Text

Kld TR-481, Rev. 2, Perry Nuclear Power Plant Development of Evacuation Time Estimates, Part 1 of 6
	ML13007A115
Person / Time
Site:	Perry
Issue date:	10/31/2012
From:	; KLD Engineering, PC
To:	; Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
References
	L-12-441 KLD TR-481, Rev 2
	Download: ML13007A115 (79)
	v • d • e

Enclosure C L-12-441 Perry Nuclear Power Plant Development of Evacuation Time Estimates (453 Pages Follow)

Perry Nuclear Power Plant Development of Evacuation Time Estimates Work performed for FirstEnergy, by: KLD Engineering, P.C.43 Corporate Drive Hauppauge, NY 11788 mailto:kweinischC~kldcompanies.com October 2012 Final Report, Rev. 2 KLD TR -481 SIGNATURE LIST Energy Nuclear 9ý6eratý&

company Manager Fleet, EmAgencfPreparedness m FfrstEnergy Nuclear Operating Company Manager Perry, Emergency Response--Date Date De Ohlo State Emergency Management Office Lake~puh m ncy Management Agenc.-eauga county Departme...t .f E.gency Man agem-ent Services Date Ashtabula(lnty Emergency Management Agency Perry Nciiear Power Plant -Evacuatfon Time Estimate Date KLD Enoineering, P.C Rev. 2 lc c 4--/ 1-1 Id /17 KD Engineering, P.C -Lead Analyst KID Engineering, P.C -Senior Project Manager Date Perry Nuudear Power Plant Evacuation lime Esimate KLD Engineering, P.C.Rev. 2 Table of Contents 1 INTRODUCTION

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

1-1 1.1 Overview of the ETE Process ......................................................................................................

1-2 1.2 The Perry Nuclear Pow er Plant Location ...................................................................................

1-3 1.3 Prelim inary Activities

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

1-5 1.4 Com parison w ith Prior ETE Study ..............................................................................................

1-8 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 m ary of Dem and ...............................................................................................................

3-19 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 Highw ay ........................................................................

4-4 4.3 Application to the PNPP Study Area ..........................................................................................

4-6 4.3.1 Tw o-Lane Roads .................................................................................................................

4-6 4.3.2 M ulti-Lane Highw ay ...........................................................................................................

4-6 4.3.3 Freew ays ............................................................................................................................

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 ates (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 8.1 Transit Dependent People Dem and Estim ate ...........................................................................

8-2 Perry Nuclear Power Plant i KLD Engineering, P.C.Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 2

8.2 School

Population

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

8-4 8.3 Special 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 8.6 Correctional Facilities

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

8-13 9 TRAFFIC M ANAGEM ENT STRATEGY ...................................................................................................

9-1 10 EVACUATION ROUTES ......................................................................................................................

10-1 11 SURVEILLANCE OF EVACUATION OPERATIONS

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

11-1 12 CONFIRM ATION TIM E ......................................................................................................................

12-1 List of Appendicies A. GLOSSARY OF TRAFFIC ENGINEERING TERM S ...............................................................................

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

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

C-i C. M M ethodology

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

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

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

C-S C.1.3 Lane Assignm ent ..............................................................................................................

C-12 C.2 Im plem entation .......................................................................................................................

C-12 C.2.1 Com putational Procedure

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

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

C-15 D. DETAILED DESCRIPTION OF STUDY PROCEDURE

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

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

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

F-1 F.1 Introduction

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

F-1 F.2 Survey Instrum ent and Sam pling Plan .......................................................................................

F-2 F.3 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 Attachm ent A: Telephone Survey Instrum ent .....................................................................................

F-14 G. TRAFFIC M ANAGEM ENT PLAN ......................................................................................................

G-1 G.1 Traffi c Control Points ................................................................................................................

G-1 G.2 Access Control Points ................................................................................................................

G-2 H. EVACUATION REGIONS .....................................................................................................................

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

J-1 K. EVACUATION ROADW AY NETW ORK .............................................................................................

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 M .4 Effects on the ETE of Im plem enting Suggested TCP ................................................................

M -5 N. ETE CRITERIA CHECKLIST

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

N-1 Note: Appendix I intentionally skipped Perry Nuclear Power Plant ii KLD Engineering, P.C.Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 2 List of Figures Figure 1-1. Perry Nuclear Power Plant Location .......................................................................................

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

1-9 Figure 2-1. Voluntary Evacuation M ethodology

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

2-4 Figure 3-1. Perry Nuclear Pow er Plant EPZ ...............................................................................................

3-3 Figure 3-2. Permanent 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. Comparison of Trip Generation Distributions

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

5-20 Figure 5-5. Comparison of Staged and Unstaged Trip Generation Distributions in the 2 to 5 M ile Region ...........................................................................................................................................

5-23 Figure 6-1. PN PP EPZ Subareas ................................................................................................................

6-4 Figure 7-1. Voluntary Evacuation M ethodology

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

7-14 Figure 7-2. PNPP Shadow Evacuation 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 3 Hours after the Advisory to Evacuate ..........................................

7-19 Figure 7-7. Congestion Patterns at 3 Hours, 30 Minutes after the Advisory to Evacuate ......................

7-20 Figure 7-8. Congestion Patterns at 4 Hours, 30 Minutes after the Advisory to Evacuate ......................

7-21 Figure 7-9. Evacuation Time Estimates

-Scenario 1 for Region R03 ......................................................

7-22 Figure 7-10. Evacuation Time Estimates

-Scenario 2 for Region R03 ....................................................

7-22 Figure 7-11. Evacuation Time Estimates

-Scenario 3 for Region R03 ....................................................

7-23 Figure 7-12. Evacuation Time Estimates

-Scenario 4 for Region R03 ...................................................

7-23 Figure 7-13. Evacuation Time Estimates

-Scenario 5 for Region R03 ....................................................

7-24 Figure 7-14. Evacuation Time Estimates

-Scenario 6 for Region R03 ....................................................

7-24 Figure 7-15. Evacuation Time Estimates

-Scenario 7 for Region R03 ....................................................

7-25 Figure 7-16. Evacuation Time Estimates

-Scenario 8 for Region R03 ....................................................

7-25 Figure 7-17. Evacuation Time Estimates

-Scenario 9 for Region R03 ....................................................

7-26 Figure 7-18. Evacuation Time Estimates

-Scenario 10 for Region R03 ..................................................

7-26 Figure 7-19. Evacuation Time Estimates

-Scenario 11 for Region R03 ..................................................

7-27 Figure 7-20. Evacuation Time Estimates

-Scenario 12 for Region R03 ..................................................

7-27 Figure 7-21. Evacuation Time Estimates

-Scenario 13 for Region R03 ..................................................

7-28 Figure 7-22. Evacuation Time Estimates

-Scenario 14 for Region R03 ..................................................

7-28 Figure 8-1. Chronology of Transit Evacuation Operations

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

8-14 Figure 8-2. Transit-Dependent Bus Routes .............................................................................................

8-15 Figure 10-1. General Population Care Centers and Receiving Schools ...................................................

10-2 Figure 10-2. General Population Care Centers and Receiving Schools -East .........................................

10-3 Perry Nuclear Power Plant iii KLD Engineering, P.C.Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 2 Figure 10-3. General Population Care Centers and Receiving Schools -South ......................................

10-4 Figure 10-4. General Population Care Centers and Receiving Schools -W est .......................................

10-5 Figure 10-5. Evacuation Route M ap -East .............................................................................................

10-6 Figure 10-6. Evacuation Route M ap -W est ............................................................................................

10-7 Figure B-1. Flow Diagram of Sim ulation-DTRAD Interface

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

B-5 Figure C-1. Representative Analysis Network ...........................................................................................

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

C-6 Figure C-3. A UNIT Problem Configuration with ti > 0 ..............................................................................

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

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

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

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

D-5 Figure E-1. Schools within the EPZ ..........................................................................................................

E-14 Figure E-2. Schools within the Subareas 1, 3, 6 and 7 .......................................................................

E-15 Figure E-3. Schools within Subareas 2, 4 and 5 .......................................................................................

E-16 Figure E-4. M edical Facilities within the EPZ .....................................................................................

E-17 Figure E-5. M ajor Em ployers within the EPZ ...........................................................................................

E-18 Figure E-6. Cam pgrounds within the EPZ ................................................................................................

E-19 Figure E-7. Golf Courses and Parks within the EPZ .................................................................................

E-20 Figure E-8. M arinas within the EPZ .........................................................................................................

E-21 Figure E-9. Lodging Facilities within Subareas 1, 3, 6 and 7 ....................................................................

E-22 Figure E-IO. Lodging Facilities w ithin Subareas 2, 4 and 5 .....................................................................

E-23 Figure E-11. Lodging Facilities w ithin Geneva-on-the-Lake

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

E-24 Figure E-12. Correctional Facilities w ithin the EPZ .................................................................................

E-25 Figure F-1. 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-S Figure F-S. 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 with Pets ...........................................................................................

F-9 Figure F-10. Households evacuating with Pets to Care Centers ........................................................

F-I0 Figure F-11. Tim e Required to Prepare to Leave W ork/School

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

F-11 Figure F-12. W ork to Hom e Travel Tim e ............................................................................................

F-11 Figure F-13. Tim e to Prepare Hom e for Evacuation

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

F-12 Figure F-14. Tim e to Clear Driveway of 6"-8" of Snow ...........................................................................

F-13 Figure G-i. Traffic Control Points for the Perry Nuclear Power Plant .....................................................

G-3 Figure G-2. Intersection of US-20 (North Ridge Rd) and State Route 45 (Center Rd) ..............................

G-4 Figure G-3. Schem atic of TCP at US-20 and SR-45 ...................................................................................

G-5 Figure H-1. Region RO1 .............................................................................................................................

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

I ............................................................................................................

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

H-S Figure H-4. Region R04 .............................................................................................................................

H-6 Figure H-S. Region ROS .............................................................................................................................

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

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

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

H-10 Figure H-9. Region R09 ...........................................................................................................................

H-11 Perry Nuclear Power Plant iv KLD Engineering, P.C.Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 2 Figure H-10. 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-15. Region RiS .........................................................................................................................

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 H-20. Region R20 .........................................................................................................................

H-22 Figure J-1. ETE and Trip Generation:

Summer, Midweek, Midday, Good Weather (Scenario

1) ........ -9 Figure J-2. ETE and Trip Generation:

Summer, Midweek, Midday, Rain (Scenario

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

J-10 Figure 1-3. ETE and Trip Generation:

Summer, Weekend, Midday, Good Weather (Scenario

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

1-11 Figure J-4. ETE and Trip Generation:

Summer, Weekend, Midday, Rain (Scenario

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

J-12 Figure J-5. ETE and Trip Generation:

Summer, Midweek, Weekend, Evening, Good W eather (Scenario

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

J-13 Figure J-6. ETE and Trip Generation:

Winter, Midweek, Midday, Good Weather (Scenario

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

J-14 Figure J-7. ETE and Trip Generation:

Winter, Midweek, Midday, Rain (Scenario

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

J-15 Figure J-8. ETE and Trip Generation:

Winter, Midweek, Midday, Snow (Scenario

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

J-16 Figure J-9. ETE and Trip Generation:

Winter, Weekend, Midday, Good Weather (Scenario

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

J-17 Figure J-1O. ETE and Trip Generation:

Winter, Weekend, Midday, Rain (Scenario

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

J-18 Figure J-11. ETE and Trip Generation:

Winter, Weekend, Midday, Snow (Scenario

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

1-19 Figure J-12. ETE and Trip Generation:

Winter, Midweek, Weekend, Evening, Good W eather (Scenario

12) .............................................................................................................................

J-20 Figure J-13. ETE and Trip Generation:

Summer, Weekend, Evening, Good Weather, Special Event (Scenario

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

J-21 Figure J-14. ETE and Trip Generation:

Summer, Midweek, Midday, Good Weather, Roadway Im pact (Scenario 14 ) ................................................................................................................................

J-22 Figure K-1. Perry Link-Node Analysis Network .........................................................................................

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

K-10 Figure K-i0. 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 Network- 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 Perry Nuclear Power Plant v KLD Engineering, P.C.Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 2 Figure K-20.Figure K-21.Figure K-22.Figure K-23.Figure K-24.Figure K-25.Figure K-26.Figure K-27.Figure K-28.Figure K-29.Figure K-30.Figure K-31.Figure K-32.Figure K-33.Figure K-34.Figure K-35.Figure K-36.Link-Node Analysis Netw ork -Grid 19 ...............................................................................

K-21 Link-Node Analysis Netw ork -Grid 20 ...............................................................................

K-22 Link-Node Analysis Netw ork -Grid 21 ...............................................................................

K-23 Link-Node Analysis Netw ork- Grid 22 ...............................................................................

K-24 Link-Node Analysis Netw ork -Grid 23 ...............................................................................

K-25 Link-Node Analysis Netw ork -Grid 24 ...............................................................................

K-26 Link-Node Analysis Netw ork -Grid 25 ...............................................................................

K-27 Link-Node Analysis Netw ork- Grid 26 ...............................................................................

K-28 Link-Node Analysis Netw ork -Grid 27 ...............................................................................

K-29 Link-Node Analysis Netw ork -Grid 28 ...............................................................................

K-30 Link-Node Analysis Netw ork -Grid 29 ...............................................................................

K-31 Link-Node Analysis Netw ork -Grid 30 ...............................................................................

K-32 Link-Node Analysis Netw ork -Grid 31 ...............................................................................

K-33 Link-Node Analysis Netw ork -Grid 32 ...............................................................................

K-34 Link-Node Analysis Netw ork -Grid 33 ...............................................................................

K-35 Link-Node Analysis Netw ork -Grid 34 ...............................................................................

K-36 Link-Node Analysis Netw ork -Grid 35 ...............................................................................

K-37 Perry Nuclear Power Plant Evacuation Time Estimate vi KLD Engineering, P.C.Rev. 2 List of Tables Table 1-1. Stakeholder Interaction

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

1-1 Table 1-2. Highway Characteristics

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

1-5 Table 1-3. ETE Study Comparisons

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

1-10 Table 2-1. Evacuation Scenario Definitions

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

2-3 Table 2-2. Model Adjustment for Adverse Weather .................................................................................

2-7 Table 3-1. EPZ Permanent 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. PNPP EPZ External Traffic .......................................................................................................

3-20 Table 3-7. Summary of Population Demand ...........................................................................................

3-21 Table 3-8. Summary of Vehicle Demand .................................................................................................

3-21 Table 5-1. Event Sequence for Evacuation Activities

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

5-3 Table 5-2. Time 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. Mapping 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

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

5-21 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 Estimates 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 2-Mile Region ......................................................................

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

7-12 Table 7-5. Description of Evacuation Regions .........................................................................................

7-13 Table 8-1. Transit-Dependent Population Estimates

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

8-16 Table 8-2. School Population Demand Estimates

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

8-17 Table 8-3. Receiving Schools ...................................................................................................................

8-18 Table 8-4. Special Facility Transit Demand .............................................................................................

8-19 Table 8-5. Summary of Transportation Resources

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

8-20 Table 8-6. Bus Route Descriptions

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

8-21 Table 8-7. School Evacuation Time Estimates

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

8-24 Table 8-8. School Evacuation Time Estimates

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

8-26 Table 8-9. School Evacuation Time Estimates

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

8-28 Table 8-10. Summary of Transit-Dependent Bus Routes ........................................................................

8-30 Table 8-11. Transit-Dependent Evacuation Time Estimates

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

8-31 Table 8-12. Transit-Dependent Evacuation Time Estimates

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

8-32 Table 8-13. Transit Dependent Evacuation Time Estimates

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

8-33 Table 12-1. Estimated Number of Telephone Calls Required for Confirmation of Evacuation

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

12-2 Perry Nuclear Power Plant vii KLD Engineering, P.C.Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 2 Table A-i. Glossary of Traffic Engineering Terms ...............................................................................

A-1 Table C-i. Selected Measures of Effectiveness Output by DYNEV II ...................................................

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

C-3 Table C-3. G lossary ....................................................................................................................................

C-7 Table E-1. Schools w ithin the EPZ .............................................................................................................

E-2 Table E-2. Medical Facilities within the EPZ ..............................................................................................

E-4 Table E-3. Major Employers within the EPZ ..............................................................................................

E-6 Table E-4. Campgrounds within the EPZ ...................................................................................................

E-7 Table E-5. Golf Courses w ithin the EPZ .....................................................................................................

E-8 Table E-6. Parks/Recreational Attractions within the EPZ ........................................................................

E-9 Table E-7. Marinas within the EPZ .....................................................................................................

E-1O Table E-8. Lodging Facilities within the EPZ ........................................................................................

E-11 Table E-9. Correctional Facilities within the EPZ ...............................................................................

E-13 Table F-1. Perry Telephone Survey Sampling Plan ....................................................................................

F-2 Table H-i. Percent of Subarea Population Evacuating for Each Region ..................................................

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

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

J-2 Table J-2. Sample Simulation Model Input ..........................................................................................

J-4 Table J-3. Selected Model Outputs for the Evacuation of the Entire EPZ (Region R03) .......................

J-5 Table J-4. Average Speed (mph) and Travel Time (min) for Major Evacuation Routes (Region R03, Sce n a rio 1) .................................................................................................................................................

J-6 Table J-5. Simulation Model Outputs at Network Exit Links for Region R03, Scenario 1 ....................

1-7 Table K-i. Evacuation Roadway Network Characteristics

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

K-38 Table K-2. Nodes in the Link-Node Analysis Network which are Controlled

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

K-E03 Table M-i. 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 M-4. Evacuation Time Estimates for the Implementation of Suggested TCP ...............................

M-5 Table N-1. ETE Review Criteria Checklist

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

N-i Perry Nuclear Power Plant viii KLD Engineering, P.C.Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 2 EXECUTIVE

SUMMARY

This report describes the analyses undertaken and the results obtained by a study to develop Evacuation Time Estimates (ETE) for the Perry Nuclear Power Plant (PNPP) located in Lake County, Ohio. ETE are part of the required planning basis and provide FirstEnergy 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, 2010 and extended over a period of 2 years. The major activities performed are briefly described in chronological sequence: " Attended "kick-off" meetings with FirstEnergy 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 PNPP, 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.Perry Nuclear Power Plant ES-1 KLD Engineering, P.C.Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 2 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 7 subareas.

These subareas are then grouped within circular areas or "keyhole" configurations (circles plus radial sectors) that define a total of 20 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). One special event scenario involving a firework show in Fairport Harbor was considered.

One roadway impact scenario was considered wherein a single lane was closed on Interstate 90 westbound for the duration of the evacuation." Staged evacuation was considered for those regions where the 2 mile radius and sectors downwind to 5 miles were evacuated.

As per NUREG/CR-7002, the Planning Basis for the calculation of ETE is: " A rapidly escalating accident at the PNPP 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 care centers or receiving 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 280 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 20 evacuation Perry Nuclear Power Plant ES-2 KLD Engineering, P.C.Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 2 regions to evacuate from that region, under the circumstances defined for one of the 14 evacuation scenarios (20 x 14 = 280). Separate ETE are calculated for transit-dependent evacuees, including schoolchildren for applicable scenarios.

Except for region R03, which is the evacuation of the entire EPZ, only a portion of the people within the EPZ would be advised to evacuate.

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

The people occupying the remainder of the EPZ outside the impacted region may be advised to take shelter.The computation of ETE assumes that 20% of the population within the EPZ but outside the impacted region will elect to "voluntarily" evacuate.

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

These voluntary evacuees could impede those who are evacuating from within the impacted region. The impedance that could be caused by voluntary evacuees is considered in the computation of ETE for the impacted region.Staged evacuation is considered wherein those people within the 2-mile region evacuate immediately, while those beyond 2 miles, but within the EPZ, shelter-in-place.

Once 90% of the 2-mile region is evacuated, those people beyond 2 miles begin to evacuate.

As per federal guidance, 20% of people beyond 2 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 9 0 th percentile ETE has been identified as the value that should be considered when making protective action decisions because the 1 0 0 th 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 Perry Nuclear Power Plant ES-3 KLD Engineering, P.C.Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 2 minimize the time needed to prepare to evacuate (secure the home, assemble needed clothes, medicines, etc.) should also be considered.

Traffic Management This study references the comprehensive traffic management plans provided by Ashtabula, Geauga, and Lake Counties, and identifies critical intersections.

Selected Results A compilation of selected information is presented on the following pages in the form of Figures and Tables extracted from the body of the report; these are described below." Figure 6-1 displays a map of the PNPP EPZ showing the layout of the 7 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 20 evacuation regions in terms of their respective groups of subarea." Table 6-2 lists the evacuation scenarios.

Tables 7-1 and 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.* Tables 7-3 and 7-4 presents ETE for the 2-mile region for un-staged and staged evacuations for the 90th and 100th percentiles, respectively.

Table 8-7 presents ETE for the schoolchildren in good weather.* Table 8-11 presents ETE for the transit-dependent population in good weather." Figure H-8 presents an example of an evacuation region (region R08) to be evacuated under the circumstances defined in Table 6-1. Maps of all regions are provided in Appendix H.Conclusions" General population ETE were computed for 280 unique cases -a combination of 20 unique evacuation regions and 14 unique evacuation scenarios.

Table 7-1 and Table 7-2 document these ETE for the 9 0 th and 100th percentiles.

These ETE range from 2:00 (hr:min) to 3:30 at the 9 0 th 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 congestion within the EPZ. When the system becomes congested, traffic exits the EPZ at rates somewhat below capacity until some evacuation routes have cleared. As more routes clear, the aggregate rate of egress slows since many vehicles have already left the EPZ.Towards the end of the process, relatively few evacuation routes service the remaining demand. See Figures 7-9 through 7-22.Perry Nuclear Power Plant ES-4 KLD Engineering, P.C.Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 2

Inspection of Table 7-3 and Table 7-4 indicates that a staged evacuation provides no benefits to evacuees from within the 2 mile region and unnecessarily delays the evacuation of those beyond 2 miles (compare regions R02, R04 and R05 with regions R19, R18 and R20, respectively, in Tables 7-1 and 7-2). See Section 7.6 for additional discussion." Comparison of scenarios 5 (summer, midweek/weekend, evening) and 13 (summer, weekend, evening) 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 lane westbound on 1-90 from the interchange with County Highway 227 (Exit 205) to the interchange with State Highway 306 (Exit 193) -does have a material impact on 9 0 th percentile ETE for keyhole regions with wind from the north and east (regions R06 through R08, R12 through R17), with up to 20 minute increases in ETE. Wind from the north and east carries the plume over Painesville, which routes traffic onto 1-90 westbound.

With a lane closed on 1-90 westbound in the Painesville, the capacity of 1-90 is reduced to half, increasing congestion and prolonging ETE. Regions R09 through R11 involve evacuation predominately eastbound along 1-90, US-20 and State Highway 84, and are not materially impacted by the decreased capacity westbound along 1-90. See Section 7.5 for additional discussion.

Painesville and Geneva are the two most congested areas during an evacuation.

The last location in the EPZ to exhibit traffic congestion is Geneva; this is the result of a lane drop along US-20 eastbound heading towards Ashtabula.

All congestion within the EPZ clears by 4 hours4.62963e-5 days 0.00111 hours 6.613757e-6 weeks 1.522e-6 months and 20 minutes after the Advisory to Evacuate.

See Section 7.3 and Figures 7-3 through 7-8." Separate ETE were computed for schools, medical facilities, transit-dependent persons, homebound special needs persons, and correctional facilities.

The average single-wave ETE for these facilities 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 buses available to evacuate the transit-dependent population within the EPZ in a single wave; however, there are not enough ambulances to evacuate the bedridden population in a single wave. The second-wave ETE for ambulances do exceed the general population ETE at the 9 0 th percentile.

See Sections 8.4 and 8.5." The general population ETE at the 90th percentile is insensitive to reductions in the base trip generation time of 4Y2 hours due to the traffic congestion within the EPZ. See Table M-1." The general population ETE is relatively insensitive (tripling the shadow evacuation percentage only increases 90th percentile ETE by 15 minutes) to the voluntary evacuation of vehicles in the Shadow Region. See Table M-2.Perry Nuclear Power Plant ES-5 KLD Engineering, P.C.Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 2 Figure 6-1. PNPP EPZ Subareas Perry Nuclear Power Plant Evacuation Time Estimate ES-6 KLD Engineering, P.C.Rev. 2 Table 3-1. EPZ Permanent Resident Population 1 1,970 2,580 2 10,365 10,893 3 10,954 12,868 4 19,909 18,435 5 3,675 3,643 6 6,798 9,292 7 49,249 51,101 EPZ Population Growth: 5.72%1Source: Evacuation Time Estimates for the Perry Nuclear Plant Plume Exposure Pathway Emergency Planning Zone, April 2003 ES-7 KLD Engineering, P.C.Perry Nuclear Power Plant Evacuation Time Estimate ES-7 KLD Engineering, P.C.Rev. 2 Table 6-1. Description of Evacuation Regions Subarea Region Description Lake R01 2-Mile Ring R02 5-Mile Ring R03 Fl P Region Wind Direction From 1 3 4 5 6 7 Lake R04 SW, WSW, W WNW, NW, NNW Refer to Region R02 ROS N, NNE, NE, ENE, E FqF UF qF r %W Rafor tn Rpoinn Rni R17 SW, WSW W, WNW Refer to Region R11 NW Refer to Region R12 Perry Nuclear Power Plant Evacuation Time Estimate ES-8 KLD Engineering, P.C.Rev. 2 Table 6-2. Evacuation Scenario Definitions Day of Timeo Scnai *Sesn Wee DaWate Speia 1 Summer Midweek Midday Good None 2 Summer Midweek Midday Rain None 3 Summer Weekend Midday Good None 4 Summer Weekend Midday Rain None Midweek, 5 Summer Weekend Evening Good None 6 Winter Midweek Midday Good None 7 Winter Midweek Midday Rain None 8 Winter 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 Fairport Harbor 13 Summer Weekend Evening Good Fireworks Show Roadway Impact -Lane 14 Summer Midweek Midday Good Closure on 1-90 WB' Winter assumes that school is in session (also applies to spring and autumn). Summer assumes that school is not in session.Perry Nuclear Power Plant Evacuation Time Estimate ES-9 KLD Engineering, P.C.Rev. 2 Table 7-1. Time to Clear the Indicated Area of 90 Percent of the Affected Population Summer summer summer Winter Winter Winter Summer Summer Midweek Weekend MdekMidweek Weekend MdekWeekend Midweek Weekend Weekend Midday Midday Evening Midday Midday Evening Evening Midday Region Good Rain Good Good Good Rain Snow Good Rain Snow Wete Event Roada Weather Weather Weather Weather WeatherWeather Event impact Entire 2-Mile Region, 5-Mile Region, and EPZ R01 2:10 2:10 2:05 2:10 2:05 2:10 2:10 2:20 2:05 2:10 2:15 2:05 2:05 2:10 R02 2:10 2:10 2:05 2:10 2:00 2:10 2:15 2:30 2:05 2:10 2:20 2:00 2:00 2:10 R03 2:55 3:10 3:00 3:10 2:55 2:55 3:05 3:30 2:45 3:05 3:25 2:45 3:05 3:10 2-Mile Ring and Keyhole to 5 Miles R04 5 2 :10 2:05 2:10 2:05 2:10 2:10 2:20 2:05 2:10 2:20 12 2: 2:00 2:05 ROS 2:05 2:05 2:00 2:05-j 2:00 2:05 2:05 J 2:15 2:00 2:05 2:15 2:00 2:00 2:05 2-Mile Ring and Keyhole to EPZ Boundary R06 2:30 2:45 2:30 2:45 2:30 2:30 2:45 3:10 2:25 2:40 3:00 2:25 2:40 2:50 R07 2:35 2:50 2:35 2:50 2:30 2:30 2:45 3:10 2:25 2:45 3:05 2:25 2:45 2:50 ROB 2:35 2:50 2:35 2:50 2:30 2:30 2:40 3:10 2:25 2:35 3:00 2:25 2:45 2:50 R09 3:00 3:05 3:00 3:05 2:55 3:00 3:00 3:25 2:55 2:55 3:20 3:00 3:00 3:00 RIO 2:55 3:00 2:55 3:05 2:55 3:00 3:00 3:25 2:50 2:55 3:20 2:55 2:50 2:55 R11 2:55 3:00 2:50 3:00 2:50 2:50 3:00 3:25 2:45 2:50 3:20 2:50 2:50 2:55 R12 2:45 2:50 2:45 2:50 2:40 2:50 2:55 3:20 2:40 2:45 3:10 2:45 2:45 3:00 R13 2:15 2:20 2:10 2:15 2:05 2:15 2:20 2:40 2:10 2:15 2:30 2:05 2:05 2:25 5-Mile Ring and Keyhole to EPZ Boundary R14 2:40 2:55 2:35 2:55 2:35 2:35 2:50 3:15 2:35 2:45 3:05 2:25 2:40 2:55 R15 2:35 2:50 2:40 2:50 2:30 2:35 2:45 3:10 2:30 2:40 3:05 2:25 2:40 2:55 R16 2:35 2:55 2:35 2:50 2:30 2:30 2:45 3:10 2:25 2:40 3:00 2:25 2:40 2:50 R17 2:50 3:00 2:55 3:00 2:55 2:50 3:00 3:25 2:50 2:55 3:15 2:50 2:50 2:55 Staged Evacuation Mile Ring and Keyhole to 5 Miles R18 2:40 2:45 2:40 2:45 2:50 2:40 2:45 3:00 2:40 2:45 3:00 2:50 2:50 2:40 R19 2:55 3:00 2:55 2:55 3:00 2:55 3:00 3:15 2:55 2:55 3:10 2:55 2:55 2:55 R20 2:35 2:40 2:35 2:40 2:45 2:40 2:40 2:55 2:35 2:40 2:55 2:45 2:45 2:35 Perry Nuclear Power Plant Evacuation Time Estimate ES-10 KLD Engineering, P.C.Rev. 2 Table 7-2. Time to Clear the Indicated Area of 100 Percent of the Affected Population Summer Summer Summer Winter Winter Winter Summer Summer Midweek Weekend MdekMidweek Weekend MdekWeekend Midweek Weekend Weekend Midday Midday Evening Midday Midday Evening Evening Midday Region Good Good Rain Good Good Rain Snow Good Rain Snow Wete Event Imact Weather Weather Weather Weather WeatherWeather Event Impact Entire 2-Mile Region, 5-Mile Region, and EPZ RO 4:30 4:30 4:30 4:30 4:30 4:30 4:30 4:40 4:30 4:30 4:30 4:30 4:30 4:30 R02 4:35 4:35 4:35 4:35 4:35 4:35 4:35 4:55 4:35 4:35 4:40 4:35 4:35 4:35 R03 4:45 4:50 4:45 4:50 4:45 4:45 4:50 5:15 4:45 4:45 5:10 4:45 4:45 4:45 2-Mile Ring and Keyhole to 5 Miles R04 4:35 4:351 4:35 14:35 4:35 4:35 4:35 4:50 4:35 4:35 4:40 4:35 4:35 4:35 ROS 4:35 4:351 4:35 4:35 4:35 4:35 4:35 14:401 4:35 4:35 4:50 4:35 4:35 4:35 2-Mile Ring and Keyhole to EPZ Boundary R06 4:45 4:45 4:45 4:45 4:45 4:45 4:45 4:55 4:45 4:45 4:50 4:45 4:45 4:45 R07 4:45 4:45 4:45 4:45 4:45 4:45 4:45 4:55 4:45 4:45 4:50 4:45 4:45 4:45 ROB 4:45 4:45 4:45 4:45 4:45 4:45 4:45 4:55 4:45 4:45 4:50 4:45 4:45 4:45 R09 4:45 4:45 4:45 4:45 4:45 4:45 4:45 5:00 4:45 4:45 5:00 4:45 4:45 4:45 RIO 4:45 4:50 4:45 4:45 4:45 4:45 4:45 5:05 4:45 4:45 5:00 4:45 4:45 4:45 R11 4:45 4:45 4:45 4:45 4:45 4:45 4:50 5:00 4:45 4:45 5:00 4:45 4:45 4:45 R12 4:45 4:45 4:45 4:45 4:45 4:45 4:50 5:10 4:45 4:45 5:10 4:45 4:45 4:45 R13 4:45 4:45 4:45 4:45 4:45 4:45 4:45 4:55 4:45 4:45 4:55 4:45 4:45 4:45 5-Mile Ring and Keyhole to EPZ Boundary R14 4:45 4:45 4:45 4:45 4:45 4:45 4:45 4:55 4:45 4:45 4:55 4:45 4:45 4:45 RIS 4:45 4:45 4:45 4:45 4:45 4:45 4:45 4:55 4:45 4:45 4:55 4:45 4:45 4:45 R16 4:45 4:45 4:45 4:45 4:45 4:45 4:45 4:50 4:45 4:45 4:55 4:45 4:45 4:45 R17 4:45 4:45 4:45 4:45 4:45 4:45 4:45 5:15 4:45 4:45 5:00 4:45 4:45 4:45 Staged Evacuation Mile Ring and Keyhole to 5 Miles R18 4:35 4:35 4:35 4:35 4:35 4:35 4:35 4:45 4:35 4:35 4:45 4:35 4:35 4:35 R19 4:35 4:35 4:35 4:35 4:35 4:35 4:40 4:55 4:35 4:35 4:45 4:35 4:35 4:35 R20 4:35 4:35 4:35 4:35 4:35 4:35 4:35 4:40 4:35 4:35 4:40 4:35 4:35 4:35 Perry Nuclear Power Plant Evacuation Time Estimate ES-11 KLD Engineering, P.C.Rev. 2 Table 7-3. Time to Clear 90 Percent of the 2-Mile Region Summer Summer Summer Winter Winter Winter Summer Summer Midweek Midweek Midweek Weekend Weekend Midweek Weekend Weekend Weekend Midweek Weekend Weekend Midday Midday Evening Midday Midday Evening Evening Midday Regon Goo ]Good 1 Good Special Roadway Region Good Rain Good Rain Good Good Rain Snow God Rain Snow Wete Event Imact Weather Weather Weather Weather WeatherWeather Event Impact Unstaged Evacuation Mile Ring and Keyhole to 5-Miles R01 2:10 2:10 2:05 2:10 2:05 2:10 2:10 2:20 2:05 2:10 2:15 2:05 2:05 2:10 R02 2:10 2:10 2:05 2:10 2:00 2:10 2:10 2:20 2:05 2:10 2:15 2:05 2:00 2:10 R04 2:10 2:10 2:05 2:10 2:05 2:10 2:10 2:20 2:05 2:05 2:15 2:05 2:05 2:10 ROS 2:10 2:10 2:05 2:10 2:05 2:10 2:10 2:20 2:05 2:10 2:15 2:05 2:05 2:10 Staged Evacuation Mile Ring and Keyhole to 5-Miles R18 2:10 2:10 2:05 2:10 2:05 2:10 2:10 2:20 2:05 2:05 2:15 2:05 2:05 2:10 R19 2:10 2:10 2:05 2:10 2:00 2:10 2:10 2:20 2:05 2:10 2:15 2:05 2:00 2:10 R20 2:10 2:10 2:05 2:10 2:05 2:10 2:10 2:20 2:05 2:10 2:15 2:05 2:05 2:10 Perry Nuclear Power Plant Evacuation Time Estimate ES-12 KLD Engineering, P.C.Rev. 2 Table 7-4. Time to Clear 100 Percent of the 2-Mile Region Summer Summer Summer Winter Winter Winter Summer Summer Midweek Weekend MidUn ed Midweek Weekend and Weekend Midweek Weekend Weekend Midday Midday Evening Midday Midday Evening Evening Midday Region Good Rin Good Ran Good Good Rin So Good o Good Special Roadway Weather RanWeather Ran Weather Weather Ri Snw Weather ai So Weather Event Impact Unstaged Evacuation Mile Ring and Keyhole to 5-Miles R01 4:30 4:30 4:30 4:30 4:30 4:30 4:30 4:40 4:30 4:30 4:30 4:30 4:30 4:30 R02 4:35 4:30 4:30 4:30 4:30 4:30 4:30 4:40 4:30 4:30 4:40 4:30 4:30 4:30 R04 4:30 4:30 4:30 4:30 4:30 4:30 4:30 4:40 4:30 4:30 4:40 4:30 4:30 4:30 ROS 4:30 4:30 4:30 4:30 4:30 4:30 4:30 4:40 4:30 4:30 4:35 4:30 4:30 4:30 Staged Evacuation Mile Ring and Keyhole to 5-Miles R18 4:30 4:30 4:30 4:30 4:30 4:30 4:30 4:40 4:30 4:30 4:35 4:30 4:30 4:30 R19 4:30 4:30 4:30 4:30 4:30 4:30 4:30 4:40 4:30 4:30 4:35 4:30 4:30 4:30 R20 4:30 4:30 4:30 4:30 4:30 4:30 4:30 4:40 4:30 4:30 4:35 4:30 4:30 4:30 ES-13 KLD Engineering, P.C.Perry Nuclear Power Plant Evacuation Time Estimate ES-13 KLD Engineering, P.C.Rev. 2 Table 8-7. School Evacuation Time Estimates

-Good Weather Assumption of the Blessed Virgin Mary School Cork Elementary School 90 15 10.0 25.80 24 2:10 10.0 16 2:25 Geneva High School 90 15 3.5 24.20 9 155 9.7 15 210 Geneva Middle School 90 15 3.2 21.80 9 1:55 9.7 15 2:10 Spencer Elementary School 90 is 4.4 15.30 18 2.05 11.4 18 2:25 Auburn Career Center 90 15 4.5 33.60 8 1:55 4.7 8 2:05 Buckeye Elementary School 90 15 2.6 4.30 36 2:25 5.9 9 2:30 Chestnut Elementary School 90 15 3.8 8.00 29 2:15 7.6 12 2:30 Clyde C. Hadden Elementary School 90 15 0.8 2.90 18 2.05 5.9 9 2:15 Elm Street Elementary School 90 15 4.4 5.20 51 2:40 9.0 14 2:50 Hale Road Elementary School 90 15 6.0 24.30 15 2:00 4.8 8 2:10 Harding High School 90 15 4.7 4.20 67 2:55 9.0 14 3:10 Harvey High School 90 15 3.5 1.80 118 3:45 6.9 11 3:55 Henry F. LaMuth Middle School 90 15 3.3 5.30 38 2:25 4.7 8 2:35 Heritage Middle School 90 15 6.3 8.40 46 2:35 7.4 12 2:45 Hershey Montessori 90 15 1.2 3.90 19 2:05 1.2 2 2:10 Homer Nash Kimball Elementary School 90 15 7.7 4.30 109 3:35 9.8 15 3:50 J.R. Williams Junior High School 90 15 6.1 3.10 119 3:45 4.7 8 3:SS Leroy Elementary School 90 15 10.3 20.20 31 2:20 5.9 9 2:25 Madison Avenue Elementary School 90 15 4.9 7.60 39 2:25 8.6 13 2:40 Perry Nuclear Power Plant Evacuation Time Estimate ES-14 KLD Engineering, P.C.Rev. 2 Madison Middle School 90 15 9.2 5.87 94 3:20 5.8 9 3:30, Maple Elementary School 90 15 3.0 2.40 76 3:05 8.8 14 3:15 McKinley Elementary School 90 15 4.4 6.00 45 2:30 10.0 15 2:45 Melridge Elementary School 90 15 1.9 5.10 22 2:10 6.1 10 2:20 New Life Christian Academy 90 15 13.0 25.90 31 2:20 5.2 8 2:25 North Madison Elementary School 90 15 7.0 5.27 80 3.05 7.9 12 3:20 Our Shepard Lutheran 90 15 3.0 1.70 107 3:35 9.4 15 3:50 Perry High School 90 15 15.1 24.10 38 2:25 5.2 8 2:35 Red Bird Elementary School 90 15 9.2 5.87 94 3:20 7.9 12 3:35 Riverside High School 90 15 6.1 3.10 119 3:45 4.7 8 3:55 St. Gabriel 90 15 0.6 22.50 2 1:50 2.4 4 1:55 Sterling Morton Elementary School 90 15 1.9 29.20 4 1:50 5.5 9 2:00 Summit Academy 90 15 6.1 5.50 67 2:55 9.4 3:10 Ledgemont High School 90 15 2.1 37.90 4 1:50 2.5 4 1:55 Maximum for EPZ: Maximum: Average for EPZ: Average: Perry Nuclear Power Plant Evacuation Time Estimate ES-15 KLD Engineering, P.C.Rev. 2 Table 8-11. Transit-Dependent Evacuation Time Estimates

-Good Weather 2 1 105 10.1 6.52 93 30 3:50 11.1 17 5 10 32 30 rSIS 3 1 105 13.8 6.41 129 30 4:25 7.7 11 5 10 36 30 6:00 1 105 7.1 30.50 14 30 2:30 11.1 17 5 10 31 30 4:05 4 I 2 125 2.6 40.00 4 30 2:40 12.9 19 5 10 23 30 4:10 5 1 105 5.6 31.60 11 30 2:30 16.7 25 5 10 33 30 4:10 6 1 105 6.2 39.50 9 30 2:25 14.5 22 5 10 31 30 4:05 1 105 9.4 8.40 67 30 3:2S 7.7 11 5 10 26 30 4:45 2 125 6.2 6.78 55 30 8.1 12 5 10 23 30 4:55 Maximum ETE: Maximum ETE: Average ETE: Average ETE: Perry Nuclear Power Plant Evacuation Time Estimate ES-16 KLD Engineering, P.C.Rev. 2 Figure H-8. Region ROB Perry Nuclear Power Plant Evacuation Time Estimate ES-17 KLD Engineering, P.C.Rev. 2 1 INTRODUCTION This report describes the analyses undertaken and the results obtained by a study to develop Evacuation Time Estimates (ETE) for the Perry Nuclear Power Plant (PNPP), located in Lake County, Ohio. 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 Government agencies.

Most important of these are: 0 Criteria for Development of Evacuation Time Estimate Studies, NUREG/CR-7002, November 2011.0 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 1980.0 Analysis of Techniques for Estimating Evacuation Times for Emergency Planning Zones, NUREG/CR 1745, November 1980.0 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 Stakeolde Naur of Stkhle Intracio FirstEnergy emergency planning personnel Meetings to define data requirements and set up contacts with local government agencies Obtain Ashtabula County Radiological Emergency Ashtabula County Emergency Management Preparedness Plans for the Perry Nuclear Power Agency Plant and special facility data Obtain Geauga County Radiological Emergency Geauga County Department of Emergency Services Preparedness Plans for the Perry Nuclear Power Plant and special facility data Obtain Lake County Radiological Emergency Lake County Emergency Management Agency Preparedness Plans for the Perry Nuclear Power Plant and special facility data Obtain State of Ohio Radiological Emergency Ohio State Emergency Management Office Preparedness Plans for the Perry Nuclear Power Plant Local and State Police Agencies Obtain existing traffic management plans 1-1 KLD Engineering, P.C.Perry Nuclear Power Plant Evacuation Time Estimate 1-1 KLD Engineering, P.C.Rev. 2

1.1 Overview

of the ETE Process The following outline presents a brief description of the work effort in chronological sequence: 1. Information Gathering:

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

b. Attended meetings with emergency planners from Ohio EMA, Lake County EMA, Ashtabula County EMA and Geauga 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 census, state and local agencies.e. Conducted a random sample telephone survey of EPZ residents.

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

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 areas or regions. The EPZ is partitioned into 7 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, FirstEnergy and from the telephone survey.Perry Nuclear Power Plant 1-2 KLD Engineering, P.C.Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 2

b. Applied the procedures specified in the 2010 Highway Capacity Manual (HCM 1)to the data acquired during the field survey, to estimate the capacities 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 PNPP.8. Executed the DYNEV II model to provide the estimates of evacuation routing and 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 Perry Nuclear Power Plant Location The Perry Nuclear Power Plant (PNPP) is located along the shores of Lake Erie in North Perry, Lake County, Ohio. The site is approximately 35 miles northeast of Cleveland, Ohio. The EPZ consists of parts of Ashtabula, Geauga, and Lake Counties in Ohio. Figure 1-1 displays the area surrounding the PNPP. This map identifies the major population centers and the major roads in the area, and shows the location of the plant relative to Cleveland.

1 Highway Capacity Manual (HCM 2010), Transportation Research Board, National Research Council, 2010.Perry Nuclear Power Plant Evacuation Time Estimate 1-3 KLD Engineering, P.C.Rev. 2 Figure 1-1. Perry Nuclear Power Plant Location Perry Nuclear Power Plant Evacuation Time Estimate 1-4 KLD Engineering, P.C.Rev. 2

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

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

Geometrics:

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

Narrow bridges, sharp curves, poor pavement, flood 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 Perry Nuclear Power Plant 1-5 KLD Engineering, P.C.Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 2 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.

Developing 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).Perry Nuclear Power Plant 1-6 KLD Engineering, P.C.Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 2 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"generated" over time. This establishes a set of O-D tables.* A Dynamic Traffic Assignment (DTA), model which assigns trips to paths of travel (routes) which satisfy the O-D tables, over time. The TD and DTA models are integrated to form the DTRAD (Dynamic Traffic Assignment and Distribution) model, as described 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 output by the DYNEV II System, such as Level of Service (LOS), vehicles discharged, average speed, and percent of vehicles evacuated.

The use of a GIS framework enables the user to zoom in on areas of congestion and query road name, town name and other geographical information.

The procedure for applying the DYNEV II System within the framework of developing ETE is outlined in Appendix D. Appendix A is a glossary of terms.For the reader interested in an evaluation of the original model, 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 PNPP.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 Perry Nuclear Power Plant 1-7 KLD Engineering, P.C.Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 2 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 2003 study. The major factors contributing to the differences between the ETE values obtained in this study and those of the previous study can be summarized as follows:* An increase in permanent resident population.

Significant decreases in employee and transient population most likely caused by double-counting in the previous study.* Vehicle occupancy and Trip-generation rates are based on the results of a telephone survey of EPZ residents." Voluntary and shadow evacuations are considered.

The highway representation is far more detailed." Increased roadway capacity -the 1985 HCM used in the previous study has lower roadway capacity estimates than the more recent 2010 HCM used in this study. For example, the 1985 HCM identifies a base freeway capacity as 2,000 passenger cars per hour per lane (pcphpl) versus a range of capacity of 2,250 to 2,400 pcphpl for freeways in the 2010 HCM. Also, the total capacity (both directions) for a two-lane highway was identified as 2,800 pcphpl in the 1985 HCM versus 3,200 pcphpl in the 2010 HCM. Note that two-lane highways constitute the majority of roadways in the study area.* The DYNEV II model includes the ability to represent evacuees changing their routes of travel in response to changes in traffic congestion.

There are many factors that have caused the 90th percentile ETE to decrease since the previous ETE: " While permanent resident population has increased, employee and transient population have significantly decreased such that the overall population has decreased.

Increased capacity estimates in the 2010 HCM, as discussed above." The NetVac2 model does not have a robust dynamic traffic assignment capability for networks which exhibit closed loops. It was the responsibility of the analyst to heuristically establish evacuation routes as an "open network" (a collection of arterial and freeway systems) based upon the analyst's experience and intuition.

The traffic that was assigned to these routes, also based on intuitive reasoning, was capable of responding to congestion, in a limited manner, by selecting branches of the existing network. In the real world, travelers could select alternative routes far more freely than the model permitted.

Consequently, the more technically advanced DYNEV II model, with its built-in dynamic assignment capability, and far more robust network representation, produces more realistic (and frequently, lower) evacuation time estimates.

Perry Nuclear Power Plant 1-8 KLD Engineering, P.C.Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 2 Figure 1-2. PNPP Link-Node Analysis Network Perry Nuclear Power Plant Evacuation Time Estimate 1-9 KLD Engineering, P.C.1-9 KLD Engineering, P.C.Rev. 2 Table 1-3. ETE Study Comparisons To-ic Prviu .T td urn td Resident Population Basis 2000 US Census Data;Population

= 102,920 ArcGIS Software using 2010 US Census blocks; area ratio method used.Population

= 108,812 Vehicle occupancy based upon township 2.45 persons/household, 1.34 Resident Population average numbers of persons and vehicles per evacuating vehicles/household Vehicle Occupancy household.

Vehicle occupancy ranges from yielding:

1.83 persons/vehicle.

1.9 to 2.4 persons per vehicle.Employee estimates based on information provided about Employee estimates based on information major employers in EPZ, provided about major employers in EPZ. 1.0 supplemented by observations Employee employees per vehicle were used for all of commercial property in EPZ Population major employers and 1.1 for PNPP. from aerial photography.

1.06 Employees

= 10,301 employees per vehicle based on telephone survey results.Employees

= 1,063 Estimates based upon U.S.Census data and the results of the telephone survey. A total of 2,931 people who do not have access to a personal vehicle, Census data used to provide an estimate of req s to evacue.Transit-Dependent the number of people without access to require 98 buses to evacuate.Population personal transportation.

No number specia ned person nd provided special needs persons need special transportation to evacuate (41 require a bus, 125 require a wheelchair-accessible vehicle, and 41 require an ambulance).

Transient estimates based upon Transient estimates based on information information provided about from county and local tourism websites and transient attractions in EPZ, Transient the 2002 AAA Tour Book listings, phone calls supplemented by observations Population to local facilities, and data obtained from of the facilities during the road state and county agencies.

survey and from aerial Transients

= 59,882 photography.

I I_ Transients

= 15,535 Perry Nuclear Power Plant Evacuation Time Estimate 1-10 KLD Engineering, P.C.Rev. 2 To-ic Preiou ET tdIurn td Special Facilities Population Special facility population based on information provided by each county within the EPZ. Special facilities include hospitals, nursing homes and incarceration facilities.

Special Facility Population

= 2,178 Vehicles originating at special facilities

= 747 Special facility population based on information provided by each county within the EPZ.Medical Facilities:

Current census = 1,175 Buses Required = 19 Wheelchair Bus Required = 59 Ambulances Required = 121 Correctional Facilities:

Total Population:

382 Buses Required:

13 School population based on information School population based on provided by each county within the EPZ. information provided by each School Population Considered Lake Erie College. county within the EPZ. Did not consider Lake Erie College.School enrollment

= 22,078 School enrollment

= 17,972 Vehicles originating at schools = 2,906 Buses required = 338 Voluntary 20 percent of the population evacuation from within the EPZ, but not within within EPZ in areas Not considered the evacuation region (see outside region to be the e a gn evacuated Figure 2-1)20% of people outside of the EPZ Shadow Evacuation Not considered within the Shadow Region (see Figure 7-2)Network Size 174 links; 145 nodes 1,535 links; 1,003 nodes Field surveys conducted in November 2010. Roads and Roadway Geometric Field surveys conducted in 2002. intersections were video Data Road capacities based on 1985 HCM. archived.Road capacities based on 2010 HCM.Direct evacuation to designated Receiving Direct evacuation to designated School. Receiving School.50 percent of transit-dependent Ridesharing Not considered persons will evacuate with a neighbor or friend.1-11 KLD Engineering, P.C.Perry Nuclear Power Plant Evacuation Time Estimate 1-11 KLD Engineering, P.C.Rev. 2

-I Toi Prviu IT td urn T Std Trip Generation for Evacuation Trip Generation curves adapted from data based upon other studies. Permanent residents evacuate between 15 and 135 minutes after the advisory to evacuate.Employees and transients leave between 15 and 45 minutes.Based on residential telephone survey of specific pre-trip mobilization activities:

Residents with commuters returning leave between 30 and 270 minutes.Residents without commuters returning leave between 15 and 180 minutes.Employees and transients leave between 15 and 120 minutes.All times measured from the Advisory to Evacuate.Normal, Rain, or Snow. The capacity and free Normal, Rain, or Snow. The Weather flow speed of all links in the network are all paclinks in the netflow speed r of reduced by 20% in the event of rain and 30%reduced by 10% in the event of rain and 20% for snow.DYNEV II System- Version Modeling NetVac2 4.0.0.0 Fairport Harbor Fireworks Show Special Events None considered Special Event Population

= 6,250 additional transients in Fairport Harbor on 4 th of July.20 regions (central sector wind 7 regions and 6 scenarios producing 42 direction and each adjacent Evacuation Cases 7nreg anses sector technique used) and 14 unique cases. scenarios producing 280 unique cases.ETE reported for 9 0 th percentile for a full EPZ ETE reported for 9 0 th and 1 0 0 th Evacuation Time evacuation and 100th percentile population percentile population.

Results Estimates Reporting for all regions. Results presented by region presented by region and and scenario, scenario.Winter Weekday Midday, Winter Weekday Midday, Evacuation Time Good Weather: 3:10 Good Weather: 2:55 Estimates for the entire EPZ, 9 0 th percentile Summer Weekend, Midday, Summer Weekend, Midday, Good Weather: 3:40 Good Weather: 3:00 Perry Nuclear Power Plant Evacuation Time Estimate 1-12 KLD Engineering, P.C.Rev. 2 2 STUDY ESTIMATES AND ASSUMPTIONS This section presents the estimates and assumptions utilized in the development of the evacuation time estimates.

2.1 Data Estimates 1. Population estimates are based upon Census 2010 data.2. Estimates of employees who reside outside the EPZ and commute to work within the EPZ are based upon data obtained from the U.S. Census Bureau, Center for Economic Studies and surveys of major employers in the EPZ.3. Population estimates at special facilities are based on available data from county emergency management offices and from phone calls to specific facilities.

4. Roadway capacity estimates are based on field surveys and the application of the Highway Capacity Manual 2010.5. Population mobilization times are based on a statistical analysis of data acquired from a random sample telephone survey of EPZ residents (see Section 5 and Appendix F).6. The relationship between resident population and evacuating vehicles is developed from the telephone survey. Average values of 2.45 persons per household and 1.34 evacuating vehicles per household are used. The relationship between persons and vehicles for special facilities is as follows: a. Employees:

1.06 employees per vehicle (telephone survey results) for all major employers.

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

c. Special Events: Assumed transients attending the Fairport Harbor Firework show travel as families/households in a single vehicle, and used the average household size of 2.45 persons to estimate the number of vehicles.Perry Nuclear Power Plant 2-1 KLD Engineering, P.C.Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 2

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.

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 of a single lane westbound on Interstate-90 from the interchange with County Highway 227 (Exit 205) to the end of the analysis-network at the interchange with State Highway 306 (Exit 193).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.Perry Nuclear Power Plant 2-2 KLD Engineering, P.C.Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 2 Table 2-1. Evacuation Scenario Definitions 2 Summer Midweek Midday Rain Spe 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 Fairport Harbor 13 Summer Weekend Evening Good Fireworks Show Roadway Impact -Lane 14 Summer Midweek Midday Good Closure on 1-90 WB 2 Winter assumes that school is in session (also applies to spring and autumn). Summer assumes that school is not in session.Perry Nuclear Power Plant 2-3 KLD Engineering, P.C.Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 2 Figure 2-1. Voluntary Evacuation Methodology Perry Nuclear Power Plant Evacuation Time Estimate 2-4 KLD Engineering, P.C.Rev. 2

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. 63 percent of the households in the EPZ have at least 1 commuter; 40 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 25 percent (63% x 40% = 25%) 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.Perry Nuclear Power Plant 2-5 KLD Engineering, P.C.Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 2

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

c. Buses, wheelchair vans and ambulances will evacuate patients at medical facilities and at any senior facilities within the EPZ, as needed.d. Transit-dependent general population will be evacuated to primary care 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 care 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 care 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.Perry Nuclear Power Plant 2-6 KLD Engineering, P.C.Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 2

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 Rain 90% 90% No Effect Snow 80% 80% Clear driveway before leaving home (Source: Telephone Survey)*Adverse weather capacity and speed values are given as a percentage of good weather conditions.

Roads are assumed to be passable.Perry Nuclear Power Plant Evacuation Time Estimate 2-7 KLD Engineering, P.C.Rev. 2 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 PNPP 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 PNPP EPZ has been subdivided into 7 subareas.

The EPZ is shown in Figure 3-1.Perry Nuclear Power Plant 3-1 KLD Engineering, P.C.Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 2

3.1 Permanent

Residents The primary source for estimating permanent population is the latest U.S. Census data. The average household size (2.45 persons/household

-See Figure F-i) and the number of evacuating vehicles per household (1.34 vehicles/household

-See Figure F-8) were adapted from the telephone survey results.Population estimates are based upon Census 2010 data, Table 3-1 provides the permanent resident population within the EPZ, by subarea.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 3-2. Figure 3-2 and Figure 3-3 present the permanent resident population and permanent resident vehicle estimates by sector and distance from PNPP. 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.Perry Nuclear Power Plant 3-2 KLD Engineering, P.C.Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 2 Figure 3-1. Perry Nuclear Power Plant EPZ Perry Nuclear Power Plant Evacuation Time Estimate 3-3 KLD Engineering, P.C.Rev. 2 Table 3-1. EPZ Permanent Resident Population 2000 1 1,970 2,580 2 10,365 10,893 3 10,954 12,868 4 19,909 18,435 5 3,675 3,643 6 6,798 9,292 749 ,249 51,101 EPZ Population Growth: 5.72%Source: Evacuation Time Estimates for the Perry Nuclear Plant Plume Exposure Pathway Emergency Planning Zone, April 2003 Table 3-2. Permanent Resident Population and Vehicles by Subarea 201 Subre Pouato 201 Vehcle 1 2,580 1,411 2 10,893 5,958 3 12,868 7,036 4 18,435 10,082 5 3,643 1,997 6 9,292 5,087 7 51,101 27,947 3-4 KLD Engineering, P.C.Perry Nuclear Power Plant Evacuation Time Estimate 3-4 KLD Engineering, P.C.Rev. 2 N NNW NNE-~0--0 -t- 0 WNW I N sw I R0 WS 41,480 Residet Poplatio ENE 1,767' 12,251 145 355 I E 3 492 2.656 5,700, F12,804 300 1 286' ESE/ 5,250-6, SE 37189 I1 10 Mile to EPZ Boundary.5.729 SSW F16,5 951 9= 059 SSE SF2,9 5 1 F4,92 4 N Miles SubtotalbyRing Cumulative Total 0-1 188 188 1-2 2,118 2,306 2-3 4,250 6,556 3-4 5,649 12,205 4-5 10,116 22,321 5-6 8,404 30,725 6-7 7,269 37,994 7-8 16,700 54,694 8-9 12,017 66,711 9-10 15,442 82,153 10- EPZ 26,659 108,812 Total: 108,812 W E Inset 0 -2 Miles S Figure 3-2. Permanent Resident Population by Sector 3-5 KLD Engineering, P.C.Perry Nuclear Power Plant Evacuation Time Estimate 3-5 KLD Engineering, P.C.Rev. 2 NNW rn N NNE 0 WNW W WSW R5,0881', ENE 7 6,705 E ESE F2,8 7 0-SE I l0Mile to EPZ Boundary SSW Sol -s I SSE S 1,619 F2,6975 N Resident Vehicles Miles Subtotall by ing Cumulative Total 0-1 103 103 1-2 1,158 1,261 2-3 2,322 3,583 3-4 3,089 6,672 4-5 5,535 12,207 5-6 4,601 16,808 6-7 3,974 20,782 7-8 9,131 29,913 8-9 6,574 36,487 9-10 44,931 10- EPZ 14587 59,518 Total: 59,518 W E Inset 0 -2 Miles S Figure 3-3. Permanent Resident Vehicles by Sector Perry Nuclear Power Plant Evacuation Time Estimate 3-6 KLD Engineering, P.C.3-6 KLD Engineering, P.C.Rev. 2

3.2 Shadow

Population A proportion of the population living outside the evacuation area extending to 15 miles radially from the PNPP (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.

The shadow evacuation region is described in greater detail in Section 7.1 and is shown graphically in Figure 7-2.Shadow population characteristics (household size, evacuation vehicles per household, mobilization time) are assumed to be the same as that for the EPZ permanent resident population.

Table 3-3 presents estimates of the shadow population and vehicles, by sector.Table 3-3. Shadow Population and Vehicles by Sector NE ENE 901 492 E 2,359 1,291 ESE 1,691 929 SE 1,239 680 SSE 1,921 1,055 S 4,212 2,303 SSW 2,922 1,599 SW 26,402 14,446 WSW 19,332 10,572 W WNW NW NNW Perry Nuclear Power Plant Evacuation Time Estimate 3-7 KLD Engineering, P.C.Rev. 2 N NNW w-ýNNE WNW w wSw 19,332--ENE S7 F9017 136 E 692 7S3 2,359 ESE F 1,691 SE P1,239-EPZ Boundary toll Miles SSW ---.__ _: _ .. I SSE F2,9 22 S F1,9 2 1 Shadow Population Miles Subtotal by Ring Cumulative Total EPZ -11 2,232 2,232 11-12 7,667 9,899 12-13 17,247 27,146 13-14 19,600 46,746 14- 15 14,233 60,979 Total: 60,979 Figure 3-4. Shadow Population by Sector 3-8 KLD Engineering, P.C.Perry Nuclear Power Plant Evacuation Time Estimate 3-8 KLD Engineering, P.C.Rev. 2 N NNW w NNE w-s-WNW w wsw ENE 315 74 E 12 378 413 1,9 140 ISO ESE F929--SE 680-I EPZ Boundary to 11 Miles SSW SSE F 1,599 S F1,055 F2,3 03 Shadow Vehicles Miles subtotal by Ring Cumulative Total EPZ -11 1,224 1,224 11-12 4,196 5,420 12-13 9,435 14,855 13-14 10,718 25,573 14-5 7,794 334367 Total: 33,367 Figure 3-5. Shadow Vehicles by Sector 3-9 KLD Engineering, P.C.Perry Nuclear Power Plant Evacuation Time Estimate 3-9 KLD Engineering, P.C.Rev. 2

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 PNPP EPZ has a number of areas and facilities that attract transients, including: " Lodging Facilities

Marinas" Beaches" Campgrounds" Golf Courses Surveys of lodging facilities within the EPZ were conducted to determine the number of rooms, percentage of occupied rooms, and the number of people and vehicles per room for each facility.

These data were used to estimate the number of transients and evacuating vehicles at each of these facilities.

A total of 1,795 transients in 937 vehicles are assigned to lodging facilities in the EPZ.Surveys of marinas within the EPZ were conducted to determine the number of boat slips, parking capacity, average daily attendance, number of vehicles and peak season. These data were used to estimate the number of transients and evacuating vehicles at each of these facilities.

A total of 189 transients and 77 vehicles are assigned to marinas in the EPZ.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 and to determine peak season. A total of 10,879 transients and 4,908 vehicles have been assigned to parks and recreational areas within the EPZ.Surveys of campgrounds within the EPZ were conducted to determine the number of campsites, peak occupancy, and the number of vehicles and people per campsite for each facility.

These data were used to estimate the number of evacuating vehicles for transients at each of these facilities.

A total of 2,255 transients and 898 vehicles are assigned to campgrounds in the EPZ.There are eleven golf courses within the EPZ. 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. One golf course, Madison Golf Club, indicated that no golfers travel from outside the area to use their facility.

A total of 417 transients and 270 vehicles are assigned to golf courses within the EPZ.Appendix E summarizes the transient data that was estimated for the EPZ. Table E-4 through Table E-7 presents the number of transients visiting recreational areas, while Table E-8 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.Perry Nuclear Power Plant 3-10 KLD Engineering, P.C.Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 2 Table 3-4. Summary of Transients and Transient Vehicles 1 0 0 2 31 19 3 67 36 4 4,794 2,532 5 535 263 6 293 138 7 9,815 4,102 3-11 KLD Engineering, P.C.Perry Nuclear Power Plant Evacuation Time Estimate 3-11 KLD Engineering, P.C.Rev. 2 N NNW-0 NNE 0 WNW w WSW F6,539 Transients" ENE\271 426 E o 0 0 ,1761 1,247 0 4 o ESE F 68 -' SE_ 531M t o-1 10 Mile to EPZ Boundary SSW -I 1 I -SSE 345 S sw N Miles Subtotalby Ring Cumulative Total 0-1 1-2 2-3 22 22 3-4 28 50 4-5 39 89 5-6 975 1,064 6-7 143 1,207 7-8 2,779 3,986 8-9 4,657 8,643 9-10 3,152 11,795 10 -EPZ 3,740 15,535 Total: 15,535 W E Inset 0 -2 Miles S Figure 3-6. Transient Population by Sector 3-12 KLD Engineering, P.C.Perry Nuclear Power Plant Evacuation Time Estimate 3-12 KLD Engineering, P.C.Rev. 2 NNW-0 N NNE 00 0 I 0, WNW w w I.WSW' ENE 1-,-5876 859 E 0 8871 2 G ESE SSW -.I 0 1 SSE 1 7-1 S I 10 Mile to EPZ Boundary N Transient Vehicles Miles Subtotal by Ring Cumulative Total 0-1 --1-2 2-3 12 12 3-4 15 27 4-5 21 48 5-6 742 790 6-7 105 895 7-8 1,146 2,041 8-9 1,532 3,573 9-10 1,633 5,206 10 -EPZ 1,884 7,090 Total: 7,090 W E Inset 0 -2 Miles S Figure 3-7. Transient Vehicles by Sector 3-13 KLD Engineering, P.C.Perry Nuclear Power Plant Evacuation Time Estimate 3-13 KLD Engineering, P.C.Rev. 2

3.4 Employees

Employees who work within the EPZ fall into two categories:

0 6 Those who live and work in the EPZ Those who live outside of the EPZ and commute to jobs within the EPZ.Those of the first category are already counted as part of the permanent resident population.

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

Year 2009 Longitudinal Employer-Household Dynamics 1 Origin-Destination Employment Statistics provided by the U.S. Census Bureau was used to estimate the number of employees commuting into the EPZ for those employers who did not provide data.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 1.06 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.1 U.S. Census Bureau, OnTheMap Application and LEHD Origin-Destination Employment Statistics (Beginning of Quarter Employment, 2"d Quarter of 2009). Analysis Generation Date: 9/22/2011 Perry Nuclear Power Plant Evacuation Time Estimate 3-14 KLD Engineering, P.C.Rev. 2 Table 3-5. Summary of Non-EPZ Resident Employees and Employee Vehicles 1 246 232 2 44 42 3 74 70 4 28 27 5 78 74 6 30 28 7 563 530---kii Perry Nuclear Power Plant Evacuation Time Estimate 3-15 KLD Engineering, P.C.Rev. 2 N NNW-0 NNE-0 WNW W 0 WSW Employees ENE I E 0 7--I I ESE 78" 30 SSW 61--o 0 I --SSE S- 246 --.10 Mile to EPZ Boundary N Miles SCumulative Total 0-1 246 246 1-2 -246 2-3 -246 3-4 87 333 4-5 31 364 5-6 -364 6-7 -364 7-8 157 521 8-9 352 873 9-10 82 955 10- EPZ 108 1,063 Total: 1,063 W E Inset 0 -2 Miles S Figure 3-8. Employee Population by Sector 3-16 KLD Engineering, P.C.Perry Nuclear Power Plant Evacuation Time Estimate 3-16 KLD Engineering, P.C.Rev. 2 NNW-0 N LI~Z NNE 00-I WNW /IZI 0/ 0 0 w-WSW 0 0 SW %Employee Vehicles ENE~1 E 74 74E SE-10 Mileto EPZ Bou~ndary N 28 SSW I 0 I SSE 57 5 232---1 Mile SubtotalbyRin Cumulative Total 0-1 232 232 1-2 -232 2-3 232 3-4 83 315 4-5 29 344 5-6 344 6-7 -344 7-8 148 492 8-9 331 823 9-10 78 901 10- EPZ 102 1,003 Total: 1,003 W E Inset 0 -2 Miles S Figure 3-9. Employee Vehicles by Sector 3-17 KLD Engineering, P.C.Perry Nuclear Power Plant Evacuation Time Estimate 3-17 KLD Engineering, P.C.Rev. 2

3.5 Medical

Facilities Data were provided by the counties for each of the medical facilities within the EPZ. Chapter 8 details the evacuation of medical facilities and their patients.

The number and type of evacuating vehicles that need to be provided depend on the patients' state of health. It is estimated that buses can transport up to 30 people; wheelchair vans, up to 4 people;wheelchair buses up to 15 people; and ambulances, up to 2 people.3.6 Total Demand in Addition to Permanent Population Vehicles will be traveling through the EPZ (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 the major routes traversing the EPZ -Interstate 90, US Highway 20 and State Route 2. It is assumed that this traffic will continue to enter the EPZ 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 3 0 th 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 5.555556e-4 hours 3.306878e-6 weeks 7.61e-7 months (access control points -ACP -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 11,210 vehicles entering the EPZ as external-external trips prior to the activation of the ACP and the diversion of this traffic.3.7 Special Event Several special events were provided by ORO staff members at the project kickoff meeting, including Fairport Harbor Fireworks, Mardi Gras in Fairport Harbor, Perchfest, GrEAT Center, Harpersfield OxRoast, Grape Jamboree, and Thunder on the Strip. The consensus at the meeting was that the Fairport Harbor Firework show was the event with the highest transient population and should be considered as the Special Event.The Fairport Harbor Fireworks Show occurs at night on Fourth of July weekend in Fairport Harbor, Ohio. Data were provided by the Fairport Police Department.

Attendance at the event in July 2011 was 25,000, where 25% were considered transients, resulting in an additional 6,250 transients.

It was assumed that families travel to the event as a household unit in a single vehicle; therefore, the average household size of 2.45 was used as the vehicle occupancy resulting in an additional 2,551 vehicles.Perry Nuclear Power Plant 3-18 KLD Engineering, P.C.Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 2 Based upon discussions with local law enforcement, vehicles are parked along the streets in Fairport Harbor. Vehicles were therefore distributed over several links within the town of Fairport Harbor. The special event vehicle trips were generated utilizing the same mobilization distributions for transients.

3.8 Summary

of Demand A summary of population and vehicle demand is provided in Table 3-7 and 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 160,066 people and 86,669 vehicles (includes external traffic) are considered in this study.Perry Nuclear Power Plant Evacuation Time Estimate 3-19 KLD Engineering, P.C.Rev. 2 Table 3-6. PNPP EPZ External Traffic 8029 354 1-90 Eastbound+ +38,502 0.107 0.5 8003 2,060 4,120 2,060 4,120 9S3 1-90 Westbound 8195 195 SR 2 Eastbound 371 742 8632 632 US-20 Eastbound 12,808 0.116 0.5 371 742 8079 79 US-20 Westbound 743 1,486'Highway Performance Monitoring System (HPMS), Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), Washington, D.C., 2011 2 HCM 2010 Perry Nuclear Power Plant Evacuation Time Estimate 3-20 KLD Engineering, P.C.Rev. 2 Table 3-7. Summary of Population Demand I 2501 7 I 246 0 621 0 13.21 2 10,893 293 31 44 0 2,959 0 0 14,220 3 12,868 347 67 74 0 291 0 0 13,647 4 18,435 497 4,794 28 719 2,298 0 0 26,771 5 3,643 98 535 78 54 476 0 0 4,884 6 9,292 250 293 30 110 942 0 0 10,917 7 51,101 1,376 9,815 563 674 10,381 0 0 73,910 Shadow 0 0 0 0 0 0 12,196 0 12,196 1. Special Facilities includes both medical facilities and correctional facilities.

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

Table 3-8. Summary of Vehicle Demand 1 1,411 4 0 232 0 26 0 0 1,673 2 5,958 20 19 42 0 112 0 0 6,151 3 7,036 24 36 70 0 10 0 0 7,176 4 10,082 34 2,532 27 176 88 0 0 12,939 I 5 1,997 6 263 74 14 16 0 0 2,370 6 5,087 16 138 28 23 36 0 0 5,328 7 27,947 92 4,102 530 90 388 0 0 33,149 Shadow 0 0 0 0 0 0 6,673 11,210 17,883--I 3. Buses represented as two passenger vehicles.

Refer to Section 8 for additional information.

Perry Nuclear Power Plant Evacuation Time Estimate 3-21 KLD Engineering, P.C.Rev. 2 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)Perry Nuclear Power Plant 4-1 KLD Engineering, P.C.Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 2 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 critical intersections will often be provided by traffic control personnel assigned for that purpose, whose directions may supersede traffic control devices. The existing traffic management plans documented in the county emergency plans are extensive and were adopted without change.The per-lane capacity of an approach to a signalized intersection can be expressed (simplistically) in the following form: 3600 G -L 3600 where: Qcapm = Capacity of a single lane of traffic on an approach, which executes Perry Nuclear Power Plant 4-2 KLD Engineering, P.C.Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 2 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, F 1 , F 2 , ... )where: hsat = Saturation discharge headway for through vehicles; seconds per vehicle F=,F2 The various known factors influencing hm f M () = Complex function relating hm to the known (or estimated) values of hsat, F 1 , F 2 ,...The estimation of hm for specified values of hsat, F 1 , F 2 , ... is undertaken within the DYNEV II simulation model by a mathematical model 2.The resulting values for hm always satisfy the condition:

hm hsat 2 Lieberman, E., "Determining Lateral Deployment of Traffic on an Approach to an Intersection", McShane, W. &Lieberman, E., "Service Rates of Mixed Traffic on the far Left Lane of an Approach".

Both papers appear in Transportation Research Record 772, 1980. Lieberman, E., Xin, W., "Macroscopic Traffic Modeling For Large-Scale Evacuation Planning", to be presented at the TRB 2012 Annual Meeting, January 22-26, 2012 Perry Nuclear Power Plant 4-3 KLD Engineering, P.C.Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 2 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, F 1 , F 2 ,..., 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 VFcan be expressed as: VF = R x Capacity where: R = Reduction factor which is less than unity Perry Nuclear Power Plant 4-4 KLD Engineering, P.C.Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 2 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.Perry Nuclear Power Plant 4-5 KLD Engineering, P.C.Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 2

4.3 Application

to the PNPP 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 Perry Nuclear Power Plant 4-6 KLD Engineering, P.C.Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 2 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 II simulation model automatically performs this integration process.Chapter 11 of the HCM 2010 presents procedures for estimating capacity and LOS for "Basic Freeway Segments".

Exhibit 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.

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 the ratio of demand volume and capacity.

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).

Perry Nuclear Power Plant 4-7 KLD Engineering, P.C.Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 2

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 intersections are detailed in Appendix J.4.4 Simulation and Capacity Estimation Chapter 6 of the HCM is entitled, "HCM and Alternative Analysis Tools." The chapter discusses the use of alternative tools such as simulation modeling to evaluate the operational performance of highway networks.

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

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

The DYNEV II simulation model includes some HCM 2010 procedures only for the purpose of estimating capacity.All simulation models must be calibrated properly with field observations that quantify the performance parameters applicable to the analysis network. Two of the most important of these are: (1) Free flow speed (FFS); and (2) saturation headway, hsat. The first of these is Perry Nuclear Power Plant 4-8 KLD Engineering, P.C.Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 2 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.Perry Nuclear Power Plant Evacuation Time Estimate 4-9 KLD Engineering, P.C.4-9 KLD Engineering, P.C.Rev. 2 Volume, vph Density, vpm jo Density, vpm kopt ks k)Figure 4-1. Fundamental Diagrams Perry Nuclear Power Plant Evacuation Time Estimate 4-10 KLD Engineering, P.C.Rev. 2

ML13007A115

Text

8.2 School

SUMMARY

1.1 Overview

1.3 Preliminary

2.2 Study

2.3 Study

3.1 Permanent

3.2 Shadow

3.3 Transient

3.4 Employees

3.5 Medical

3.8 Summary

4.3 Application

4.3.4 Intersections

Navigation menu

Search