as well as from each county. county within the EPZ.

Special Facility Population = 141 Current census = 181 Special Facilities Wheelchair Bound = 24 Wheelchair Bound = 110 Population Bedridden = 11 Bedridden = 9 It was assumed that all special facility populations would evacuate via bus, van, Buses Required = 7 ambulance, or other suitable means as Wheelchair Vans Required = 55 described in existing response plans. Ambulances Required = 5 School population based on information provided by each county within the EPZ. Schoo pation based on Included in Special Facilities Population. infomaion pve e ach School Population School enrollment = 3,892 county within the EPZ.

School enrollment

= 3,039 Bus capacity of 72 students/bus. Buses required = 59 Point Beach Nuclear Plant 1-10 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 1

I~

Topic Previous ETE Study Current ETE Study Voluntary evacuation from 20 percent of the population within EPZ in areas Not considered within the EPZ, but not within the outside region to be Evacuation Region (see Figure 2-1) evacuated 20% of people outside of the EPZ Shadow Evacuation Not considered within the Shadow Region (see Figure 7-2)

Network Size Not provided 874 links; 585 nodes Field surveys conducted in November 2011. Roads and Roadway Geometric Used data from the prior ETE study. intersections were video archived.

Data Road capacities based on 2000 HCM. Road capacities based on 2010 HCM.

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

50 percent of transit-dependent Ridesharing Not considered persons will evacuate with a neighbor or friend.

Based on residential telephone survey of specific pre-trip mobilization activities:

Trip Generation curves based on a series of Residents with commuters assumptions. Permanent residents evacuate returning leave between 15 and between 30 and 150 minutes after the 210 minutes.

Trip Generation for advisory to evacuate. Residents without commuters Evacuation Employees and transients leave between 30 returning leave between 0 and 180 and 60 minutes. minutes.

Employees and transients leave between 0 and 120 minutes.

All times measured from the Advisory to Evacuate.

Normal, Rain, or Snow. speThe Normal, Rain, or Snow. The capacity and free c ap ai nd fr flow alllinsoi thenetorkare flowsped capacity and free flow speed of all Weather flow speed of all links in the network are links in the network are reduced reduced by 20% in the event of rain and 25% byn10 in the eetworaa nd for now.by 10% in the event of rain and 20% for snow.

Modeling Traffic Software Integrated System (TSIS) DYNEV II System - Version 4.0.8.0 Point Beach Nuclear Plant 1-11 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 1

I. Toi Prviu td urn td 0T Plant outage at Kewaunee Power Station Special Events No special event.

Special Event Population = 800 additional employees 19 Regions (central sector wind direction and each adjacent sector Evacuation Cases 17 Regions and 16 Scenarios producing 272 technique used, in addition to unique cases. PBNP specific PARs) and 14 Scenarios producing 266 unique cases.

ETE reported for 9 0 th and 1 0 0 th Evacuation Time ETE reported for the 1 0 0 th percentile Estimates Reporting population for all regions. Results presented percentile population. Results by Region and Scenario. presented by Region and Scenario.

Winter Weekday Midday, Winter Weekday Midday, Evacuation Time Good Weather: 2:00 Good Weather: 3:40 Estimates for the entire EPZ, 1 0 0 th percentile Summer Weekend, Midday, Summer Weekend, Midday, Good Weather: 2:00 Good Weather: 3:40 Point Beach Nuclear Plant 1-12 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 1

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

2.1 Data Estimates

1. Population estimates are based upon Census 2010 data.

2. Estimates of employees who reside outside the EPZ and commute to work within the EPZ are based upon surveys of major employers in the EPZ.

3. Population estimates at special facilities are based on available data from county emergency management departments and from phone calls to specific facilities.

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

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

6. The relationship between resident population and evacuating vehicles is developed from the telephone survey. Average values of 2.30 persons per household and 1.22 evacuating vehicles per household are used. The relationship between persons and vehicles for transients and employees is as follows:

a. Employees: 1.04 employees per vehicle (telephone survey results) for all major employers.

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

c. Special Event: Additional outage staff at Kewaunee Power Station will use the average employee vehicle occupancy of 1.04 persons per vehicle, taken from the telephone survey results.

Point Beach Nuclear Plant 2-1 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 1

2.2 Study Methodological Assumptions

1. ETE are presented for the evacuation of the 9 0 th and 1 0 0 th percentiles of population for each Region and for each Scenario. The percentile ETE is defined as the elapsed time from the Advisory to Evacuate issued to a specific Region of the EPZ, to the time that Region is clear of the indicated percentile of evacuees. A Region is defined as a group of subareas that is issued an Advisory to Evacuate. A scenario is a combination of circumstances, including time of day, day of week, season, and weather conditions.

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

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

4. Regions are defined by the underlying "keyhole" or circular configurations as specified in Section 1.4 of NUREG/CR-7002. These Regions, as defined, display irregular boundaries reflecting the geography of the subareas included within these underlying configurations. Due to the geographic boundaries of the EPZ, there is no 2-mile region downwind to 10 miles; instead there is a 5-mile region downwind to the EPZ boundary.

5. As indicated in Figure 2-2 of NUREG/CR-7002, 100% of people within the impacted "keyhole" evacuate. 20% of those people within the EPZ, not within the impacted keyhole, will voluntarily evacuate. 20% of those people within the Shadow Region will voluntarily evacuate. See Figure 2-1 for a graphical representation of these evacuation percentages. Sensitivity studies explore the effect on ETE of increasing the percentage of voluntary evacuees in the Shadow Region (see Appendix M).

6. A total of 14 "Scenarios" representing different temporal variations (season, time of day, day of week) and weather conditions are considered. These Scenarios are outlined in Table 2-1.

7. Scenario 14 considers the closure one southbound lane of SR 42 from Columbus St in Two Rivers to the EPZ boundary.

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

'Urbanik, T., et. al. Benchmark Study of the I-DYNEV Evacuation Time Estimate Computer Code, NUREG/CR-4873, Nuclear Regulatory Commission, June, 1988.

Point Beach Nuclear Plant 2-2 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 1

Table 2-1. Evacuation Scenario Definitions 2 Summer Midweek Midday Rain None 3 Summer Weekend Midday Good None 4 Summer Weekend Midday Rain None Midweek, 5 Summer Weekend Evening Good None 6 Winter Midweek Midday Good None 7 Winter Midweek Midday Rain None 8 Winter Midweek Midday Snow None 9 Winter Weekend Midday Good None 10 Winter Weekend Midday Rain None 11 Winter Weekend Midday Snow None Midweek, 12 Winter Weekend Evening Good None Plant outage at 13 Winter Midweek Midday Good Kewaunee Power Station Roadway Impact - Lane 14 Summer Midweek Midday Good Closure on SR 42 SB

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

Point Beach Nuclear Plant 2-3 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 1

5-II I5WUs Rgo isMmks Keyhole: 5-Wes Region & 10 Mfee DownvWi I SEtcd ualon: 5-Mle Region & 10 Mes Dowmwi*d i I* Plant oation W Region to be E-1.Vaua 100%t Evacuation20% Shadolw Evacaton M Oe EvacaeI Figure 2-1. Voluntary Evacuation Methodology Point Beach Nuclear Plant 2-4 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 1

2.3 Study Assumptions

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

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

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

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

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

3. 56 percent of the households in the EPZ have at least 1 commuter; 46 percent of those households with commuters will await the return of a commuter before beginning their evacuation trip, based on the telephone survey results. Therefore 26 percent (56% x 46% = 26%) of EPZ households will await the return of a commuter, prior to beginning their evacuation trip.

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

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

6. Traffic Control Points (TCP) within the EPZ will be staffed over time, beginning at the Advisory to Evacuate. Their number and location will depend on the Region to be evacuated and resources available. The objectives of these TCP are:

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

b. Discourage inadvertent vehicle movements towards the plant.

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

d. Act as local surveillance and communications center.

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

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

Point Beach Nuclear Plant 2-5 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 1

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

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

b. Transport (buses) will evacuate children at day care centers directly to the designated host facility.

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

d. Transit-dependent general population will be evacuated to Reception Centers.

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

f. Bus mobilization time is considered in ETE calculations.

g. Analysis of the number of required round-trips ("waves") of evacuating transit vehicles is presented.

h. Transport of transit-dependent evacuees from reception centers to congregate care centers is not considered in this study.

8. Provisions are made for evacuating the transit-dependent portion of the general population to reception centers by bus, based on the assumption that some of these people will ride-share with family, neighbors, and friends, thus reducing the demand for buses. We assume that the percentage of people who rideshare is 50 percent. This assumption is based upon reported experience for other emergencies 3, and on guidance in Section 2.2 of NUREG/CR-7002.

9. Two types of adverse weather scenarios are considered. Rain may occur for either winter or summer scenarios; snow occurs in winter scenarios only. It is assumed that the rain or snow begins earlier or at about the same time the evacuation advisory is issued.

No weather-related reduction in the number of transients who may be present in the EPZ is assumed. It is assumed that roads are passable and that the appropriate agencies are plowing the roads as they would normally when snowing.

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

The factors applied for the ETE study are based on recent research on the effects of weather on roadway operations 4; the factors are shown in Table 2-2.

3 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 76% (Page 5-10).

4 Agarwal, M. et. Al. Impacts of Weather on Urban Freeway Traffic Flow Characteristics and Facility Capacity, Proceedings of the 2005 Mid-Continent Transportation Research Symposium, August, 2005. The results of this paper are included as Exhibit 10-15 in the HCM 2010.

Point Beach Nuclear Plant 2-6 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 1

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

Table 2-2. Model Adjustment for Adverse Weather Higwa Fre Flow. 8**

Rain 90% 90% No Effect Snow 80% 80% Clear driveway before leaving hon ne (See Figure F-13)

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

Point Beach Nuclear Plant 2-7 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 1

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 double-counting of vehicles.

Appendix E presents much of the source material for the population estimates. Our primary source of population data, the 2010 Census, however, is not adequate for directly estimating some transient groups.

Throughout the year, vacationers and tourists enter the EPZ. These non-residents 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 double-counting people and vehicles must be addressed. For example:

" A resident who works and shops within the EPZ could be counted as a resident, again 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 businesses within the EPZ on a daily basis.

Estimates of the population and number of evacuating vehicles for each of the population groups are presented for each subarea and by polar coordinate representation (population rose). The PBNP EPZ is subdivided into 5 subareas. The EPZ is shown in Figure 3-1.

Point Beach Nuclear Plant 3-1 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 1

3.1 Permanent Residents The primary source for estimating permanent population is the latest U.S. Census data. The average household size (2.30 persons/household - See Figure F-i) and the number of evacuating vehicles per household (1.22 vehicles/household - See Figure F-8) were adapted from the telephone survey results.

Population estimates are based upon Census 2010 data. The estimates are created by cutting the census block polygons by the subarea and EPZ boundaries. A ratio of the original area of each census block and the updated area (after cutting) is multiplied by the total block population to estimate what the population is within the EPZ. This methodology assumes that the population is evenly distributed across a census block. Table 3-1 provides the permanent resident population within the EPZ, by subarea based on this methodology.

The year 2010 permanent resident population is divided by the average household size and then multiplied by the average number of evacuating vehicles per household in order to estimate number of vehicles. Permanent resident population and vehicle estimates are presented in Table 3-1. Figure 3-2 and Figure 3-3 present the permanent resident population and permanent resident vehicle estimates by sector and distance from the PBNP. This "rose" was constructed using GIS software.

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

" Assume 50 percent of all households vacation for a two-week period over the summer.

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

• Assume half of these vacationers leave the area.

On this basis, the permanent resident population would be reduced by 5 percent in the summer and by a lesser amount in the off-season. 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.

Point Beach Nuclear Plant 3-2 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 1

Figure 3-1. Point Beach Nuclear Plant EPZ Point Beach Nuclear Plant 3-3 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 1

Table 3-1. EPZ Permanent Resident Population 5 4,096 3,794 10IN 1,030 1,044 IONW 563 544 lOS 14,128 13,168 10SW 1,057 1,074 loW 1,352 1,330 EPZ Population -.

Growth: -5.72%

Table 3-2. Permanent Resident Population and Vehicles by Subarea S 5 3,794 2,017 10N 1,044 557 10NW 544 287 loS 13,168 6,994 10SW 1,074 572 lOW 1,330 709 Point Beach Nuclear Plant 3-4 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. I

N NNW F-401NNE E78-2-1 211.1 WNW ENE 664-- '

I76 6

0~

953 I WSW , ESE 507 Boundary SSW - - SSE --

671= S F-56 -- 1 N 6,563--r Resident Population Miles Subtotal by Ring Cumulative Total 0-1 24 24 1-2 116 140 0 2-3 278 418 3-4 235 653 W 0 E 4-5 617 1,270 5 -6 1,187 2,457 6-7 1,807 4,264 7-8 2i881 7,145 8-9 6,449 13,594 9-10 5,507 19,101 10 -EPZ 1,853 20,954 Inset Total: 20,954 0 - 2 Miles S Figure 3-2. Permanent Resident Population by Sector Point Beach Nuclear Plant 3-5 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 1

N NNW NNE 4-17

-- 112 -

WNW 353 4 S41 W

144 5S0 924 WSW

• 271 SSW 0_ SSE -"

3,59 S 3N Resident Vehicles Miles Subtotal by Ring Cumulative Total O-1 13 23 1-2 61 74 2 -3 148 222 3-4 125 347 W E 4-5 329 676 5-6 631 1.307 6-7 960 2,267 7-8 2,527 3,794 8-9 3,429 7,223 9-10 2,922 10,145 10 - EPZ 991 11,136 Inset Total: 11,136 0- 2 Miles S Figure 3-3. Permanent Resident Vehicles by Sector Point Beach Nuclear Plant 3-6 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 1

3.2 Shadow Population A portion of the population living outside the evacuation area extending to 15 miles radially from the PBNP (in the Shadow Region) may elect to evacuate without having been instructed to do so. Based upon NUREG/CR-7002 guidance, it is assumed that 20 percent of the permanent resident population, based on U.S. Census Bureau data, in this Shadow Region will elect 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 3-3, Figure 3-4, and Figure 3-5 present estimates of the shadow population and vehicles, by sector.

Table 3-3. Shadow Population and Vehicles by Sector Poplaio Evauain S eo N 3,453 1,836 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 18,901 10,036 SW 3,811 2,023 WSW 1,448 770 W 1,108 591 WNW 1,264 669 NW 690 367 NNW 829 442 Point Beach Nuclear Plant 3-7 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 1

N NNW NNE W--

WNW ENE

-1,264 0

0E w E 1,108 00 W 0

WSW 0 ESE F1,4481 SE

• .. EPZ Boundary to 11 Miles SSW *-.. SSE 18,901 S Shadow Population Miles Subtotal by Ring Cumulative Total EPZ - 11 945 945 11-12 3,341 4,286 12-13 5,366 9,652 13- 14 12.081 21,733 14- 15 9,771 31504 Total: 31,504 Figure 3-4. Shadow Population by Sector Point Beach Nuclear Plant 3-8 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 1

N NNW -1,836 NNE WNW ENE

-669-1 0

W E 00W 0

wsw 0 ESE SE

EPZ ooud.arvto 11 Miles SSW SSE 1T0036 s Shadow Vehicles Miles Subtotal by Ring Cumulative TotalI EPZ- 11 501 501 11-12 1.775 2,276 12-13 2,853 5,129 13 - 14 6,412 11,541 14-15 5,193 16,734 Total: 16,734 Figure 3-5. Shadow Vehicles by Sector Point Beach Nuclear Plant 3-9 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. I

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

Transients may spend less than one day or stay overnight at camping facilities, hotels and motels. The PBNP EPZ has a number of areas and facilities that attract transients, including:

• Lodging Facilities

" Marinas

• Parks and Recreational Areas

" Campgrounds

" Golf Courses Surveys of lodging facilities within the EPZ were conducted to determine the number of rooms, percentage of occupied rooms at peak times, and the number of people and vehicles per room for each facility. These data were used to estimate the number of transients and evacuating vehicles at each of these facilities. A total of 1,407 transients in 784 vehicles are assigned to lodging facilities in the EPZ.

A survey of the Seagull Marina in the EPZ was conducted to determine the average daily attendance and peak season. This data was used to estimate the number of transients and evacuating vehicles at this facility. A total of 58 transients and 38 vehicles are assigned to this marina.

Surveys of the parks and recreational areas within the EPZ were conducted to determine the number of transients visiting each of those places on a typical day. A total of 2,054 transients and 708 vehicles have been assigned to parks and recreational areas within the EPZ.

A survey of the Scheffel's Hideaway Campground in the EPZ was conducted to determine the number of campsites, peak occupancy, and the number of vehicles and people per campsite at this facility. This data was used to estimate the number of evacuating vehicles and transients at this facility. A total of 50 transients and 20 vehicles are assigned to this campground.

Surveys of golf courses were conducted to determine the number of golfers and vehicles at each facility on a typical peak day, and the number of golfers that travel from outside the area.

A total of 204 transients and 85 vehicles are assigned to golf courses within the EPZ.

Appendix E summarizes the transient data that was estimated for the EPZ. Table E-4 presents the number of transients visiting recreational areas, while Table E-5 presents the number of transients at lodging facilities within the EPZ.

Table 3-4 presents transient population and transient vehicle estimates by subarea. Figure 3-6 and Figure 3-7 present these data by sector and distance from the plant.

Point Beach Nuclear Plant 3-10 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 1

Table 3-4. Summary of Transients and Transient Vehicles 5 2,247 944 MON 0 0 IONW 0 0 lOS 1,526 691 10OW 0 0 3-11 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Point Beach Nuclear Plant KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. I

N NNW NNE T-sl 0 .

WNW

'0 WSW 0 EEI '7

--

• 96 Ssw 0 - - - S SE F96-- S 1 N Transients Miles Subtotal by Ring Cumulative Total 01 0 0 12 0 0 2ý3 0 0 3-4 0 0 W E 4- 1,000 1,000 KS-6 0 1,000 6- 7 1,247 2,247 7-8 SO 2,297 8-9 1,188 3,485 9 -10 192 3,677 10 - EPZ 96 3,773 Inset Total: 3,773 0 - 2 Miles S Figure 3-6. Transient Population by Sector KLD Engineering, P.C.

Point Beach Nuclear Plant Beach Nuclear Plant 3-12 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. I

N NNW NNE F-6--

0 1 0 -

WNW

~0 I-W L

WSW

- 48 0

SSW F4-8 S 25-0--1 N

-643-Transient Vehicles Miles Subtotal by Ring Cumulative Total o-i 0 0 1-2 0 0 2-3 0 0 3-4 0 0 W E 4-5 250 250 5 -6 0 250 6-7 694 944

'7-8 20 964 8-9 518 1,482 9- 10 105 1,587 10 - EPZ 48 1,635 Inset Total: 1,635 0- 2 Miles S Figure 3-7. Transient Vehicles by Sector Point Beach Nuclear Plant 3-13 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 1

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

0 Those who live and work in the EPZ 0 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.

In Table E-3, the Employees (Max Shift) is multiplied by the percent Non-EPZ factor to determine the number of employees who are not residents of the EPZ. A vehicle occupancy of 1.04 employees per vehicle obtained from the telephone survey (See Figure F-7) was used to determine the number of evacuating employee vehicles for all major employers.

Table 3-5 presents non-EPZ Resident employee and vehicle estimates by subarea. Figure 3-8 and Figure 3-9 present these data by sector.

Point Beach Nuclear Plant 3-14 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 1

Table 3-5. Summary of Non-EPZ Resident Employees and Employee Vehicles Emloyes Emloye Subara 5 918 882 1ON 0 0 1ONW 0 0 lOS 141 137 10SW 0 0 low 0 0 Point Beach Nuclear Plant 3-15 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 1

N NNW NNE 61-8

- rn0 WNW 0'

W w 0-1 E

WSW 0 SSW - -- - SSE s - N Employees Miles Subtotal by Ring Cumulative Total 0-1 300 300 1-2 0 300 2-3 0 300 3-4 0 300 W E 4-S 618 918 5-6 0 918 6-7 0 918 7-8 33 951 8-9 0 951 9-10 20 971 10-EPZ 88 1,059 Inset Total: 1,059 0 - 2 Miles S Figure 3-8. Employee Population by Sector Point Beach Nuclear Plant 3-16 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 1

N NNW NNE

- o 4- - rn0-

- 0 0 WNW W

~0 WSW 0 SW SSW 0 J - -' SSE -"

",85,$ S N 5E2 ..- r Employee Vehicles Miles Subtotal by Ring Cumulative Total 0-1 288 288 1-2 0 288 2-3 0 288 3-4 0 288 W E 4-5 594 882 5-6 0 882 6-7 0 882 7-8 32 914 8-9 0 914 9-10 20 934 10 - EPZ 85 1,019 Inset Total: 1,019 0 - 2 Miles S Figure 3-9. Employee Vehicles by Sector Point Beach Nuclear Plant 3-17 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 1

3.5 Medical Facilities Data were provided by the counties for each of the medical facilities within the EPZ. Table E-2 in Appendix E summarizes the data gathered. Section 8 details the evacuation of medical facilities and their patients. The number and type of evacuating vehicles that need to be provided depend on the patients' state of health. It is estimated that buses can transport up to 30 people; wheelchair accessible vans, up to 2 people; and ambulances, up to 2 people.

3.6 Total Demand in Addition to Permanent Population Vehicles will be traveling through the study area (external-external trips) at the time of an accident. After the Advisory to Evacuate is announced, these through-travelers will also evacuate. These through vehicles are assumed to travel on the major route traversing the region - 143. It is assumed that this traffic will continue to enter the study area during the first 120 minutes following the Advisory to Evacuate.

Average Annual Daily Traffic (AADT) data was obtained from Federal Highway Administration to estimate the number of vehicles per hour on the aforementioned routes. The AADT was multiplied by the K-Factor, 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 D-Factor, 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 3-6, for each of the routes considered. The DDHV is then multiplied by 2 hours2.314815e-5 days <br />5.555556e-4 hours <br />3.306878e-6 weeks <br />7.61e-7 months <br /> (traffic control points - TCP - are assumed to be activated at 120 minutes after the advisory to evacuate) to estimate the total number of external vehicles loaded on the analysis network. As indicated, there are 4,384 vehicles entering the study area as external-external trips prior to the activation of the TCP and the diversion of this traffic. This number is reduced by 60% for evening scenarios (Scenarios 5 and 12) as discussed in Section 6.

3.7 Special Event Two special events were provided at the project kickoff meeting - an outage at Kewaunee Power Station (KPS) and an outage at PBNP. A plant outage at PBNP requires fewer employees than at KPS; therefore an outage at KPS was selected as the special event (Scenario 13) for the ETE study. Outages may occur in spring (March/April) or fall (September/October) and typically last a month. Data obtained from emergency management personnel at KPS indicate there are 800 additional employees onsite during an outage, of which nearly all commute from outside the EPZ. Using a vehicle occupancy factor of 1.04 obtained from the telephone survey, there area a total of 769 vehicles additional vehicles at the KPS during an outage. The special event vehicle trips were generated utilizing the same mobilization distributions for transients and employees.

Point Beach Nuclear Plant 3-18 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 1

Table 3-6. Point Beach Nuclear Plant EPZ External Traffic ISouth I

8022 22 143 18,901 0.116 0.5 1,096 2,192 2,192 "8311 311 143 INorth 118,901 10.116 0.5 1,096 1

2 Highway Performance Monitoring System (HPMS), Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), Washington, D.C., 2011 HCM 2010 Point Beach Nuclear Plant 3-19 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 1

3.8 Summary of Demand A summary of population and vehicle demand is summarized in Table 3-7 and Table 3-8, respectively. This summary includes all population groups described in this section. Additional population groups - transit-dependent, special facility and school population - are described in greater detail in Section 8. A total of 35,680 people and 21,739 vehicles are considered in this study.

Point Beach Nuclear Plant 3-20 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 1

Table 3-7. Summary of Population Demand 5 3,794 68 2,247 918 0 885 0 0 7,912 ION 1,044 19 0 0 0 0 0 0 1,063 1ONW 544 10 0 0 0 0 0 0 554 lOS 13,168 233 1,526 141 181 2,154 0 0 17,403 1OSW 1,074 19 0 0 0 0 0 0 1,093 lOW 1,330 24 0 0 0 0 0 0 1,354 Shadow 0 0 0 0 0 0 6,301 0 6,301 NOTE: Shadow Population has been reduced to 20%. Reter to Figure 2-1 tor additional intormation.

NOTE: Special Facilities include both medical facilities and correctional facilities.

Point Beach Nuclear Plant 3-21 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 1

Table 3-8. Summary of Vehicle Demand 5 2,017 4 944 882 0 32 0 0 3,879 1ON 557 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 559 1ONW 287 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 287 lOS 6,994 14 691 137 74 86 0 0 7,998 1OSW 572 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 574 lOW 709 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 711 Shadow 0 0 0 0 0 0 3,347 4,384 7,731 NOTE: Buses represented as two passenger vehicles. Reter to Section 8 tor additional intormation.

Point Beach Nuclear Plant 3-22 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 1

4 ESTIMATION OF HIGHWAY CAPACITY The ability of the road network to service vehicle demand is a major factor in determining how rapidly an evacuation can be completed. The capacity of a road is defined as the maximum hourly rate at which persons or vehicles can reasonably be expected to traverse a point or uniform section of a lane of roadway during a given time period under prevailing roadway, traffic and control conditions, as stated in the 2010 Highway Capacity Manual (HCM 2010).

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

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

This distinction is illustrated in Exhibit 11-17 of the HCM 2010. As indicated there, the SV varies with Free Flow Speed (FFS), and LOS. The SV is calculated by the DYNEV II simulation model, based on the specified link attributes, FFS, capacity, control device and traffic demand.

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

" Lane width

• Shoulder width

• Pavement condition

• Horizontal and vertical alignment (curvature and grade)

• Percent truck traffic

" Control device (and timing, if it is a signal)

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

These factors are considered during the road survey and in the capacity estimation process; some factors have greater influence on capacity than others. For example, lane and shoulder width have only a limited influence on Base Free Flow Speed (BFFS 1 ) according to Exhibit 15-7 of the HCM. Consequently, lane and shoulder widths at the narrowest points were observed during the road survey and these observations were recorded, but no detailed measurements of lane or shoulder width were taken. Horizontal and vertical alignment can influence both FFS and capacity. The estimated FFS were measured using the survey vehicle's speedometer and observing local traffic, under free flow conditions. Capacity is estimated from the procedures of 1 A very rough estimate of BFFS might be taken as the posted speed limit plus 10 mph (HCM 2010 Page 15-15)

Point Beach Nuclear Plant 4-1 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 1

the 2010 HCM. For example, HCM Exhibit 7-1(b) shows the sensitivity of Service Volume at the upper bound of LOS D to grade (capacity is the Service Volume at the upper bound of LOS E).

As discussed in Section 2.3, it is necessary to adjust capacity figures to represent the prevailing conditions during inclement weather. Based on limited empirical data, weather conditions such as rain reduce the values of free speed and of highway capacity by approximately 10 percent. Over the last decade new studies have been made on the effects of rain on traffic capacity. These studies indicate a range of effects between 5 and 20 percent depending on wind speed and precipitation rates. As indicated in Section 2.3, we employ a reduction in free speed and in highway capacity of 10 percent and 20 percent for rain and snow, respectively.

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

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

4.1 Capacity Estimations on Approaches to Intersections At-grade 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 traffic control points will often be provided by traffic control personnel assigned for that purpose, whose directions may supersede traffic control devices. The existing traffic management plans documented in the county emergency plans are extensive and were adopted without change.

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

(3600' G-L 3600 Qcap,m (300

'U (G =(I 2 ) XPm where:

Qcap,m = Capacity of a single lane of traffic on an approach, which executes Point Beach Nuclear Plant 4-2 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 1

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

The turn-movement-specific 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, hm = fm(hsat, Fl, F2 .... )

where:

h.5 t = Saturation discharge headway for through vehicles; seconds per vehicle FbF2 = The various known factors influencing hm fM() = Complex function relating hm to the known (or estimated) values of hsat, F1 , F2 ,...

The estimation of hm for specified values of hsat, F1 , F2 , ... is undertaken within the DYNEV II simulation model by a mathematical model 2 . The resulting values for hm always satisfy the condition:

hm Ž- hsat 2Lieberman, 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 4-3 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 1

That is, the turn-movement-specific 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 2010.

The above discussion is necessarily brief given the scope of this ETE report and the complexity of the subject of intersection capacity. In fact, Chapters 18, 19 and 20 in the HCM 2010 address this topic. The factors, F1, F2,..., influencing saturation flow rate are identified in equation (18-5) of the HCM 2010.

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

4.2 Capacity Estimation along Sections of Highway The capacity of highway sections -- as distinct from approaches to intersections -- is a function of roadway geometrics, traffic composition (e.g. percent heavy trucks and buses in the traffic stream) and, of course, motorist behavior. There is a fundamental relationship which relates service volume (i.e. the number of vehicles serviced within a uniform highway section in a given time period) to traffic density. The top curve in Figure 4-1 illustrates this relationship.

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

The value of VF can be expressed as:

VF = R x Capacity where:

R = Reduction factor which is less than unity Point Beach Nuclear Plant 4-4 KILD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 1

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 fall-off in the service flow rate when congestion occurs at "bottlenecks" or "choke points" on a freeway system. Zhang and Levinson 3 describe a research program that collected data from a computer-based surveillance system (loop detectors) installed on the Interstate Highway System, at 27 active bottlenecks in the twin cities metro area in Minnesota over a 7-week period. When flow breakdown occurs, queues are formed which discharge at lower flow rates than the maximum capacity prior to observed breakdown. These queue discharge flow (QDF) rates vary from one location to the next and also vary by day of week and time of day based upon local circumstances. The cited reference presents a mean QDF of 2,016 passenger cars per hour per lane (pcphpl). This figure compares with the nominal capacity estimate of 2,250 pcphpl estimated for the ETE and indicated in Appendix K for freeway links. The ratio of these two numbers is 0.896 which translates into a capacity reduction factor of 0.90.

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

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

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

The estimated value of capacity is based primarily upon the type of facility and on roadway geometrics. Sections of roadway with adverse geometrics are characterized by lower free-flow speeds and lane capacity. Exhibit 15-30 in the Highway Capacity Manual was referenced to estimate saturation flow rates. The impact of narrow lanes and shoulders on free-flow speed and on capacity is not material, particularly when flow is predominantly in one direction as is the case during an evacuation.

The procedure used here was to estimate "section" capacity, VE, based on observations made traveling over each section of the evacuation network, based on the posted speed limits and travel behavior of other motorists and by reference to the 2010 HCM. The DYNEV II simulation model determines for each highway section, represented as a network link, whether its capacity would be limited by the "section-specific" service volume, VE, or by the intersection-specific capacity. For each link, the model selects the lower value of capacity.

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

Point Beach Nuclear Plant 4-5 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 1

4.3 Application to the Point Beach Nuclear Plant Study Area As part of the development of the link-node analysis network for the study area, an estimate of roadway capacity is required. The source material for the capacity estimates presented herein is contained in:

2010 Highway Capacity Manual (HCM)

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

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

" Two-Lane roads: Local, State

" Multi-Lane Highways (at-grade)

• Freeways Each of these classifications will be discussed.

4.3.1 Two-Lane Roads Ref: HCM Chapter 15 Two lane roads comprise the majority of highways within the EPZ. The per-lane capacity of a two-lane highway is estimated at 1700 passenger cars per hour (pc/h). This estimate is essentially independent of the directional distribution of traffic volume except that, for extended distances, the two-way capacity will not exceed 3200 pc/h. The HCM procedures then estimate Level of Service (LOS) and Average Travel Speed. The DYNEV II simulation model accepts the specified value of capacity as input and computes average speed based on the time-varying demand: capacity relations.

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

" Most sections of two-lane roads within the EPZ are classified as "Class I", with "level terrain"; some are "rolling terrain".

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

4.3.2 Multi-Lane Highway Ref: HCM Chapter 14 Exhibit 14-2 of the HCM 2010 presents a set of curves that indicate a per-lane capacity ranging from approximately 1900 to 2200 pc/h, for free-speeds of 45 to 60 mph, respectively. Based on observation, the multi-lane highways outside of urban areas within the EPZ service traffic with free-speeds in this range. The actual time-varying speeds computed by the simulation model reflect the demand: capacity relationship and the impact of control at intersections. A Point Beach Nuclear Plant 4-6 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 1

conservative estimate of per-lane capacity of 1900 pc/h is adopted for this study for multi-lane highways outside of urban areas, as shown in Appendix K.

4.3.3 Freeways Ref: HCM Chapters 10, 11, 12, 13 Chapter 10 of the HCM 2010 describes a procedure for integrating the results obtained in Chapters 11, 12 and 13, which compute capacity and LOS for freeway components. Chapter 10 also presents a discussion of simulation models. The DYNEV I simulation model automatically performs this integration process.

Chapter 11 of the HCM 2010 presents procedures for estimating capacity and LOS for "Basic Freeway Segments". Exhibit 11-17 of the HCM 2010 presents capacity vs. free speed estimates, which are provided below.

Free Speed (mph): 55 60 65 70+

Per-Lane Capacity (pc/h): 2250 2300 2350 2400 The inputs to the simulation model are highway geometrics, free-speeds and capacity based on field observations. The simulation logic calculates actual time-varying speeds based on demand:

capacity relationships. A conservative estimate of per-lane capacity of 2250 pc/h is adopted for this study for freeways, as shown in Appendix K.

Chapter 12 of the HCM 2010 presents procedures for estimating capacity, speed, density and LOS for freeway weaving sections. The simulation model contains logic that relates speed to demand volume: capacity ratio. The value of capacity obtained from the computational procedures detailed in Chapter 12 depends on the "Type" and geometrics of the weaving segment and on the "Volume Ratio" (ratio of weaving volume to total volume).

Chapter 13 of the HCM 2010 presents procedures for estimating capacities of ramps and of "merge" areas. There are three significant factors to the determination of capacity of a ramp-freeway junction: The capacity of the freeway immediately downstream of an on-ramp or immediately upstream of an off-ramp; 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 13-8 of the HCM 2010, and depend on the number of freeway lanes and on the freeway free speed. Ramp capacity is presented in Exhibit 13-10 and is a function of the ramp free flow speed. The DYNEV II simulation model logic simulates the merging operations of the ramp and freeway traffic in accord with the procedures in Chapter 13 of the HCM 2010. If congestion results from an excess of demand relative to capacity, then the model allocates service appropriately to the two entering traffic streams and produces LOS F conditions (The HCM does not address LOS F explicitly).

Point Beach Nuclear Plant 4-7 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. I

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

The simulation model explicitly models intersections: Stop/yield controlled intersections (both 2-way and all-way) 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 time-varying demands of evacuation traffic to adjust the relative capacities of the competing intersection approaches.

The model is also capable of modeling the presence of manned traffic control. At 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, contra-flow lanes) is used, the strategy is modeled explicitly. Where applicable, the location and type of traffic control for nodes in the evacuation network are noted in Appendix K. The characteristics of the ten highest volume signalized intersections are detailed in Appendix J.

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

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

This statement succinctly describes the analyses required to determine traffic operations across an area encompassing an EPZ operating under evacuation conditions. The model utilized for this study, DYNEV II, is further described in Appendix C. It is essential to recognize that simulation models do not replicate the methodology and procedures of the HCM - they replace these procedures by describing the complex interactions of traffic flow and computing Measures of Effectiveness (MOE) detailing the operational performance of traffic over time and by location. The DYNEV II simulation model includes some HCM 2010 procedures only for the purpose of estimating capacity.

All simulation models must be calibrated properly with field observations that quantify the performance parameters applicable to the analysis network. Two of the most important of Point Beach Nuclear Plant 4-8 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 1

these are: (1) Free flow speed (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 2010, as described earlier. These parameters are listed in Appendix K, for each network link.

Point Beach Nuclear Plant 4-9 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 1

Volume, vph Qmax-----

RQmax-Density, vpm

• £iQ~4~eIIII~

Speed, mph:

4-s Free :

I Forced~

I I

• I I I I I Vf I I I I R v, I I

I I

I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I b Density, vpm Figure 4-1. Fundamental Diagrams Point Beach Nuclear Plant 4-10 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 1