ML13007A118

Kld TR-481, Rev. 2, Perry Nuclear Power Plant Development of Evacuation Time Estimates, Part 4 of 6

ML13007A118
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: ML13007A118 (73)

Text

APPENDIX F Telephone Survey F. TELEPHONE SURVEY F.1 Introduction The development of evacuation time estimates for the Emergency Planning Zone (EPZ) of the Perry Nuclear Power Plant requires the identification of travel patterns, car ownership and household size of the population within the EPZ. Demographic information can be obtained from Census data. The use of this data has several limitations when applied to emergency planning.

First, the Census data do not encompass the range of information needed to identify the time required for preliminary activities (mobilization) that must be undertaken prior to evacuating the area. Secondly, Census data do not contain attitudinal responses needed from the population of the EPZ and consequently may not accurately represent the anticipated behavioral characteristics of the evacuating populace.These concerns are addressed by conducting a telephone survey of a representative sample of the EPZ population.

The survey is designed to elicit information from the public concerning family demographics and estimates of response times to well defined events. The design of the survey includes a limited number of questions of the form "What would you do if ...?" and other questions regarding activities with which the respondent is familiar ("How long does it take you to ...?")Perry Nuclear Power Plant F-1 KLD Engineering, P.C.Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 2 F.2 Survey Instrument and Sampling Plan Attachment A presents the final survey instrument used in this study. A draft of the instrument was submitted to stakeholders for comment. Comments were received and the survey instrument was modified accordingly, prior to conducting the survey.Following the completion of the instrument, a sampling plan was developed.

A sample size of approximately 600 completed survey forms yields results with a sampling error of +/-4% at the 95% confidence level. The sample must be drawn from the EPZ population.

Consequently, a list of zip codes in the EPZ was developed using GIS software.

This list is shown in Table F-1. Along with each zip code, an estimate of the population and number of households in each area was determined by overlaying Census data and the EPZ boundary, again using GIS software.

The proportional number of desired completed survey interviews for each area was identified, as shown in Table F-1.The completed survey adhered to the sampling plan.Table F-1. Perry Telephone Survey Sampling Plan.P pu ato within.9 .44024 95 35 0 44041 12,182 5,934 77 44057 19,678 8,361 109 44060 10,259 4,356 57 44077 57,252 23,776 310 44081 7,302 2,756 36 44084 2 1 0 44086 2,042 835 11 Total 108,812 46,054 600 Average Household Size: 2.36 Total Sample Required:

600 Perry Nuclear Power Plant Evacuation Time Estimate F-2 KLD Engineering, P.C.Rev. 2 F.3 Survey Results The results of the survey fall into two categories.

First, the household demographics of the area can be identified.

Demographic information includes such factors as household size, automobile ownership, and automobile availability.

The distributions of the time to perform certain pre-evacuation activities are the second category of survey results. These data are processed to develop the trip generation distributions used in the evacuation modeling effort, as discussed in Section 5.A review of the survey instrument reveals that several questions have a "don't know" (DK) or"refused" entry for a response.

It is accepted practice in conducting surveys of this type to accept the answers of a respondent who offers a DK response for a few questions or who refuses to answer a few questions.

To address the issue of occasional DK/refused responses from a large sample, the practice is to assume that the distribution of these responses is the same as the underlying distribution of the positive responses.

In effect, the DK/refused responses are ignored and the distributions are based upon the positive data that is acquired.F.3.1 Household Demographic Results Household Size Figure F-1 presents the distribution of household size within the EPZ. The average household contains 2.45 people. The estimated household size (2.36 persons) used to determine the survey sample (Table F-i) was drawn from Census data, and is 3.7% less than the average obtained from the survey. As noted in Section F.2, the survey sampling error is +/-4%. The agreement (within error bounds) between the average household size obtained from the survey and from the Census is an indication of the reliability of the survey. The average household size obtained from the survey (2.45 people) is used in this study.Perry Household Size 50%" 40%0 30%0 z o 20%4-U* 10%0%1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10+Household Size Figure F-1. Household Size in the EPZ Perry Nuclear Power Plant F-3 KLD Engineering, P.C.Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 2 Automobile Ownership The average number of automobiles available per household in the EPZ is 2.00. It should be noted that approximately

2.5 percent

of households do not have access to an automobile.

The distribution of automobile ownership is presented in Figure F-2. Figure F-3 and Figure F-4 present the automobile availability by household size. Note that the majority of households without access to a car are single person households.

As expected, nearly all households of 2 or more people have access to at least one vehicle.Perry Vehicle Availability 50%_u 40%0#A 30%0-I-"o 20%10%0%0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9+Number of Vehicles Figure F-2. Household Vehicle Availability F-4 KID Engineering, p.c.Perry Nuclear Power Plant Evacuation Time Estimate F-4 KLD Engineering, P.C.Rev. 2 Distribution of Vehicles by HH Size 1-5 Person Households M 1Person *2 People a 3 People *4 People a5 People 100%'A 80%0 60%0 1 40%0 20%0%0 1 2 3 4 5 Vehicles 6 7 8 9+Figure F-3. Vehicle Availability

-1 to 5 Person Households Distribution of Vehicles by HH Size 6-9+ Person Households S6 People *7 People a8 People *9+ People 100%80%0 60%40%0 20%0%A Aill 'd 1 2 3 4 5 6 Vehicles 7 8 9 10 Figure F-4. Vehicle Availability

-6 to 9+ Person Households Perry Nuclear Power Plant Evacuation Time Estimate F-5 KLD Engineering, P.C.Rev. 2 Ridesharing The overwhelming proportion of the households surveyed (who do not own a vehicle)responded that they would share a ride with a neighbor, relative, or friend if a car was not available to them when asked to evacuate.

Figure F-5 presents this response.Perry Rideshare with Neighbor/Friend A, 0 0.4-41 a.100%80%60%40%20%0%Yes No Figure F-S. Household Ridesharing Preference Perry Nuclear Power Plant Evacuation Time Estimate F-6 KLD Engineering, P.C.Rev. 2 Commuters Figure F-6 presents the distribution of the number of commuters in each household.

Commuters are defined as household members who travel to work or college on a daily basis.The data shows an average of 1.11 commuters in each household in the EPZ.Perry Commuters 50%40%0 a'= 30%0 z o 20%4-C*10%0%4+0 I 2 Number of Commuters 3 Figure F-6. Commuters in Households in the EPZ Perry Nuclear Power Plant Evacuation Time Estimate F-7 KLD Engineering, P.C.Rev. 2 Commuter Travel Modes Figure F-7 presents the mode of travel that commuters use on a daily basis. The vast majority of commuters use their private automobiles to travel to work. The data shows an average of 1.06 employees per vehicle, assuming 2 people per vehicle -on average -for carpools.Perry Travel Mode to Work -In 0 I-W C 100%80%60%40%20%0.0% 0.8%1.1%Walk/Bike Drive Alone Carpool (2+)0%Rail Bus Travel Mode Figure F-7. Modes of Travel in the EPZ F.3.2 Evacuation Response Several questions were asked to gauge the population's response to an emergency.

These are now discussed: "How many of the vehicles would your household use during an evacuation?" The response is shown in Figure F-8. On average, evacuating households would use 1.34 vehicles.'Would your family await the return of other family members prior to evacuating the area?" Of the survey participants who responded, 40 percent said they would await the return of other family members before evacuating and 60 percent indicated that they would not await the return of other family members."If you had a household pet, would you take your pet with you if you were asked to evacuate the area?" As shown in Figure F-9, 24 percent of households do not have a family pet. Of the households with pets, 94 percent of them indicated that they would take their pets.'When evacuating with your household pet, would you evacuate to a care center if they do not accept pets?" As shown in Figure F-10, 17 percent of households would evacuate to a care center with their pet.Perry Nuclear Power Plant Evacuation Time Estimate F-8 KLD Engineering, P.C.Rev. 2 Vehicles Used for Evacuation 0 a)OA 0 x CL 100%80%60%40%20%0%0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9+Number of Vehicles Figure F-8. Number of Vehicles Used for Evacuation Households Evacuating with Pets IA 0 W In 0 100%80%60%40%20%0%Yes No Figure F-9. Households Evacuating with Pets Perry Nuclear Power Plant Evacuation Time Estimate F-9 KLD Engineering, P.C.Rev. 2 Households Evacuating with Pets to Care Centers who do not Accept Pets C W (U 0.4--o U 100%80%60%40%20%0%Yes No Figure F-1O. Households evacuating with Pets to Care Centers"Emergency officials advise you to take shelter at home in an emergency.

Would you?" This question is designed to elicit information regarding compliance with instructions to shelter in place. The results indicate that 82 percent of households who are advised to shelter in place would do so; the remaining 18 percent would choose to evacuate the area. Note, the baseline ETE study assumes 20 percent of households will not comply with the shelter advisory, as per Section 2.5.2 of NUREG/CR-7002.

Thus, the data obtained above is in good agreement with the federal guidance."Emergency officials advise you to take shelter at home now in an emergency and possibly evacuate later while people in other areas are advised to evacuate now. Would you?" This question is designed to elicit information specifically related to the possibility of a staged evacuation.

That is, asking a population to shelter in place now and then to evacuate after a specified period of time. Results indicate that 65 percent of households would follow instructions and delay the start of evacuation until so advised, while the balance of 35 percent would choose to begin evacuating immediately.

F.3.3 Time Distribution Results The survey asked several questions about the amount of time it takes to perform certain pre-evacuation activities.

These activities involve actions taken by residents during the course of their day-to-day lives. Thus, the answers fall within the realm of the responder's experience.

The mobilization distributions provided below are the result of having applied the analysis described in Section 5.4.1 on the component activities of the mobilization.

F-iD KLD Engineering, p.c.Perry Nuclear Power Plant Evacuation Time Estimate F-1O KLD Engineering, P.C.Rev. 2 "How long does it take the commuter to complete preparation for leaving work?" Figure F-11 presents the cumulative distribution; in all cases, the activity is completed by about 75 minutes.Eighty percent can leave within 20 minutes.Time to Prepare to Leave Work OA E E 100%80%60%40%20%0%0 10 20 30 40 50 Travel Time (min)60 70 80 Figure F-11. Time Required to Prepare to Leave Work/School"How long would it take the commuter to travel home?" Figure F-12 presents the work to home travel time for the EPZ. About 78 percent of commuters can arrive home within about 30 minutes of leaving work; nearly all within 90 minutes.Work to Home Travel 100%I-0 4.2 2 0 U.4-0*80%60%40%20%0%0 20 40 60 80 Travel Time (min)100 120 140 Figure F-12. Work to Home Travel Time F-il KLD Engineering, P.c.Perry Nuclear Power Plant Evacuation Time Estimate F-11 KLD Engineering, P.C.Rev. 2 "How long would it take the family to pack clothing, secure the house, and load the car?" Figure F-13 presents the time required to prepare for leaving on an evacuation trip. In many ways this activity mimics a family's preparation for a short holiday or weekend away from home. Hence, the responses represent the experience of the responder in performing similar activities.

The distribution shown in Figure F-13 has a long "tail." About 60 percent of households can be ready to leave home within 30 minutes; the remaining households require up to an additional two hours.Time to Prepare to Leave Home 0, 0 0 100%80%60%40%20%0%0 20 40 60 80 100 Travel Time (min)120 140 160 Figure F-13. Time to Prepare Home for Evacuation Perry Nuclear Power Plant Evacuation Time Estimate F-12 KLD Engineering, P.C.Rev. 2 "How long would it take you to clear 6 to 8 inches of snow from your driveway?" During adverse, snowy weather conditions, an additional activity must be performed before residents can depart on the evacuation trip. Although snow scenarios assume that the roads and highways have been plowed and are passable (albeit at lower speeds and capacities), it may be necessary to clear a private driveway prior to leaving the home so that the vehicle can access the street. Figure F-14 presents the time distribution for removing 6 to 8 inches of snow from a driveway.

The time distribution for clearing the driveway has a long tail; about 92 percent of driveways are passable within 60 minutes. The last driveway is cleared 3 hours3.472222e-5 days <br />8.333333e-4 hours <br />4.960317e-6 weeks <br />1.1415e-6 months <br /> after the start of this activity.

Note, those respondents (44%) who answered that they would not take time to clear their driveway were assumed to be ready immediately at the start of this activity.Essentially they would drive through the snow on the driveway to access the roadway and begin their evacuation trip.Time to Prepare to Shovel Snow 0 0 x 0 100%80%60%40%20%0%0 30 60 90 120 Travel Time (min)150 180 210 Figure F-14. Time to Clear Driveway of 6"-8" of Snow F.4 Conclusions The telephone survey provides valuable, relevant data associated with the EPZ population, which have been used to quantify demographics specific to the EPZ, and "mobilization time" which can influence evacuation time estimates.

Perry Nuclear Power Plant Evacuation Time Estimate F-13 KLD Engineering, P.C.Rev. 2 ATTACHMENT A Telephone Survey Instrument F-14 KLD Engineering, P.C.Perry Nuclear Power Plant Evacuation Time Estimate F-14 KLD Engineering, P.C.Rev. 2 Telephone Survey Instrument DO NOT READ -NOTE TO INTERVIEWER

-ZIP CODES 44077 &44060 HAVE SPANISH SPEAKING COMMUNITIES-BI-LINGUAL CAPABILITIES MAY BE NEEDED Hello, my name is and I'm conducting a survey for the Emergency Management Agencies of Lake, Geauga and Ashtabula counties.

The information you provide will be used for emergency planning to enhance local response plans. Emergency planning for some hazards may require evacuation.

Your answers to my questions will greatly contribute to this effort. I will not ask for your name.COL. 1 COL. 2 COL. 3 COL. 4 COL. 5 Sex Unused Unused Unused Unused Unused COL. 8 1 Male 2 Female INTERVIEWER:

ASK TO SPEAK TO THE HEAD OF HOUSEHOLD OR THE SPOUSE OF THE HEAD OF HOUSEHOLD.(Terminate call if not a residence.)

DO NOT ASK: 1A. Record area code. To Be Determined COL. 9-11 lB. Record exchange number. To Be Determined COL. 12-14 2. What is your home zip code? COL. 15-19 3A. In total, how many running cars, or other running COL. 20 SKIP TO vehicles are usually available to the household?

1 ONE Q. 4 (DO NOT READ ANSWERS) 2 TWO Q. 4 3 THREE Q. 4 4 FOUR Q. 4 5 FIVE Q. 4 6 SIX Q. 4 7 SEVEN Q.4 8 EIGHT Q. 4 9 NINE OR MORE Q. 4 0 ZERO (NONE) Q. 3B X DON'T KNOW/REFUSED Q. 3B 3B. In an emergency, could you get a ride out of the COL. 21 area with a neighbor or friend? 1 YES 2 NO X DON'T KNOW/REFUSED

4. How many people usually live in this household?

COL. 22 COL. 23 (DO NOT READ ANSWERS) 1 ONE 0 TEN 2 TWO 1 ELEVEN 3 THREE 2 TWELVE 4 FOUR 3 THIRTEEN Perry Nuclear Power Plant Evacuation Time Estimate F-15 KLD Engineering, P.C.Rev. 2 5 FIVE 4 FOURTEEN 6 SIX 5 FIFTEEN 7 SEVEN 6 SIXTEEN 8 EIGHT 7 SEVENTEEN 9 NINE 8 EIGHTEEN 9 NINETEEN OR MORE X DON'T KNOW/REFUSED

5. How many adults in the household commute to a COL. 24 SKIP TO job, or to college on a daily basis? 0 ZERO Q. 9 1 ONE Q.6 2 TWO Q.6 3 THREE Q.6 4 FOUR OR MORE Q. 6 5 DON'T KNOW/REFUSED Q. 9 INTERVIEWER:

For each person identified in Question 5, ask Questions 6, 7, and 8.6. Thinking about commuter #1, how does that person usually travel to work or college? (REPEAT QUESTION FOR EACH COMMUTER)Commuter #1 Commuter #2 Commuter #3 Commuter #4 COL. 25 COL. 26 COL. 27 COL. 28 Rail 1 1 1 1 Bus 2 2 2 2 Walk/Bicycle 3 3 3 3 Drive Alone 4 4 4 4 Carpool-2 or more people 5 5 5 5 Don't know/Refused 6 6 6 6 7. How much time on average, would it take Commuter #1 to travel home from work or college? (REPEAT QUESTION FOR EACH COMMUTER) (DO NOT READ ANSWERS)COMMUTER #1 COMMUTER #2 COL. 29 COL. 30 COL. 31 COL. 32 1 5 MINUTES OR LESS 1 46-50 MINUTES 1 5 MINUTES OR LESS 1 46-50 MINUTES 2 6-10 MINUTES 2 51-55 MINUTES 2 6-10 MINUTES 2 51-55 MINUTES 3 11-15 MINUTES 3 56- 1 HOUR 3 11-15 MINUTES 3 56- 1 HOUR OVER 1 HOUR, BUT OVER 1 HOUR, BUT 4 16-20 MINUTES 4 LESS THAN 1 HOUR 15 4 16-20 MINUTES 4 LESS THAN 1 HOUR MINUTES 15 MINUTES BETWEEN 1 HOUR 16 BETWEEN 1 HOUR 16 5 21-25 MINUTES 5 MINUTES AND 1 HOUR 5 21-25 MINUTES 5 MINUTES AND 1 30 MINUTES HOUR 30 MINUTES 6 26-30 MINUTES 6 BETWEEN 1 HOUR 31 6 26-30 MINUTES 6 BETWEEN 1 HOUR 31 Perrv Nuclear Power Plant F-16 KLD Engineering PC Evacuation Time Estimate I ..Rev. 2 7 31-35 MINUTES 8 36-40 MINUTES 9 41-45 MINUTES MINUTES AND 1 HOUR 45 MINUTES BETWEEN 1 HOUR 46 7 MINUTES AND 2 HOURS OVER 2 HOURS (SPECIFY ___9 0 DON'T KNOW/REFUSED COMMUTER #3 7 31-35 MINUTES 8 36-40 MINUTES 9 41-45 MINUTES MINUTES AND 1 HOUR 45 MINUTES BETWEEN 1 HOUR 46 7 MINUTES AND 2 HOURS OVER 2 HOURS (SPECIFY__

)9 0 DON'T KNOW/REFUSED COMMUTER #4 COL. 33 1 5 MINUTES OR LESS 2 6-10 MINUTES 3 11-15 MINUTES 4 16-20 MINUTES 5 21-25 MINUTES 6 26-30 MINUTES 7 31-35 MINUTES 8 36-40 MINUTES 9 41-45 MINUTES COL. 34 1 46-50 MINUTES 2 51-55 MINUTES 3 56 -1 HOUR OVER 1 HOUR, BUT 4 LESS THAN 1 HOUR 15 MINUTES BETWEEN 1 HOUR 16 5 MINUTES AND 1 HOUR 30 MINUTES BETWEEN 1 HOUR 31 6 MINUTES AND I HOUR 45 MINUTES BETWEEN 1 HOUR 46 7 MINUTES AND 2 HOURS OVER 2 HOURS (SPECIFY __ .)9 0 DON'T KNOW/REFUSED COL. 35 1 2 3 5 MINUTES OR LESS 6-10 MINUTES 11-15 MINUTES 4 16-20 MINUTES 5 21-25 MINUTES 6 26-30 MINUTES 7 31-35 MINUTES 8 36-40 MINUTES 9 41-45 MINUTES COL. 36 1 46-50 MINUTES 2 51-55 MINUTES 3 56 -I HOUR OVER 1 HOUR, BUT 4 LESS THAN 1 HOUR 15 MINUTES BETWEEN 1 HOUR 16 5 MINUTES AND 1 HOUR 30 MINUTES BETWEEN 1 HOUR 31 6 MINUTES AND I HOUR 45 MINUTES BETWEEN 1 HOUR 46 7 MINUTES AND 2 HOURS OVER 2 HOURS (SPECIFY __ )9 0 DON'T KNOW/REFUSED 8. Approximately how much time does it take Commuter #1 to complete preparation for leaving work or college prior to starting the trip home? (REPEAT QUESTION FOR EACH COMMUTER) (DO NOT READ ANSWERS)COMMUTER #1 COMMUTER #2 COL. 37 1 5 MINUTES OR LESS 2 6-10 MINUTES 3 11-15 MINUTES 4 16-20 MINUTES 5 21-25 MINUTES COL. 38 1 46-50 MINUTES 2 51-55 MINUTES 3 56 -1 HOUR OVER 1 HOUR, BUT 4 LESS THAN 1 HOUR 15 MINUTES 5 BETWEEN 1 HOUR 16 MINUTES AND 1 HOUR COL. 39 1 5 MINUTES OR LESS 2 6-10 MINUTES 3 11-15 MINUTES 4 16-20 MINUTES 5 21-25 MINUTES COL. 40 1 46-50 MINUTES 2 51-55 MINUTES 3 56 -1 HOUR OVER 1 HOUR, BUT 4 LESS THAN 1 HOUR 15 MINUTES 5 BETWEEN 1 HOUR 16 MINUTES AND 1 F-17 KLD Engineering, P.C.Perry Nuclear Power Plant Evacuation Time Estimate F-17 KLD Engineering, P.C.Rev. 2 6 26-30 MINUTES 7 31-35 MINUTES 8 36-40 MINUTES 9 41-45 MINUTES 30 MINUTES BETWEEN 1 HOUR 31 6 MINUTES AND 1 HOUR 45 MINUTES BETWEEN 1 HOUR 46 7 MINUTES AND 2 HOURS OVER 2 HOURS (SPECIFY __ )9 0 X DON'T KNOW /REFUSED 6 26-30 MINUTES 7 31-35 MINUTES 8 36-40 MINUTES 9 41-45 MINUTES HOUR 30 MINUTES BETWEEN 1 HOUR 31 6 MINUTES AND 1 HOUR 45 MINUTES BETWEEN 1 HOUR 46 7 MINUTES AND 2 HOURS OVER 2 HOURS (SPECIFY__

)9 0 X DON'T KNOW /REFUSED COMMUTER #3 COMMUTER #4 COL. 41 1 5 MINUTES OR LESS 2 6-10 MINUTES 3 11-15 MINUTES 4 16-20 MINUTES 5 21-25 MINUTES 6 26-30 MINUTES 7 31-35 MINUTES 8 36-40 MINUTES 9 41-45 MINUTES COL. 42 1 46-50 MINUTES 2 51-55 MINUTES 3 56 -1 HOUR OVER 1 HOUR, BUT 4 LESS THAN I HOUR 15 MINUTES BETWEEN 1 HOUR 16 5 MINUTES AND I HOUR 30 MINUTES BETWEEN 1 HOUR 31 6 MINUTES AND 1 HOUR 45 MINUTES BETWEEN 1 HOUR 46 7 MINUTES AND 2 HOURS OVER 2 HOURS (SPECIFY __ )COL. 43 1 5 MINUTES OR LESS 2 6-10 MINUTES 3 11-15 MINUTES 4 16-20 MINUTES 5 21-25 MINUTES 6 26-30 MINUTES 7 31-35 MINUTES 8 36-40 MINUTES 9 41-45 MINUTES COL. 44 1 46-50 MINUTES 2 51-55 MINUTES 3 56- 1 HOUR OVER 1 HOUR, BUT LESS THAN 1 HOUR 15 MINUTES BETWEEN 1 HOUR 16 5 MINUTES AND 1 HOUR 30 MINUTES BETWEEN 1 HOUR 31 6 MINUTES AND 1 HOUR 45 MINUTES BETWEEN 1 HOUR 46 MINUTES AND 2 HOURS 8 OVER 2 HOURS (SPECIFY___________)

9 0 x 9 0 X DON'T KNOW /REFUSED DON'T KNOW /REFUSED 9. If you were advised by local authorities to evacuate, how much time would it take the household to pack clothing, medications, secure the house, load the car, and complete preparations prior to evacuating the area? (DO NOT READ ANSWERS)COL. 45 COL. 46 1 LESS THAN 15 MINUTES 1 3 HOURS TO 3 HOURS 15 MINUTES 2 15-30 MINUTES 2 3 HOURS 16 MINUTES TO 3 HOURS 30 MINUTES 3 31-45 MINUTES 3 3 HOURS 31 MINUTES TO 3 HOURS 45 MINUTES 4 46 MINUTES- 1 HOUR 4 3 HOURS 46 MINUTES TO 4 HOURS 5 1 HOUR TO 1 HOUR 15 MINUTES 5 4 HOURS TO 4 HOURS 15 MINUTES Perry Nuclear Power Plant Evacuation Time Estimate F-18 KILD Engineering, P.C.Rev. 2 6 7 8 9 0 x Y 1 HOUR 16 MINUTES TO 1 HOUR 30 MINUTES 1 HOUR 31 MINUTES TO 1 HOUR 45 MINUTES 1 HOUR 46 MINUTES TO 2 HOURS 2 HOURS TO 2 HOURS 15 MINUTES 2 HOURS 16 MINUTES TO 2 HOURS 30 MINUTES 2 HOURS 31 MINUTES TO 2 HOURS 45 MINUTES 2 HOURS 46 MINUTES TO 3 HOURS 6 7 8 9 0 x 4 HOURS 16 MINUTES TO 4 HOURS 30 MINUTES 4 HOURS 31 MINUTES TO 4 HOURS 45 MINUTES 4 HOURS 46 MINUTES TO 5 HOURS 5 HOURS TO 5 HOURS 30 MINUTES 5 HOURS 31 MINUTES TO 6 HOURS OVER 6 HOURS (SPECIFY__

)COL. 47 1 DON'T KNOW/REFUSED

10. If there is 6-8" of snow on your driveway or curb, would you need to shovel out to evacuate?

If yes, how much time, on average would it take you to clear the 6-8" of snow to move the car from the driveway or curb to begin the evacuation trip? Assume the roads are passable. (DO NOT READ RESPONSES)

COL. 48 COL. 49 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 x Y z LESS THAN 15 MINUTES 15-30 MINUTES 31-45 MINUTES 46 MINUTES- I HOUR 1 HOUR TO 1 HOUR 15 MINUTES 1 HOUR 16 MINUTES TO 1 HOUR 30 MINUTES 1 HOUR 31 MINUTES TO 1 HOUR 45 MINUTES 1 HOUR 46 MINUTES TO 2 HOURS 2 HOURS TO 2 HOURS 15 MINUTES 2 HOURS 16 MINUTES TO 2 HOURS 30 MINUTES 2 HOURS 31 MINUTES TO 2 HOURS 45 MINUTES 2 HOURS 46 MINUTES TO 3 HOURS NO, WILL NOT SHOVEL OUT 1 OVER 3 HOURS (SPECIFY 2 DON'T KNOW/REFUSED

11. Please choose one of the following (READ COL. 50 ANSWERS):

1 A If you were at home and were asked to evacuate, 2 B A. I would await the return of household commuters to evacuate together.B. I would evacuate independently and meet X DON'T KNOW/REFUSED other household members later.12. How many vehicles would your household use during an evacuation? (DO NOT READ ANSWERS)COL. 51 1 ONE 2 TWO 3 THREE 4 FOUR 5 FIVE Perrv Nuclear Power Plant F-19 KLD Eneineerinu.

P.C.Evacuation Time Estimate I Rev. 2 6 7 8 9 0 X SIX SEVEN EIGHT NINE OR MORE ZERO (NONE)DON'T KNOW/REFUSED 13A. Emergency officials advise you to take shelter at home in an COL. 52 emergency.

Would you: (READ ANSWERS) 1 A A. SHELTER; or 2 B B. EVACUATE X DON'T KNOW/REFUSED 13B. Emergency officials advise you to take shelter at home now COL. 53 in an emergency and possibly evacuate later while people in other areas are advised to evacuate now. Would you: (READ ANSWERS)A. SHELTER; or B. EVACUATE 1 A 2 B X DON'T KNOW/REFUSED 14A. If you have a household pet, would you take your pet with you if you were asked to evacuate the area?(READ ANSWERS)COL. 54 SKIP TO 1 DON'T HAVE A PET END SURVEY 2 YES Q. 14B 3 NO END SURVEY X DON'T KNOW/REFUSED END SURVEY 14B. When evacuating with your household pet, would you evacuate to a COL. 5 care center if they do not accept pets? (READ ANSWERS)1 YES NO, WOULD REMAIN AT HOME NO, WOULD EVACUATE TO A 3 LOCATION WHERE I COULD TAKE MY PET X DON'T KNOW/REFUSED Thank you very much.(TELEPHONE NUMBER CALLED)IF REQUESTED:

For additional information, contact your County Emergency Management Agency during normal business hours.County EMA Phone Lake 440.350.5499 Geauga 440.279.2170 Ashtabula 440.576.9148 F-20 KLD Engineering, P.C.Perry Nuclear Power Plant Evacuation Time Estimate F-20 KLD Engineering, P.C.Rev. 2 APPENDIX G Traffic Management Plan G. TRAFFIC MANAGEMENT PLAN NUREG/CR-7002 indicates that the existing TCPs and ACPs identified by the offsite agencies should be used in the evacuation simulation modeling.

The traffic and access control plans for the EPZ were provided by each county.These plans were reviewed and the TCPs were modeled accordingly.

Figure G-1 maps the existing traffic control points.G.1 Traffic Control Points As discussed in Section 9, traffic control points at intersections (which are controlled) are modeled as actuated signals. If an intersection has a pre-timed signal, stop, or yield control, and the intersection is identified as a traffic control point, the control type was changed to an actuated signal in the DYNEV II system. Table K-2 provides the control type and node number for those nodes which are controlled.

If the existing control was changed due to the point being a TCP, the control type is indicated as "TCP" in Table K-2.Figure G-1 maps the TCPs identified in the county emergency plans. These TCPS are concentrated in Painesville, Geneva, and along US-20, which were identified as the congested areas/roadways in Section 7.3. These TCPs would be manned during evacuation by traffic guides who would direct evacuees in the proper direction and facilitate the flow of traffic through the intersections.

As discussed in Section 7.3, the animation of evacuation traffic conditions indicates several critical intersections which could be bottlenecks during evacuation.

These critical intersections were cross-checked with the EPZ county emergency plans. All of the intersections, except one -US Route 20 (US-20) and State Route 45 in Ashtabula County -were identified as mandatory TCPs in the county plans. The aforementioned intersection is identified as an optional TCP in the Ashtabula County emergency plan. As this is one of the last congested intersections to clear, it is recommended that the county consider this intersection as a mandatory TCP. A sensitivity study was performed (see Section M.4) to analyze the effects on ETE if this TCP were implemented.

While the TCP does not improve the ETE, it does, however, significantly reduce congestion along US-20 in Ashtabula County.As shown in Figure G-2, US-20 (North Ridge Rd) eastbound narrows to a single lane approximately 800 feet west of the intersection with State Route 45 (Center Rd), and widens shortly after to include a left turn bay to access Center Rd northbound.

Just east of the intersection, US-20 widens back to two lanes eastbound.

Current right-of-way exists to maintain two eastbound through lanes through this intersection.

It is recommended that a police officer man this intersection and place cones to block the left turn bay from US-20 westbound to access Center Rd southbound.

Left turns onto Center Rd southbound can be serviced from the left most through lane on US-20 westbound.

Once this has been established, the left turn bay from US-20 eastbound could be used as a through lane to lessen the bottleneck of narrowing the road to a single lane eastbound.

Considering US-20 widens to two Perry Nuclear Power Plant G-1 KLD Engineering, P.C.Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 2 lanes just east of the intersection, the two through lanes established eastbound will be serviced accordingly.

Figure G-3 provides a detailed schematic of the suggested actions to be taken at this TCP.G.2 Access Control Points It is assumed that ACPs will be established within 2 hours2.314815e-5 days <br />5.555556e-4 hours <br />3.306878e-6 weeks <br />7.61e-7 months <br /> of the Advisory to Evacuate to discourage through travelers from using major through routes which traverse the EPZ. As discussed in Section 3.7, external traffic was only considered on three routes which traverse the EPZ -Interstate-90, US-20 and State Route 2 -in this analysis.

The generation of these external trips ceased at 2 hours2.314815e-5 days <br />5.555556e-4 hours <br />3.306878e-6 weeks <br />7.61e-7 months <br /> after the advisory to evacuate in the simulation.

According to the counties' emergency plans, the access control points in Ashtabula, Geauga, and Lake are listed in their respective emergency operations centers, and will be manned after the advisory to evacuate has been given. It is recommended that ACPs on the eastern and western boundaries of the EPZ along the three aforementioned routes be the top priority in assigning manpower and equipment as they are the major routes traversing the EPZ, which will typically carry the highest volume of through traffic.Perry Nuclear Power Plant Evacuation Time Estimate G-2 KLD Engineering, P.C.Rev. 2 Figure G-1. Traffic Control Points for the Perry Nuclear Power Plant Perry Nuclear Power Plant Evacuation Time Estimate G-3 KLD Engineering, P.C.Rev. 2 U 125 25U-u G-2. i inters__io I , (Figure G-2. Intersection of US-20 (North Ridge Rd) and State Route 45 (Center Rd)G-4 KLD Engineering, P.C.Perry Nuclear Power Plant Evacuation Time Estimate G-4 KLD Engineering, P.C.Rev. 2 TOWN: SUBAREA: SAYBROOK TCP N RIDGE RD (US HWY 20) & CENTER RD (STATE HWY 45)1 SHADOW REGION KEY P MOVEMENT FACILITATED

-*I MOVEMENT DISCOURAGED/DIVERTED

@ TRAFFIC GUIDE 2 ft= STOP SIGN X TRAFFIC BARRICADE 2 PER LANE (LOCAL ROADS AND RAMPS)4 PER LANE (FREEWAY AND RAMPS).TRAFFIC SIGNAL.* **TRAFFIC CONES SPACED TO DISCOURAGE TRAFFIC BUT ALLOW PASSAGE (3 PER LANE): * * @ 0 lid t ACTIONS TO BE TAKEN 1. US Hwy 20 eastbound narrows to a single lane just west of the intersection with SR-45 to accommodate left turns onto Center Rd. Allow traffic to continue through using both lanes 2. Barricade the left turn pocket on US Hwy 20 westbound.

This lane will be used by US Hwy 20 eastbound to accommodate two lanes of through traffic.MANPOWERIEOUIPMENT ESTIMATE MANPOWFR/EOLJIPMFNT ESTIMATE 3 Traffic Guides 9 Traffic Cones 8 Traffic Barricades LOCATION PRIORITY To be manned if additional manpower exists after manning mandatory TCPs within the EPZ**Traffic Guide should position himself safely Figure G-3. Schematic of TCP at US-20 and SR-45 G-5 KLD Engineering, P.C.Perry Nuclear Power Plant Evacuation Time Estimate G-5 KLD Engineering, P.C.Rev. 2 APPENDIX H Evacuation Regions H. EVACUATION REGIONS This appendix presents the evacuation percentages for each evacuation region (Table H-i) and maps of all evacuation regions. The percentages presented in Table H-1 are based on the methodology discussed in assumption 5 of Section 2.2 and shown in Figure 2-1.Note, the baseline ETE study assumes 20 percent of households will not comply with the shelter advisory, as per Section 2.5.2 of NUREG/CR-7002.

Perry Nuclear Power Plant Evacuation Time Estimate H-1 KLD Engineering, P.C.Rev. 2 Table H-1. Percent of Subarea Population Evacuating for Each Region Subarea Region Description 2 3 4 5 6 7 R01 2-Mile Ring 20% 20% 20% 20% 20% 20%R02 5-Mile Ring R03 Full EPZ R04 SW, WSW, W20 20 20 2 WNW, W, NNW Refer to Region R02 ROS N, NNE, NE, ENE, E ESE, SE, SSE, S, SSW Refer to Region R01 R06N R07 NNE, NE, ENE R08E ESE, SE, SSE, S, SSW Refer to Region R01 R09 SW, WSW2020 20 2%R10 W2020 2%1111 WNW20 2%R12 NW R13 NNW 02%R14 N R15 NNE, NE R16 ENE, E ESE, SE, SSE, S, SSW Refer to Region R02 R17 SW, WSW20% 20%W, WNW Refer to Region R11 NW Refer to Region R12 Subarea(s)

Shelter-in-Place 1 20% of population in these subareas will not comply with the shelter advisory, as per Section 2.5.2 of NUREG/CR-7002.

Once 90% of the 2-mile region has evacuated, the remaining population in these subareas will evacuate.Perry Nuclear Power Plant Evacuation Time Estimate H-2 KLD Engineering, P.C Rev. 2 Figure H-1. Region RO0 Perry Nuclear Power Plant Evacuation Time Estimate H-3 KLD Engineering, P.C.Rev. 2 Figure H-2. Region R02 Perry Nuclear Power Plant Evacuation Time Estimate H-4 KLD Engineering, P.C.Rev. 2 Figure H-3. Region R03 Perry Nuclear Power Plant Evacuation Time Estimate H-5 KLD Engineering, P.C.Rev. 2 Figure H-4. Region R04 Perry Nuclear Power Plant Evacuation Time Estimate H-6 KLD Engineering, P.C.Rev. 2 Figure H-5. Region R05 Perry Nuclear Power Plant Evacuation Time Estimate H-7 KLD Engineering, P.C.Rev. 2 Figure H-6. Region R06 Perry Nuclear Power Plant Evacuation Time Estimate H-8 KLD Engineering, P.C.Rev. 2 Figure H-7. Region R07 Perry Nuclear Power Plant Evacuation Time Estimate H-9 KLD Engineering, P.C.Rev. 2 Figure H-8. Region ROB Perry Nuclear Power Plant Evacuation Time Estimate H-1O KLD Engineering, P.C.Rev. 2 Figure H-9. Region R09 Perry Nuclear Power Plant Evacuation Time Estimate n"-.I.I.KLD Engineering, P.C2 Rev. 2 Figure H-10. Region RIO Perry Nuclear Power Plant Evacuation Time Estimate H-12 KLD Engineering, P.C.Rev. 2 Figure H-11. Region R11 Perry Nuclear Power Plant Evacuation Time Estimate H-13 KLD Engineering, P.C.Rev. 2 Figure H-12. Region R12 Perry Nuclear Power Plant Evacuation Time Estimate H-14 KLD Engineering, P.C.Rev. 2 Figure H-13. Region R13 Perry Nuclear Power Plant Evacuation Time Estimate H-15 KLD Engineering, P.C.Rev. 2 Figure H-14. Region R14 Perry Nuclear Power Plant H-16 Evacuation Time Estimate KLD Engineering, P.C.Rev. 2 Figure H-15. Region RIS Perry Nuclear Power Plant Evacuation Time Estimate H-17 KLD Engineering, P.C.Rev. 2 Figure H-16. Region R16 Perry Nuclear Power Plant Evacuation Time Estimate H-18 KLD Engineering, P.C.Rev. 2 Figure H-17. Region R17 Perry Nuclear Power Plant Evacuation Time Estimate H-19 KLD Engineering, P.C.Rev. 2 Figure H-18. Region R18 Perry Nuclear Power Plant Evacuation Time Estimate H-20 KLD Engineering, P.C.Rev. 2 Figure H-19. Region R19 Perry Nuclear Power Plant Evacuation Time Estimate H-21 KLD Engineering, P.C.Rev. 2 Figure H-20. Region R20 Perry Nuclear Power Plant Evacuation Time Estimate H-22 KLD Engineering, P.C.Rev. 2 APPENDIX J Representative Inputs to and Outputs from the DYNEV II System J. REPRESENTATIVE INPUTS TO AND OUTPUTS FROM THE DYNEV II SYSTEM This appendix presents data input to and output from the DYNEV II System. Table J-1 provides the volume and queues for the ten highest volume signalized intersections in the EPZ. Refer to Table K-2 and the figures in Appendix K for a map showing the geographic location of each intersection.

Table J-2 provides source (vehicle loading) and destination information for five roadway segments (link) in the analysis network. Refer to Table K-1 and the figures in Appendix K for a map showing the geographic location of each link.Table J-3 provides network-wide statistics (average travel time, average speed and number of vehicles) for an evacuation of the entire EPZ (region R03) for each scenario.

As expected, scenarios 8 and 11, which are snow scenarios, exhibit the slowest average speed and longest average travel times.Table J-4 provides statistics (average speed and travel time) for the major evacuation routes -Interstate-90, US-20, SR-2, SR-44, and SR-84 -for an evacuation of the entire EPZ (region R03)under scenario 1 conditions.

As discussed in Section 7.3 and shown in Figures 7-3 through 7-8, US-20 is congested for most of the evacuation.

As such, the average speeds are comparably slower (and travel times longer) than other evacuation routes.Table J-5 provides the number of vehicles discharged and the cumulative percent of total vehicles discharged for each link exiting the analysis network, for an evacuation of the entire EPZ (region R03) under scenario 1 conditions.

Refer to Table K-1 and the figures in Appendix K for a map showing the geographic location of each link.Figures J-1 through J-14 plot the trip generation time versus the ETE for each of the 14 scenarios considered.

The distance between the trip generation and ETE curves is the travel time. Plots of trip generation versus ETE are indicative of the level of traffic congestion during evacuation.

For low population density sites, the curves are close together, indicating short travel times and minimal traffic congestion.

For higher population density sites, the curves are farther apart indicating longer travel times and the presence of traffic congestion.

As seen in Figures J-1 through J-14, the curves are spatially separated as a result of the traffic congestion in the EPZ, which was discussed in detail in Section 7.3.Perry Nuclear Power Plant J-1 KLD Engineering, P.C.Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 2 Table J-1. Characteristics of the Ten Highest Volume Signalized Intersections Max.Approach Total Turn Intersection (up Volume Queue Node Location Control Node) (Veh) (Veh)M ý W ýM 599 1 US-20 and Hopkins Rd I Actuated 600 16 0 657 3,823 45 TOTAL 10,574 126 2,257 9 128 6,331 758 127 US-20 and CR 141 Actuated 987 218 15 976 448 146 TOTAL 9,254 605 9230 19 622 654 0 606 US-20 and SR 615 Actuated 645 441 0 659 164 0 TOTAL 10,489 606 4,190 21 660 206 0 659 SR 84 and SR 615 Actuated 625 115 0 870 4,765 28 TOTAL 9,276 599 9,201 0 600 US-20 and Shady Ln Actuated 601 14 0 607 48 0 TOTAL 9,263 Perry Nuclear Power Plant Evacuation Time Estimate J-2 KLD Engineering, P.C.Rev. 2

• .. M.x.Aproc Toa Turn-796 9,220 0 605 US-20 and Drug Mart Shopping Center Actuated 606 4 0 621 7 0 TOTAL 9,231 601 9,302 41 602 US-20 and Jackson 603 26 0 St/Little Mountain Rd 609 454 0 TOTAL 9,782 602 9,141 15 603 US-20 and Maple St Actuated 604 6 0 616 81 0 TOTAL 9,228 603 9,220 7 604 US-20 and Hart St Actuated 796 5 0 867 0 0 TOTAL 9,225-600 9,261 0 US-20 and Mentor 601 Town Center Actuated 602 13 0 Shopping Center 608 0 0 I I I TOTAL 9,274 Perry Nuclear Power Plant Evacuation Time Estimate J-3 KLD Engineering, P.C.Rev. 2 Table J-2. Sample Simulation Model Input 8029 6,750 1 15 SW 8689 1,698 8195 4,500 8431 1,572 195 92 E 8003 4,500 8094 1,698 8710 1,698 297 306 SE 8719 1,698 8048 1,698 8029 6,750 559 61 SW 8195 4,500 8632 3,810 8431 1,572 766 111 E 8003 4,500 8094 1,698 8195 4,500 926 306 SW 8679 1,572 8859 1,572 8029 6,750 1026 56 SW 8195 4,500 8632 3,810 8903 1,698 1158 27 5 8153 1,698 8710 1,698 8029 6,750 1271 7 SW 8195 4,500 8632 3,810 8225 1,572 1394 46 5 8982 1,698 8226 1,572 Perry Nuclear Power Plant Evacuation Time Estimate J-4 KLD Engineering, P.C.Rev. 2 Table J-3. Selected Model Outputs for the Evacuation of the Entire EPZ (Region R03)Scnai 1 2 3a 1 1 1 3 1 Wide Average Travel Time (Min/Veh-Mi)3.66 3.52 3.14 3.61 3.41 3.91 3.49 2.99 3.45 3.53 3.14 3.62 3.30 3.59 Network-Wide Average 19.13 16.62 17.57 15.33 17.18 20.08 17.38 16.99 19.12 16.38 16.58 18.17 17.05 16.72 Speed (mph)Total Vehicles Exiting 86,497 86,695 89,306 89,469 79,014 83,484 84,138 84,550 82,518 82,788 83,177 74,216 82,064 86,477 Network J-5 KLD Engineering, P.C.Perry Nuclear Power Plant Evacuation Time Estimate J-5 KLD Engineering, P.C.Rev. 2 Tabe -4.Avra e nt Speed (mh n rvlTime Tm)frMajovacato Troutes (Rgin ravSenaio1 Route ~ ~ (mies (mh (mn pe ie Sed Tm pe ed e 1 77 ~0 .. *1-90 WB 24.04 1 66.2 1 21.8 1 66.2 1 21.8 1 68.7 1 21.0 1 68.3 1 21.1 1-90 EB 24.04 66.2 21.8 66.3 121.8 69.5 20.7 69.4 20.8 SR-2 WB 6.75 43.3 9.4 24.9 16.3 53.7 7.5 54.4 7.5 US-20 EB 22.79 7.9 172.3 4.0 339.5 8.8 154.7 21.5 63.6 US-20 WB 22.77 19.5 69.9 8.8 155.9 37.0 36.9 40.5 33.7 SR-44 SB 6.81 19.0 21.5 9.7 42.0 52.4 7.8 57.1 7.2 SR-84 EB 18.48 26.4 42.0 13.3 83.3 15.6 71.0 41.5 26.7 Perry Nuclear Power Plant Evacuation Time Estimate J-6 KLD Engineering, P.C.Rev. 2 Table J-5. Simulation Model Outputs at Network Exit Links for Region R03, Scenario 1 Elase Tim (hous)0 4 Cumulativ Veice Dicare by thniatdTm Cumlaiv PecnLfVhilsDshrgdbnhkndctdTm 3346 7544 11026 12806 8 17.54%15.13%14.75%15.12%64 4510 10899 16305 17718 23.64% 21.86% 21.82% 20.92%92 202 456 519 532 1.06% 0.91% 0.69% 0.63%175 1009 2071 2808 3556 5.29% 4.15% 3.76% 4.20%268 378 1290 1529 1565 1.98% 2.59% 2.05% 1.85%108 441 517 528 269 0.57% 0.88% 0.69% 0.62%3007 7100 11358 12985 360 15.76% 14.24% 15.20% 15.33%412 484 1415 1754 1794 2.54% 2.84% 2.35% 2.12%413 780 1945 2931 3301 4.09% 3.90% 3.92% 3.90%415 51 201 360 418 0.27% 0.40% 0.48% 0.49%416 267 1075 1955 2309 1.4% 2.16% 2.62% 2.73%417 249 816 1333 1510 1.31% 1.64% 1.78% 1.78%7 39 51 53 725 0.04% 0.08% 0.07% 0.06%82 210 248 255 726 0.43% 0.42% 0.33% 0.30%499 1803 2705 3257 2.62% 3.62% 3.62% 3.85%746 802 1931 2535 2592 4.21% 3.87% 3.39% 3.06%Perry Nuclear Power Plant Evacuation Time Estimate J-7 KLD Engineering, P.C.Rev. 2 Cumultive Ehilapes Discared by(heoIdiatdsim Cumlaiv Percen of Vehcle Dicare byteIdctdTm 1118 409 1381 1920 2000 2.15% 2.77% 2.57% 2.36%1119 93 623 829 857 0.49% 1.25% 1.11% 1.01%1174 258 822 940 959 1.35% 1.65% 1.26% 1.13%1406 149 474 618 633 0.78% 0.95% 0.83% 0.75%1460 946 3020 5195 5867 4.96% 6.06% 6.95% 6.93%1465 423 1048 1564 1724 2.22% 2.10% 2.09% 2.04%1479 562 1989 3206 3541 2.95% 3.99% 4.29% 4.18%1527 592 1667 3018 4434 3.10% 3.34% 4.04% 5.24%Perry Nuclear Power Plant Evacuation Time Estimate J-8 KLD Engineering, P.C.Rev. 2 ETE and Trip Generation Summer, Midweek, Midday, Good (Scenario 1)-Trip Generation -ETE.2 0 4.U 1-4D CL 100%80%60%40%20%_000-_ý000ý/'00ý0%0 30 60 90 120 150 Elapsed Time (m 180 210 240 270 300 Figure J-1. ETE and Trip Generation:

Summer, Midweek, Midday, Good Weather (Scenario 1)Perry Nuclear Power Plant Evacuation Time Estimate J-9 KLD Engineering, P.C.Rev. 2 ETE and Trip Generation Summer, Midweek, Midday, Rain (Scenario 2)-Trip Generation m-ETE 100%'00 80%~u60%40 2 40%0%0 30 60 90 120 150 180 210 240 270 300 330 Elapsed Time (min)Figure J-2. ETE and Trip Generation:

Summer, Midweek, Midday, Rain (Scenario 2)Perry Nuclear Power Plant Evacuation Time Estimate J-10 KLD Engineering, P.C.Rev. 2 ETE and Trip Generation Summer, Weekend, Midday, Good (Scenario 3)-Trip Generation -ETE a'a'(U'a 0 I-0'a C a'U a'a.100%80%60%40%20%0%/00" Oeeooo" 0 30 60 90 120 150 180 Elapsed Time (min)210 240 270 300 Figure J-3. ETE and Trip Generation:

Summer, Weekend, Midday, Good Weather (Scenario 3)Perry Nuclear Power Plant Evacuation Time Estimate J-11 KLD Engineering, P.C.Rev. 2 ETE and Trip Generation Summer, Weekend, Midday, Rain (Scenario 4)-Trip Generation -ETE 100%80%u60%40 0 40%20%CL.0%0 30 60 90 120 150 180 210 240 270 300 330 Elapsed Time (min)Figure J4. ETE and Trip Generation:

Summer, Weekend, Midday, Rain (Scenario 4)Perry Nuclear Power Plant Evacuation Time Estimate J-12 KLD Engineering, P.C.Rev. 2 ETE and Trip Generation Summer, Midweek, Weekend, Evening, Good (Scenario 5)-Trip Generation -ETE 100%80%60%0 0 40%50 20%0.0%/or, Oeo-00" 0 30 60 90 120 150 180 Elapsed Time (min)210 240 270 300 Figure J-5. ETE and Trip Generation:

Summer, Midweek, Weekend, Evening, Good Weather (Scenario 5)Perry Nuclear Power Plant Evacuation Time Estimate J-13 KLD Engineering, P.C.Rev. 2 ETE and Trip Generation Winter, Midweek, Midday, Good (Scenario 6)-Trip Generation -ETE 100%80%0 40%20%0-o 0%_00000ý1 0 30 60 90 120 150 Elapsed Time (m 180 210 240 270 300 Figure J-6. ETE and Trip Generation:

Winter, Midweek, Midday, Good Weather (Scenario 6)Perry Nuclear Power Plant Evacuation Time Estimate J-14 KLD Engineering, P.C.Rev. 2 ETE and Trip Generation Winter, Midweek, Midday, Rain (Scenario 7)-Trip Generation mETE 100%80%60%40 C S20%0%0 30 60 90 120 150 180 210 240 270 300 330 Elapsed Time (min)Figure J-7. ETE and Trip Generation:

Winter, Midweek, Midday, Rain (Scenario 7)Perry Nuclear Power Plant Evacuation Time Estimate J-15 KLD Engineering, P.C.Rev. 2 ETE and Trip Generation Winter, Midweek, Midday, Snow (Scenario 8)-Trip Generation -ETE@3@3 I-W 24 02 100%80%60%40%20%0%0 30 60 90 120 150 180 210 Elapsed Time (min)240 270 300 330 360 Figure J-8. ETE and Trip Generation:

Winter, Midweek, Midday, Snow (Scenario 8)Perry Nuclear Power Plant Evacuation Time Estimate J-16 KLD Engineering, P.C.Rev. 2 ETE and Trip Generation Winter, Weekend, Midday, Good (Scenario 9)-Trip Generation -ETE 100%WI 80%-60%0U7 o 40%C 20%0.0%0 30 60 90 120 150 180 210 240 270 300 Elapsed Time (min)Figure J-9. ETE and Trip Generation:

Winter, Weekend, Midday, Good Weather (Scenario 9)Perry Nuclear Power Plant Evacuation Time Estimate J-17 KLD Engineering, P.C.Rev. 2 ETE and Trip Generation Winter, Weekend, Midday, Rain (Scenario 10)-Trip Generation

-ETE 100%#A U, 0 80%60%0 V7 4.-o0 40%20%CL 0%0 30 60 90 120 150 180 210 240 270 300 Elapsed Time (min)Figure J-10. ETE and Trip Generation:

Winter, Weekend, Midday, Rain (Scenario 10)Perry Nuclear Power Plant Evacuation Time Estimate J-18 KLD Engineering, P.C.Rev. 2 ETE and Trip Generation Winter, Weekend, Midday, Snow (Scenario 11)-Trip Generation -ETE 100%M 4W 0 80%60%40%20%0%Oeoýý0 30 60 90 120 150 180 Elapsed Time (min)210 240 270 300 330 Figure J-11. ETE and Trip Generation:

Winter, Weekend, Midday, Snow (Scenario 11)Perry Nuclear Power Plant Evacuation Time Estimate J-19 KLD Engineering, P.C.Rev. 2 ETE and Trip Generation Winter, Midweek, Weekend, Evening, Good (Scenario 12)-Trip Generation -ETE 100%'A a'a'4-0 I-0 4-a'U 5..a-80%60%40%20%0%0 30 60 90 120 150 180 Elapsed Time (min)210 240 270 300 Figure J-12. ETE and Trip Generation:

Winter, Midweek, Weekend, Evening, Good Weather (Scenario 12)Perry Nuclear Power Plant Evacuation Time Estimate J-20 KLD Engineering, P.C.Rev. 2 ETE and Trip Generation Summer, Weekend, Evening, Good, Special Event (Scenario 13)-Trip Generation -mETE 100%80%0 4 60%00 LE 20%0%0 30 60 90 120 150 180 210 240 270 300 Elapsed Time (min)Figure J-13. ETE and Trip Generation:

Summer, Weekend, Evening, Good Weather, Special Event (Scenario 13)Perry Nuclear Power Plant Evacuation Time Estimate J-21 KLD Engineering, P.C.Rev. 2 ETE and Trip Generation Summer, Midweek, Midday, Good, Roadway Impact (Scenario 14)-Trip Generation -ETE 100%InI 80%0 2 60%0%I-'40%0 30 60 90 120 150 180 210 240 270 300 Elapsed Time (min)Figure J-14. ETE and Trip Generation:

Summer, Midweek, Midday, Good Weather, Roadway Impact (Scenario 14)J-22 KLD Engineering, P.C.Perry Nuclear Power Plant Evacuation Time Estimate J-22 KLD Engineering, P.C.Rev. 2