ML18128A086

Attachment 6 - EP-AA-1014, Addendum 2, Revision 0, James A. FitzPatrick Nuclear Power Plant Evacuation Time Estimates.

ML18128A086
Person / Time
Site:	Calvert Cliffs, Nine Mile Point, FitzPatrick, 07201036
Issue date:	02/24/2016
From:	Exelon Generation Co, KLD Engineering, PC
To:	Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
Shared Package
ML18128A077	List: ML18128A079 ML18128A080 ML18128A082 ML18128A083 ML18128A084 ML18128A086 ML18128A088 ML18128A089 NMP1L3209, Attachment 2 - EP-AA-1011, Revision 2, Exelon Nuclear Radiological Emergency Plan Annex for Calvert Cliffs Station.
References
[[::JAF-18-0040|JAF-18-0040]], NMP1L3209 EP-AA-1014, Addendum 2, Rev 0
Download: ML18128A086 (433)

Text

ATTACHMENT 6 Radiological Emergency Plan Addendum Revision EP-AA-1014, Addendum 2, Revision O, "James A. FitzPatrick Nuclear Power Plant Evacuation Time Estimates"

Exelon Generation EP-AA-1014, Addendum 2 Revision 0 James A. FitzPatrick Nuclear Power Plant Evacuation Time Estimates KLD TR-823

NGINEERING, P.C.

Nine Mile Point Nuclear Station and James A. FitzPatrick Nuclear Power Plant Development of Evacuation Time Estimates L11ke Ontarlo Legend

• NMP/JAF

)\

t:;l ERPA

\..--:. 2, 5, 10 Mile Rings O. t* . 8/29/lOll 10 COl>Yfi(1t ESRlbM,,..apOauo Miles noc,.inee<ln1,Con>1*t.t1on l n01,v,En1.....,

Work performed for Exelon Generation, by:

KLD Engineering, P.C.

1601 Veterans Memorial Highway, Suite 340 Islandia, NY 11749 mailto:kweinisch@kldcompanies.com February 24, 2016 Final Report KLD TR-823

Table of Contents 1 INTRODUCTION .................................................................................................................................. 1-1 1.1 Overview of the ETE Process ...................................................................................................... 1-2 1.2 The Locations of Nine Mile Point and James A. FitzPatrick ....................................................... 1-4 1.3 Preliminary Activities ................................................................................................................. 1-6 1.4 Comparison with Prior ETE Study ............................................................................................ 1-10 2 STUDY ESTIMATES AND ASSUMPTIONS ............................................................................................. 2-1 2.1 Data Estimates ........................................................................................................................... 2-1 2.2 Study Methodological Assumptions .......................................................................................... 2-2 2.3 Study Assumptions ..................................................................................................................... 2-5 3 DEMAND ESTIMATION ..........................................................................................................'............. 3-1 3.1 Permanent Residents ....................... ;..............................................._. ......................................... 3-3 3.1.1 SUNY Oswego .....................................................................................................................3-5 3.1.2 Day Camp - Ontario Bible Conference .............................................................................. 3-5 3.1.3 Special Facilities .................................................................................................................3-5 3.2 Shadow Population ..................................................................................................................3-12 3.3 Transient Population ................................................................................................................3-15 3.4 Employees ................................................................................................................................3-19 3.5 Special Facilities .......................................................................................................................3-23 3.6 Total Demand in Addition to Permanent Population .............................................................. 3-23 3.7 Special Event ............................................................................................................................3-24 3.8 Summary of Demand ............................................................................................................... 3-24 4 ESTIMATION OF HIGHWAY CAPACITY ................................................................................................ 4-1 4.1 Capacity Estimations on Approaches to Intersections .............................................................. 4-2 4.2 Capacity Estimation along Sections of Highway ........................................................................ 4-4 4.3 Application to the NMP/JAF Study Area .................................................................................... 4-6 4.3.1 Two-Lane Roads ................................................................................. :............................... 4-6 4.3.2 Multi-Lane Highway ...........................................................................................................4-6 4.3.3 Freeways ............................................................................................................................4-7 4.3.4 Intersections ......................................................................................................................4-8 4.4 Simulation and Capacity Estimation .......................................................................................... 4-8 5 ESTIMATION OF TRIP GENERATION TIME .......................................................................................... 5-1 5.1 Background ................................................................................................................................ 5-1 5.2 Fundamental Considerations ...................................................................................................... 5-3 5.3 Estimated Time Distributions of Activities Preceding Event 5 ................................................... 5-6 5.4 Calculation of Trip Generation Time Distribution .................................................................... 5-12 5.4.1 Statistical Outliers ............................................................................................................ 5-13 5.4.2 Staged Evacuation Trip Generation ................................................................................. 5-16 5.4.3 Trip Generation for Waterways and Recreational Areas ................................................. 5-18 6 DEMAND ESTIMATION FOR EVACUATION SCENARIOS ..................................................................... 6-1 NMP/JAF KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate February 24, 2016

7 GENERAL POPULATION EVACUATION TIME ESTIMATES (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 Time Estimate (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 Demand Estimate ............................................................................ 8-2 8.2 School, Preschool and Day Camp Population -Transit Demand ............................................... 8-4 8.3 Medical Facility Demand ............................................................................................................ 8-4 8.4 Evacuation Time Estimates for Transit Dependent People ....................................................... 8-5 8.5 Special Needs Population ......................................................................................................... 8-10 8.6 Correctional Facilities ............................................................................................................... 8-11 9 TRAFFIC MANAGEMENT STRATEGY ................................................................................................... 9-1 10 EVACUATION ROUTES .................................................................................................................. 10-1 11 SURVEILLANCE OF EVACUATION OPERATIONS ........................................................................... 11-1 12 CONFIRMATION TIME .................................................................................................................. 12-1 List of Appendices A. GLOSSARY OF TRAFFIC ENGINEERING TERMS .................................................................................. A-1 B. DYNAMIC TRAFFIC ASSIGNMENT AND DISTRIBUTION MODEL ......................................................... B-1 C. DYNEV TRAFFIC SIMULATION MODEL ...............................................................................................C-1 C.1 Methodology ..............................................................................................................................C-5 C.1.1 The Fundamental Diagram ................................................................................................. C-5 C.1.2 The Simulation Model ........................................................................................................C-5 C.1.3 Lane Assignment ..............................................................................................................C-13 C.2 Implementation .......................................................................................................................C-13 C.2.1 Computational Procedure ................................................................................................ C-13 C.2.2 Interfacing with Dynamic Traffic Assignment (DTRAD) ................................................... C-16 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 lnstrum_ent and Sampling Plan ....................................................................................... F-2 F.3 Survey Results ............................................................................................................................ F-3 F.3.1 Household Demographic Results ........................................................................................... F-3 F.3.2 Evacuation Response ............................................................................................................. F-8 NMP/JAF ii KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate February 24, 2016

F.3.3 Time Distribution Results ..................................................................................................... F-10 F.4 Conclusions .............................................................................................................................. F-13 G. TRAFFIC MANAGEMENT PLAN .......................................................................................................... G-1 G.l Traffic Control Points ................................................................................................................ G-1 G.2 Access Control Points ................................................................................................................ G-1 H EVACUATION REGIONS ..................................................................................................................... H-1 J. REPRESENTATIVE INPUTS TO AND OUTPUTS FROM THE DYNEV II SYSTEM ..................................... J-1 K. EVACUATION ROADWAY NETWORK ............................. ,.................................................................... K-1 L. ERPA BOUNDARIES ............................................................................................................................ L-1 M. EVACUATION SENSITIVITY STUDIES ............................................................................................. M-1 M.1 Effect of Changes in Trip Generation Times ............................................................................ 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 Enhancements in Evacuation Time .......................................................................................... M-4 N. ETE CRITERIA CHECKLIST ................................................................................................................... N-1 Note: Appendix I intentionally skipped NMP/JAF iii KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate February 24, 2016

List of Figures Figure 1-1. Location of NMP/JAF Nuclear Power Plant ............................................................................ 1-5 Figure 1-2. NMP/JAF Link-Node Analysis Network ................................................................................... 1-8 Figure 2-1. Voluntary Evacuation Methodology ....................................................................................... 2-4 Figure 3-1. ERPAs Comprising the NMP/JAF EPZ ...................................................................................... 3-2 Figure 3-2. Census Boundaries within the NMP/JAF Study Area .............................................................. 3-7 Figure 3-3. Permanent Resident Population by Sector ........................................................................... 3-10 Figure 3-4. Permanent Resident Vehicles by Sector ............................................................................... 3-11 Figure 3-5. Shadow Population by Sector ............................................................................................... 3-13 Figure 3-6. Shadow Vehicles by Sector ................................................................................................... 3-14 Figure 3-7. Transient Population by Sector ............................................................................................. 3-17 Figure 3-8. Transient Vehicles by Sector .................................................................................................3-18 Figure 3-9. Employee Population by Sector ............................................................................................ 3-21 Figure 3-10. Employee Vehicles by Sector ..............................................................................................3-22 Figure 4-1. Fundamental Diagrams .........................................................................................................4-10 Figure 5-1. Events and Activities Precedil')g the Evacuation Trip .............................................................. 5-5 Figure 5-2. Evacuation Mobilization 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 Un-staged Trip Generation Distributions in the 2 to 5 Mile Region ..........................................................................................................................5-22 Figure 6-1. ERPAs Comprising the NMP/JAF EPZ ...................................................................................... 6-6 Figure 6-2. Example of an ERPA "Sliver when Defining Evacuation Regions .......................................... 6-7 Figure 7-1. Voluntary Evacuation Methodology ..................................................................................... 7-15 Figure 7-2. NMP/JAF Shadow Region ...................................................................................................... 7-16 Figure 7-3. Congestion Patterns at 40 Minutes after the Advisory to Evacuate .................................... 7-17 Figure 7-4. Congestion Patterns at 1 Hour, 30 minutes after the Advisory to Evacuate ........................ 7-18 Figure 7-5. Congestion Patterns at 3 Hours after the Advisory to Evacuate .......................................... 7-19 Figure 7-6. Congestion Patterns at 3 Hours, 30 Minutes after the Advisory to Evacuate ...................... 7-20 Figure 7-7. Congestion Patterns at 3 Hours, 50 Minutes after the Advisory to Evacuate ...................... 7-21 Figure 7-8. Evacuation Time Estimates - Scenario 1 for Region R03 ...................................................... 7-22 Figure 7-9. Evacuation Time Estimates - Scenario 2 for Region R03 ...................................................... 7-22 Figure 7-10. Evacuation Time Estimates - Scenario 3 for Region R03 .................................................... 7-23 Figure 7-11. Evacuation Time Estimates - Scenario 4 for Region R03 .................................................... 7-23 Figure 7-12. Evacuation Time Estimates - Scenario 5 for Region R03 .................................................... 7-24 Figure 7-13. Evacuation Time Estimates - Scenario 6 for Region R03 .................................................... 7-24 Figure 7-14. Evacuation Time Estimates - Scenario 7 for Region R03 .................................................... 7-25 Figure 7-15. Evacuation Time Estimates - Scenario 8 for Region R03 .................................................... 7-25 Figure 7-16. Evacuation Time Estimates - Scenario 9 for Region R03 .................................................... 7-26 Figure 7-17. Evacuation Time Estimates - Scenario 10 for Region R03 .................................................. 7-26 Figure 7-18. Evacuation Time Estimates - Scenario 11 for Region R03 .................................................. 7-27 Figure 7-19. Evacuation Time Estimates - Scenario 12 for Region R03 .................................................. 7-27 Figure 7-20. Evacuation Time Estimates - Scenario 13 for Region R03 .................................................. 7-28 Figure 7-21. Evacuation Time Estimates - Scenario 14 for Region R03 .................................................. 7-28 Figure 8-1. Chronology of Transit Evacuation Operations ...................................................................... 8-12 Figure 10-1. General Reception Center and Medical Host Facilities ...................................................... 10-2 NMP/JAF iv KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate February 24, 2016

Figure 10-2. Evacuation Route Map ........................................................................................................ 10-3 Figure B-1. Flow Diagram of Simulation-DTRAD lnterface ........................................................................ 8-S Figure C-1. Representative Analysis Network ...........................................................................................C-4 Figure C-2. Fundamental Diagrams ............... -............................................................................................C-6 Figure C-3. A UNIT Problem Configuration with t1 > O.............................................................................. C-7 Figure C-4. Flow of Simulation Processing (See Glossary: Table C-3) .................................................... C-15 Figure D-1. Flow Diagram of Activities ..................................................................................................... D-5 Figure E-1. Schools, Preschools and Day Camp within the EPZ ................................................................ E-7 Figure E-2. Schools and Preschools within the City of Oswego ................................................................ E-8 Figure E-3. Medical Facilities within the EPZ ............................................................................................ E-9 Figure E-4. Major Employers within the EPZ ........................................................................................... E-10 Figure E-5. Recreational Facilities and Commuter Colleges within the EPZ ........................................... E-11 Figure E-6. Lodging Facilities within the EPZ ........................................................................................... E-12 Figure E-7. Correctional Facilities within the EPZ ............................................................................:...... E-13 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-5 Figure F-5. Household Ridesharing Preference ......................................................................................... F-6 Figure F-6. Commuters in Households in the EPZ ..................................................................................... F-7 Figure F-7. Modes of Travel in the EPZ ..................................................................................................... F-8 Figure F-8. Evacuating Vehicles per Household ........................................................................................ F-9 Figure F-9. Households Evacuating with Pets ........................................................................................... F-9 Figure F-10. Time Required to Prepare to Leave Work/School .............................................................. F-11 Figure F-11. Work to Home Travel Time ................................................................................................. F-11 Figure F-12. Time to Prepare Home for Evacuation ................................................................................ F-12 Figure F-13. Time to Clear Driveway of 6 11 -8 11 of Snow ........................................................................... F-13 Figure G-1. Traffic and Access Control Points for NMP/JAF .................................................................... G-2 Figure H-1. Region R01 ............................................................................................................................. H-3 Figure H-2. Region R02 ............................................................................................................................. H-4 Figure H-3. Region R03 ............................................................................................................................. H-5 Figure H-4. Region R04 ............................................................................................................................. H-6 Figure H-5. Region 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 Figure H-10. Region RlO ......................................................................................................................... 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 R15 .......................................................................................................................... H-17 Figure H-16 Region R16 .......................................................................................................................... H-18 Figure H-17 Region R17 .......................................................................................................................... H-19 Figure H-18 Region R18 .......................................................................................................................... H-20 Figure H-19 Regio*n R19 .................................................................... ,..................................................... H-21 NMP/JAF V KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate February 24, 2016

Figure H-20 Region R20 .......................................................................................................................... H-22 Figure H-21 Region R21 .......................................................................................................................... H-23 Figure H-22 Region R22 .......................................................................................................................... H-24 Figure H-23 Region R23 .......................................................................................................................... H-25 Figure H-24 Region R24 .......................................................................................................................... H-26 Figure H-25 Region R25 .......................................................................................................................... H-27 Figure H-26 Region R26 .......................................................................................................................... H-28 Figure H-27 Region R27 .......................................................................................................................... H-29 Figure H-28 Region R28 .......................................................................................................................... H-30 Figure H-29 Region R29 .......................................................................................................................... H-31 Figure J-1. ETE and Trip Generation: Summer, Midweek, Midday, Good Weather (Scenario l} .............. J-7 Figure J-2. ETE and Trip Generation: Summer, Midweek, Midday, Rain (Scenario 2} ............................... J-7 Figure J-3. ETE and Trip Generation: Summer, Weekend, Midday, Good Weather (Scenario 3) .............. J-8 Figure J-4. ETE and Trip Generation: Summer, Weekend, Midday, Rain (Scenario 4} .............................. J-8 Figure J-5. ETE and Trip Generation: Summer, Midweek, Weekend, Evening, Good Weather (Scenario 5} ....................................................................................................................... J-9 Figure J-6. ETE and Trip Generation: Winter, Midweek, Midday, Good Weather (Scenario 6} ................ J-9 Figure J-7. ETE and Trip Generation: Winter, Midweek, Midday, Rain (Scenario 7} ............................... J-10 Figure J-8. ETE and Trip Generation: Winter, Midweek, Midday, Snow (Scenario 8} ............................. J-10 Figure J-9. ETE and Trip Generation: Winter, Weekend, Midday, Good Weather (Scenario 9} .............. J-11 Figure J-10. ETE and Trip Generation: Winter, Weekend, Midday, Rain (Scenario 10} ........................... J-11 Figure J-11. ETE and Trip Generation: Winter, Weekend, Midday, Snow (Scenario 11} ......................... J-12 Figure J-12. ETE and Trip Generation: Winter, Midweek, Weekend, Evening, Good Weather (Scenario 12} ................................................................................................................... J-12 Figure J-13. ETE and Trip Generation: Summer, Weekend, Evening, Good Weather, Special Event (Scenario 13} ...................................................................................................................... J-13 Figure J-14. ETE and Trip Generation: Summer, Midweek, Midday, Good Weather, Roadway Impact (Scenario 14} ................................................................................................................ J-13 Figure K-1. Nine Mile Point/James A. FitzPatrick 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-10. 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 NMP/JAF vi KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate February 24, 2016

Figure K-20. Link-Node Analysis Network- Grid 19 ............................................. '. ................................. K-21 Figure K-21. Link-Node Analysis Network - Grid 20 ............................................................................... K-22 Figure K-22. Link-Node Analysis Network - Grid 21 ............................................................................... K-23 Figure K-23. Link-Node Analysis Network- Grid 22 ............................................................................... K-24 Figure K-24. Link-Node Analysis Network- Grid 23 ............................................................................... K-25 Figure K-25. Link-Node Analysis Network- Grid 24 ............................................................................... K-26 Figure K-26. Link-Node Analysis Network- Grid 25 ............................................................................... K-27 Figure K-27. Link-Node Analysis Network- Grid 26 ............................................................................... K-28 Figure K-28. Link-Node Analysis Network- Grid 27 ............................................................................... K-29 Figure K-29. Link-Node Analysis Network- Grid 28 ............................................................................... K-30 Figure K-30. Link-Node Analysis Network- Grid 29 ............................................................................... K-31 Figure K-31. Link-Node Analysis Network- Grid 30 ............................................................................... K-32 Figure K-32. Link-Node Analysis Network- Grid 31 ............................................................................... K-33 Figure K-33. Link-Node Analysis Network- Grid 32 ............................................................................... K-34 NMP/JAF vii KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate February 24, 2016 L

List of Tables Table 1-1. Stakeholder Interaction ........................................................................................................... 1-2 Table 1-2. Highway Characteristics ........................................................................................................... 1-6 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. Town Population Change and Annual Growth Rate from April 1, 2010 to July 1, 2014 ........... 3-6 Table 3-2. Municipality Population Change and Annual Growth Rate from April 1, 2010 to July 1, 2014 .......................................................................................................................3-6 Table 3-3. EPZ Permanent Resident Population ....................................................................................... 3-8 Table 3-4. Permanent Resident Population and Vehicles by ERPA ........................................................... 3-9 Table 3-5. Shadow Population and Vehicles by Sector ........................................................................... 3-12 Table 3-6. Summary of Transients and Transient Vehicles ..................................................................... 3-16 Table 3-7. Summary of Non-EPZ Resident Employees and Employee Vehicles ...................................... 3-20 Table 3-8. NMP/JAF EPZ External Traffic ................................................................................................ 3-24 Table 3-9. Summary of Population Demand ........................................................................................... 3-25 Table 3-10. Summary of Vehicle Demand ............................................................................................... 3-26 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 Un-staged Evacuation .................... 5-19 Table 5-10. Trip Generation Histograms for the EPZ Population for Staged Evacuation ....................... 5-21 Table 6-1. Description of Evacuation Regions ........................................................................................... 6-4 Table 6-2. Evacuation Scenario Definitions ............................................................................................... 6-8 Table 6-3. Percent of Population Groups Evacuating for Various Scenarios ........... ~ ................................ 6-9 Table 6-4. Vehicle Estimates by Scenario ................................................................................................ 6-10 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 ofthe 2-Mile Area within the Indicated Region ............................ 7-11 Table 7-4. Time to Clear 100 Percent of the 2-Mile Area within the Indicated Region .......................... 7-12 Table 7-5. Description of Evacuation Regions ......................................................................................... 7-13 Table 8-1. Transit-Dependent Population Estimates .............................................................................. 8-13 Table 8-2. School, Preschool, and Day Camp Population Demand Estimates ....................... ;................ 8-14 Table 8-3. School, Preschool, and Day Camp Reception Centers ........................................................... 8-15 Table 8-4. Medical Facility Transit Demand ............................................................................................ 8-16 Table 8-5. Summary of Transportation Resources .................................................................................. 8-17 Table 8-6. Bus Route Descriptions .......................................................................................................... 8-18 Table 8-7. School, Preschool, and Day Camp Evacuation Time Estimates- Good Weather .................. 8-23 Table 8-8. School, Preschool, and Day Camp Evacuation Time Estimates- Rain ................................... 8-24 Table 8-9. School, Preschool, and Day Camp Evacuation Time Estimates - Snow ................................. 8-25 Table 8-10. Summary of Transit-Dependent Bus Routes ........................................................................ 8-26 NMP/JAF viii KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate February 24, 2016

Table 8-11. Transit-Dependent Evacuation Time Estimates - Good Weather. ....................................... 8-28 Table 8-12. Transit-Dependent Evacuation Time Estimates - Rain .... :.................................................... 8-31 Table 8-13. Transit Dependent Evacuation Time Estimates - Snow ....................................................... 8-34 Table 8-14. Medical Facility Evacuation Time Estimates - Good Weather ............................................. 8-37 Table 8-15. Medical Facility Evacuation Time Estimates - Rain ............................................................. 8-39 Table 8-16. Medical Facility Evacuation Time Estimates - Snow ............................................................ 8-41 Table 8-17. Homebound Special Needs Population Evacuation Time Estimates ................................... 8-43 Table 8-18. Correctional Facilities Evacuation Time Estimates ............................................................... 8-43 Table 12-1. Estimated Number of Telephone Calls Required for Confirmation of Evacuation .............. 12-2 Table A-1. Glossary of Traffic EngineeringTerms .................................................................................... A-1 Table C-1. 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. Glossary ....................................................................................................................................C-8 Table E-1. Schools, Preschools and Day Camp within the EPZ .................................................................. E-2 Table E-2. Medical Facilities within the EPZ .............................................................................................. E-3 Table E-3. Major Employers within the EPZ .............................................................................................. E-4 Table E-4. Recreational Attractions and Commuter Colleges within the EPZ ........................................... E-5 Table E-5. Lodging Facilities within the EPZ .............................................................................................. E-6 Table E-6. Correctional Facilities within the EPZ ....................................................................................... E-6 Table F-1. NMP/JAF Telephone Survey Sampling Plan ............................................................................. F-2 Table H-1. Percent of Sub-Area Population Evacuating for Each Region ................................................. H-2 Table J-1. Characteristics of the Ten Highest Volume Signalized Intersections ........................................ J-2 Table J-2. Sample Simulation Model Input ............................................................................................... J-3 Table J-3. Selected Model Outputs for the Evacuation of the Entire EPZ (Region R03) ........................... J-4 Table J-4. Average Speed (mph) and Travel Time (min) for Major Evacuation Routes (Region R03, Scenario 1) ................................................................................................................ J-5 Table J-5. Simulation Model Outputs at Network Exit Links for Region R03, Scenario 1 ......................... J-6 Table K-1. Evacuation Roadway Network Characteristics ...................................................................... K-35 Table K-2. Nodes in the Link-Node Analysis Network which are Controlled .......................................... K-83 Table M-1. Evacuation Time Estimates for Trip Generation Sensitivity Study ....................................... M-1 Table M-2. Evacuation Time Esti.mates for Shadow Sensitivity Study .................................................... M-2 Table M-3. ETE Variation with Population Change ................................................................................. M-4 Table N-1. ETE Review Criteria Checklist ................................................................................................. N-1 NMP/JAF ix KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate February 24, 2016

EXECUTIVE

SUMMARY

This report describes the analyses undertaken and the results obtained by a study to update the Evacuation Time Estimates (ETE) for the Nine Mile Point Nuclear Station (NMP) and James A.

FitzPatrick Nuclear Power Plant (JAF). NMP and JAF are located on adjacent parcels of land in Oswego County, New York. ETE are part of the required planning basis and provide Exelon Generation (Exelon) and Entergy, along with 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:

• NUREG/CR-7002, SAND 2010-0061P, "Criteria for Development of Evacuation Time Estimate Studies," November 2011. (NRC, 2011a).

• NUREG/CR-1745, "Analysis of Techniques for Estimating Evacuation Times for Emergency Planning Zones," November 1980. (NRC, 1980a).

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

• NUREG/CR-6863, SAND2004-5900, "Development of Evacuation Time Estimate Studies for Nuclear Power Plants," January 2005. (NRC, 2005).

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

Overview of Project Activities This study was adapted from the previous ETE study (KLD TR-521 dated November 2012) with the exception that potential evacuation areas were defined using the sixteen cardinal wind directions (in accordance with federal guidance) based on consultation with Exelon and Entergy in November 2015. The previous ETE study began in March 2012 and extended over a period of 8 months. The major activities performed as part of this updated study are briefly described below in chronological sequence:

• Held conference calls with personnel from Exelon and Entergy to discuss the updated regions and scope of work.

• Accessed U.S. Census Bureau data files for the year 2010 and projected it to 2015.

Studied Geographic Information Systems (GIS) maps of the area in the vicinity of the NMP/JAF, 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 plants.

NMP/JAF ES-1 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate February 24, 2016

• Utilized the results of a telephone survey conducted in 2012 of residents within the EP*z 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 licensees and offsite response organization (ORO) personnel prior to conducting the survey in 2012.

• Data pertaining to employment, transients, and special facilities in Oswego County that was collected in 2012 was reviewed and utilized.

• 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 2012 telephone survey of EPZ residents.

• The EPZ is subdivided into 29 ERPAs. Following federal guidelines, these ERPAs are then grouped within circular areas or "keyhole" configurations (circles plus radial sectors and site specific adjustments) that define a total of 29 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 the Harborfest fireworks display was considered. One roadway impact scenario was considered wherein a single lane was closed on SR 481 southbound for the duration of the evacuation.

• Staged evacuation was considered for those regions wherein 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 NMP/JAF 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 and day camps are in session, the ETE study assumes that the children will be evacuated by bus directly to reception centers located at the New York State Fairgrounds, outside the EPZ. Parents, relatives, and neighbors are advised to not pick up their children at schools and day camps prior to the arrival of the buses dispatched for that purpose. The ETE for children at these facilities are calculated separately.

• Evacuees who do not have access to a private vehicle will either ride-share with relatives, friends or neighbors, or be evacuated by buses provided as specified in the NMP/JAF ES-2 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate February 24, 2016

county evacuation plans. Those in special facilities will likewise be evacuated with public transit, as needed: bus or van, wheelchair bus or 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 406 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 29 Evacuation Regions to evacuate from that Region, under the circumstances defined for one of the 14 Evacuation Scenarios (29 x 14 = 406). Separate ETE are calculated for transit-dependent evacuees, including children, 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 plants), and simulates the traffic flow movements over space and time. This simulation process estimates the rate that traffic flow exits the impacted region.

NMP/JAF ES-3 KLD E~gineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate February 24, 2016

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 goth percentile ETE have been identified as the values that should be considered when making protective action decisions because the 100th percentile ETE are prolonged by those relatively few people who take longer to mobilize. This is referred to as the "evacuation tail" in Section 4.0 of NUREG/CR-7002.

The use of a public outreach (information) program to emphasize the need for evacuees to 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 Oswego County; no additional traffic or access control measures have been identified as a result of this study.

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

• Figure 6-1 displays a map of the NMP/JAF EPZ showing the layout of the 29 ERPAs that comprise, in aggregate, the EPZ.

• Table 3-3 presents the estimates of permanent resident population in each ERPA based on the 2010 Census and used 2014 growth rates to project out to 2015.

• Table 6-1 defines each of the 29 Evacuation Regions in terms of their respective groups of ERPAs.

• Table 6-2 defines 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 present ETE for the 2-mile region for un-staged and staged evacuations for the goth and 100th percentiles, respectively.

• Table 8-7 presents ETE for the children at schools and day camp 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 ROB) 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 406 unique cases - a combination of 29 unique Evacuation Regions and 14 unique Evacuation Scenarios. Table 7-1 and Table 7-2 NMP/JAF ES-4 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate February 24, 2016

document these ETE for the goth and 100th percentiles. These ETE range from 1:30 (hr:min) to 5:20 at the goth 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 goth percentile. These ETE range from 3:30 (hr:min) to 7:20 at the 100th 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 7-8 through 7-21.

• 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 R04 through RlO with R22 through R28 respectively and R02 with R2g, 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 raises the goth and 100th percentile ETE by 2:55 and 3:40, respectively. See Secti<;>n 7.5 for additional discussion.

• Comparison of Scenarios 1 and 14 in Table 7-1 indicates that the roadway closure - one lane southbound on SR 481 increases the goth percentile ETE by 5 minutes - not a material impact on ETE - and has no impact on the 100th percentile ETE. See Section 7.5 for additional discussion.

• The Cities of Oswego is the most congested area in the EPZ during an evacuation. The last locations in the EPZ to exhibit traffic congestion are SR 104 west of the City of Oswego CR 7, Rathburn Rd and Ridge Rd. All congestion within the EPZ clears by 3 hours3.472222e-5 days <br />8.333333e-4 hours <br />4.960317e-6 weeks <br />1.1415e-6 months <br /> and 50 minutes after the Advisory to Evacuate. See Section 7.3 and Figures 7-3 through 7-8.

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

• Table 8-5 indicates that there are scarcely enough buses, wheelchair buses and ambulances available to evacuate the transit-dependent population within the EPZ in a single wave. However, mutual aid agreements would be invoked to address any potential shortfalls. See Sections 8.4 and 8.5.

• The ETE for the full EPZ general population are insensitive to reductions in the base trip generation time of 3Yz hours due to the traffic congestion within the EPZ. See Table M-1.

• The general population ETE is relatively insensitive to the voluntary evacuation of vehicles in the Shadow Region (a full shadow evacuation percentage increases the goth percentile ETE by 5 minutes and i_ncreases 100th percentile ETE by 25 minutes). See Table M-2.

NMP/JAF ES-5 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate February 24, 2016

• A Population increase of 22% or more results in ETE changes which meet the criteria for updating ETE between decennial Censuses. See Section M.3.

NMP/JAF ES-6 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate February 24, 2016

27 Lake Ontario Legend GJ NMP/JAF ERPA

'---: 2, 5, 10 Mile Rings Figure 6-1. NMP/JAF EPZ ERPAs NMP/JAF ES-7 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate February 24, 2016 L

Table 3-3. EPZ Perma nent Resident Popu lation

,. 010 Populatio 015 Population 1 173 172 2 469 465 3 343 337 4 687 690 5 804 786 6 915 896 7 699 700 8 718 720 9 597 599 10 1,023 1,002 11 1,916 1,875 12 7,960 7,894 13 10,223 10,121 14 193 193 15 1,105 1,104 16 1,624 1,585 17 587 587 18 1,030 1,021 19 1,316 1,295 20 1,783 1,756 21 1,782 1,741 22 5,940 5,884 23 0 0 24 0 0 25 0 0 26 0 0 27 0 0 28 0 0 29 0 0 TOTAL 41,887 41,423 EPZ Population Growth : -1.11%

NMP/ JAF ES-8 KLD Engineeri ng, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate February 24, 2016

Table 6-1 . Description of Evacuation Regions Region Description ROl 2-Mile Radius R02 5-Mile Radius R03 Full EPZ Evacuate 2-Mile Radius and Downwind to 5 Miles Wind Direction ERPA Region From 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 E, ESE, SE, SSE, N/A S, SSW, SW, Refer to ROl WSW R04 w ROS WNW ROG NW, NNW R07 N ROS NNE R09 NE RlO ENE Evacuate 2-Mile Radius and Downwind to EPZ Boundary Wind Direction ERPA Region From 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 Rll E, ESE, SE R12 SSE, S, SSW R13 SW R14 WSW RlS w R16 WNW R17 NW R18 NNW R19 N R20 NNE, NE R21 ENE NMP/JAF ES-9 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate February 24, 2016

Staged - Evacuate 2-Mile Radius and Downwind to 5 Miles ERPA Region Wind Direction From 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 E, ESE, SE, SSE, 5, SSW, SW, N/A Refer to ROl WSW R22 w R23 WNW R24 NW, NNW R25 N R26 NNE R27 NE R28 ENE R29 ERPA Shelter-in-Place NMP/JAF ES-10 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate February 24, 2016

Table 6-2. Evacuation Scenario Definitions Day of Time of Scenario Season 1 Week Day Weather Special 1 Summer Midweek Midday Good None 2 Summer M idweek Midday Rain None 3 Summer Weekend Midday Good None 4 Summer Weekend Midday Rain None Midweek, 5 Summe r Even ing Good None Weekend 6 Winter M idweek Midday Good None 7 Winter Midweek Midday Rain None 8 Winter M idweek Midday Snow None 9 Winter Weekend Midday Good None 10 Winter Weekend Midday Rain None 11 Winter Weekend Midday Snow None M idweek, 12 Winter Evening Good None Weekend 13 Summer Weekend Even ing Good Harborfest Fireworks Roadway Impact- Lane 14 Summer Midweek Midday Good Closure on SR 481 SB 1

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

NMP/JAF ES-11 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate February 24, 2016

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 Midweek Midweek Weekend Midweek Weekend Weekend Midweek Weekend Weekend Scenario: (1) (2) (3) (4) (S) (6) (7) (8) (9) (10) (11) (12) (13) (14)

Midday Midday Evening Midday Midday Evening Evening Midday Region Good Good Good Good Good Good Special Roadway Rain Rain Rain Snow Rain Snow Weather Weather Weather Weather Weather Weather Event Impact Entire 2-Mile Region, 5-Mile Region, and EPZ ROl 1:30 1:30 1:30 1:30 1:30 1:30 1:30 1:50 1:30 1:30 2:00 1:30 1:30 1:30 R02 1:50 1:50 1:45 1:45 1:45 1:50 1:50 2:10 1:45 1:45 2:05 1:45 1:40 1:50 R03 2:35 2:40 2:30 2:45 2:25 2:55 3:00 3:15 2:20 2:35 2:50 2:25 5:15 2:30 2-Mile Region and Keyhole to 5 Miles R04 1:35 1:35 1:35 1:35 1:35 1:40 1:40 2:00 1:35 1:35 2:05 1:35 1:35 1:35 ROS 1:40 1:40 1:35 1:35 1:35 1:40 1:40 2:00 1:35 1:35 2: 05 1:35 1:35 1:40 ROG 1:45 1:45 1:35 1:35 1:35 1:45 1:45 2:10 1:35 1:35 2:05 1:35 1:30 1:45 R07 1:50 1:50 1:45 1:45 1:45 1:50 1:50 2:10 1:45 1:45 2: 05 1:45 1:40 1:50 ROB 1:50 1:50 1:45 1:45 1:45 1:50 1:50 2:10 1:45 1:45 2:05 1:45 1:40 1:50 R09 1:45 1:45 1:40 1:40 1:40 1:45 1:45 2:05 1:40 1:40 2:05 1:40 1:35 1:45 RlO 1:35 1:35 1:30 1:30 1:30 1:35 1:35 1:55 1:30 1:30 2:00 1:30 1:30 1:35 2-Mile Region and Keyhole to EPZ Boundary Rll 1:30 1:30 1:30 1:30 1:30 1:30 1:30 1:50 1:30 1:30 2:00 1:30 1:30 1:30 R12 1:30 1:30 1:30 1:30 1:30 1:30 1:30 1:50 1:30 1:30 2:00 1:30 1:30 1:30 RB 1:40 1:40 1:30 1:30 1:35 1:40 1:40 2:05 1:35 1:35 2:05 1:35 1:35 1:40 R14 1:45 1:45 1:40 1:50 1:35 1:50 1:50 2:10 1:35 1:40 2:05 1:40 1:35 1:45 RlS 1:50 1:50 1:45 2:00 1:35 1:50 1:55 2:15 1:35 1:40 2:05 1:40 1:35 1:50 R16 1:50 1:50 1:45 1:50 1:40 1:55 1:55 2:15 1:40 1:40 2:10 1:40 1:35 1:50 R17 1:50 1:50 1:35 1:40 1:40 1:50 1:55 2:15 1:40 1:40 2:10 1:40 1:45 1:50 RlB 1:50 1:50 1:40 1:40 1:40 1:50 1:50 2:15 1:40 1:40 2:10 1:40 1:45 1:50 R19 2:35 2:50 2:35 2:50 2:25 2:55 3:05 3:15 2:25 2:35 2:45 2:20 5:20 2:40 R20 2:40 2:45 2:35 2:45 2:25 2:50 3:05 3:20 2:30 2:35 2:50 2:25 5:15 2:35 R21 2:30 2:45 2:30 2:40 2:25 2:50 3:00 3:15 2:20 2:30 2:40 2:20 5:10 2:35 Staged Evacuation Mile Region and Keyhole to 5 Miles R22 1:55 1:55 1:55 1:55 1:55 1:55 1:55 2:25 1:55 1:55 2:30 1:55 1:55 1:55 R23 1:55 2:00 2:00 2:00 2:00 1:55 2:00 2:25 2:00 2:00 2:30 2:00 2:00 1:55 R24 2:05 2:05 2:05 2:05 2:05 2:05 2:05 2:35 2:05 2:05 2:35 2:05 2:05 2:05 R25 2:15 2:20 2:15 2:20 2:20 2:15 2:25 2:40 2:20 2:20 2:45 2:20 2:15 2:15 R26 2:20 2:20 2:20 2:20 2:20 2:20 2:25 2:40 2:20 2:20 2:45 2:20 2:15 2:20 R27 2:15 2:15 2:15 2:15 2:15 2:15 2:15 2:40 2:15 2:15 2:40 2:15 2:10 2:15 R28 1:55 1:55 2:00 2:00 2:00 1:55 1:55 2:25 2:00 2:00 2:30 2:00 2:00 1:55 R29 2:15 2:15 2:15 2:20 2:15 2:15 2:20 2:40 2:15 2:20 2:40 2:20 2:15 2:15 NMP/JAF ES-12 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate February 24, 2016

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 Midweek Midweek Weekend Midweek Weekend Weekend Midweek Weekend Weekend Scenario: (1) (2) (3) (4) (S) (6) (7) (8) (9) (10) (11) (12) (13) (14)

Midday Midday Evening Midday Midday Evening Evening Midday Region Good Good Good Good Good Good Special Roadway Rain Rain Rain Snow Rain Snow Weather Weather Weather Weather Weather Weather Event Impact Entire 2-Mile Region, S-Mile Region, and EP2 ROl 3:30 3:30 3:30 3:30 3:30 3:30 3:30 4:15 3:30 3:30 4:15 3:30 3:30 3:30 R02 3:35 3:35 3:35 3:35 3:35 3:35 3:35 4 :20 3:35 3:35 4 :20 3:35 3:35 3:35 R03 3:40 3:40 3:40 3:40 3:40 3:50 3:55 4:25 3:40 3:40 4:25 3:40 7:20 3:40 2-Mile Region and Keyhole to S Miles R04 3:35 3:35 3:35 3:35 3:35 3:35 3:35 4:20 3:35 3:35 4:20 3:35 3:35 3:35 ROS 3:35 3:35 3:35 3:35 3:35 3:35 3:35 4:20 3:35 3:35 4:20 3:35 3:35 3:35 ROG 3:35 3:35 3 :35 3:35 3:35 3:35 3:35 4 :20 3:35 3:35 4 :20 3:35 3:35 3:35 R07 3:35 3:35 3 :35 3:35 3:35 3:35 3:35 4:20 3:35 3:35 4:20 3:35 3:35 3:35 ROS 3:35 3:35 3:35 3:35 3:35 3:35 3:35 4:20 3:35 3:35 4 :20 3:35 3:35 3:35 R09 3:35 3:35 3:35 3:35 3:35 3:35 3:35 4:20 3:35 3 :35 4:20 3:35 3:35 3:35 RlO 3:35 3:35 3:35 3:35 3:35 3:35 3:35 4:20 3:35 3:35 4 :20 3:35 3:35 3:35 2-Mile Region and Keyhole to EPZ Boundary Rll 3:30 3:30 3:30 3:30 3:30 3:30 3:30 4:15 3:30 3:30 4 :15 3:30 3:30 3:30 R12 3:30 3:30 3:30 3:30 3:30 3:30 3:30 4:15 3:30 3:30 4:15 3:30 3:30 3:30 R13 3:40 3:40 3:40 3:40 3:40 3:40 3:40 4:25 3:40 3:40 4:25 3:40 3:40 3:40 R14 3:40 3:40 3:40 3:40 3:40 3:40 3:40 4:25 3:40 3:40 4:25 3:40 3:40 3:40 RlS 3:40 3:40 3:40 3:40 3:40 3:40 3:40 4:25 3:40 3:40 4:25 3:40 3:40 3:40 R16 3:40 3:40 3:40 3:40 3:40 3:40 3:40 4 :25 3:40 3:40 4 :25 3:40 3:40 3:40 R17 3:40 3:40 3:40 3:40 3:40 3:40 3:40 4 :25 3:40 3:40 4 :25 3:40 3:40 3:40 R18 3:40 3:40 3:40 3:40 3:40 3:40 3:40 4:25 3:40 3:40 4 :25 3:40 3:40 3:40 R19 3:40 3:40 3:40 3:40 3:40 3:40 3:55 4:25 3:40 3:40 4:25 3:40 7:20 3:40 R20 3:40 3:40 3:40 3:40 3:40 3:40 3:55 4:25 3:40 3:40 4:25 3:40 7 :10 3:40 R21 3:40 3:40 3:40 3:40 3:40 3:40 3:45 4:25 3:40 3:40 4:25 3:40 7:10 3:40 Staged Evacuation Mile Region and Keyhole to 5 Miles R22 3:35 3:35 3:35 3:35 3:35 3:35 3:35 4:20 3:35 3:35 4:20 3:35 3:35 3:35 R23 3:35 3:35 3:35 3:35 3:35 3:35 3:35 4:20 3:35 3:35 4:20 3:35 3:35 3:35 R24 3:35 3:35 3:35 3:35 3:35 3:35 3:35 4:20 3:35 3:35 4 :20 3:35 3:35 3:35 R25 3:35 3:35 3:35 3:35 3:35 3:35 3:35 4:20 3:35 3:35 4 :20 3:35 3:35 3:35 R26 3:35 3:35 3:35 3:35 3:35 3:35 3:35 4:20 3:35 3:35 4 :20 3:35 3:35 3:35 R27 3:35 3:35 3:35 3:35 3:35 3:35 3:35 4:20 3:35 3:35 4:20 3:35 3:35 3:35 R28 3:35 3:35 3:35 3:35 3:35 3 :35 3:35 4:20 3:35 3:35 4:20 3:35 3:35 3:35 R29 3:35 3:35 3:35 3:35 3:35 3:35 3:35 4:20 3:35 3:35 4 :20 3:35 3 :35 3:35 NMP/JAF ES-13 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate February 24, 2016

Table 7-3. Time to Clear 90 Percent of the 2-Mile Region Summer Summer Summer Winter Winter Winter I Summer I Summer Midweek .

Midweek Weekend Midweek Weekend W k d ee en I Weekend I Midweek Midday Midday Evening Midday Midday Evening Evening Midday Region Good Good Good Good Good Good Special Roadway Rain Rain Rain Snow Rain Snow Weather Weather Weather Weather Weather Weather Event Impact Entire 2-Mile Region, 5-Mile Region, and EPZ ROl 1:30 1:30 1:30 1:30 1:30 1:30 1:30 1:50 1:30 1:30 2: 00 1:30 1:30 1:30 R02 1:30 1:30 1:30 1:30 1:30 1:30 1:30 1:50 1:30 1:30 2:00 1:30 1:30 1:30 2-Mile Region and Keyhole to 5 Miles R04 1:30 1:30 1:30 1:30 1:30 1:30 1:30 1:50 1:30 1:30 2:00 1:30 1:30 1:30 ROS 1:30 1:30 1:30 1:30 1:30 1:30 1:30 1:50 1:30 1:30 2:00 1:30 1:30 1:30 ROG 1:30 1:30 1:30 1:30 1:30 1:30 1:30 1:50 1:30 1:30 2:00 1:30 1:30 1:30 R07 1:30 1:30 1:30 1:30 1:30 1:30 1:30 1:50 1:30 1:30 2:05 1:30 1:30 1:30 ROS 1:30 1:30 1:30 1:30 1:30 1:30 1:30 1:50 1:30 1:30 2:00 1:30 1:30 1:30 R09 1:30 1:30 1:30 1:30 1:30 1:30 1:30 1:50 1:30 1:30 2:00 1:30 1:30 1:30 RlO 1:30 1:30 1:30 1:30 1:30 1:30 1:30 1:50 1:30 1:30 2:00 1:30 1:30 1:30 Staged Evacuation Mile Region and Keyhole to 5 Miles R22 1:30 1:30 1:30 1:30 1:30 1:30 1:30 1:50 1:30 1:30 2:00 1:30 1:30 1 :30 R23 1:30 1:30 1:30 1:30 1:30 1:30 1:30 1:50 1:30 1:30 2:00 1:30 1:30 1:30 R24 1:30 1:30 1:30 1:30 1:30 1:30 1:30 1:50 1:30 1:30 2:00 1:30 1:30 1:30 R25 1:30 1:30 1:30 1:30 1:30 1:30 1:30 1:50 1:30 1:30 2:00 1:30 1:30 1:30 R26 1:30 1:30 1:30 1:30 1:30 1:30 1:30 1:50 1:30 1:30 2:00 1:30 1:30 1:30 R27 1:30 1:30 1:30 1:30 1:30 1:30 1:30 1:50 1:30 1:30 2:00 1:30 1:30 1:30 R28 1:30 1:30 1:30 1:30 1:30 1:30 1:30 1:50 1:30 1:30 2:00 1:30 1 :30 1:30 R29 1:30 1:30 1:30 1:30 1:30 1:30 1:30 1:50 1:30 1:30 2:00 1:30 1:30 1:30 NMP/JAF ES-14 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuati o n Time Estimate February 24, 2016

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

Midday Midday Evening Midday Midday Evening Evening Midday Region Good Good Good Good Good Good Special Roadway Rain Rain Rain Snow Rain Snow Weather Weather Weather Weather Weather Weather Event Impact Entire 2-Mile Region, 5-Mi le Region, and EPZ ROl 3:30 3:30 3:30 3:30 3:30 3:30 3:30 4 :15 3:30 3:30 4:15 3:30 3:30 3:30 R02 3 :30 3:30 3:30 3:30 3:30 3:30 3:30 4:15 3:30 3:30 4 :15 3:30 3:30 3:30 2-Mile Region and Keyhole to 5 Miles R04 3 :30 3:30 3:30 3:30 3:30 3:30 3:30 4:15 3:30 3:30 4 :15 3:30 3:30 3:30 ROS 3:30 3:30 3:30 3:30 3:30 3:30 3:30 4:15 3:30 3:30 4:15 3:30 3:30 3:30 R06 3:30 3:30 3:30 3:30 3:30 3:30 3:30 4:15 3:30 3:30 4 :15 3:30 3:30 3:30 R07 3 :30 3:30 3:30 3:30 3:30 3:30 3:30 4 :15 3:30 3:30 4:15 3:30 3:30 3 :30 ROS 3:30 3:30 3:30 3:30 3:30 3:30 3:30 4:15 3:30 3:30 4:15 3:30 3:30 3:30 R09 3:30 3:30 3:30 3:30 3:30 3:30 3:30 4:15 3:30 3:30 4 :15 3:30 3:30 3 :30 RlO 3:30 3:30 3:30 3:30 3:30 3:30 3:30 4:15 3:30 3:30 4 :15 3:30 3:30 3:30 Staged Evacuation Mile Region and Keyhole to 5 Miles R22 3:30 3:30 3:30 3:30 3:30 3:30 3:30 4:15 3:30 3:30 4:15 3:30 3:30 3:30 R23 3:30 3:30 3:30 3:30 3:30 3:30 3:30 4:15 3:30 3:30 4 :15 3:30 3:30 3:30 R24 3 :30 3:30 3:30 3:30 3:30 3:30 3:30 4:15 3:30 3:30 4:15 3:30 3:30 3:30 R25 3:30 3:30 3:30 3:30 3:30 3:30 3:30 4:15 3 :30 3:30 4 :15 3:30 3:30 3:30 R26 3:30 3 :30 3:30 3:30 3 :30 3:30 3:30 4:15 3:30 3:30 4 :15 3:30 3 :30 3:30 R27 3:30 3:30 3:30 3:30 3:30 3:30 3:30 4 :15 3:30 3 :30 4 :15 3:30 3:30 3:30 R28 3:30 3 :30 3:30 3:30 3 :30 3:30 3:30 4 :15 3:30 3:30 4:15 3:30 3:30 3:30 R29 3 :30 3:30 3:30 3:30 3:30 3:30 3:30 4 :15 3 :30 3 :30 4 :15 3:30 3:30 3:30 NMP/JAF ES-15 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate February 24, 2016

Table 8-7. School, Preschool, and Day Camp Evacuation Time Estimates - Good Weather Dist. To Travel Dist. EPZ Travel Time Driver Loading EPZ Average Time to Bdry to from EPZ ETE to Mobilization Time Bdry Speed EPZ Bdry ETE R.C. Bdryto H.S. H.S.

School, Preschool, or Day Camp Time (min) (min) (mi) (mph) (min) (hr:min) (mi.) (min) (hr:min)

Ontario Bible Conference 2 90 15 13.0 14.7 53 2:40 26.9 30 3:10 New Haven Elementary School 90 15 7.4 47.0 10 1:55 28.9 32 2:30 School Age Children Care Program 90 15 11.7 13.8 51 2:40 26.9 30 3:10 Charles E. Riley Elementary 90 15 6.8 9.4 44 2:30 26.9 30 3:00 Fitzhugh Park Elementary School 90 15 7.9 10.1 47 2:35 26.9 30 3:05 Headstart of Oswego 90 15 7.8 10.1 47 2:35 26.9 30 3:05 little Luke's Childcare Center 90 15 7.3 9.4 47 2:35 26.9 30 3:05 Oswego Community Christian School 90 15 9.2 11.1 so 2:35 26.9 30 3:05 Trinity Catholic School 90 15 7.8 10.1 47 2:35 26 .9 30 3:05 Children's Center of SUNY Oswego 90 15 9.7 10.3 57 2:45 26.9 30 3:15 Frederick Leighton Elementary School 90 15 9.1 9.8 57 2:45 26.9 30 3:15 Kingsford Park Elementary 90 15 6.7 23.4 18 2:05 26.8 30 2:35 Oswego High School 90 15 8.6 10.0 52 2:40 26.9 30 3:10 Oswego Middle School 90 15 5.2 23.6 14 2:00 26.8 30 2:30 Oswego YMCA School's Out Program 90 15 6.7 22.1 19 2:05 26.8 30 2:35 Mexico Elementary School 90 15 4.5 48.9 6 1:55 30.4 34 2:25 Mexico High School 90 15 4.8 47.3 7 1:55 30.4 34 2:30 Mexico Middle School 90 15 5.0 46.7 7 1:55 30.4 34 2:30 Center for Instructional Technology and 90 15 5.0 46.7 7 1:55 31.4 35 2:30 Innovation (Oswego County B0CES) 3 Minetto Elementary School 90 15 2.2 45.6 3 1:50 26.8 30 2:20 SUNY Oswego 90 15 9.9 10.1 59 2:45 26.9 30 3:15 Palermo Elementary School 90 15 Located outside the EPZ 27.8 31 2:20 Maximum for EPZ: 2:45 Maximum: 3:15 Average for EPZ: 2:20 Average: 2:55 2

According to Oswego County officials, Ontario Bible Conference, included in this table, is a summer camp program that requires 2 buses from the Emergency Operations Center (EOC). The rest of the year, the camp is open to retreats fo r family events for which they can furnish their own transportation .

3 Oswego County BOCES is now known as the Center for Instructional Technology and Innovation (Citi).

NMP/JAF ES-16 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate February 24, 2016

Table 8- 11. Transit- Dependent Evacuation Time Estimates - Good Weather One-Wave Two-Wave Route Travel Route Route Travel Pickup Distance Time to Driver Travel Pickup Route Bus Mobilization Length Speed Time Time ETE to R. C. R. C. Unload Rest Time Time ETE Number Number (min) (miles) (mph) (min) (min) (hr:min) (miles) (min) (min) (min) (min) (min) (hr:min) 1 1 90 18 .5 13.9 80 30 3:20 26.9 29 5 10 70 30 5:45 2 1 90 16.6 14.0 71 30 3:15 26.9 29 5 10 66 30 5:35 3 1 90 16.2 45 .9 21 30 2:25 28 .9 32 5 10 69 30 4:55 4 1 90 9.7 46.4 13 30 2:15 28.9 32 5 10 54 30 4:30 5 1 90 8.7 44.6 12 30 2:15 28 .9 32 5 10 51 30 4:25 6 1 90 9.9 47.3 13 30 2:15 28.9 32 5 10 54 30 4:30 7 1 90 10.2 46.7 13 30 2:15 30.4 33 5 10 56 30 4:30 8 1 90 9.2 47 .3 12 30 2:15 30.4 33 5 10 54 30 4:30 9 1 90 10.4 43 .2 14 30 2:15 30.4 33 5 10 57 30 4:35 10 1 90 8.3 45.6 11 30 2:15 30.4 33 5 10 51 30 4:25 11 1 90 10.3 52.2 12 30 2:15 30.4 33 5 10 55 30 4:30 12 1 90 11.1 9.0 74 30 3:15 26.9 29 5 10 54 30 5:25 13 1 90 12.5 10.1 75 30 3:15 26.9 29 5 10 57 30 5:30 14 1 90 17.1 10.8 95 30 3:35 26.9 29 5 10 68 30 6:00 15 1 90 17 .7 12.2 87 30 3:30 26.9 29 5 10 69 30 5:55 16 1 90 19.0 13.4 85 30 3:30 26.9 29 5 10 72 30 6:00 17 1 90 7.1 47.4 9 30 2:10 28.9 32 5 10 48 30 4:15 18 1 90 10.4 47.4 13 30 2:15 28.9 32 5 10 55 30 4:30 19 1 90 9.8 46.6 13 30 2:15 35.4 39 5 10 62 30 4:45 20 1 90 8.9 48.4 11 30 2:15 35.4 39 5 10 59 30 4:40 21 1 90 16.3 36.6 27 30 2:30 35.4 39 5 10 80 30 5:15 22 1 90 12 .1 45.0 16 30 2:20 30.4 33 5 10 60 30 4:40 23 1 90 8.3 45.0 11 30 2:15 30.4 33 5 10 52 30 4:25 24 1 90 6.9 48.4 9 30 2:10 35 .4 39 5 10 54 30 4:30 25 1 90 10.5 11.1 57 30 3:00 26.9 29 5 10 53 30 5:10 26 1 90 11.2 11.2 60 30 3:00 26.9 29 5 10 54 30 5:10 27 1 90 9.9 8.0 74 30 3:15 26.9 29 5 10 52 30 5:25 28 1 90 8.2 14.2 35 30 2:35 26.9 29 5 10 47 30 4:40 29 1 90 9.8 7.7 76 30 3:20 26.9 29 5 10 51 30 5:30 NM P/JAF ES-17 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuati o n Time Estimate February 24, 2016

I One-Wave Two-Wave Route Travel Route Route Travel Pickup Distance Time to Driver Travel Pickup Route Bus Mobilization Length Speed Time Time ETE to R. C. R. C. Unload Rest Time Time ETE Number Number (min) (miles) (mph) (min) (min) (hr:min) (miles) (min) (min) (min) (min) (min) (hr:min) 30 1 90 8.2 7.2 68 30 3:10 26.9 29 5 10 47 30 5:15 31 1 90 8.8 7.2 73 30 3:15 26.9 29 5 10 48 30 5:20 32 1 90 3.4 8.4 24 30 2:25 26.9 29 5 10 36 30 4:20 33 1 90 7.9 8.4 56 30 3:00 26.9 29 5 10 46 30 5:05 34 1 90 8.0 8.4 57 30 3:00 26.9 29 5 10 46 30 5:05 35 1 90 8.6 7.9 65 30 3:10 26.9 29 5 10 48 30 5:15 36 1 90 6.5 20.6 19 30 2:20 26.8 29 5 10 44 30 4:20 37 1 90 9.2 17.5 32 30 2:35 26.8 29 5 10 so 30 4:40 38 1 90 6.5 17.5 22 30 2:25 26.8 29 5 10 44 30 4:25 39 1 90 7.6 4.5 102 30 3:45 26.8 29 5 10 46 30 5:50 40 1 90 6.6 19.0 21 30 2:25 26.8 29 5 10 44 30 4:25 41 1 90 8.3 4.6 107 30 3:50 26.8 29 5 10 49 30 5:55 42 1 90 8.7 5.0 105 30 3:45 26.8 29 5 10 49 30 5:50 43 1 90 10.0 8.3 72 30 3:15 26.8 29 5 10 53 30 5:25 44 1 90 9.9 20.1 29 30 2:30 26.8 29 5 10 52 30 4:40 45 1 90 9.8 10.6 55 30 3:00 26.8 29 5 10 52 30 5:10 46 1 90 9.2 20.1 27 30 2:30 26.8 29 5 10 50 30 4:35 47 1 90 8.4 46.4 11 30 2:15 28.9 32 5 10 51 30 4:25 48 1 90 8.6 46.4 11 30 2:15 28.9 32 5 10 51 30 4:25 49 1 90 10.7 12.1 53 30 2:55 26.9 29 5 10 53 30 5:05 50 1 90 10.0 12.0 50 30 2:50 26.9 29 5 10 51 30 4:55 51 1 90 10.6 8.0 79 30 3:20 26.9 29 5 10 52 30 5:30 52 1 90 9.6 8.3 69 30 3:10 26.9 29 5 10 51 30 5:15 53 1 90 17.9 45.1 24 30 2:25 30.4 33 5 10 73 30 5:00 54 1 90 4.1 44.9 5 30 2:10 28.9 32 5 10 42 30 4:10 55 1 90 9.2 47.7 12 30 2:15 28.9 32 5 10 52 30 4:25 56 1 90 9.2 47.7 12 30 2:15 28.9 32 5 10 52 30 4:25 57 1 90 5.3 47.7 7 30 2:10 28.9 32 5 10 44 30 4:15 58 1 90 8.5 39 .0 13 30 2:15 26.9 29 5 10 49 30 4:20 59 1 90 6.5 39.9 10 30 2:10 26.9 29 5 10 45 30 4:10 60 1 90 7.0 39.0 11 30 2:15 26.9 29 5 10 46 30 4:15 61 1 90 7.4 39.0 11 30 2:15 26.9 29 5 10 45 30 4:15 NMP/JAF ES-18 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate February 24, 2016

One-Wave Two-Wave Route Travel Route Route Travel Pickup Distance Time to Driver Travel Pickup Route Bus Mobilization Length Speed Time Time ETE to R. C. R.C. Unload Rest Time Time ETE Number Number (min) (miles) (mph) (min) (min) (hr:min) (miles) (min) (min) (min) (min) (min) (hr:min) 62 1 90 6.7 39.0 10 30 2:15 26.9 29 5 10 45 30 4:15 63 1 90 5.2 46.3 7 30 2:10 26.8 29 5 10 41 30 4:10 64 1 90 5.2 45.8 7 30 2:10 26.8 29 5 10 42 30 4:10 65 1 90 7.6 40.3 11 30 2:15 26.8 29 5 10 51 30 4:20 66 1 90 4.4 40.3 7 30 2:10 26.8 29 5 10 54 30 4:20 67 1 90 4.6 40.3 7 30 2:10 26.8 29 5 10 56 30 4:20 68 1 90 6.1 40.3 9 30 2:10 26.8 29 5 10 55 30 4:20 69 1 90 5.6 46.3 7 30 2:10 26.8 29 5 10 42 30 4:10 70 1 90 9.7 4.9 119 30 4:00 26.8 29 5 10 51 30 6:10 71 1 90 8.4 5.0 100 30 3:45 26.8 29 5 10 48 30 5:50 72 1 90 5.8 3.0 117 30 4:00 37.7 41 5 10 54 30 6:20 73 1 90 3.9 6.7 35 30 2:35 37.7 41 5 10 so 30 4:55 74 1 90 4.2 6.3 40 30 2:40 37.7 41 5 10 51 30 5:00 75 1 90 11.1 8.0 83 30 3:25 26.9 29 5 10 53 30 5:35 76 1 90 4.7 48.4 6 30 2:10 35 .4 39 5 10 49 30 4:25 Maximum ETE: 4:00 Maximum ETE: 6:20 Average ETE: 2:45 Average ETE: 4:55 NMP/JAF ES-19 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate February 24, 2016

!Region Ros I Lc1k,* Ulllano I ERPA : 29

/

/

Legend NMP/JAF ERPA Evacuate

, -::: 2, 5, 10 Mi le Rings

- - Sector Boundary

~l Coovrf1ht:ESRI O.ta*ndM* 1>52014 IUD Eng,.:U,on{ Eelon ~nemion, EnlPrl'(

Figure H-8. Region ROS NMP/JAF ES-20 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate February 24, 2016

1 INTRODUCTION This report describes the analyses undertaken and the results obtained by a study to develop updated Evacuation Time Estimates (ETE) for the Nine Mile Point Nuclear Station and James A.

FitzPatrick Nuclear Power Plant (NMP/JAF), located in Oswego County, NY. ETE provide Exelon Generation (Exelon) and Entergy, along with state and local governments with site-specific information needed for Protective Action decision-making.

In 2012, an -ETE was developed for the NMP/JAF site (KLD TR-521). Regions, grouping of contiguous evacuating ERPAs that forms either a "keyhole" sector-based area, or a circular area within the EPZ, that must be evacuated in response to a radiological emergency, were developed for the 2012 study using specific degree measures. This study has redefined the regions for NMP/JAF site to conform to the 16 cardinal wind directions, as per federal guidance discussed in NUREG/CR-7002.

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

• NUREG/CR-7002, SAND 2010-00GlP, "Criteria for Development of Evacuation Time Estimate Studies," November 2011. (NRC, 2011a).

• NUREG/CR-1745, "Analysis of Techniques for Estimating Evacuation Times for Emergency Planning Zones," November, 1980. (NRC, 1980a).

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

• NUREG/CR-6863, SAND2001-5900, "Development of Evacuation Time Estimate Studies for Nuclear Power Plants," January 2005. (NRC, 2005).

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

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

NMP/JAF 1-1 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate February 24, 2016

Table 1-1. Stakeholder Interaction Stakeholder Nature of Stakeholder Interaction Exelon emergency planning personnel Conference calls to define data requirements and revised regions, as well as set up contacts with local government agencies. Reviewed and Entergy Emergency planning personnel approved all project assumptions. Reviewed and commented on draft ETE report.

Provided local emergency plans. Reviewed and Oswego County Emergency Management Office approved all project assumptions. Reviewed and commented on draft ETE report.

Provided state emergency plan. Reviewed and New York State Office of Emergency Management approved all project assumptions. Reviewed draft ETE report.

,/

Provided existing traffic management plans.

Local and State Police Agencies Reviewed draft ETE report.

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 revised regions and scope of work in discussions with representatives from Exelon/Entergy.

b. Attended meetings in 2012 with emergency planners from the New York State Office of Emergency Management and Oswego County Emergency Management and local law enforcement to identify issues to be addressed and resources available.

c. Conducted a detailed field survey in 2012 of the highway system and of area traffic conditions within the Emergency Planning Zone (EPZ) and Shadow Region.

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

Projected 2010 Census data to the year 2015 (see Section 3.1).

e. Utilized data from 2012 random sample telephone survey of EPZ residents.

f. Utilized data from 2012 and updated accordingly to identify and describe schools, special facilities, major employers, transient attractions, 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 NMP/JAF 1-2 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate February 24, 2016

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 NMP/JAF. Traffic control is applied at specified Traffic Control Points (TCP) located throughout the study area.

5. Used existing ERPAs to define Evacuation Regions. The EPZ is partitioned into 29 ERPAs along jurisdictional and geographic boundaries. "Regions" are groups of contiguous ERPAs 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, Exelon, Entergy and from the telephone survey.

b. Applied the procedures specified in the 2010 Highway Capacity Manual (HCM 1 )

to the data acquired during the field survey, to estimate the capacity of all highway segments comprising the evacuation routes. (TRB, 2010).

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 NMP/JAF.

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

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

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

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

NMP/JAF 1-3 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate February 24, 2016

1.2 The Locations of Nine Mile Point and James A. FitzPatrick NMP/JAF are on adjacent parcels of land which border the southeast shore of Lake Ontario in the Town of Scriba in Oswego County, New York. The site is approximately 35 miles northwest of Syracuse, NY. The EPZ consists of parts of Oswego County and Lake Ontario. Figure 1-1 displays the area surrounding NMP/JAF. This map identifies the communities in the area and the major roads.

NMP/JAF 1-4 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate February 24, 2016

w-¢-, ,,.. - -- - .....

/

/

/

I .....

/

Lake I I

I I

I

/

\

Ontario Ahmar

\

\

Legend

• NMP/JAF

'- ,,.. 2, 5, 10 Mile Rings Figure 1-1. Location of NMP/JAF Nuclear Power Plant NMP/JAF 1-5 KLD Enginee ri ng, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate February 24, 2016

1.3 Preliminary Activities These activities are described below.

Field Surveys of the Highway Network KLD personnel drove the entire highway system within in 2012 the EPZ and the Shadow Region which consists of the area between the EPZ boundary and approximately 15 miles radially from NMP/JAF. The characteristics of each section of highway were recorded. These characteristics are shown in Table 1-2:

Table 1-2. Highway Characteristics

• Number of lanes

• Posted speed

• Lane width

• Actual free speed

• Shoulder type & width

• Abutting land use

• Interchange geometries

• Control devices

• Lane channelization & queuing

• Intersection configuration (including capacity (including turn bays/lanes) roundabouts where applicable)

• Geometrics : curves, grades (>4%)

• Traffic signal type

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

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 w idth; 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 2010 indicates that a reduction in lane width from 12 feet (the "base" value) to 10 feet can reduce free flow speed (FFS) by 1.1 mph - not a material difference - for two-lane highways. Exhibit 15-30 in the HCM 2010 shows little sensitivity for the estimates of Service Volumes at Level of Service (LOS) E (near capacity), with respect to FFS, for two-lane highways.

The data from the audio and video recordings were used to create detailed geographic 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 1,700 passenger cars per hour in one direction. For freeway sections, a value of 2,250 vehicles per hour per lane is assigned, as per Exhibit 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 2010 Exhibit 15-30. These links may be NMP/JAF 1-6 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate February 24, 2016

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 signa l 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 in 2012 to gather information needed for the evacuation study. Appendix F presents the survey instrument, the procedures used and tabulations of data compiled from the survey returns .

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

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

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

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

NMP/JAF 1-7 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate February 24, 2016

I

/

Lacona I

I Lower Reservoir Altmar

,69)

Legend NMP/JAF Node

- - Link Constantia GJ ERPA

\...-: 2, 5, 10 Mile Rings

~

O.t,

• 9/6/ 2012 Shadow Reg ion Copyr1gh1ESRI B*s;em*p0,1, 10 ICLDEnclnt!erln1,Conuelh11lonEnergy, Entergy Mil es Figure 1-2. NMP/JAF Link-Node Analysis Network NMP/JAF 1-8 KLD Engin eering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate February 24, 2016 L_

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" (O) located within the analysis network, where evacuation trips are "generated" over time. This establishes a set of 0 -D tables.

• A Dynamic Traffic Assignment (OTA), model which assigns trips to paths of travel (routes) which satisfy the 0 -D tables, over time . The TD and OTA 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 (UNlfied Iransportation fngineering ~ystem) was used to expedite data entry and to automate the production of output tables.

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

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

For the reader interested in an evaluation of the original model, 1-DYNEV, the following references are suggested :

• NUREG/CR-4873, PNL-6171, "Benchmark Study of the 1-DYNEV Evacuation Time Estimate Computer Code," (NRC, 1988a).

• NUREG/CR-4874, PNL-6172, "The Sensitivity of Evacuation Time Estimates to Changes in Input Parameters for the 1-DYNEV Computer Code," (NRC, 1988b).

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 NMP/JAF 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 NMP/JAF.

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 NMP/JAF 1-9 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate February 24, 2016

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 w ith the 2012 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:

• The population has been updated using the 2010 US Census and projected out to 2015 using 2014 growth rates. EPZ population decreased by 1.11% since the last study, which contributes to the slightly shorter ETE.

• The number of regions considered was significantly reduced (54 in the previous study versus 29 in this study) due to the omission of slivers (small pieces of an ERPA within the keyhole that have little or no population - See Figure 6-2) and the use of the sixteen cardinal wind directions (22.5° sectors in accordance with federal guidelines, rather than the narrow sectors - as little as 4° - used in legacy PAR for the sites).

Table 1-3. ETE Study Comparisons Topic Previous ETE Study Current ETE Study ArcGIS software using 2010 US Census blocks and projecting out ArcGIS Software using 2010 US Census Resident Population to 2015 using 2014 population blocks; area ratio method used.

Basis changes published by the US Population = 41,887 Census; area ratio method used.

Population= 41,423 2.39 persons/household, 1.24 evacuating 2.39 persons/household, 1.24 Resident Population vehicles/household yielding: 1.93 evacuating vehicles/household Vehicle Occupancy persons/vehicle. yielding: 1.93 persons/vehicle.

Employee estimates based on Employee estimates based on information information provided by Oswego provided by Oswego County about major County about major employers Employee employers in EPZ. 1.09 employees per in EPZ. 1.09 employees per Population vehicle based on telephone survey results . vehicle based on telephone Employees= 1,714 survey results.

Employees = 1,714 NMP/JAF 1-10 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate February 24, 2016

Topic Previous ETE Study Current ETE Study Estimates based upon U.S.

Census data and the results of Estimates based upon U.S. Census data and the telephone survey.

the results of the telephone survey. A total Dispatching a total of 76 buses of 1,881 people who do not have access to a to provide transit for 1,860 vehicle, requiring at least 63 buses to people who do not have access Transit-Dependent evacuate. An additional 208 homebound to a vehicle. An additional 208 Population special needs persons require transportation homebound special needs to evacuate (151 ambulatory and 57 persons require transportation wheelchair bound people, transported in 19 to evacuate (151 ambulatory and wheelchair vans) . 57 wheelchair bound people, transported in 19 wheelchair vans) .

Transient estimates based upon Transient estimates based upon information information provided about provided about transient attractions in EPZ, transient attractions in EPZ, supplemented by observations of the supplemented by phone calls Transient facilities during the road survey, internet made to facilities from the Population searches and from phone calls to facilities . previous 2012 ETE were Transients= 8,315 (including 2,349 reviewed. Transients= 8,495 commuting SUNY students). (including 2,349 commuting SUNY Oswego students) .

Medical facility population based Medical facility population based on on information provided by information provided by Oswego County. Oswego County.

Current census = 1,080 Current census = 1,080 Special Facilities Wheelchair and regular buses Required= 223 Wheelchair and regular buses Population Ambulances Required = 14 Required= 223 Correctional facility census = 160; 6 buses Ambulances Required = 14 requ ired. Correctional facility census =

160; 6 buses required.

School, Preschool, and Day Camp population based on information School population based on information provided by Oswego County provided by Oswego County Emergency School, Preschool, Emergency Management.

Management.

and Day Camp Total enrollment= 15,735 School enrollment= 15,377 (including SUNY Population (including SUNY Oswego commuter students) commuter students and Ontario Buses required= 160 Bible Conference)

Buses required= 156 NMP/JAF 1-11 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate February 24, 2016

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

Figure 2-1) evacuated 20% of people outside of the EPZ within the 20% of people outside of the EPZ Shadow Evacuation Shadow Region w ithin the Shadow Region (see Figure 7-2) (see Figure 7-2)

Network Size 1,057 links; 716 nodes 1,075 links; 729 nodes Field surveys conducted in March 2012. Roads and Field surveys conducted in March 2012 .

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

Data archived .

Road capacities based on 2010 HCM .

Road capacit ies based on 2010 HCM.

Direct evacuation to designated reception Direct evacuation to designated School Evacuation center. reception center.

50 percent of transit-dependent 50 percent of transit-dependent persons will Ridesharing persons will evacuate with a evacuate with a neighbor or friend .

neighbor or friend .

Based on res idential telephone survey of specific pre-trip Based on res idential telephone survey of mobilization activit ies :

specific pre-trip mobilization activities :

Residents with commuters Res idents with commuters return ing leave returning leave between 15 and between 15 and 210 minutes.

210 minutes .

Trip Generation for Residents without commuters returning Residents without commuters Evacuation leave between 5 and 165 minutes .

returning leave between 5 and Employees and transients leave between 5 165 minutes .

and 120 minutes.

Employees and trans ients leave All t imes measured from the Advisory to between 5 and 120 minutes .

Evacuate.

All times measured from the Advisory to Evacuate.

Normal, Ra in, or Snow. The Normal, Rain , or Snow. The capacity and free capacity and free flow speed of flow speed of all links in the network are Weather all links in the network are reduced by 10% in the event of rain and 20%

reduced by 10% in the event of for snow.

ra in and 20% for snow.

DYNEV II System - Version Modeling DYNEV II System - Version 4.0.8.0 4.0.19 .2 NMP/JAF 1-12 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Esti mate February 24, 2016

Topic Previous ETE Study Current ETE Study Harborfest Fireworks Harborfest Fireworks Special Events Specia l Event Population =54,900 addition al Specia l Event Population =

transients 54,900 additiona l transients 54 Regions and 14 Scenarios producing 756 29 Regions and 14 Scenarios Evacuation Cases unique cases. producing 406 unique cases.

ETE reported for90 1h and 1001h ETE reported for 901h and 1001h percentile Evacuation Time percentile population. Results population. Results presented by Region and Esti mates Reporting presented by Region and Scenario.

Scenario.

Winter Midweek Midday, Winter Midweek Midday, Evacuation Ti me Good Weather: 2:55 and 4:00 Good Weather: 2:55 and 3:50 Esti mates for the entire EPZ, 901h and 1001h percentile Summer Weekend, Midday, Summer Weekend, Midday, Good Weather: 2:35 and 3:40 Good Weather: 2:30 and 3:40 NM P/JAF 1-13 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate February 24, 2016

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 and are proj ected to 2015 using annual growth rates computed by comparing 2010 data with 20141 population estimation published by the US Census (see Section 3) .

2. Estimates of employees who res ide outside the EPZ and commute to work within the EPZ are based upon data obtained from Oswego County Emergency Management in 2012.

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

This data was collected in 2012.

4. Roadway capacity estimates are based on field surveys and the appl ication 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 2.39 persons per household (see Append ix F, Figure F-1) and 1.24 evacuati ng vehicles per household (Figure F-8) are used. The relationship between persons and vehicles for employees, transients, and the special event is as follows:

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

b. Transient Attractions: Vehicle occupancy varies from 1.2 people per vehicle to 3 people per vehicle, depending on the type of facility. See Section 3.3 and Appendix E for data gathered from local facilities.

c. Special Events: Assumed transients attending the Harborfest firework show travel as families/households in a single vehicle, and used the average household size of 2.39 persons to estimate the number of veh icles .

1 The an nu al popu lation estimates prepa red by the Census Bureau fo r the entire U.S. involve s an extensive data gat hering process. As such, population estimates are a year beh ind - 2014 data are releas ed in 2015. The schedule fo r re lease of Cen sus data is provi ded on th e Census websit e:

http ://www .cen sus.gov/pop est/ sched ule. html NMP/JAF 2-1 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacu at ion Time Estimate February 24, 2016

2.2 Study Methodological Assumptions

1. ETE are presented for the evacuation of the goth and 100th percentiles of population for each Region and for each Scenario. The percentile ETE is defined as the elapsed time from the Advisory to Evacuate issued to a specific Region of the EPZ, to the time that Region is clear of the indicated percentile of evacuees. A Region is defined as a group of ERPAs 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 NMP/JAF 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 as well as those which result from the plant specific PARs which may be issued at either NMP or JAF. These Regions, as defined, display irregular boundaries reflecting the geography of the ERPAs 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 southbound on SR 481, for the length of the two lane section of this roadway which is about 4/lOths of a mile south of Churchill Road to 1/4th mile north of Van Buren Dr.

8. The models of the 1-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 2 and NRC, 1988a). 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. The DYNEV II System is used to compute ETE in this study.

2 Urban ik, T., et. al. Benchmark Study of the 1-DYNEV Evacuation Time Estimate Computer Code, NUREG/CR-4873, Nuclear Regulatory Commi ssi on, June, 1988.

NMP/JAF 2-2 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate February 24, 2016

Table 2-1. Evacuation Scenario Definitions Day of Time of Scenario Season 3 Week Day Weather Special 1 Summer Midweek Midday Good None 2 Summer Midweek M idday Rain None 3 Summer Weekend Midday Good None 4 Summer Weekend Midday Rain None Midweek, 5 Summer Evening Good None Weekend 6 Winte r Midweek Midday Good None 7 Winter Midweek Midday Rain None 8 Winter M idweek Midday Snow None 9 Winter Weekend M idday Good None 10 Winter Weekend Midday Rain None 11 Winter Weekend Midday Snow None Midweek, 12 Winter Evening Good None Weekend Special Event - Harborfest 13 Summer Weekend Evening Good Fireworks Roadway Impact - SB Lane 14 Summer M idweek Midday Good Closure on SR 481 3

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

NMP/JAF 2-3 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate February 24, 2016

\

)

10Miles /

J 15 Miles 15 Miles

'----_./ 15 Miles j 2-Mile Reg ion I 15-Mile Region I IEntire EPZ I Keyhole : 2-M ile Region & 5 Miles Downwind Keyhole: 2-Mile Region & 10 Miles Downwind Staged Evacuation: 2-Mile Region & 5 Miles Downwind

• Plant Location

• Reg ion to be Evacuated : 100% Evacuation D 20% Shadow Evacuation D Shelter, then Evacuate Figure 2-1. Voluntary Evacuation Methodology NMP/JAF 2-4 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate February 24, 2016

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 ERPAs forming a Region that is issued an Advisory to Evacuate will, in fact, respond and evacuate in general accord with the planned routes.

3. 56 percent of the households in the EPZ have at least 1 commuter; 45 percent of those households with commuters will await the return of a commuter before beginning their evacuation trip (see Figure F-6), based on the telephone survey results. Therefore 25 percent (56% x 45% = 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 NMP/JAF.

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.

NMP/JAF 2-5 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate February 24, 2016

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

a. If schools/day camps are in session, transport (buses) will evacuate students directly to the designated reception center.

b. It is assumed parents will pick up children at small day care centers (enrollments of 30 students or less) 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 reception centers.

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

f. Bus mobilization time is considered in ETE calculations.

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

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

8. Provisions are made for evacuating the transit-dependent portion of the general population to reception centers by bus, based on the assumption that some of these people will ride-share with family, neighbors, and friends, thus reducing the demand for buses . We assume that the percentage of people who rideshare is SO percent. This assumption is based upon reported experience for other emergencies4, and on guidance in Section 2.2 of NUREG/CR-7002 . (IES, 1981).

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 operations5; the factors are shown in Table 2-2. (Agarwal, 2005) .

4 Institute for Environmenta l 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).

5 Agarwal, M . et. Al. Impacts of Weat her 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 .

NMP/JAF 2-6 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate February 24, 2016

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 information provided in the local emergency plans . Transit buses used to transport the transit-dependent general population are assumed to transport 30 people per bus.

Wheelchair equipped buses are assumed to carry 20 ambulatory and 2 wheelchair bound individuals and wheelchair vans can accommodate 7 ambulatory and 3 wheelchair bound persons. The capacities of wheelchair-carrying vehicles are based on information provided in the local emergency plans. Ambulances are assumed to carry 2 bedridden occupants.

Table 2-2. Model Adjustment for Adverse Weather Highway Free Flow Scenario Capacity* Speed* Mobilization Time for General Population Rain 90% 90% No Effect Clear driveway before leaving home Snow 80% 80%

(See Figure F-13)

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

NMP/JAF 2-7 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate February 24, 2016

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 NMP/JAF 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, visiting a park, camping) 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 ERPA and by polar coordinate representation (population rose) .

The NMP/JAF EPZ is subdivided into 29 ERPAs, as shown in Figure 3-1.

NMP/JAF 3-1 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate February 24, 2016

27 Lake Onfano Legend GI NMP/JAF ERPA

\..-=:, 2, 5, 10 M ile Rings Figure 3-1. ERPAs Comprising the NMP/JAF EPZ NMP/JAF 3-2 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate February 24, 2016

l 3.1 Permanent Residents The U.S. Census Bureau conducts a physical census of the permanent resident population in the U.S. every ten years. The last census began on April 1, 2010 with data from the census being published on April 1, 2011. In the years between the decennial censuses, the Census Bureau works with state and local agencies to provide annual population estimates at the state and local levels. These estimates are done using data on deaths, births and migration . This annual data gathering process and analysis is extensive . As such, population estimates are a year behind - 2014 data are released in 2015.

This study is based on 2010 Census population data from the Census Bureau website 1 extrapolated to 2015 using annual growth rates computed from the 2014 Census population estimates as outlined in the methodology below.

The Census Bureau QuickFacts 2 website provides annual population estimates for each state, county, town 3 and municipality4 in the United States. As discussed above, Census population estimates are a year behind. Thus, the most recent population estimates available for the towns and municipalities are for the t ime period from April 1, 2010 to July 1, 20145 . The population change and annual growth rate for each town and municipality in the study area (EPZ plus Shadow Region) are provided in Table 3-1 and Table 3-2, respectively. Figure 3-2 shows the town and mun icipality boundaries identified by the Census Bureau.

The permanent resident population, as per the 2010 Census, for the EPZ and the Shadow Region was projected to 2015 using the compound growth formula (Equation 1). In the compound growth formula, g is the annual growth rate and X is the number of years projected forward from Year 2010. The compound growth formula can be solved for g as shown in Equation 2.

Equation 1 (Compound Growth fo r X years) : Po pulation 201X Po pulation 20 10 (1 + g) x Equation 2 (Solving fo r t he annual growth rate): g = (P opulati on 201X + Population 20 10) 1 / x - 1 The 2010 and 2014 population data provided in Table 3-1 and Table 3-2 were used in Equation 2 to compute the annual growth rate for each town and municipal ity in the study area using X =

4.25 (4 years and 3 months from April 1, 2010 to July 1, 2014). The computed annual growth rate for each town and municipa lity is summarized in the final column of Table 3-1 and Table 3-2, respectively.

1 www.census .gov 2

http://guickfacts .census .gov/qfd/index .html 3

http://www.census .qov/popest/data/cities/totals/20 14/SU B-EST2014-4 .html

• http://www.census .gov/popesUdata/cities/totals/2014/SU B-EST2014-3 .html 5

The schedule for release of Census data is provided on the Census website: http://www.census .gov/popesUschedule.html NMP/JAF 3-3 KLD Engi neering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Esti mate February 24, 2016

The most detailed data should always be used when forecasting population. In terms of detailed data, municipal data is the finest level of detail, then town data, county data, and state data. The municipality growth rate was used first and if that was not available or applicable within the study area, then the town growth rate was used. Town growth rates are available for the entire study area and were used (in the absence of municipal data) as they are the finest level of detail available for the entire study area . Thus, county and state data were not used.

The Census Bureau does not provide population data specific to the boundaries of the study area. As such, the entire town or municipality population was used to compute the annual growth rate . Then, the appropriate municipality or town growth rate was applied only to those Census blocks located within the study area . All other blocks outside of the study area were not considered as part of the EPZ or Shadow Region population, even if they are located within one of the municipalities or towns that intersect the study area. The appropriate annual growth rate was applied to each Census block in the study area depending on which town or municipality the block is located with in. The population was extrapolated, using Equation 2, to September 1, 2015 as the base year for this ETE study.

Population estimates are based upon Census 2010 data. The estimates are created by cutting the census block polygons by the ERPA and EPZ boundaries. A ratio of the original area of each census block and the updated area (after cutting) is multiplied by the total block population to estimate what the population is within the EPZ. This methodology assumes that the population is evenly distributed across a census block. Table 3-3 provides the permanent resident population within the EPZ, by ERPA, for 2010 (based on the most recent U.S. Census) and for 2015 (based on the methodology above). As indicated, the permanent resident population within the EPZ has decreased by 1.11% since the 2010 Census.

The average household size (2 .39 persons/household - See Appendix F, sub-section F.3.1) and the number of evacuating vehicles per household (1.24 vehicles/household - See Appendix F, sub-section F.3.2) were adapted from the telephone survey results.

The year 2015 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 3-4. Figure 3-3 and Figure 3-4 present the permanent resident population and permanent resident vehicle estimates by sector and distance from NMP/JAF. 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.

NMP/JAF 3-4 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate February 24, 2016

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 .

3.1.1 SUNY Oswego One higher education facil ity, the State University of New York at Oswego (SUNY Oswego), is located within the EPZ. SUNY Oswego (located in Oswego, 8.0 miles southwest of NMP/JAF) has 8,300 enrolled students with 4,300 of those students considered on-campus residents. Based on data provided by Oswego County Emergency Management, students will be evacuated by bus and private vehicles. There will be 18 buses dispatched to the university with a capacity of 40 students per bus, thereby evacuating a total of 720 students by bus . The plans assume ridesharing amongst students will occur such that all rema ining on-campus students will have a ride out of the EPZ. For students evacuating in private vehicles, the same trip mobilization distribution (See Section S) as transients was used as their commuting patterns are similar.

Demographic Census data for cities neighboring SUNY Oswego were used to compute a baseline percentage of college age res idents. This baseline percentage was removed from the percentage of 20-24 year olds within the City of Oswego to determine the additional 20-24 year olds present with in the city due to its proximity of SUNY Oswego. The remaining percentage of 20-24 year olds was multiplied by the total city population which resulted in 1,651 student commuters within the EPZ. According to school officials, a total of 4,000 students (8,300 -

4,000) commute minus the 1,651 EPZ residents (to avoid double counting) results in 2,349 student commuters from outside the EPZ. A vehicle occupancy of 1.09 commuters per vehicle obtained from the telephone survey question relating to commuting employees (See Section 3.4) was used to determine the number of evacuating vehicles for student commuters as their travel patterns are similar. As such, 2,155 veh icles for students commuting to SUNY Oswego have been considered in this study.

3.1.2 Day Camp - Ontario Bible Conference The Ontario Bible Conference (located in 1.1 miles west-southwest from NMP/JAF) is located within the EPZ. This is a summer children's day camp and retreat center (See Table E-1). Based on discussions with Oswego County officials, there are 91 children that attend in the month of July. The day camp will evacuate to the New York State Fairgrounds Reception Center, identical to those of their school counterparts. A total of 2 buses or 4 vehicles (1 bus is equivalent to 2 passenger vehicles - see Section 8) have been incorporated for the Ontario Bible Conference.

The evacuation of this facility is modelled the same as schools and is discussed in Section 8.

3.1.3 Special Facilities One correctional facility, Oswego County Correctional Facility (located in Oswego, 7.2 miles south-southwest from NMP/JAF) and several large medical facilities (see Table E-2) are located within the EPZ. This study considers the people residing at these facilities as transit-dependent population, which is addressed in Section 8, including the number and type (bus, wheelchair bus, ambulance) of vehicles needed to evacuate .

NMP/JAF 3-5 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate February 24, 2016

Table 3-1. Town Population Change and Annual Growth Rate from April 1, 2010 to July 1, 2014 T 2010 2014 Percent Annual own Population Population Change Growth Rate

. Cayuga County, NY **

EPZ Mexico 5,197 5,177 -0.38% -0.09%

Minetto 1,659 1,627 -1.93% -0.46%

New Haven 2,856 2,873 0 .60% 0.14%

Oswego 7,984 7,920 -0.80% -0.19%

Palermo 3,664 3,651 -0.35% -0.08%

Richland 5,718 5,686 -0.56% -0.13%

Scriba 6,840 6,726 -1.67% -0.39%

Volney 5,926 5,843 -1.40% -0.33%

Shadow Region Granby 6,821 6,699 -1.79% -0.42%

Hannibal 4,854 4,732 -2.51% -0.60%

Hastings 9,469 9,401 -0.72% -0.17%

Sandy Creek 3,939 3,872 -1.70% -0.40%

Schroeppel 8,482 8,371 -1.31% -0.31%

Table 3-2. Municipality Population Change and Annual Growth Rate from April 1, 2010 to July 1, 2014 2010 2014 Percent Annual Municipality Population Population Change Growth Rate Oswego County, NY EPZ Mexico I 1,624 I 1,592 I -1.97% T -0.47%

Oswego I 18,142 I 17,988 I -0.85% I -0.20%

Shadow Region Fulton I 11,896 I 11,648 I -2.08% l -0.49%

Pulaski I 2,365 I 2,329 I -1.52% I -0.36%

NMP/JAF 3-6 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estim ate February 24, 2016

Legend ~ P1et::'f),ont c]

NMP/JAF EPZ Ev -ur g Ellisburg fl!no r Mar\nsville Je/fJ,~s on L orra i ne CJ County Boundary

(' o u n ty

~ Town Boundary

~ Shadow Region Census Places Municipalities with Data ~~

Q Census Des ignated Places (No Data)

Gd-J' 10 Mi les Figure 3-2. Census Boundaries within the NMP/JAF Study Area NMP/JAF 3-7 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate February 24, 2016

Table 3-3. EPZ Permanent Resident Population ERPA 2010 Population 2015 Population 1 173 172 2 469 465 3 343 337 4 687 690 5 804 786 6 915 896 7 699 700 8 718 720 9 597 599 10 1,023 1,002 11 1,916 1,875 12 7,960 7,894 13 10,223 10,121 14 193 193 15 1,105 1,104 16 1,624 1,585 17 587 587 18 1,030 1,021 19 1,316 1,295 20 1,783 1,756 21 1,782 1,741 22 5,940 5,884 23 0 0 24 0 0 25 0 0 26 0 0 27 0 0 28 0 0 29 0 0 TOTAL 41,887 41,423 EPZ Population Growth: -1.11%

NMP/JAF 3-8 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate February 24, 2016

Table 3-4. Permanent Resident Popu lation and Vehicles by ERPA 2015 Resident ERPA Resident Vehicles Population 1 172 91 2 465 243 3 337 175 4 690 361 5 786 407 6 896 464 7 700 365 8 720 374 9 599 311 10 1,002 522 11 1,875 973 12 7,894 4,098 13 10,121 5,253 14 193 104 15 1,104 570 16 1,585 820 17 587 307 18 1,021 528 19 1,295 672 20 1,756 916 21 1,741 905 22 5,884 3,053 23 0 0 24 0 0 25 0 0 26 0 0 27 0 0 28 0 0 29 0 0 TOTAL 41,423 21,512 NMP/JAF 3-9 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate February 24, 2016

N NNW NNE CD NW NE CD  ;

CD

.) \

WNW ENE CD []I]

w E CD' o 66 1

~

i WSW ESE cm]\ 13, 963 1 SW ' SE 124,0861 11,94 71 392

- _, 10 Miles t o EPZ Bound ary SSW SSE 1s,4771 s 11, 8481 N 12, 227 1 Resident Population Miles Subtotal by Ring Cumulative Total 0-1 0 0 1- 2 448 448 2-3 752 1,200 3-4 1,551 2,75 1 w E 4-5 1,423 4,174 5 -6 3,465 7,639 6-7 9,178 16,817 7-8 9,97 5 26,792 8-9 7,088 33 ,880 9 - 10 4,685 38,565 10 - EPZ 2,858 4 1,423 Total : 41,423 Figure 3-3. Permanent Resident Population by Sector NMP/JAF 3-10 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estim ate February 24, 2016

N NNW NNE D::J CD CD

~

I 0 7-NW NE D::J '

CD WNW ENE D::J DI]

,- ...J w E D::J I 0 36 I [£I]

WSW ESE

[ill] 12,060 I SW ' SE 112,4 991 I1, 013 1 SSW 205

- _, 10 Miles to EPZ Bo un da ry SSE

!2,844 I s ffiD N filITl Resident Veh icles Miles Subtotal by Ring Cumulative Total 0-1 0 0 1-2 234 234 2-3 392 626 3-4 806 1,432 w E 4-S 738 2,170 5-6 1,802 3,972 6-7 4,762 8,734 7 -8 5, 179 13,913 8-9 3,677 17,590 9 - 10 2,430 20,020 10 - EPZ 1,492 21,512 Inset Total : 21 ,512 0 - 2Miles s Figure 3-4. Permanent Resident Vehicles by Sector NMP/JAF 3-11 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Esti mate February 24, 2016

3.2 Shadow Population A portion of the population living outside the evacuation area extending to 15 miles radially from the NMP/JAF (in the Shadow Region} may elect to evacuate without having been instructed to do so. Based upon NUREG/CR-7002 guidance, it is assumed that 20 percent of the permanent resident population, based on U.S. Census Bureau data, in this Shadow Region will elect to evacuate .

Shadow population characteristics (household size, evacuating vehicles per household, mobilization time} are assumed to be the same as that for the EPZ permanent resident population . Table 3-5, Figure 3-5, and Figure 3-6 present estimates of the shadow population and vehicles, by sector.

The 2010 Census permanent resident population within the Shadow Region was also extrapolated to September 1, 2015 using the methodology discussed in Section 3.1 for the permanent resident population within the EPZ.

Table 3-5. Shadow Population and Vehicles by Sector 2015 Evacuating Sector Population Vehicles N 0 0 NNE 0 0 NE 169 92 ENE 2,902 1,507 E 1,683 876 ESE 1,437 749 SE 1,665 866 SSE 2,372 1,233 s 14,199 7,376 SSW 2,937 1,525 SW 1,981 1,030 WSW 0 0 w 0 0 WNW 0 0 NW 0 0 NNW 0 0 TOTAL 29,345 15,254 NMP/JAF 3-12 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate February 24, 2016

N NNW 0 NNE 0 0 NW NE 0 169 WNW ENE 0 2,902

' \

w E EPZ Resident Population 0 See Figure 3-3 1,683

.1

~

WSW ESE 0 1,437 SW SE 1,981 1,665 SSW  : -= EPZ Boundary to 11 Miles 2,937 s 2,372

!14,199 I Shadow Population Miles Subtotal by Ring Cumulative Total EPZ - 11 842 842 11 -12 3,544 4,386 12-13 4,516 8,902 13 - 14 10,581 19,483 14 - 15 9,862 29,345 Tota l: 29,345 Figure 3-5. Shadow Population by Sector NMP/JAF 3-13 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate February 24, 2016

N NNW 0 NNE 0 0 NW NE 0 92 WNW ENE 0 1,S07 w E EPZ Resident Vehicles 0 See Figure 3-4 876 WSW ESE 0 749 SW SE 1, 0 30 86 6 EPZ Boundary to 11 Miles SSW ' _,

1,525 s 1, 233 7, 37 6 Sh ad ow Vehi cles M iles Su btotal by Ring Cum ulative Total EPZ - 11 442 442 11 - 12 1,843 2,285 12 - 13 2,340 4,625 13 - 14 5,497 10,122 14 - 15 5,132 15,254 Total : 15,254 Figure 3-6. Shadow Vehicles by Sector NMP/JAF 3-14 KLD Enginee ri ng, P.C.

Evacuati on Tim e Est imate Fe bruary 24, 2016

3.3 Transient Population Based on discussions with Exelon, Entergy, and Oswego County, the transient facilities within the EPZ have not changed considerably from the 2012 study. Thus, all transient data from the 2012 study was maintained.

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, visit a park, camping) . Transients may spend less than one day or stay overnight at a campground or lodging facility. The NMP/JAF EPZ has a number of areas and facilities that attract transients, including:

• Lodging Facilities

• Marinas

• Campgrounds

• Golf Courses

• Oswego Speedway

• SUNY Oswego (large commuter school)

Data was provided by Oswego County on the number of rooms, percentage of occupied rooms at peak times, and the number of people and vehicles per room for each lodging facility. These data were used to estimate the number of transients and evacuating vehicles at each of these facil ities . Oswego County Emergency Management has requested the Holiday Inn Express, opening in mid-2016 in Oswego, be included within the study. The average number of transients (2.22 people) and evacuating vehicles (1.09 per room) from lodging facilities within the EPZ were used to estimate the number of transients and evacuating vehicles at this facility.

A total of 81 rooms with 180 transients and 88 evacuating vehicles have been assigned to this facility. A total of 1,104 transients in 541 vehicles are assigned to lodging facilities in the EPZ.

Data was provided by Oswego County on average daily attendance, number of slips and peak season of the marinas in the EPZ. These data were used to estimate the number of transients and evacuating vehicles at each of these facilities. A total of 770 transients and 643 vehicles are assigned to marinas in the EPZ.

Oswego County provided 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 1,773 transients and 653 vehicles are assigned to campgrounds in the EPZ.

There are two 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 travels from outside the area . A total of 59 transients and 39 vehicles are assigned to golf courses within the EPZ.

Data provided by Oswego County, supplemented with internet based searches, supplied the peak season and attendance at Oswego Speedway and was used to determine the number of transients visiting the race track on a typical summer weekend. A total of 2,440 transients and NMP/JAF 3-15 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate February 24, 2016

1,021 vehicles (average household size of 2.39 persons used to compute the number of vehicles) have been assigned to Oswego Speedway.

As detailed in Section 3.1.1 above, there are 2,349 transients (commuting students) and 2,155 vehicles assigned to SUNY Oswego .

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

In total, there are 8,495 transients evacuating in 5,052 vehicles, an average of 1.68 transients per vehicle . Table 3-6 presents transient population and transient veh icle estimates by ERPA. Figure 3-7 and Figure 3-8 present these data by sector and distance from NMP/JAF.

Table 3-6. Summary of Transients and Transient Vehicles ERPA Transients Transient Vehicles 1 0 0 2 0 0 3 0 0 4 90 42 5 54 21 6 266 85 7 784 354 8 0 0 9 0 0 10 32 24 11 0 0 12 3,256 1,426 13 452 338 14 434 174 15 778 433 16 0 0 17 0 0 18 0 0 19 0 0 20 0 0 21 0 0 22 2,349 2,155 23 0 0 24 0 0 25 0 0 26 0 0 27 0 0 28 0 0 29 0 0 TOTAL 8,495 5,052 NMP/JAF 3-16 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuati on Time Est imate February 24, 2016

NN W NNE

[TI [TI

~\

NW NE

[TI [TI

,)

WNW \

ENE

[TI DI]

w E

[TI' H3 I !1,633 !

i WSW ESE

[TI Dill SW ' SE

!6,3 23 ! [TI

- _, 10 Miles to EPZ Bo undary SSW SSE

[TI s DI] N

[KJ Trans ients M iles Subtotal by Ring Cumulative Total 0-1 0 0 1-2 0 0 2-3 0 0 3-4 352 35 2 w E 4-5 90 442 5-6 2,795 3,237 6-7 1,520 4,757 7-8 633 5,390 8-9 2,671 8,061 9 - 10 0 8,061 10 - EPZ 434 8,495 Tota l: 8,495 Figure 3-7. Transient Population by Sector NMP/JAF 3-17 KLD Enginee ri ng, P.C.

Evacu ation Time Est imat e February 24, 2016

N NNW NNE CT=:]

0 NW NE CT=:] CT:J

,)

WNW \

ENE CT=:] ~

w E CT=:] I 0 129 I []II]

i WSW ESE CT=:] [ill]

SW ' ' SE

!4, 004 ! CT:J I - '

- _, 10 Miles to EPZ Boundary SSW SSE CT=:] s CE] N 00 Transi ent Vehicles Miles Subtotal by Ring Cumulative Total 0-1 0 0 1 -2 0 0 2-3 0 0 3- 4 130 130 w E 4 -5 42 172 5-6 1,173 1,345 6 -7 837 2,182 7-8 418 2,600 8-9 2,278 4,878 9 - 10 0 4,8 78 10 - EPZ 174 5,052 Total : 5,052 Figure 3-8. Transient Vehicles by Sector NMP/JAF 3-18 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimat e February 24, 2016

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

• Those who live and work in the EPZ

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

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

The number of employees working at major employers as well as the percentage of staff commuting to work from outside of the EPZ was provided by Oswego County.

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 veh icle occupancy of 1.09 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 3-7 presents non-EPZ Resident employee and vehicle estimates by ERPA. Figure 3-9 and Figure 3-10 present these data by sector.

NMP/JAF 3-19 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate February 24, 2016

Table 3-7. Summary of Non-EPZ Resident Employees and Employee Vehicles ERPA Employees Employee Vehicles 1 691 634 2 0 0 3 0 0 4 0 0 5 0 0 6 193 177 7 0 0 8 0 0 9 0 0 10 0 0 11 0 0 12 139 127 13 74 68 14 0 0 15 0 0 16 0 0 17 0 0 18 0 0 19 0 0 20 0 0 21 0 0 22 617 566 23 0 0 24 0 0 25 0 0 26 0 0 27 0 0 28 0 0 29 0 0 TOTAL 1,714 1,572 NMP/JAF 3-20 KLD Enginee rin g, P.C.

Evacuati on Time Estimate February 24, 2016

N NNW NNE IT]

~\

NW NE IT] IT]

,)

WNW \

ENE IT] CD I ..,

w E IT] 0 I IT]

i WSW ESE IT] IT]

SW ' ' SE I1, 0231 IT]

- _, 10 Mi les to EPZ Bo und a ry SSW SSE CD s @I] N CD Employees Miles Subtotal by Ring Cumulative Total 0-1 691 691 1- 2 0 691 2-3 0 691 3-4 159 850 w E 4-5 58 908 5-6 47 955 6-7 68 1,023 7-8 28 1,051 8-9 663 1,714 9 -10 0 1,71 4 10 - EPZ 0 1,714 Total : 1,714 Figure 3-9. Employee Population by Sector NMP/JAF 3-21 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Est imate February 24, 2016

N NNW NNE

[I]

~,

NW NE

[I] [I]

WNW >,

ENE

[I] [I]

w E

[I]' 0 0 I [I]

i WSW ESE

[I] [I]

SW SE

~ [I]

SSW

- _, 10 M iles to EPZ Bound ary SSE CT=:] s [iliJ N CT=:]

Employee Vehicles Miles Subtotal by Ring Cumulative Total 0-1 634 634 1-2 0 634 2-3 0 634 3-4 146 780 w E 4-5 53 833 5-6 43 876 6-7 62 938 7 -8 26 964 8 -9 608 1,572 9 - 10 0 1,572 10 - EPZ 0 1,572 Tota l: 1,572 Figure 3-10 . Employee Vehicles by Sector NMP/JAF 3-22 KLD Enginee ri ng, P.C.

Evacuation Ti me Estimate Fe bruary 24, 2016

3.5 Special Facilities Data were provided by Oswego County for each of the medical facilities within the EPZ. Table E-2 in Appendix E summarizes the data gathered. Section 8 details the evacuation of medical facilities and the ir 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 ambulatory people; wheelchair buses up to 22 people (20 ambulatory, 2 wheelchair bound),

wheelchair vans up to 10 people (7 ambulatory, 3 wheelchair bound); and ambulances, up to 2 bedridden people.

Data was provided by Oswego County for the one correctional facility (Oswego County Correctional Facility) within the EPZ. Table E-6 in Appendix E summarizes the data gathered.

Section 8.6 discusses the evacuation of these prisoners. It is estimated that buses can transport up to 30 passengers (inmates and correctional officers).

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 on the major route traversing the region - Interstate 81 (1-81). 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 (HPMS, 2013) to estimate the number of vehicles per hour on the aforementioned route . The AADT was multiplied by the K-Factor, (TRB, 2010), which is the proportion of the AADT on a roadway segment or link during the design hour, resulting in the design hour volume (DHV).

The design hour is usually the 30th highest hourly traffic volume of the year, measured in vehicles per hour (vph). The DHV is then multiplied by the D-Factor, (TRB, 2010), 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 3-8. The DDHV is then multiplied by 2 hours2.314815e-5 days <br />5.555556e-4 hours <br />3.306878e-6 weeks <br />7.61e-7 months <br /> (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 5,036 vehicles entering the EPZ as external-external trips prior to the activation of the ACP and the diversion of this traffic. This number is reduced by 60% for evening scenarios (Scenarios 5, 12 and 13) as discussed in Section 6.

NMP/JAF 3-23 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate February 24, 2016

Table 3-8. NMP/JAF EPZ External Traffic Upstream Downstream Road HPMS 1 K- D- Hourly External Direction Node Node Name AADT Factor 2 Factor2 Volume Traffic 8043 43 1-81 Southbound 23,537 0.107 0.5 1,259 2,518 8298 298 1-81 Northbound 23,537 0.107 0.5 1,259 2,518 TOTAL: 5,036

' Highway Performan ce Monitoring Syst em {HPMS), Federal Highway Admini stration {FHWA), Washin gton, D.C., 2012 2

HCM 2010 3.7 Special Event One special event scenario (Scenario 13) is considered for the ETE study - Several special event candidates were considered for this scenario including the workforce influx induced by an outage at either NMP or JAF. Of the events considered, Harborfest fireworks draws in the greatest number of transients by far. Harborfest is a momentous occasion which attracts a considerable number of transients from the greater Central New York region. The capstone of the four-day festival is a Saturday night fireworks display. This event draws 90,000 people, 61%

of whom are from outside of the EPZ. It was assumed that families travel to the event as a household unit in a single vehicle; therefore, the average household size of 2.39 was used for vehicle occupancy. A total of 22,971 vehicles were incorporated at various parking locations for this special event. The special event vehicle trips were generated utilizing the same mobilization distributions as transients. Public transportation is not provided for this event and was not considered in the special event analysis . (A shuttle bus is provided from the parking areas, however the total time allocated for transient mobilization - 2 hours2.314815e-5 days <br />5.555556e-4 hours <br />3.306878e-6 weeks <br />7.61e-7 months <br />, see Figure 5 is sufficient to include travel from the main event area to the parking areas, whether on the shuttle bus or by foot.)

3.8 Summary of Demand A summary of population and vehicle demand is provided in Table 3-9 and Table 3-10, 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 73,987 people and 37,159 vehicles are considered in this study.

NMP/JAF 3-24 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate February 24, 2016

Table 3-9. Summary of Population Demand Schools Transit- Special SUNY Shadow External ERPA Residents Transients Employees and Day Total Dependent Facilities Oswego Region Traffic Camp 1 172 8 0 691 0 91 0 0 0 962 2 465 21 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 486 3 337 15 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 352 4 690 31 90 0 0 238 0 0 0 1,049 5 786 35 54 0 0 0 0 0 0 875 6 896 40 266 193 0 0 0 0 0 1,395 7 700 31 784 0 0 0 0 0 0 1,515 8 720 32 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 752 9 599 27 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 626 10 1,002 45 32 0 0 33 0 0 0 1,112 11 1,875 84 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1,959 12 7,894 354 3,256 139 710 1,342 0 0 0 13,695 13 10,121 456 452 74 262 2,904 0 0 0 14,269 14 193 9 434 0 0 0 0 0 0 636 15 1,104 50 778 0 9 0 0 0 0 1,941 16 1,585 71 0 0 24 1,759 0 0 0 3,439 17 587 26 0 0 6 446 0 0 0 1,065 18 1,021 46 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1,067 19 1,295 58 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1,353 20 1,756 79 0 0 191 0 0 0 0 2,026 21 1,741 78 0 0 38 367 0 0 0 2,224 22 5,884 264 0 617 0 5,951 2,349 0 0 15,065 23 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 24 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 25 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 26 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 27 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 28 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 29 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Shadow 0 0 0 0 0 255 0 5,869 0 6,124 Total 41,423 1,860 6,146 1,714 1,240 13,386 2,349 5,869 0 73,987 NOTE: Shadow Region has been reduced to 20%. Refer to Figure 2-1 for additional information .

NOTE: Special Facilities include medical facilities and correctional facilities .

NOTE: The Schools and Day Camp column includes 91 students for the Ontario Bible Conference .

NMP/JAF 3-25 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate February 24, 2016

Table 3-10. Summary of Vehicle Demand Schools Transit- Special and Day SUNY Shadow External ERPA Residents Dependent Transients Employees Facilities Camp Oswego Region Traffic Total 1 91 2 0 634 0 4 0 0 0 731 2 243 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 245 3 175 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 177 4 361 2 42 0 0 8 0 0 0 413 5 407 2 21 0 0 0 0 0 0 430 6 464 4 85 177 0 0 0 0 0 730 7 365 2 354 0 0 0 0 0 0 721 8 374 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 376 9 311 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 313 10 522 4 24 0 0 2 0 0 0 552 11 973 6 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 979 12 4,098 28 1,426 127 222 46 0 0 0 5,947 13 5,253 38 338 68 116 108 0 0 0 5,921 14 104 2 174 0 0 0 0 0 0 280 15 570 4 433 0 2 0 0 0 0 1,009 16 820 6 0 0 4 66 0 0 0 896 17 307 2 0 0 2 18 0 0 0 329 18 528 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 532 19 672 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 676 20 916 6 0 0 122 0 0 0 0 1,044 21 905 6 0 0 4 16 0 0 0 931 22 3,053 22 0 566 0 36 2,155 0 0 5,832 23 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 24 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 25 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 26 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 27 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 28 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 29 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Shadow 0 0 0 0 0 8 0 3,051 5,036 8,095 Total 21,512 152 2,897 1,572 472 312 2,155 3,051 5,036 37,159 NOTE: Shadow Region has been reduced to 20%. Refer to Figure 2-1 for additional information.

NOTE: Buses for schools and special facilities represented as two passenger vehicles. Refer to Section 8 for add iti onal information.

NOTE: The Schools and Day Camp column includes 2 buses (4 vehicles) for the Ontario Bible Conference .

NMP/JAF 3-26 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate February 24, 2016

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)

NMP/JAF 4-1 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate February 24, 2016

the 2010 HCM. For example, HCM Exhibit 7-l(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 pn 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)

Qcap,m - h X (G -C L) -_ (3600) h X Pm m m m where:

Qcap,m = Capacity of a single lane of traffic on an approach, which executes NMP/JAF 4-2 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate February 24, 2016

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, where:

hsat = Saturation discharge headway for through vehicles; seconds per vehicle

= The various known factors influencing hm fm(} = Complex function relating hm to the known (or estimated) values of hsat, F1, F2, ...

The estimation of hm for specified values of hsat, F1, F2, ... is undertaken within the DYNEV 11 simulation model by a mathematical model 2

• The resulting values for hm always satisfy the condition:

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

Lieberman, E., "Service Rates of Mixed Traffic on the far Left Lane of an Approach". Both papers appear in Transportation Research Record 772, 1980. Lieberman, E., Xin, W., "Macroscopic Traffic Modeling For Large-Scale Evacuation Planning", presented at the TRB 2012 Annual Meeting, January 22-26, 2012 NMP/JAF 4-3 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate February 24, 2016

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, Fl, F2, ... , influencing saturation flow rate are identified in equation (18-

5) of the HCM 2010.

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

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

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

The value of VF can be expressed as:

Vp =Rx Capacity where:

R = Reduction factor which is less than unity NMP/JAF 4-4 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate February 24, 2016

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.

NMP/JAF 4-5 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate February 24, 2016

4.3 Application to the NMP/JAF 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 1,700 passenger cars per hour (pc/h). This estimate is essentially independent of the directional distribution of traffic volume except that, for extended distances, the two-way capacity will not exceed 3,200 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 1,900 to 2,200 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 NMP/JAF 4-6 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate February 24, 2016

conservative estimate of per-lane capacity of 1,900 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 (TRB, 2010)

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): 2,250 2,300 2,350 2,400 The inputs to the simulation model are highway geometrics, free-speeds and capacity based on field observations. The simulation logic calculates actual time-varying speeds based on demand:

capacity relationships. A conservative estimate of per-lane capacity of 2,250 pc/h is adopted for this study for freeways, as shown in Appendix K.

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

Chapter 13 of the HCM 2010 presents procedures for estimating capacities of ramps and of "merge" areas. There are three significant factors to the determination of capacity of a ramp-freeway junction: The capacity of the freeway immediately downstream of an on-ramp or immediately upstream of an off-ramp; the capacity of the ramp roadway; and the maximum flow rate entering the ramp influence area. In most cases, the freeway capacity is the controlling factor. Values of this merge area capacity are presented in Exhibit 13-8 of the HCM 2010, and depend on the number of freeway lanes and on the freeway free speed. Ramp capacity is presented in Exhibit 13-10 and is a function of the ramp free flow speed. The DYNEV II simulation model logit 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).

NMP/JAF 4-7 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate February 24, 2016

4.3.4 Intersections Ref: HCM Chapters 18, 19, 20, 21 (TRB, 2010)

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

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

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

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 NMP/JAF 4-8 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate February 24, 2016

these are: (1) Free flow speed (FFS); and (2) saturation headway, hsat- The first of these is estimated by direct observation during the road survey; the second is estimated using the concepts of the HCM 2010, as described earlier. These parameters are listed in Appendix K, for each network link.

NMP/JAF 4-9 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate February 24, 2016

Volume, vph

+ Capacity Drop Qmax -

RQmax-

~---,----=::----1=-.,..---.---------+----- Density, vpm Flow,Regimes I

Speed, mph Forced,..,

Vf -r~---,:---~~~___i R Ve -

L - - - - ' - - - - - - ' - ,----+-------~-=--------+Density, vpm 0

k opt Figure 4-1. Fundamental Diagrams NMP/JAF 4-10 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate February 24, 2016

5 ESTIMATION OF TRIP GENERATION TIME Federal Government guidelines (see NUREG CR-7002) specify that the planner estimate the distributions of elapsed times associated with mobilization activities undertaken by the public to prepare for the evacuation trip. The elapsed time associated with each activity is represented as a statistical distribution reflecting differences between members of the public.

The quantification of these activity-based distributions relies largely on the results of the telephone survey. We define the sum of these distributions of elapsed times as the Trip Generation Time Distribution.

5.1 Background In general, an accident at a nuclear power plant is characterized by the following Emergency Classification Levels (see Appendix 1 of NU REG 0654 for details):

1. Unusual Event

2. Alert

3. Site Area Emergency

4. General Emergency At each level, the Federal guidelines specify a set of Actions to be undertaken by the Licensee, and by State and Local offsite authorities. As a Planning Basis, we will adopt a conservative posture, in accordance with Section 1.2 of NUREG/CR-7002, that a rapidly escalating accident will be considered in calculating the Trip Generation Time. We will assume:

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

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

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

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

1. Establish a temporal framework for estimating the Trip Generation distribution in the format recommended in Section 2.13 of NUREG/CR-6863. (NRC, 2005).

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

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

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

Thus, the time needed to complete the mobilization activities and the number of people remaining to evacuate the EPZ after the Advisory to Evacuate, will both be somewhat less than NMP/JAF 5-1 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate February 24, 2016

the estimates presented in this report. Consequently, the ETE presented in this report are higher than the actual evacuation time, if this hypothetical situation were to take place.

The notification process consists of two events:

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

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

The population within the EPZ is dispersed over an area of approximately 160 square miles and is engaged in a wide variety of activities. It must be anticipated that some time will elapse between the transmission and receipt of the information advising the public of an accident.

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

As indicated in Section 2~13 of NUREG/CR-6863, the estimated elapsed times for the receipt of notification can be expressed as a distribution reflecting the different notification times for different people within, and outside, the EPZ. By using time distributions, it is also possible to distinguish between different population groups and different day-of-week and time-of-day scenarios, so that accurate ETE may be computed.

For example, people at home or at work within the EPZ will be notified by siren . Those well outside the EPZ will be notified by telephone, radio, TV and word-of-mouth, with potentially longer time lags. furthermore, the spatial distribution of the EPZ population will differ with time of day - families will be united in the evenings, but dispersed during the day. In this respect, weekends will differ from weekdays.

As indicated in Section 4.1 of NUREG/CR-7002, the information required to compute trip generation times is typically obtained from a telephone' survey of EPZ residents. Such a survey was conducted in 2012 in support of a pervious ETE study for this site. Appendix F discusses the survey sampling plan and documents the survey instrument and survey results. It is important to note that the shape and duration of the evacuation trip mobilization distribution is important for regions where traffic congestion is not expected to cause the evacuation time estimate to extend in time well beyond the trip generation period. The remaining discussion will focus on the application of the trip generation data obtained from the telephone survey to the development of the ETE documented in this report.

NMP/JAF 5-2 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate February 24, 2016

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

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

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

Table 5-1. Event Sequence for Evacuation Activities Event Sequence Activity Distribution 1 "7 2 Receive Notification 1 2 "7 3 Prepare to Leave Work 2 2,3 "7 4 Travel Home 3 2,4 "7 5 Prepare to Leave to Evacuate 4 N/A Snow Clearance 5 These relationships are shown graphically in Figure 5-1.

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

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

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

An employee who lives outside the EPZ will follow sequence (c) of Figure 5-1. A household NMP/JAF 5-3 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate February 24, 2016

within the EPZ that has one or more commuters at work, and will await their return before beginning the evacuation trip will follow the first sequence of Figure 5-l{a) . A household within the EPZ that has no commuters at work, or that will not await the return of any commuters, will follow the second sequence of Figure 5-l{a), regardless of day of week or time of day.

Households with no commuters on weekends or in the evening/night-time, will follow the applicable sequence in Figure 5-l{b). Transients will always follow one of the sequences of Figu re 5-l(b). Some transients away from their residence could elect to evacuate immediately without returning to the residence, as indicated in the second sequence .

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

Furthermore, Event 5 depends, in a complicated way, on the time distributions of all activities preceding that event. That is, to estimate the time distribution of Event 5, we must obtain estimates of the time distributions of all preced ing events. For this study, we adopt the con servative posture that all activities will occur in sequence.

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

NMP/ JAF 5-4 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate February 24, 2016

1 2 3 4 s Residents Households wait for Commuters 1 Households without 1 2 S Commuters and Residents households who do not o--o------0 wait for Commuters (a) Accident occurs during midweek, at midday; year round Residents, 1 2 4 S Trans ients Return to residence, away from Residence o--o------0---0 then evacuate Residents, 1 2 s Residents at home; Trans ients at transients evacuate directly Residence (b) Accident occurs during weekend or during the evening 1 2 3, 5 (c) Employees who live outside the EPZ ACTIVITIES EVENTS 1 --+ 2 Receive Notification 1. Notification 2 --+ 3 Prepare to Leave Work 2. Aware of situation 2, 3 --+ 4 Travel Home 3. Depart work 2, 4 --+ 5 Prepare to Leave to Evacuate 4. Arrive home

5. Depart on evacuation trip Activities Consume Time 1

Appl ies for evening and weekends also if commuters are at work.

2 Applies throughout the year for transients.

Figure 5-1. Events and Activities Preceding the Evacuation Trip NMP/ JAF 5-5 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate February 24, 2016

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

Time Distribution No. 1, Notification Process : Activity 1 ---+ 2 Federal regulations (10CFR 50 Appendix E, Item IV.D.3) stipulate, "[t]he design objective of the prompt public alert and notification system shall be to have the capability to essentially complete the initial alerting and initiate notification of the public within the plume exposure pathway EPZ within about 15 minutes" (NRC, 2011b). Furthermore, Item 2 of Section B in Appendix 3 of NUREG/CR-0654/FEMA-REP-1 states that "special arrangements will be made to assure 100%

coverage within 45 minutes of the population who may not have received the initial notification within the entire plume exposure EPZ" (NRC, 1980b).

Given the federal regulations and guidance, and the presence of sirens within the EPZ, it is assumed that 100% of the population in the EPZ can be notified within 45 minutes. The assumed distribution for notifying the EPZ population is provided in Table 5-2 :

Table 5-2. Time Distribution for Notifying the Public Elapsed Time Percent of (Minutes) Population Notified 0 0%

5 7%

10 13%

15 27%

20 47%

25 66%

30 87%

35 92%

40 97%

45 100%

NMP/JAF 5-6 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate February 24, 2016

Distribution No. 2, Prepare to Leave Work: Activity 2 ---+ 3 It is reasonable to expect that the vast majority of business enterprises within the EPZ will elect to shut down following notification and most employees would leave work quickly. Commuters, who work outside the EPZ could, in all probability, also leave quickly since facil ities outside the EPZ would remain open and other personnel would remain. Personnel or farmers responsible for equipment/livestock wou ld require additional time to secure their facil ity. The distribution of Activity 2 "'7 3 shown in Table 5-3 reflects data obtained by the telephone survey. This distribution is plotted in Figure 5-2.

Table 5-3. Time Distribution for Employees to Prepare to Leave Work Cumulative Cumulative Elapsed Time Percent Employees Elapsed Time Percent Employees (Minutes)

Leaving Work (Minutes) Leaving Work 0 0% 35 94 .50%

5 51.10% 40 95 .90%

10 70.60% 45 96 .20%

15 80 .70% so 96 .20%

20 85 .90% 55 96.20%

25 86.40% 60 100.00%

30 94.00%

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

NMP/ JAF 5-7 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate February 24, 2016

Distribution No. 3, Travel Home: Activity 3 ~ 4 These data are provided directly by those households which responded to the telephone survey. This distribution is plotted in Figure 5-2 and listed in Table 5-4.

Table 5-4. Time Distribution for Commuters to Travel Home Cumulative Cumulative Elapsed Time Percent Elapsed Time Percent (Minutes) Returning Home (Minutes) Returning Home 0 0 40 89 .6%

5 19.6% 45 94.3%

10 47.7% so 95. 1%

15 63.2% 55 95.1%

20 75.5% 60 98.3%

25 77 .4% 75 99 .4%

30 85.1% 90 100.0%

t 35 87 .0%

NOTE: The survey data wa s normalized to distribute th e " Don 't know" re sponse NMP/ JAF 5-8 KLD Engineeri ng, P.C.

Evacuation Time Est im ate February 24, 2016

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

Table 5-5. Time Distribution for Population to Prepare to Evacuate Cumulative Elapsed Time Percent Ready to (Minutes) Evacuate 0 0%

15 18.2%

30 68 .9%

45 75 .5%

60 89 .6%

75 93 .9%

90 95 .0%

105 95 .0%

120 98 .6%

135 100.0%

NOTE: The survey data was normalized to distri bute the "Don't know" response NMP/ JAF 5-9 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estim ate February 24, 2016

Distribution No. 5, Snow Clearance Time Distribution Inclement weather scenarios involving snowfall must address the time lags associated with snow clearance. It is assumed that snow equipment is mobilized and deployed during the snowfall to maintain passable roads. The general consensus is that the snow-plowing efforts are generally successful for all but the most extreme blizzards when the rate of snow accumulation exceeds that of snow clearance over a period of many hours.

Con sequently, it is reasonable to assume that the highway system will remain passable - albeit at a lower capacity - under the vast majority of snow conditions. Nevertheless, for the vehicles to gain access to the highway system, it may be necessary for driveways and employee parking lots to be cleared to the extent needed to permit vehicles to gain access to the roadways.

The se clearance activities take time; this time must be incorporated into the trip generation time distributions. These data are provided by those households which responded to the telephone survey. This distribution is plotted in Figu re 5-2 and listed in Table 5-6 .

Note that those respondents (53.0%) who answered that they would not take time to clear thei r 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.

Table 5-6. Time Distribution for Population to Clear 6"-8" of Snow Cumulative Percent Elapsed Time Completing (Minutes) Snow Removal 0 53 .0%

15 65.5%

30 88.1%

45 91.1%

60 94.2%

75 97 .4%

90 97 .9%

105 98.1%

120 98.9%

135 99 .8%

150 100.0%

NOTE: The survey data was normal ized to distribute the "Don't know" response NMP/ JAF 5-10 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate February 24, 2016

Mobilization Activities 100%

90%

• s:

u 80%

<(

C:

0 Ill 70%

c0

~ 60%

ti.I)

C:

• .:; - Notification CIJ ii 50% - Prepare to Leave Work E

0 u - Travel Home C:

0 40%

• .:; - Prepare Home Ill

i - Time to Clear Snow Q.

30%

0 0..

0 C: 20%

CIJ

...u CIJ 0..

10%

0%

0 30 60 90 120 150 Elapsed Time from Start of Mobilization Activity (min)

Figure 5-2. Evacuation Mobilization Activities NMP/JAF 5-11 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate February 24, 2016

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

To calculate the t ime distribution of an event that is dependent on two sequential activities, it is necessary to "sum" the distributions associated with these prior activities. The distribution summing algorithm is applied repeatedly as shown to form the required distribution . As an outcome of this procedure, new time distributions are formed; we assign "letter" designations to these intermed iate distributions to describe the procedure. Table 5-7 presents the summing procedure to arrive at each designated distribution.

Table 5-7. Mapping Distributions to Events Apply "Summing" Algorithm To: Distribution Obtained Event Defined Distributions 1 and 2 Distribution A Event 3 Distributions A and 3 Distribution B Event 4 Distributions Band 4 Distribution C Event 5 Distributions 1 and 4 Distribution D Event 5 Distributions C and 5 Distribution E Event 5 Distributions D and 5 Distribution F Event 5 Tabl e 5-8 presents a description of each of the final trip generation distributions achieved after the sum ming process is completed.

NMP/JAF 5-12 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimat e February 24, 2016

Table 5-8. Description of the Distributions Distribution Description Time distribution of commuters departing place of work (Event 3) . Also applies A to employees who work within the EPZ who live outside, and to Transients within the EPZ.

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

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

to begin the evacuation trip (Event 5).

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

to begin the evacuation trip (Event 5).

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

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

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

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

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

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

In assessing outliers, there are three alternates to consider:

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

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

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

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

There is considerable statistical literature on the identification and treatment of outliers singly or in groups, much of which assumes the data is normally distributed and some of which uses non-NMP/ JAF 5-13 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate February 24, 2016

parametric methods to avoid that assumption. The literature cites that limited work has been done directly on outliers in sample survey responses.

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

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

2) The individual mobilization activities (prepare to leave work, travel home, prepare home, clear snow) are reviewed for outliers, and then the overall trip generation distributions are created (see Figure 5-1, Table 5-7, Table 5-8);

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

special needs, transit dependent) or lack of realism, because the purpose is to estimate trip generation patterns for personal vehicles;

4) To eliminate outliers, a) the mean and standard deviation of the specific activity are estimated from the responses, b) the median of the same data is estimated, with its position relative to the mean noted, c) the histogram of the data is inspected, and d) all values greater than 3.5 standard deviations are flagged for attention, taking special note of whether there are gaps (categories with zero entries) in the histogram display.

In general, only flagged values more than 4 standard deviations from the mean are allowed to be considered outliers, with gaps in the histogram expected.

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

NMP/JAF 5-14 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate February 24, 2016

_J

5) As a practical matter, even with outliers elimi nated by t he above, t he resulta nt histogram, viewed as a cumulative distribution, is not a normal distribution . A typical situation that results is shown below in Figure 5-3.

100.0%

90.0%

80 .0%

~

Cl.I 70.0%

1:11)

C 60 .0%

Cl.I Cl.I 50 .0%

a.

Cl.I

• .:; 40.0%

s 30.0%

E

s u 20.0%

10.0%

0.0%

""! LI') LI') LI') LI') LI') LI') LI') LI') LI')

""! LI') LI') LI') LI')

N r--

.... ....r--

N N N

r--

N N

M r--

M N

s:t r--

s:t N

LI')

r--

LI')

r--

I.D N

00 r--

Cl) ........

N Center of Interval (minutes)

- Cumulative Data - - Cumulative Normal Figure 5-3. Comparison of Data Distribution and Normal Distribution

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

)l' Most of the real data is to the left of the " normal" curve above, indicating that the network loads faster for the first 80-85% of the vehicles, potentially causing more (and earlier) congestion than otherwise modeled;

)l' The last 10-15% of the real data "tails off" slower than the comparable "normal" curve, ind icating that there is significant traffic sti ll loading at later times .

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

7) With the mobilization activities each modeled according t o Steps 1-6, including preserving the features cited in Step 6, the overa ll (or tota l) mobilization times are constructed .

This is done by using the data sets and distributions under different scenarios (e.g. commuter returning, no commuter returning, no snow or snow in each) . In general, t hese are additive, using NM P/ JAF 5-15 KLD Engi neering, P.C.

Evacuati on Time Estim at e February 24, 2016

weighting based upon the probability distributions of each element; Figure 5-4 presents the combined trip generation distributions designated A, C, D, E and F. These distributions are presented on the same time scale. (As discussed earlier, the use of strictly additive activities is a conservative approach, because it makes all activities sequential - preparation for departure follows the return of the commuter; snow clearance follows the preparation for departure, and so forth. In practice, it is reasonable that some of these activities are done in parallel, at least to some extent - for instance, preparation to depart begins by a household member at home while the commuter is still on the road.)

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

The DYNEV II simulation model is designed to accept varying rates of vehicle trip generation for each origin centroid, expressed in the form of histograms. These histograms, which represent Distributions A, C, D, E and F, properly displaced with respect to one another, are tabulated in Table 5-9 (Distribution B, Arrive Home, omitted for clarity).

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

5.4.2 Staged Evacuation Trip Generation As defined in NUREG/CR-7002, staged evacuation consists of the following:

1. ERPAs comprising the 2 mile region are advised to evacuate immediately

2. ERPAs comprising regions extending from 2 to 5 miles downwind are advised to shelter in-place while the two mile region is cleared

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

4. The population sheltering in the 2 to 5 mile region are advised to begin evacuating when approximately 90% of those originally within the 2 mile region evacuate across the 2 mile region boundary

5. Non-compliance with the shelter recommendation is the same as the shadow evacuation percentage of 20%

Assumptions

1. The EPZ population in ERPAs beyond 5 miles will shelter in place, with the exception of the 20% non-compliance.

2. The population in the Shadow Region beyond the EPZ boundary, extending to approximately 15 miles radially from NMP/JAF, will react as they do for all non-staged evacuation scenarios. That is 20% of these households will elect to evacuate with no shelter delay.

NMP/ JAF 5-16 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate February 24, 2016

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

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

Procedure

1. Trip generation for population groups in the 2 mile region will be as computed based upon the results of the telephone survey and analysis.

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

a. Identify the goth percentile evacuation time for the ERPAs comprising the 2 mile region. This value, Tscen", is obtained from simulation results. It will become the time at which the region being sheltered will be told to evacuate for each scenario .

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

i. The non -shelter trip generation curve is followed until a maximum of 20%

of the total trips are generated (to account for shelter non-compliance) .

ii. No additional trips are generated until time Tscen*

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

1. by stepping up and then following the non-shelter trip generation curve (if Tscen* is :S max trip generation t ime) or

2. by stepping up to 100% (if Tscen

• is> max trip generation time)

c. Note : This procedure implies that there may be different staged trip generation distributions for different scenarios. NUREG/CR-7002 uses the statement "approximately goth percentile" as the time to end staging and begin evacuating.

The value of Tscen

• is 1:30 for non-snow scenarios and 2:00 for snow scenarios.

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

a. Res idents with returning commuters

b. Res idents without returning commuters

c. Residents with returning commuters and snow conditions

d. Res idents without returning commuters and snow conditions Figu re 5-5 presents the staged trip generation distributions for both residents with and without returning commuters; the goth percentile two-mile evacuation time is 90 minutes for good weat her and between 110 and 120 minutes fo r snow scenarios . At the goth percentile evacuation time, 20% of the population (who normally would have completed their mobilization activities for an un-staged evacuation) advised to shelter has nevertheless departed the area . These people do not comply with the shelter advisory. Also included on the plot are the trip generation distributions for these groups as applied to the regions advised to evacuate immediately.

Since the goth percentile evacuation time occurs before the end of the trip generation time, after the sheltered region is advised to evacuate, the shelter trip generation distribution rises to NMP/ JAF 5-17 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate February 24, 2016

meet the balance of the non-staged trip generation distribution. Following time Tscen *, the balance of staged evacuation trips that are ready to depart are released within 15 minutes. After Tsce/+15, the remainder of evacuation trips are generated in accordance with the un-staged trip generation distribution.

Table 5-10 provides the trip generation histograms for staged evacuation.

5.4.3 Trip Generation for Waterways and Recreational Areas Procedure A Section 4.9 of the Oswego County Radiological Emergency Response Plan lists the clea ring of water ERPAs as one component of Initial Precautionary Operations. In order to accomplish this, the County Director of Emergency Management {CDEM), in consultation with the Chairman of the Legislature, shall coordinate the activities of supporting County agencies.

As indicated in Table 5-2, this study assumes 100% notification in 45 minutes. Table 5-9 indicates that all transients will have mobilized within 2 hours2.314815e-5 days <br />5.555556e-4 hours <br />3.306878e-6 weeks <br />7.61e-7 months <br />. It is assumed that this 2 hour2.314815e-5 days <br />5.555556e-4 hours <br />3.306878e-6 weeks <br />7.61e-7 months <br /> timeframe is sufficient time for boaters, campers and other transients to return to their vehicles and begin their evacuation trip.

NMP/JAF 5-18 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate February 24, 2016

Table 5-9. Trip Generation Histograms for the EPZ Population for Un-staged Evacuation Percent of Total Trips Generated Within Indicated Time Period Residents Residents With Residents Residents with Without Commuters Without Time Duration Employees Transients Commuters Commuters Snow Commuters Snow Period (Min) (Distribution A) (Distribution A) (Distribution C) (Distribution D) (Distribution E) (Distribution F) 1 15 8% 8% 0% 1% 0% 1%

2 30 74% 74% 6% 40% 3% 24%

3 15 12% 12% 15% 28% 10% 23%

4 15 3% 3% 22% 13% 16% 17%

5 15 2% 2% 19% 9% 17% 13%

6 30 1% 1% 23% 4% 27% 12%

7 30 0% 0% 9% 4% 14% 5%

8 15 0% 0% 3% 1% 4% 2%

9 15 0% 0% 1% 0% 3% 2%

10 15 0% 0% 1% 0% 3% 0%

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

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

13 15 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0%

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

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

NOTE:

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

• Special event vehicles are loaded using Distribution A.

NMP/JAF 5-19 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate February 24, 2016

Trip Generation Distributions

- Employees/Transients - Residents with Commuters - Residents with no Commuters

- Res with Comm and Snow - Res no Comm with Snow Q.

100 I-C:

0 111

I 80 u

111 w

tlO c:

C:

60 C:

.bl)

QI al C:

0

• .::; 40 111

i Q.

0 ll.

0 20 C:

QI

...u QI ll. 0 0 60 120 180 240 Elapsed Time from Evacuation Advisory (min)

Figure 5-4. Comparison of Trip Generation Distributions NMP/JAF 5-20 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate February 24, 2016

Table 5-10. Trip Generation Histograms for the EPZ Population for Staged Evacuation Percent of Total Trips Generated Within Indicated Time Period*

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

2 30 1% 8% 1% 5%

3 15 3% 6% 2% 5%

4 15 5% 2% 3% 3%

5 15 3% 2% 3% 3%

6 30 73% 77% 6% 2%

7 30 9% 4% 72% 77%

8 15 3% 1% 4% 2%

9 15 1% 0% 3% 2%

10 15 1% 0% 3% 0%

11 15 1% 0% 1% 1%

12 15 0% 0% 1% 0%

13 15 0% 0% 0% 0%

14 15 0% 0% 1% 0%

15 600 0% 0% 0% 0%

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

NMP/JAF 5-21 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate February 24, 2016

Staged and Unstaged Evacuation Trip Generation

- Employees/ Transients - Residents with Commuters

- Residents with no Commuters - Res with Comm and Snow

- Res no Comm with Snow - Staged Residents with Commuters

- staged Res idents with no Commuters - Staged Residents with Commuters (Snow)

Staged Residents with no Commuters (Snow) 100 Q.

• 90 C

0 80

"'::Iu

"'> 70 w

tll)

.!: 60 C

C "iio QJ al so C

0

• . 40

"'::I Q.

30 0

D.

0 C 20 QJ u

QJ D. 10 0

0 15 30 45 60 75 90 105 120 135 150 165 180 195 210 225 240 255 Elapsed Time from Evacuating Advisory (min)

Figure 5-5. Comparison of Staged and Un-staged Trip Generation Distributions in the 2 to 5 Mile Region NMP/JAF 5-22 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate February 24, 2016

6 DEMAND ESTIMATION FOR EVACUATION SCENARIOS An evacuation "case" defines a combination of Evacuation Region and Evacuation Scenario.

The definitions of "Region" and "Scenario" are as follows :

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

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

A total of 29 Regions were defined which encompass all the groupings of ERPAs considered .

The se Regions are defined in Table 6-1. The ERPA configurations are identified in Figure 6-1.

Each keyhole sector-based area consists of a central circle centered at NMP/JAF, and three adjoining sectors, each with a central angle of 22.5 degrees, as per NUREG/CR-7002 guidance.

The central sector coincides with the wind direction . These sectors extend to 5 miles from NMP/JAF (Regions R04 through RlO) or to the EPZ boundary (Regions Rll through R21).

Regions ROl, R02 and R03 represent evacuations of circular areas with radii of 2, 5 and 10 miles, respectively. Regions R22 through R29 are identical to Regions R04 through RlO, and R02, respectively; however, those ERPAs between 2 miles and 5 miles are staged until 90% of the 2 mile region (Region ROl) has evacuated .

A total of 14 Scenarios were evaluated for all Regions . Thus, there are a total of 29x14=406 evacuation cases . Table 6-2 is a description of all Scenarios.

There are some instances when defining an Evacuation Region wherein a small "sliver" of an ERPA may be within the radial or keyhole Region . Figure 6-2 illustrates that a small portion of ERPAs 7 and 12 are within the 5-m ile radius of NMP/JAF. Generally speaking, for a low population density site, a sliver ERPA is not included in the Region unless more than 10% of the ERPA population or 100 people (whichever is less) live within the sliver. All potential ERPA slivers were discussed with Entergy, Exelon and Oswego County. The stakeholders decided to not include the sliver ERPAs, thereby explaining why ERPAs 7 and 12 are not included in any of the Evacuation Regions extending to 5 miles in Table 6-1. Note that 2010 Census data was used for the computations shown in Figure 6-2.

Each combination of region and scenario implies a specific population to be evacuated . Table 6-3 presents the percentage of each population group estimated to evacuate for each Scenario.

Table 6-4 presents the vehicle counts for each scenario for an evacuation of Region R03 - the entire EPZ.

The vehicle estimates presented in Section 3 are peak values. These peak values are adjusted depending on the Scenario and Region being considered, using Scenario and Region specific percentages; such that the average population is considered for each evacuation case . The average Scenario percentages are presented in Table 6-3, while the regional percentages are NMP/ JAF 6-1 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estim at e February 24, 2016

provided in Table H-1. The percentages presented in Table 6-3 were determined as follows :

The number of residents with commuters during the week (when workforce is at its peak} is equal to the product of 56% (the percent of households with at least one commuter see Figure F-6} and 45% (the percent of households with a commuter that would awa it the return of the commuter prior to evacuating - see Section F.3.2} which equals 25% (the percent of households with returning commuters} . See assumption 3 in Section 2.3. It is estimated for weekend and evening scenarios that 10 percent of households with returning commuters will have a commuter at work during those times.

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

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

Transient activity is estimated to be at its peak (100%} during summer weekends and less (36%}

during the week. As shown in Appendix E, there is a significant amount of lodging and campgrounds offering overnight accommodations in the EPZ; thus, transient activity is estimated to be higher during evening hours - 39% for summer. Transient activity is less during the winter13% during the week, 31% on weekends and 14% during the evening.

As noted in the shadow footnote to Table 6-4, the shadow percentages are computed using a base of 20% (see assumption 5 in Section 2.2} ; to include the employees within the Shadow Region who may choose to evacuate, the voluntary evacuation is multiplied by a scenario-specific proportion of emp loyees to permanent residents in the Shadow Region . For example, using the values provided in Table 6-4 for Scenario 1, the shadow percentage is computed as follows :

1,509 )

20% X (1 +

5,378 + 16,134

= 21%

One special event - Harborfest Fireworks - was considered as Scenario 13. Thus, the special event traffic is 100% evacuated for Scenario 13, and 0% for all other scenarios.

As discussed in Section 7, schools are in session during the winter season, midweek, midday and 100% of buses will be needed under those circumstances. Considering the presence of day camps in the EPZ, it is estimated that summer school/day camp enrollment is approximately 10% of enrollment during the regular school year for summer, midweek, midday scenarios .

Schools or day camps are not in session during weekends and evenings, thus no buses for school children are needed under those circumstances. The evacuation percentages for students commuti ng from outside the EPZ to SUNY Oswego are the same as the school evacuation percentages.

NMP/JAF 6-2 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Esti m ate February 24, 2016

Tra nsit buses for the transit-dependent population are set to 100% for all scenarios as it is assumed that the transit-dependent population is present in the EPZ for all scenarios.

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

NMP/ JAF 6-3 KLD Enginee rin g, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate February 24, 2016

Table 6-1. Description of Evacuation Regions Region Description ROl 2- Mile Radius R02 5- Mile Radius R03 Full EPZ Evacuate 2-Mile Radius and Downwind to S Miles Wind Direction ERPA Region From 1 s 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 28 29 E, ESE, SE, SSE, S, N/A Refer to ROl SSW, SW, WSW R04 w ROS WNW R06 NW, NNW R07 N ROS NNE R09 NE RlO ENE Evacuate 2-Mil e Radius and Downwind to EPZ Boundary Wind Direction ERPA Region From s 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 Rll E, ESE, SE R1 2 SSE, S,SSW R13 SW R14 WSW RlS w R16 WNW R17 NW R18 NNW R19 N R20 NNE, NE R21 ENE NMP/JAF 6-4 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate February 24, 2016

Staged - Evacuate 2-Mile Radius and Downwind to 5 Miles ERPA Region Wind Direction From 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 E, ESE, SE, SSE, S, SSW, SW, N/A Refer to ROl WSW R22 w R23 WNW R24 NW, NNW R25 N R26 NNE R27 NE R28 ENE R29 5-Mile Radi us ERPA Shelter-in-Place NMP/JAF 6-5 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate February 24, 2016

.... 27 Lake Ontano Legend GJ NMP/ JAF ERPA

, --.:::. 2, 5, 10 Mile Rings l

0.1*.1/f9/20U Copyriftit lSRl8awmepD1U1 lllDEnc~*tn1, C0<1stea.donEnersv.Enlll!IJY Figure 6-1. ERPAs Comprising the NMP/JAF EPZ NMP/JAF 6-6 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate February 24, 2016

IRegion Ro2 !

No. of People within ERPA 7 = 699 No. of People within Sliver= 48 Percent of Population within Sliver= 6.9%

No . of Peop le within ERPA 12 = 7960 No . of People within Sliver= 49 Percent of Population within Sliver = 0.6%

legend

't( NM P/JAF GJ ERPA

.. Sliver E!:3 Evacuate

\. -=: 2, 5, 10 Mile Rings

- - Sector Bou ndaries Figure 6-2. Example of an ERPA "Sliver" when Defining Evacuation Regions NMP/JAF 6-7 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate February 24, 2016

Table 6-2. Evacuation Scenario Definitions Day of Time of Scenario Season 1 Week Day Weather Special 1 Summer Midweek Midday Good None 2 Summer Midweek Midday Rain None 3 Summer Weekend Midday Good None 4 Summer Weekend Midday Rain None Midwee k, Summer Evening Good None 5 W eekend 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 W eekend Midday Snow None Midweek, Winter Evening Good None 12 We ekend Special Event - Harborfest Summer Weekend Evening Good 13 Fireworks Roadway Impact - Lane Summer Midweek Midday Good 14 Closu re on SR 481 SB 1

Winter means t hat school is in session (a lso app lies to spring and autumn). Summer means that school is not in session .

NMP/ JAF 6-8 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate February 24, 2016

Table 6-3. Percent of Population Groups Evacuating for Various Scenarios 1 25% 75% 96% 36% 21% 0% 10% 10% 100% 100%

2 25% 75% 96% 36% 21% 0% 10% 10% 100% 100%

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

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

5 3% 97% 10% 39% 20% 0% 0% 0% 100% 40%

6 25% 75% 100% 13% 21% 0% 100% 100% 100% 100%

7 25% 75% 100% 13% 21% 0% 100% 100% 100% 100%

8 25% 75% 100% 13% 21% 0% 100% 100% 100% 100%

9 3% 97% 10% 31% 20% 0% 0% 0% 100% 100%

10 3% 97% 10% 31% 20% 0% 0% 0% 100% 100%

11 3% 97% 10% 31% 20% 0% 0% 0% 100% 100%

12 3% 97% 10% 14% 20% 0% 0% 0% 100% 40%

13 3% 97% 10% 39% 20% 100% 0% 0% 100% 40%

14 25% 75% 96% 36% 21% 0% 10% 10% 100% 100%

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

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

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

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

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

School, Day Camp and Transit Buses .......... Vehicle-equivalents present on the road during evacuation servicing schools, day camp and transit-dependent people (1 bus is equivalent to 2 passenger vehicles).

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

NMP/JAF 6-9 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate February 24, 2016

Table 6-4. Vehicle Estimates by Scenario Households Households School With Without SUNY /Day Total Returning Returning Special Oswego Camp Transit External Scenario Scenario Commuters Commuters Employees Transients Shadow Event Commuters Buses Buses Through Traffic Vehicles 1 5,378 16,134 1,509 1,043 3,203 0 216 31 152 5,036 32,702 2 5,378 16,134 1,509 1,043 3,203 0 216 31 152 5,036 32,702 3 645 20,867 157 2,897 3,051 0 0 0 152 5,036 32,805 4 645 20,867 157 2,897 3,051 0 0 0 152 5,036 32,805 5 645 20,867 157 1,130 3,051 0 0 0 152 2,014 28,016 6 5,3 78 16,134 1,572 377 3,203 0 2,155 312 152 5,036 34,319 7 5,378 16,134 1,572 377 3,203 0 2,155 312 152 5,036 34,319 8 5,378 16,134 1,572 377 3,203 0 2,155 312 152 5,036 34,319 9 645 20,867 157 898 3,051 0 0 0 152 5,036 30,806 10 645 20,867 157 898 3,051 0 0 0 152 5,036 30,806 11 645 20,867 157 898 3,051 0 0 0 152 5,036 30,806 12 645 20,867 157 406 3,051 0 0 0 152 2,014 27,292 13 645 20,867 157 1,130 3,051 22,971 0 0 152 2,014 50,987 14 5,378 16,134 1,509 1,043 3,203 0 216 31 152 5,036 32,702 Note: Vehicle estimates are for an evacuation of the entire EPZ (Region R03)

NMP/JAF 6-10 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate February 24, 2016

7 GENERAL POPULATION EVACUATION TIME ESTIMATES (ETE)

This section presents the ETE results of the computer analyses using the DYNEV II System described in Appendices B, C and D. These results cover 29 regions within the NMP/JAF EPZ and the 14 Evacuation Scenarios discussed in Section 6.

The ETE for all Evacuation Cases are presented in Table 7-1 and Table 7-2. These tables present the estimated times to clear the indicated population percentages from the Evacuation Regions for all Evacuation Scenarios. The ETE for the 2-mile region in both staged and un-staged regions are presented in Table 7-3 and Table 7-4. Table 7-5 defines the Evacuation Regions considered.

The tabulated values of ETE are obtained from the DYNEV II System outputs which are generated at 5-minute intervals.

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

The ETE for the NMP/JAF EPZ addresses the issue of voluntary evacuees in the manner shown in Figure 7-1. Within the EPZ, 20 percent of people located in ERPA outside of the evacuation region who are not advised to evacuate, are assumed to elect to evacuate. Similarly, it is assumed that 20 percent of those people in the Shadow Region will choose to leave the area.

Figure 7-2 presents the area identified as the Shadow Region. This region extends radially from NMP/JAF to cover a region between the EPZ boundary and approximately 15 miles. The population and number of evacuating vehicles in the Shadow Region were estimated using the same methodology that was used for permanent residents within the EPZ (see Section 3.1). As discussed in Section 3.2, it is estimated that a total of 29,345 people reside in the Shadow Region; 20 percent of them would evacuate. See Table 6-4 for the number of evacuating vehicles from the Shadow Region.

Traffic generated within this Shadow Region, traveling away from the NMP/JAF site, has the potential for impeding evacuating vehicles from within the Evacuation Region. All ETE calculations include this shadow traffic movement.

7 .2 Staged Evacuation As defined in NUREG/CR-7002, staged evacuation consists of the following:

1. ERPAs comprising the 2 mile region are advised to evacuate immediately.

2. ERPAs comprising regions extending from 2 to 5 miles downwind are advised to shelter in-place while the 2-mile region is cleared.

NMP/JAF 7-1 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate February 24, 2016

3. As vehicles evacuate the 2 mile region, people from 2 to 5 miles downwind continue preparation for evacuation while they shelter.

4. The population sheltering in the 2 to 5 mile region is advised to begin evacuating when approximately 90% of those originally within the 2 mile region evacuate across the 2 mile region boundary.

5. Non-compliance with the shelter recommendation is the same as the shadow evacuation percentage of 20%.

See Section 5.4.2 for additional information on staged evacuation.

7 .3 Patterns of Traffic Congestion during Evacuation Figure 7-3 through Figure 7-7 illustrate the patterns of traffic congestion that arise for the case when the entire EPZ (Region R03) is advised to evacuate during the winter, midweek, midday period under good weather conditions (Scenario 6).

Traffic congestion, as the term is used here, is defined as Level of Service (LOS) F. LOS F is defined as follows (HCM 2010, page 5-5):

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

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

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

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

All highway "links" which experience LOS F are delineated in these figures by a thick red line; all others are lightly indicated. Congestion develops rapidly around concentrations of population and traffic bottlenecks. Figure 7-3 displays the developing congestion within the City of Oswego, which is southwest of NMP/JAF, just 40 minutes after the Advisory to Evacuate (ATE).

At this time, a majority of transients and employees have now begun their evacuation trips, as well as many residents and commuters. SR 48, SR 481, and CR 7 southbound, as well as SR 104 WB, which are servicing the City of Oswego, are displaying congested traffic conditions (LOS F) on roadway sections exiting the City of Oswego. Some congestion exists in Fulton due to the voluntary evacuation of vehicles outside of the EPZ.

NMP/JAF 7-2 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate February 24, 2016

At 1 hour1.157407e-5 days <br />2.777778e-4 hours <br />1.653439e-6 weeks <br />3.805e-7 months <br />, 30 minutes after the ATE, Figure 7-4 disp.lays fully-developed congestion within the City of Oswego with LOS F along the major evacuating routes of CR 7, SR 104, SR 481, and SR 48 exiting the City of Oswego. At this time, over three-quarters of vehicles have begun their evacuating trips and just over 50% of vehicles have successfully evacuated the EPZ. The evacuation of vehicles within the southwestern portion of the EPZ traveling southbound is now being hindered voluntary evacuees from the shadow region. The two mile region is clear of congestion at this time.

At 3 hours3.472222e-5 days <br />8.333333e-4 hours <br />4.960317e-6 weeks <br />1.1415e-6 months <br /> after the ATE, as shown in Figure 7-5, congestion is dissipating within the 5-mile area. At this time, 99% of vehicles have begun their evacuation trips and approximately 93% of vehicles have successfully evacuated the EPZ. Congestion in the heart of the City of Oswego has begun to clear as evacuees continue to vacate the area. The main exit routes of evacuation from within the EPZ (SR 104, SR 481, Rathburn Rd, Ridge Rd, and CR 7) remain fully congested (LOS F) as vehicles continue to evacuate. Vehicles evacuating from the SUNY Oswego campus and the western portion of the City of Oswego are constrained by the presence of heavy congestion along SR 104 westbound and CR 7 southbound. The 5-mile region is clear of congestion at this time.

Congested conditions remain on SR 481, CR 7, SR 104, Rathburn Rd and Ridge Rd leaving the EPZ at 3 hours3.472222e-5 days <br />8.333333e-4 hours <br />4.960317e-6 weeks <br />1.1415e-6 months <br /> 30 minutes after the ATE (Figure 7-6). At this time, 100% of vehicles have begun their evacuation trips and nearly 99% of evacuating vehicles have successfully evacuated the EPZ. Congestion within the EPZ has almost completely dissipated and the extent of the congestion has been reduced as seen by comparing Figure 7-6 with Figure 7-5. The main exit from the SUNY Oswego Campus is now clear and egress is unrestricted as congestion on SR 104 migrates further west.

Over the next 20 minutes, at 3 hour3.472222e-5 days <br />8.333333e-4 hours <br />4.960317e-6 weeks <br />1.1415e-6 months <br /> and 50 minutes after the ATE, the EPZ is completely clear of congestion as shown in Figure 7-7. At this time, 100% of vehicles have successfully mobilized and evacuated from within the EPZ. Light traffic remains from within the shadow region while all areas within the EPZ are free of congested conditions. All congestion inside the shadow region is cleared by 4 hours4.62963e-5 days <br />0.00111 hours <br />6.613757e-6 weeks <br />1.522e-6 months <br /> and 15 minutes after the ATE.

7 .4 Evacuation Rates Evacuation is a continuous process, as implied by Figure 7-8 through Figure 7-21. These figures indicate the rate at which traffic flows out of the indicated areas for the case of an evacuation of the full EPZ (Region R03) under the indicated conditions. One figure is presented for each scenario considered.

As indicated in these figures, there is typically a long "tail" to these distributions for Regions R01 and R02 caused by mobilization time. Vehicles begin to evacuate an area slowly at first, as people respond to the ATE at different rates. Then traffic demand builds rapidly (slopes of curves increase). When the system becomes congested, traffic exits the EPZ at rates somewhat below capacity until some evacuation routes have cleared. As more routes clear, the aggregate rate of egress slows since many vehicles have already left the EPZ. Towards the end of the process, relatively few evacuation routes service the remaining demand.

NMP/JAF 7-3 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate February 24, 2016

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

7.5 Evacuation Time Estimate (ETE) Results Table 7-1 and Table 7-2 present the ETE values for all 29 Evacuation Regions and all 14 Evacuation Scenarios. Table 7-3 and Table 7-4 present the ETE values for the 2-Mile Region for both staged and un-staged keyhole regions downwind to 5 miles. The tables are organized as follows:

Table  : Contents ETE represents the elapsed time required for 90 percent of the 7-1 population within a Region, to evacuate from that Region. All Scenarios are considered, as well as Staged Evacuation scenarios.

ETE represents the elapsed time required for 100 percent of the 7-2 population within a Region, to evacuate from that Region. All Scenarios are considered, as well as Staged Evacuation scenarios.

ETE represents the elapsed time required for 90 percent of the population within the 2-mile Region, to evacuate from the 2- mile 7-3 Region with both Concurrent and Staged Evacuations of additional ERPA downwind in the keyhole Region.

ETE represents the elapsed time required for 100 percent of the population within the 2-mile Region, to evacuate from the 2-mile 7-4 Region with both Concurrent and Staged Evacuations of additional ERPA downwind in the keyhole Region.

The animation snapshots described above reflect the ETE statistics for the concurrent (un-staged) evacuation scenarios and regions, which are displayed in Figure 7-3 through Figure 7-7.

Most of the congestion is located in ERPAs 12 and 13 which are comprised of the eastern and western halves of the city of Oswego, respectively, and lie beyond the 5-mile area. This fact is reflected in the ETE statistics:

• The goth percentile ETE for Region ROl (2-mile area) is 1:30 for good weather and rain and up to 30 minutes higher for snow cases.

• The goth percentile ETE for Region R02 (5-mile area) is between 1:45 and 1:50 for good and rain weather (non-special event) scenarios. Snow conditions increase the ETE by as much as 25 minutes.

NMP/JAF 7-4 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate February 24, 2016

• The goth percentile ETE for Region R03 (full EPZ) is between 2:20 and 2:55 for good weather (non-special event) scenarios. Rain increases the ETE by up to 15 minutes.

Snow has a larger impact and increases ETE by as much as 30 minutes.

• Generally, populous regions (which contain ERPA 12 and ERPA 13) resemble the pattern exhibited by R03. Rural regions which no not include either ERPA 12 or ERPA 13 more closely resemble R01.

• The 100th percentile ETE for all rural regions are governed by the mobilization times.

This fact implies that the congestion within the EPZ dissipates prior to the end of mobilization.

• The 100th percentile ETE for populous regions can exceed the mobilization times by as much as 15 minutes for non-special event scenarios.

Comparison of Scenarios 5 and 13 in Table 7-1 indicates that the Special Event - Harborfest Fireworks- has a substantial impact on the ETE for the goth and 100th percentiles. Harborfest attracts a considerable number of transients from the greater Central New York region. The capstone of the Harborfest weekend celebration is a Saturday night fireworks display. This event is expected to draw go,ooo people, 61% of whom are from outside of the EPZ. The additional 22,g71 vehicles significantly increase congestion on all major evacuation routes exiting the city of Oswego. The goth and 100th percentile ETE for regions containing the City of Oswego increase by as much as 2 hours2.314815e-5 days <br />5.555556e-4 hours <br />3.306878e-6 weeks <br />7.61e-7 months <br /> and 55 minutes and 3 hours3.472222e-5 days <br />8.333333e-4 hours <br />4.960317e-6 weeks <br />1.1415e-6 months <br /> and 40 minutes, respectively. The impact on the 2-Mile and 5-Mile Region ETE is far less severe because the event is situated in the shadow. The special event does not impact these regions, as they are spatially removed from the event to the extent that no peripheral effects are experienced.

Comparison of Scenarios 1 and 14 in Table 7-1 indicates that the roadway closure - one southbound lane closed on SR 481- does not have a material impact on goth percentile ETE due to the fact that the 1 lane section of SR 481 to the north of the lane closure forms a bottleneck upstream of the lane closure.

7.6 Staged Evacuation Results To determine whether the staged evacuation strategy is worthy of consideration, one must show that the ETE for the 2 Mile region can be reduced without significantly affecting the region between 2 miles and 5 miles. Table 7-3 and Table 7-4 present a comparison of the ETE compiled for the concurrent (un-staged) and staged evacuation studies. Note that Regions R22 through R28, and R2g are the same geographic areas as Regions R04 through 10, and R02, respectively. The times shown in Table 7-3 and Table 7-4 are when the 2 mile region is go%

clear and 100% clear, respectively.

As shown in these tables, the ETE for the 2-mile region is unchanged when a staged evacuation is implemented. The reason for this is that the congestion within the 5-mile area does not extend upstream to the extent that it penetrates to within 2 miles of NMP/JAF. Consequently, the impedance, due to this congestion within the 5-mile area, to evacuees from within the 2-mile area is not sufficient to materially influence the goth or 100th percentile ETE for the 2-mile NMP/JAF 7-5 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate February 24, 2016

area.

While failing to provide assistance to evacuees from within 2 miles of NMP/JAF, staging produces a negative impact on the goth percentile ETE for those evacuating from within the 2-to 5-mile area. A comparison of ETE between regions R22 through R28 with R04 through RlO and R02 with R2g, respectively, reveals that staging retards the goth percentile ETE for those in the 2 to 5-mile area by up to 40 minutes (see Table 7-1) and does not significantly impact the 100th percentile ETE (see Table 7-2). This extending of ETE is due to the delay in beginning the evacuation trip, experienced by those who shelter, plus the effect of the trip-generation "spike" (approximately 70 percent of the evacuating vehicles between 2 miles and 5 miles who have sheltered in place while residents within 2 miles evacuated, begin their evacuation trip over a 15 minute timeframe, shown in Figure 5-5) that follows their eventual ATE, in creating congestion within the EPZ area beyond 2 miles.

In summary, the staged evacuation protective action strategy provides no benefits and adversely impacts many evacuees located beyond 2 miles from NMP/JAF.

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

1. Identify the applicable Scenario:

• Season

• Summer

• Winter (also Autumn and Spring)

• Day of Week

• Midweek

• Weekend

• Time of Day

• Midday

• Evening

• Weather Condition

• Good Weather

• Rain

• Snow

• Special Event

• Harborfest Fireworks

• Road Closure (1 southbound lane on SR 481 from Churchill Rd to Cha lone Dr W)

• Evacuation Staging

• No, Staged Evacuation is not considered

• Yes, Staged Evacuation is considered While these Scenarios are designed, in aggregate, to represent conditions throughout the year, some further clarification is warranted:

NMP/JAF 7-6 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate February 24, 2016

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

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

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

• The seasons are defined as follows:

• Summer assumes that public schools are not in session.

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

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

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

• Determine the projected azimuth direction of the plume (coincident with the wind direction).

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

• 2 Miles (Region ROl)

• To 5 Miles (Regions R02, R04 through R10)

• To EPZ Boundary (Regions R03, Rll through R21)

• Enter Table 7-5 and identify the applicable group of candidate Regions based on the distance that the selected Region extends from the NMP/JAF. Select the Evacuation Region identifier in that row, based on the azimuth direction of the plume, from the first column of the Table.

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

• The columns of Table 7-1 through Table 7-4 are labeled with the Scenario numbers.

Identify the proper column in the selected Table using the Scenario number defined in Step 1.

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

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

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

• Sunday, January 24th at 9:00 PM.

• It is raining.

• Wind direction is from ENE.

• Wind speed is such that the distance to be evacuated is judged to be a 2-mile radius NMP/JAF 7-7 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate February 24, 2016

and downwind to 5 miles.

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

• A staged evacuation is not desired.

Table 7-1 is applicable because the goth percentile ETE is desired. Proceed as follows:

1. Identify the Scenario as winter, weekend, evening and raining. Entering Table 7-1, it is seen that there is no match for these descriptors. However, the clarification given above assigns this combination of circumstances to Scenario 10.

2. Enter Table 7-5 and locate the Region described as "Evacuate 2-Mile Radius and Downwind to the 5 Miles" for wind direction from ENE and read Region RlO in the first column of that row.

3. Enter Table 7-1 to locate the data cell containing the value of ETE for Scenario 10 and Region RlO. This data cell is in column (10) and in the row for Region RlO; it contains the ETE value of 1:30.

NMP/JAF 7-8 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate February 24, 2016

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 Midweek Midweek Weekend M idweek Weekend Weekend M idweek Weekend Weekend Scenario: (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9) (10) (11) (12) (13) (14)

Midday Midday Evening Midday Midday Evening Evening Midday Region Good Good Good Good Good Good Special Roadway Rain Rain Rain Snow Rain Snow Weather Weather Weather Weather Weather Weather Event Impact Entire 2-Mile Region, 5-Mile Region, and EPZ ROl 1:30 1:30 1:30 1:30 1:30 1:30 1:30 1:50 1:30 1:30 2:00 1:30 1:30 1:30 ROZ 1:50 1:50 1:45 1:45 1:45 1:50 1:50 2:10 1:45 1:45 2:05 1:45 1:40 1:50 R03 2:35 2:40 2:30 2:45 2:25 2:55 3:00 3:15 2:20 2:35 2:50 2:25 5:15 2:30 2-Mile Region and Keyhole to 5 Miles R04 1:35 1:35 1:35 1:35 1:35 1:40 1:40 2:00 1:35 1:35 2:05 1:35 1:35 1:35 ROS 1:40 1:40 1:35 1:35 1:35 1:40 1:40 2:00 1:35 1:35 2:05 1:35 1:35 1:40 ROG 1:45 1:45 1:35 1:35 1:35 1:45 1:45 2:10 1:35 1:35 2:05 1:35 1:30 1:45 R07 1:50 1:50 1:45 1:45 1:45 1:50 1:50 2:10 1:45 1:45 2:05 1:45 1:40 1:50 ROS 1:50 1:50 1:45 1:45 1:45 1:50 1:50 2:10 1:45 1:45 2:05 1:45 1:40 1:50 R09 1:45 1:45 1:40 1:40 1:40 1:45 1:45 2:05 1:40 1:40 2:05 1:40 1:35 1:45 RlO 1:35 1:35 1:30 1:30 1:30 1:35 1:35 1:55 1:30 1:30 2:00 1:30 1:30 1:35 2-Mile Region and Keyhole to EPZ Boundary Rll 1:30 1:30 1:30 1:30 1:30 1:30 1:30 1:50 1:30 1:30 2:00 1:30 1:30 1:30 R12 1:30 1:30 1:30 1:30 1:30 1:30 1:30 1:50 1:30 1:30 2:00 1:30 1:30 1:30 R13 1:40 1:40 1:30 1:30 1:35 1:40 1:40 2:05 1:35 1:35 2:05 1:35 1:35 1:40 R14 1:45 1:45 1:40 1:50 1:35 1:50 1:50 2:10 1:35 1:40 2:05 1:40 1:35 1:45 RlS 1:50 1:50 1:45 2:00 1:35 1:50 1:55 2:15 1:35 1:40 2:05 1:40 1:35 1:50 R16 1:50 1:50 1:45 1:50 1:40 1:55 1:55 2:15 1:40 1:40 2:10 1:40 1:35 1:50 R17 1:50 1:50 1:35 1:40 1:40 1:50 1:55 2:15 1:40 1:40 2:10 1:40 1:45 1:50 R18 1:50 1:50 1:40 1:40 1:40 1:50 1:50 2:15 1:40 1:40 2:10 1:40 1:45 1:50 R19 2:35 2:50 2:3 5 2:50 2:25 2:55 3:05 3:15 2:25 2:35 2:45 2:20 5:20 2:40 R20 2:40 2:45 2:35 2:45 2:25 2:50 3:05 3:20 2:30 2:35 2:50 2:25 5:15 2:35 R21 2:30 2:45 2:30 2:40 2:25 2:50 3:00 3:15 2:20 2:30 2:40 2:20 5:10 2:35 Staged Evacuation Mile Region and Keyhole to 5 Miles R22 1:55 1:55 1:55 1:55 1:55 1:55 1:55 2:25 1:55 1:55 2:30 1:55 1:55 1:55 R23 1:55 2:00 2:00 2:00 2:00 1:55 2:00 2:25 2:00 2:00 2:30 2:00 2:00 1:55 R24 2:05 2:05 2:05 2:05 2:05 2:05 2:05 2:35 2:05 2:05 2:35 2:05 2:05 2:05 R25 2:15 2:20 2:15 2:20 2:20 2:15 2:25 2:40 2:20 2:20 2:45 2:20 2:15 2:15 R26 2:20 2:20 2:20 2:20 2:20 2:20 2:25 2:40 2:20 2:20 2:45 2:20 2:15 2:20 R27 2:15 2:15 2:15 2:15 2:15 2:15 2:15 2:40 2:15 2:15 2:40 2:15 2:10 2:15 R28 1:55 1:55 2:00 2:00 2:00 1:55 1:55 2:25 2:00 2:00 2:30 2:00 2:00 1:55 R29 2:15 2:15 2:15 2:20 2:15 2:15 2:20 2:40 2:15 2:20 2:40 2:20 2:15 2:15 NMP/JAF 7-9 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate February 24, 2016

Table 7-2. Time to Clear the Indicated Area of 100 Percent of the Affected Population Summer Summer Summer Winter Winter Summer Summer Midweek Midweek Weekend Weekend M idweek Midday Midday Evening Midday Midday Evening Evening Midday Region I Good Rain Good Rain Good Good Rain Snow Good Rain Snow Good Special Roadway Weather Weather Weather Weather Weather Weather Event Impact Entire 2-Mile Region, 5-Mile Region, and EPZ ROl 3:30 3:30 3:30 3:30 3:30 3:30 3:30 4:15 3:30 3:30 4:15 3:30 3:30 3:30 R02 3:35 3:35 3:35 3:35 3:35 3:35 3:35 4 :20 3:35 3:35 4 :20 3:35 3:35 3:35 R03 I 3:40 3:40 3:40 3:40 3:40 3:50 3:55 4:25 3:40 3:40 4:25 3:40 7:20 3:40 2-Mile Region and Keyhole to 5 Miles R04 3:35 3:35 3:35 3:35 3:35 3:35 3:35 4:20 3:35 3:35 4:20 3:35 3:35 3:35 ROS 3:35 3:35 3:35 3:35 3:35 3:35 3:35 4:20 3:35 3:35 4:20 3:35 3:35 3:35 R06 3:35 3:35 3:35 3:35 3:35 3:35 3:35 4 :20 3:35 3:35 4:20 3:35 3:35 3:35 R07 3:35 3:35 3:35 3:35 3:35 3:35 3:35 4:20 3:35 3:35 4:20 3:35 3:35 3:35 ROB 3:35 3:35 3:35 3:35 3:35 3:35 3:35 4 :20 3:35 3:35 4 :20 3:35 3:35 3:35 R09 3:35 3:35 3:35 3:35 3:35 3:35 3:35 4:20 3:35 3:35 4:20 3:35 3:35 3:35 RlO 3:35 3:35 3:35 3:35 3:35 3:35 3:35 4:20 3:35 3:35 4 :20 3:35 3:35 3:35 2-Mile Region and Keyhole to EPZ Boundary Rll 3:30 3:30 3:30 3:30 3:30 3:30 3:30 4:15 3:30 3:30 4:15 3:30 3:30 3:30 R12 3:30 3:30 3:30 3:30 3:30 3:30 3:30 4:15 3:30 3:30 4:15 3:30 3:30 3:30 R13 3:40 3:40 3:40 3:40 3:40 3:40 3:40 4:25 3:40 3 :40 4:25 3:40 3:40 3:40 R14 3:40 3:40 3:40 3:40 3:40 3:40 3:40 4:25 3:40 3:40 4:25 3:40 3:40 3:40 RlS 3:40 3:40 3:40 3:40 3:40 3:40 3:40 4:25 3:40 3:40 4:25 3:40 3:40 3:40 R16 3:40 3:40 3:40 3:40 3:40 3:40 3:40 4 :25 3 :40 3:40 4 :25 3:40 3:40 3:40 R17 3:40 3:40 3:40 3:40 3:40 3:40 3:40 4:25 3:40 3:40 4:25 3:40 3:40 3:40 RlB 3:40 3:40 3:40 3:40 3:40 3:40 3:40 4 :25 3:40 3:40 4:25 3:40 3:40 3:40 R19 3:40 3:40 3:40 3:40 3:40 3:40 3:55 4:25 3:40 3:40 4 :25 3:40 7:20 3:40 R20 3:40 3:40 3:40 3:40 3:40 3:40 3:55 4 :25 3:40 3:40 4 :25 3:40 7 :10 3:40 R21 3:40 3:40 3:40 3:40 3:40 3:40 3:45 4 :25 3:40 3:40 4 :25 3:40 7:10 3:40 Staged Evacuation Mile Region and Keyhole to 5 Miles R22 3:35 3:35 3:35 3:35 3:35 3:35 3:35 4:20 3:35 3:35 4 :20 3:35 3:35 3:35 R23 3:35 3:35 3:35 3:35 3:35 3:35 3:35 4:20 3:35 3:35 4 :20 3:35 3:35 3:35 R24 3:35 3: 35 3:35 3:35 3:35 3:35 3:35 4:20 3:35 3:35 4:20 3:35 3:35 3:35 R25 3:35 3:35 3:35 3:35 3:35 3:35 3:35 4:20 3:35 3:35 4:20 3:35 3 :35 3:35 R26 3:35 3:35 3:35 3:35 3:35 3:35 3:35 4:20 3:35 3:35 4:20 3:35 3:35 3:35 R27 3:35 3:35 3:35 3:35 3:35 3:35 3:35 4:20 3:35 3:35 4:20 3:35 3:35 3:35 R28 3:35 3:35 3:35 3:35 3:35 3 :35 3:35 4:20 3:35 3:35 4 :20 3:35 3:35 3:35 R29 3:35 3:35 3:35 3:35 3:35 3:35 3:35 4 :20 3:35 3:35 4:20 3 :35 3:35 3:35 NMP/JAF 7-10 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate February 24, 2016

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

Midday Midday Evening Midday Midday Evening Evening Midday Region Good Good Good Good Good Good Special Roadway Rain Rain Rain Snow Rain Snow Weather Weather Weather Weather Weather Weather Event Impact Entire 2-Mile Region and 5-Mile Region ROl 1:30 1:30 1:30 1:30 1:30 1:30 1:30 1:50 1:30 1:30 2:00 1:30 1:30 1:30 R02 1:30 1:30 1:30 1:30 1:30 1:30 1:30 1:50 1:30 1:30 2:00 1:30 1:30 1:30 Un-Staged Evacuation Mile Region and Keyhole to 5 Miles R04 1:30 1:30 1:30 1:30 1:30 1:30 1:30 1:50 1:30 1:30 2:00 1:30 1:30 1:30 ROS 1:30 1:30 1:30 1:30 1:30 1:30 1:30 1:50 1:30 1:30 2:00 1:30 1:30 1:30 ROG 1:30 1:30 1:30 1:30 1:30 1:30 1:30 1:50 1:30 1:30 2:00 1:30 1:30 1:30 R07 1:30 1:30 1:30 1:30 1:30 1:30 1:30 1:50 1:30 1:30 2:05 1:30 1:30 1:30 ROS 1:30 1:30 1:30 1:30 1:30 1:30 1:30 1:50 1:30 1:30 2:00 1:30 1:30 1:30 R09 1:30 1:30 1:30 1:30 1:30 1:30 1:30 1:50 1:30 1:30 2:00 1:30 1:30 1:30 RlO 1:30 1:30 1:30 1:30 1:30 1:30 1:30 1:50 1:30 1:30 2:00 1:30 1:30 1:30 Staged Evacuation Mile Region and Keyhole to 5 Miles R22 1:30 1:30 1:30 1:30 1:30 1:30 1:30 1:50 1:30 1:30 2:00 1:30 1:30 1:30 R23 1:30 1:30 1:30 1:30 1:30 1:30 1:30 1:50 1:30 1:30 2:00 1:30 1:30 1:30 R24 1:30 1:30 1:30 1:30 1:30 1:30 1:30 1:50 1:30 1:30 2:00 1:30 1:30 1:30 R25 1:30 1:30 1:30 1:30 1:30 1:30 1:30 1:50 1:30 1:30 2:00 1:30 1:30 1:30 R26 1:30 1:30 1:30 1:30 1:30 1:30 1:30 1:50 1:30 1:30 2:00 1:30 1:30 1:30 R27 1:30 1:30 1:30 1:30 1:30 1:30 1:30 1:50 1:30 1:30 2:00 1:30 1:30 1:30 R28 1:30 1:30 1:30 1:30 1:30 1:30 1:30 1:50 1:30 1:30 2:00 1:30 1:30 1:30 R29 1:30 1:30 1:30 1:30 1:30 1:30 1:30 1:50 1:30 1:30 2:00 1:30 1:30 1:30 NMP/JAF 7-11 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate February 24, 2016 L_

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

Midday Midday Evening Midday Midday Evening Evening Midday Region Good Good Good Good Good Good Special Roadway Rain Rain Rain Snow Rain Snow Weather Weather Weather Weather Weather Weather Event Impact Entire 2-Mile Region and 5-Mile Region ROl 3 :30 3:30 3:30 3:30 3:30 3:30 3:30 4:15 3:30 3:30 4 :15 3:30 3:30 3:30 R02 3:30 3:30 3:30 3:30 3:30 3:30 3:30 4:15 3:30 3:30 4:15 3:30 3:30 3:30 Un-Staged Evacuation Mile Region and Keyhole to 5 Miles R04 3:30 3:30 3:30 3:30 3:30 3:30 3:30 4:15 3:30 3:30 4:15 3:30 3:30 3:30 ROS 3:30 3:30 3:30 3:30 3:30 3:30 3:30 4:15 3:30 3:30 4:15 3:30 3:30 3:30 R06 3:30 3:30 3:30 3:30 3:30 3:30 3:30 4:15 3:30 3:30 4:15 3:30 3:30 3:30 R07 3:30 3:30 3:30 3:30 3:30 3:30 3:30 4:15 3:30 3:30 4:15 3:30 3:30 3:30 ROS 3:30 3:30 3:30 3:30 3:30 3:30 3:30 4:15 3:30 3:30 4:15 3:30 3:30 3:30 R09 3:30 3:30 3:30 3:30 3:30 3:30 3:30 4:15 3:30 3:30 4:15 3:30 3:30 3:30 RlO 3:30 3:30 3:30 3:30 3:30 3:30 3:30 4:15 3:30 3:30 4:15 3:30 3:30 3:30 Staged Evacuation Mile Region and Keyhole to 5 Miles R22 3:30 3:30 3:30 3:30 3:30 3:30 3:30 4:15 3:30 3:30 4:15 3:30 3:30 3:30 R23 3:30 3:30 3:30 3:30 3:30 3:30 3:30 4:15 3:30 3:30 4:15 3:30 3:30 3:30 R24 3:30 3:30 3:30 3:30 3:30 3:30 3:30 4:15 3:30 3:30 4:15 3:30 3:30 3:30 R25 3:30 3:30 3:30 3:30 3:30 3:30 3:30 4:15 3:30 3:30 4:15 3:30 3:30 3:30 R26 3:30 3:30 3:30 3:30 3:30 3:30 3:30 4:15 3:30 3:30 4:15 3:30 3:30 3:30 R27 3:30 3:30 3:30 3:30 3:30 3:30 3:30 4:15 3:30 3:30 4:15 3:30 3:30 3:30 R28 3:30 3:30 3:30 3:30 3:30 3:30 3:30 4:15 3:30 3:30 4:15 3:30 3:30 3:30 R29 3:30 3:30 3:30 3:30 3:30 3:30 3:30 4:15 3:30 3:30 4:15 3:30 3:30 3:30 NMP/JAF 7-12 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate February 24, 2016 l

Table 7-5. Description of Evacuation Regions Region Description 18 19 ROl 2-Mile Radius R02 5-Mile Radius R03 Full EPZ Evacuate 2-Mile Radius and Downwind to 5 Miles Wind Direction ERPA Region From 1 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 28 29 E, ESE, SE, SSE, S, N/A Refer to ROl SSW, SW, WSW R04 w ROS WNW R06 NW, NNW R07 N ROS NNE R09 NE RlO ENE Evacuate 2-Mile Radius and Downwind to EPZ Boundary Wind Direction ERPA Region From 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 Rll E, ESE, SE R12 SSE,S,SSW R13 SW R14 WSW RlS w R16 WNW R17 NW R18 NNW R19 N R20 NNE, NE R21 ENE NMP/JAF 7-13 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate February 24, 2016

Staged - Evacuate 2-Mile Radius and Downwind to 5 M i les ERPA Region W ind Direction From 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 1S 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 ZS 26 27 28 29 E, ESE, SE, SSE, S, SSW, SW, N/A Refer to R01 WSW R22 w R23 WNW R24 NW, NN W RZS N R26 NNE R27 NE R28 ENE R29 5-Mile Radius

., .. ERPA Shelter-i n-Place NMP/JAF 7-14 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Est imate February 24, 2016

,,,..----~ ,,,..------------- ,,,..-------------

/ ~-------

! ( ~ \ \ !( \ \ j

/ ~------- /

\

( (\ ( ) ) ) ( ( ) ) ( )

,~::,./ J _\ \

_ _.,... / 1 /

2Miles / / \

\ "'- 5 Miles / "'-

5 Miles /

/

/

10 Miles 15 Miles j 2-Mile Region

_./

I 10 Miles 15 Miles 15-Mile Region

_./

I

"-... _10Miles 15 Miles

_./

I Entire EPZ I

/

Keyhole : 2-Mile Region & 5 Miles Downwind Keyhole : 2-Mile Region & 10 Miles Downw ind Staged Evacuation: 2-Mile Region & 5 Miles Downwind

• Plant Location

• Region to be Evacuated : 100% Evacuation D 20% Shadow Evacuation D Shelter, then Evacuate Figure 7-1. Voluntary Evacuation Methodology NMP/JAF 7-15 KLD Engi neering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate February 24, 2016

• -<r*

. - Lake -

Onterlo

/

/

/

/

/

/

I /,acona I

I I

I I

fl*.. *,v Onlano

~ ltmar

\

\

\

\

/

/

/

Legend

/

/

NMP/JA F /

Gl ERPA I.... _, 2, 5, 10, 15 Mile Rin gs Shadow Region 10 Miles Figure 7-2 . NMP/JAF Shadow Region NMP/JAF 7-16 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate February 24, 2016

City of Oswego Eictent

\

LOS \

-- A \

- B

\

\

C ~

D

- E

- F Legend NM P/JAF ERPA

'--::: 2, 5, 10, 15 M ile Rings

~ Shadow Region Figure 7-3. Congestion Patterns at 40 Minutes after the Advisory to Evacuate NMP/JAF 7-17 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate February 24, 2016

City of Oswego h t ent Lacona I.a~" <Jntarw 27 26 /

/

' \

I I

I LOS \

-- A \

\

- B

\

- c D

- E

- F Legend NMP/JAF ERPA

\.. _, 2, 5, 10, 15 Mile Rings CT'~- -4ik,.1/15r/20lfi

~ Shadow Region \ l *Ofl'fflJht [SRI Oata Md M,p, Zou UD Enctnt!eronc, E1e lon Gentrat ,on. Ente r&V_

Figure 7-4. Congestion Patterns at 1 Hour, 30 minutes after the Advisory to Evacuate NMP/JAF 7-18 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate February 24, 2016

City of Oswego Extent l.akOntrmo 29 27 26 /

/

' \

I LOS \

-- A \

\

- B

- c I D

- E

- F Legend 0

NM P/JAF ERPA

-" 2, 5, 10, 15 Mile Rin gs

~ Shadow Region Figure 7-5. Congestion Patterns at 3 Hours after the Advisory to Evacuate NMP/JAF 7-19 KLD Enginee ring, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate February 24, 2016

City of Oswego E>etent l.a/..e Of/forw 29 27

/

' \

LOS \

-- A \

- B

\

- c D

- E

- F Legend NMP/JAF ERPA

, ..., 2, 5, 10, 15 M ile Ri ngs Cen tral squ'a,e

~ Shadow Region J~i--1/19[2016

\ lopyr lght: ESRI 0 1r. i nd M1ps 2Q14 KlD £nginll!l!fing. £lll!lonG11!n11!11t,on,£ntll!rr..

Figure 7-6. Congestion Patterns at 3 Hours, 30 Minutes after the Advisory to Evacuate NMP/JAF 7-20 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate February 24, 2016

I Lacona I l.ake On!ariu I

I I

I I

I /'

26 /

I

\

\

LOS \

-- A \

\

- B

- c D

- E

- F Legend NMP/JA F ERPA

, - : : 2, 5, 10, 15 M ile Rings Gent,;aJ sqitare ..56at, 1/19/2016

~ Shadow Reg ion \ , eopyr1Jht: ESR I Dau and Maps 201, KLDEngin@tfing,Elll!lonG@n@rat,on,Ent@r~

Figure 7-7. Congestion Patterns at 3 Hours, 50 Minutes after the Advisory to Evacuate NMP/JAF 7-21 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate February 24, 2016

Evacuation Time Estimates Summer, Midweek, Midday, Good (Scenario 1) 30

- 2-Mile Region - 5-Mile Region -

Entire EPZ e 90% e 100%

25 QI)

C

-~ iii 20

I "O

C

~ :I ~ 15

"' 0

.s! ..c

..c t:. 10 CII 5

0 0 30 60 90 120 150 180 210 240 270 Elapsed Time After Evacuation Recommendation (min)

Figure 7-8. Evacuation Time Estimates - Scenario 1 for Region R03 Evacuation Time Estimates Summer, Midweek, Midday, Rain (Scenario 2)

- 2-Mile Region - 5-Mile Region - Entire EPZ e 90% e 100%

30 25 QI)

C

-~ - 20

I u "O "'

n, C

~ "' ~ 15

"' 0

.s! ..c

E t:. 10

~

5 0

0 30 60 90 120 150 180 210 240 270 Elapsed Time After Evacuation Recommendation (min)

Figure 7-9. Evacuation Time Estimates - Scenario 2 for Region R03 NMP/JAF 7-22 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estim ate February 24, 2016

Evacuation Time Estimates Summer, Weekend, Midday, Good (Scenario 3)

Mile Region - 5-Mile Region - Entire EPZ e 90% e 100%

30 25 IIO C

~::i -"' 20 u "C IQ C

~ ::i ~ 15

"' 0

.!!! .c

.!::! t:. 10

.c QI 5

0 0 30 60 90 120 150 180 210 240 270 Elapsed Time After Evacuation Recommendation (min)

Figure 7-10. Evacuation Time Estimates - Scenario 3 for Region R03 Evacuation Time Estimates Summer, Weekend, Midday, Rain (Scenario 4)

Mile Region - 5-Mile Region - Entire EPZ e 90% e 100%

C IIO

-~ -

u::i IQ "C

C 30 25 20

~ ~  ::i 15

"' 0

.!!! .c 1t:.10 QI 5

0 0 30 60 90 120 150 180 210 240 270 Elapsed Time After Evacuation Recommendation (min)

Figure 7-11. Evacuation Time Estimates - Scenario 4 for Region R03 NMP/JAF 7-23 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate February 24, 2016

Evacuation Time Estimates Summer, Midweek, Weekend, Evening, Good (Scenario 5)

- 2-Mile Region - 5-Mile Region - Entire EPZ e 90% e 100%

30 25 Ill)

C

-~ .;, 20

s "C

~ C J: ~ 15

s

"' 0

~ .&;

it:.10 CII 5

0 0 30 60 90 120 150 180 210 240 270 Elapsed Time After Evacuation Recommendation (min)

Figure 7-12. Evacuation Time Estimates - Scenario S for Region R03 Evacuation Time Estimates Winter, Midweek, Midday, Good (Scenario 6)

- 2-Mile Region - 5-Mile Region - Entire EPZ e 90% e 100%

35 30 Ill)

C

• ~ -

s "'

25

~ "g 20 w ~

~ _g 15 u I-

~ -10 5

0 0 30 60 90 120 150 180 210 240 270 Elapsed Time After Evacuation Recommendation (min)

Figure 7-13. Evacuation Time Estimates - Scenario 6 for Region R03 NMP/ JAF 7-24 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate February 24, 2016

---~

I Evacuation Time Estimates Winter, Midweek, Midday, Rain (Scenario 7)

- 2-Mile Region - 5-M il e Region - Entire EPZ e 90% e 100%

35 30 tlO

.g 25

~ vi u -o 20

~

w ;

~ _g 15 u .....

~ -10 5

0 0 30 60 90 120 150 180 210 240 270 Elapsed Time After Evacuation Recommendation (min)

Figure 7-14. Evacuation Time Estimates - Scenario 7 for Region R03 Evacuation Time Estimates Winter, Midweek, Midday, Snow (Scenario 8)

- 2-Mile Region - 5-Mile Region - Entire EPZ e 90% e 100%

35 30 tlO c:

• ~

a~

- 25 20

~

w ;

~ _g 15 u .....

~ -10 5

0 0 30 60 90 120 150 180 210 240 270 Elapsed Time After Evacuation Recommendation (min)

Figure 7-lS. Evacuation Time Estimates - Scenario 8 for Region R03 NMP/ JAF 7-25 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate February 24, 2016

Evacuation Time Estimates Winter, Weekend, Midday, Good (Scenario 9)

Mile Region - 5-Mile Region - Enti re EPZ e 90% e 100%

30 25 tlO C

-~ - 20

I u -0 "'

n, C

~ ::I ~ 15

"' 0

.!!! .J::.

.J::.

c 10 QI 5

0 0 30 60 90 120 150 180 210 240 270 Elapsed Time After Evacuation Recommendation (min)

Figure 7-16. Evacuation Time Estimates - Scenario 9 for Region R03 Evacuation Time Estimates Winter, Weekend, Midday, Rain (Scenario 10)

Mile Region - 5-Mile Region - Entire EPZ e 90% e 100%

30 25 tlO C

-~ -;;; 20

I -0

)il C

~ ::I ~ 15

"' 0

.!!! .J::.

E c 10

~

5 0

0 30 60 90 120 150 180 210 240 270 Elapsed Time After Evacuation Recommendation (min)

Figure 7-17. Evacuation Time Estimates - Scenario 10 for Region R03 NMP/ JAF 7-2 6 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate February 24, 2016

Evacuation Time Estimates Winter, Weekend, Midday, Snow (Scenario 11)

- 2-Mile Region - 5-Mile Region - Entire EPZ

• 90%

• 100%

30 tlO C

-~ ,;; 20

s "O 25

~ C

~ ::s ~ 15

"' 0

..!!! .c

E t:. 10 CII 5

0 0 30 60 90 120 150 180 210 240 270 Elapsed Time After Evacuation Recommendation (min)

Figure 7-18. Evacuation Time Estimates - Scenario 11 for Region R03 Evacuation Time Estimates Winter, Midweek, Weekend, Evening, Good (Scenario 12)

- 2-Mile Region - 5-Mile Region - Entire EPZ e 90% e 100%

30 25 tlO C

-~ ,;; 20

s "O u C

~"' ~"' 15

"' 0

..!!! .c

E t:. 10

~

5 0

0 30 60 90 120 150 180 210 240 270 Elapsed Time After Evacuat ion Recommendation (min)

Figure 7-19. Evacuation Time Estimates - Scenario 12 for Region R03 NM P/JAF 7-27 KLD Eng ineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate February 24, 2016

Evacuation Time Estimates Summer, Weekend, Evening, Good, Special Event {Scenario 13)

M ile Region - S-M ile Region - Entire EPZ e 90% e 100%

60 C

bl)

• ~ -

so 40 u:, "'

"C 111 C

~ :, ~ 30

"' 0

..!!! .s::.

E .!:. 20 QI 10 0

0 30 60 90 120 150 180 210 240 270 300 330 360 390 420 450 Elapsed Time After Evacuation Recommendation (min)

Figure 7-20. Evacuation Time Estimates - Scenario 13 for Region R03 Evacuation Time Estimates Summer, Midweek, Midday, Good, Roadway Impact (Scenario 14}

M il e Region - S-M ile Region - Entire EPZ e 90% e 100%

30 25 bl)

C

• ~ .;, 20

, "C

C

~ :)!  :, 15

"' 0

..!!! .s::.

E .!:. 10 QI 5

0 0 30 60 90 120 150 180 210 240 270 Elapsed Time After Evacuation Recommendation (min)

Figure 7-21. Evacuation Time Estimates - Scenario 14 for Region R03 NMP/ JAF 7-28 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate February 24, 2016

8 TRANSIT-DEPENDENT AND SPECIAL FACILITY EVACUATION TIME ESTIMATES This section details the analyses applied and the results obtained in the form of evacuation time estimates for transit vehicles. The demand for transit service reflects the needs of three population groups: (1) residents with no vehicles available; (2) residents of special facilities such as schools, preschools, day camps, medical facilities, and correctional facilities; and (3) homebound special needs population.

These transit vehicles mix with the general evacuation traffic that is comprised mostly of "passenger cars" (pc's). The presence of each transit vehicle in the evacuating traffic stream is represented within the modeling paradigm described in Appendix D as equivalent to two pc's.

This equivalence factor represents the longer size and more sluggish operating characteristics of a transit vehicle, relative to those of a pc.

Transit vehicles must be mobilized in preparation for their respective evacuation missions.

Specifically:

• Bus drivers must be alerted

• They must travel to the bus depot

• They must be briefed there and assigned to a route or facility These activities consume time. Based on discussion with the offsite agencies, it is estimated that bus mobilization time will average approximately 90 minutes extending from the Advisory to Evacuate, to the time when buses first arrive at the facility to be evacuated.

During this mobilization period, other mobilization activities are taking place. One of these is the action taken by parents, neighbors, relatives and friends to pick up children from school prior to the arrival of buses, so that they may join their families. Virtually all studies of evacuations have concluded that this "bonding" process of uniting families is universally prevalent during emergencies and should be anticipated in the planning process. The current public information disseminated to residents of the NMP/JAF EPZ indicates that schoolchildren and children at daycares with an enrollment of 30 or larger may be evacuated to the reception center at the New York State Fairgrounds in Syracuse at emergency action levels of Alert or higher. As discussed in Section 2, this study assumes a fast breaking general emergency.

Therefore, children are evacuated to the reception center. Picking up children at school could add to traffic congestion at the schools, delaying the departure of the buses evacuating schoolchildren, which may have to return in a subsequent "wave" to the EPZ to evacuate the transit-dependent population. This report provides estimates of buses under the assumption that no children will be picked up by their parents (in accordance with NUREG/CR-7002), to present an upper bound estimate of buses required. This study assumes that children at day-care centers with an enrollment of less than 30 children are picked up by parents or guardians and that the time to perform this activity is included in the trip generation times discussed in Section 5.

NMP/JAF 8-1 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate February 24, 2016

The procedure for computing transit-dependent ETE is to:

• Estimate demand for transit service

• Estimate time to perform all transit functions

• Estimate route travel times to the EPZ boundary and to the reception center 8.1 Transit Dependent People Demand Estimate The telephone survey (see Appendix F) results were used to estimate the portion of the population requiring transit service based on the percentage of households with no vehicles available.

Table 8-1 presents estimates of transit-dependent people. Note:

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

• It is reasonable and appropriate to consider that many transit-dependent persons will evacuate by ride-sharing with neighbors, friends or family. For example, nearly 80 percent of those who evacuated from Mississauga, Ontario who did not use their own cars, shared a ride with neighbors or friends (IES, 1981). Other documents report that approximately 70 percent of transit dependent persons were evacuated*

via ride sharing. We will adopt a conservative estimate that 50 percent of transit dependent persons will ride share, in accordance with NUREG/CR-7002.

The estimated number of bus trips needed to service transit-dependent persons is based on an estimate of average bus occupancy of 30 persons at the conclusion of the bus run. Transit vehicle seating capacities typically equal or exceed 60 children on average (roughly equivalent to 40 adults). If transit vehicle evacuees are two thirds adults and one third children, then the number of "adult seats" taken by 30 persons is 20 + (2/3 xlO) = 27. On this basis, the average load factor anticipated is (27/40) x 100 = 68 percent. Thus, if the actual demand for service exceeds the estimates of Table 8-1 by 50 percent, the demand for service can still be accommodated by the available bus seating capacity.

[20 + (~ X 10)] + 40 X 1.5 = 1.00 Table 8-1 indicates that transportation must be provided for 1,860 people. Therefore, a total of 62 bus runs are required to transport this population to the reception center. This study will consider 76 buses to provide a minimum of one bus for each route specified in the county emergency plans, see section 8.4 for additional details.

NMP/JAF 8-2 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate February 24, 2016

__J

To illustrate this estimation procedure, we calculate the number of persons, P, requiring public transit or ride-share, and the number of buses, B, required for the NMP/JAF EPZ:

n P =No.of HH x L {(% HH with i vehicles) x [(Average HH Size) - i]} x Ai Ci i=O

Where, A= Percent of households with commuters C = Percent of households who will not await the return of a commuter P = 17,332 X [0.0646 X 1.75 + 0.297 X (1.83 - 1) X 0.56 X 0.55 + 0.4747 X (2.57 - 2)

X (0.56 X 0.55) 2] = 17,332 X 0.21464 = 3,720 B = (0.5 x P) + 30 = 62 These calculations are explained as follows:

• All members (1.75 avg.) of households (HH) with no vehicles (6.46%} will evacuate by public transit or ride-share. The term 17,332 (number of households) x 0.0646 x 1.75, accounts for these people.

• The members of HH with 1 vehicle away (29.7%}, who are at home, equal (1.83-1).

The number of HH where the commuter will not return home is equal to (17,332 x 0.297 x 0.83 x 0.56 x 0.55), as 56% of EPZ households have a commuter, 55% of which would not return home in the event of an emergency. The number of persons who will evacuate by public transit or ride-share is equal to the product of these two terms.

• The members of HH with 2 vehicles that are away (47.47%), who are at home, equal (2.57 - 2). The number of HH where neither commuter will return home is equal to 17,332 x 0.4747 x 0.57 x (0.56 x 0.55)2. The number of persons who will evacuate by public transit or ride-share is equal to the product of these two terms (the last term is squared to represent the probability that neither commuter will return).

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

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

The estimate of transit-dependent population in Table 8-1 far exceeds the number of registered transit-dependent persons in the EPZ as provided by the county (discussed below in Section 8.5). This is consistent with the findings of NUREG/CR-6953, Volume 2, in that a large majority of the transit-dependent population within the EPZs of U.S. nuclear plants does not register with their local emergency response agency.

NMP/JAF 8-3 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate February 24, 2016

8.2 School, Preschool and Day Camp Population -Transit Demand Table 8-2 presents the school, preschool, and day camp population and transportation requirements for the direct evacuation of all schools, preschools and day camps within the EPZ for the 2011-2012 school year. This information was provided by Oswego County Emergency Management. The column in Table 8-2 entitled "Buses Required" specifies the number of buses required for each school, preschool, or day camp under the following set of assumptions and estimates:

• No students will be picked up by their parents prior to the arrival of the buses.

• While many high school students commute to school using private automobiles (as discussed in Section 2.4 of NUREG/CR-7002), the estimate of buses required for school evacuation do not consider the use of these private vehicles.

• Bus capacity, expressed in students per bus, is set to 70 for primary schools and 50 for middle and high schools.

• According to the county emergency plans, 18 buses will be dispatched to SUNY Oswego, each with a capacity of 40 students per bus, to evacuate the transit dependent population at the school.

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

• Children at day-care centers with an enrollment of less than 30 children are picked up by parents or guardians

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

It is recommended that Oswego County introduces procedures whereby the schools, preschools, and day camp are contacted prior to the dispatch of buses from the depot, to ascertain the current estimate of students to be evacuated. In this way, the number of buses dispatched to the schools, preschools, or day camps will reflect the actual number needed. The need for buses would be reduced by any high school students who have evacuated using private automobiles (if permitted by school authorities). Those buses originally allocated to evacuate schoolchildren that are not needed due to children being picked up by their parents, can be gainfully assigned to service other facilities or those persons who do not have access to private vehicles or to ride-sharing. Table 8-3 presents a list of the reception centers for each school, preschool, and day camp in the EPZ. Children will be transported to the reception center located at the New York State Fairgrounds in Syracuse where they will be subsequently retrieved by their respective families.

8.3 Medical Facility Demand Table 8-4 presents the census of medical facilities in the EPZ. A total of 1,080 people have been identified as living in, or being treated in, these facilities. The capacity and current census for each facility was provided by the county emergency management personnel. This data is presented in Table 8-4.

The transportation requirements for the medical facility population are also presented in Table NMP/JAF 8-4 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate February 24, 2016

8-4. The number of ambulance runs is determined by assuming that 2 patients can be accommodated per ambulance trip. The capacities of other vehicle classes were reduced to allow for medical staff, equipment and for other contingencies. It was assumed a bus can accommodate 30 persons, a wheelchair buses may transport 20 ambulatory and 2 wheelchair bound individuals and wheelchair vans can accommodate 7 ambulatory and 3 wheelchair bound persons.

8.4 Evacuation Time Estimates for Transit Dependent People EPZ bus resources are assigned to evacuating children (if school is in session at the time of the ATE) as the first priority in the event of an emergency. In the event that the allocation of buses dispatched from the depots to the various facilities and to the bus routes is somewhat "inefficient", or if there is a shortfall of available drivers, then there may be a need for some buses to return to the EPZ from the reception center after completing their first evacuation trip, to complete a "second wave" of providing transport service to evacuees. For this reason, the ETE for the transit-dependent population will be calculated for both a one wave transit evacuation and for two waves. Of course, if the impacted Evacuation Region is other than R03 (the entire EPZ), then there will likely be ample transit resources relative to demand in the impacted Region and this discussion of a second wave would likely not apply.

When school evacuation needs are satisfied, subsequent assignments of buses to service the transit-dependent should be sensitive to their mobilization time. Clearly, the buses should be dispatched after people have completed their mobilization activities and are in a position to board the buses when they arrive at the pick-up points.

Evacuation Time Estimates for transit trips were developed using both good weather and adverse weather conditions. Figure 8-1 presents the chronology of events relevant to transit operations. The elapsed time for each activity will now be discussed with reference to Figure 8-1.

Activity: Mobilize Drivers (A"7B"7C)

Mobilization is the elapsed time from the Advisory to Evacuate until the time the buses arrive at the facility to be evacuated. It is assumed that for a rapidly escalating radiological emergency with no observable indication before the fact, school bus drivers would likely require 90 minutes to be contacted, to travel to the depot, be briefed, and to travel to the transit-dependent facilities. Mobilization time is slightly longer in adverse weather - 100 minutes when raining, 110 minutes when snowing.

Activity: Board Passengers (C"'7D)

Based on discussions with offsite agencies, a loading time of 15 minutes (20 minutes for rain and 25 minutes for snow) for school buses is used.

For multiple stops along a pick-up route (transit-dependent bus routes) estimation of travel time must allow for the delay associated with stopping and starting at each pick-up point. The time, t, required for a bus to decelerate at a rate, "a", expressed in ft/sec/sec, from a speed, NMP/JAF 8-5 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate February 24, 2016

"v", expressed in ft/sec, to a stop, is t = v/a. Assuming the same acceleration rate and final speed following the stop yields a total time, T, to service boarding passengers:

T= t +B +t = B + 2t = B + zv, a

Where B = Dwell time to service passengers. The total distance, "s" in feet, travelled during the deceleration and acceleration activities is: s = v 2/a. If the bus had not stopped to service passengers, but had continued to travel at speed, v, then its travel time over the distance, s, would be: s/v = v/a. Then the total delay (i.e. pickup time, P) to service passengers is:

P=T-!.=B+!.

a a Assigning reasonable estimates:

• B = 50 seconds: a generous value for a single passenger, carrying personal items, to board per stop

• v = 25 mph = 37 ft/sec

• a= 4 ft/sec/sec, a moderate average rate Then, P == 1 minute per stop. Allowing 30 minutes pick-up time per bus run implies 30 stops per run, for good weather. It is assumed that bus acceleration and speed will be less in rain; total loading time is 40 minutes per bus in rain, 50 minutes in snow.

Activity: Travel to EPZ Boundary {D"7E)

School, Preschool, and Day Camp Evacuation Transportation resources available were provided by the EPZ county emergency management agencies and are summarized in Table 8-5. Also included in the table are the number of buses needed to evacuate schools, preschools, day camp, medical facilities, transit-dependent population, homebound special needs population (discussed below in Section 8.5) and correctional facilities (discussed below in Section 8.6). These numbers indicate there are sufficient resources available to evacuate everyone in a single wave. Given the safety factors employed, it is likely that only a single wave is required so long as resources are deployed systematically. Should the need arise, mutual aid agreements would supply the necessary resources to address any shortfalls.

The buses servicing the schools, preschools, and day camp are ready to begin their evacuation trips at 105 minutes after the advisory to evacuate - 90 minutes mobilization time plus 15 minutes loading time - in good weather. The UNITES software discussed in Section 1.3 was used to define bus routes along the most likely path from a school being evacuated to the EPZ boundary, traveling toward the appropriate reception center. This is done in UNITES by interactively selecting the series of nodes from the school to the EPZ boundary. Each bus route is given an identification number and is written to the DYNEV II input stream. DYNEV computes the route length and outputs the average speed for each 5 minute interval, for each bus route.

The specified bus routes are documented in Table 8-6 (refer to the maps of the link-node analysis network in Appendix K for node locations). Data provided by DYNEV during the appropriate timeframe depending on the mobilization and loading times (i.e., 100 to 105 NMP/JAF 8-6 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate February 24, 2016

minutes after the advisory to evacuate for good weather) were used to compute the average' speed for each route, as follows:

mi.)

Average Speed ( hr Lt= 1 length of link i (mi) 60 min.

x---

1 hr.

~n {D e lay on z*m k i. (mm.

. ). + length of link i (mi.)mi x 601 min.}

h L..i=l current speed on link i (hr J r.

The average speed computed (using this methodology) for the buses servicing each of the schools, preschools, and day camp in the EPZ is shown in Table 8-7 through Table 8-9 for school, preschool, and day camp evacuation, and in Table 8-11 through Table 8-13 for the transit vehicles evacuating transit-dependent persons, which are discussed later. The travel time to the EPZ boundary was computed for each bus using the computed average speed and the distance to the EPZ boundary along the most likely route out of the EPZ. Speeds were reduced in Table 8-7 through Table 8-9 and in Table 8-11 through Table 8-13 to 55 mph (SO mph for rain

- 10% decrease, rounded to the nearest 5 mph - and 45 mph for snow - 20% decrease, rounded to the nearest 5mph) for those calculated bus speeds which exceed 55 mph, as the school bus speed limit for state routes in New York is 55 mph. The travel time from the EPZ boundary to the reception center was computed assuming an average speed of 55 mph, 50 mph, and 45 mph for good weather, rain, and snow, respectively. Table 8-7(good weather),

Table 8-8(rain) and Table 8-9 (snow) present the following evacuation time estimates (rounded up to the nearest 5 minutes) for schools, preschool, and day camp in the EPZ: (1) The elapsed time from the Advisory to Evacuate until the bus exits the EPZ; and (2) The elapsed time until the bus reaches the Reception Center (R.C.). The evacuation time out of the EPZ can be computed as the sum of times associated with Activities A7B7C, C7D, and D7E (For example: 90 min. + 15 + 53 = 2:40 for Oswego High School, with good weather). The evacuation time to the school reception center is determined by adding the time associated with Activity E7F (discussed below), to this EPZ evacuation time.

Evacuation of Transit-Dependent Population The buses dispatched from the depots to service the transit-dependent evacuees will be scheduled so that they arrive at their respective routes after their passengers have completed their mobilization. As shown in Figure 5-4 (Residents with no Commuters), approximately 90 percent of the evacuees will complete their mobilization when the buses will begin their routes, approximately 90 minutes after the Advisory to Evacuate.

Those buses servicing the transit-dependent evacuees will first travel along their pick-up routes, and then proceed out of the EPZ. Transit-dependent pick-up locations are provided annually to EPZ residents in the emergency preparedness brochure. The county emergency plans define NMP/JAF 8-7 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate February 24, 2016

bus routes to service these pick-up locations.

Table* 8-10 outlines the 76 General population bus routes outlined in the Oswego County Emergency Plans. It is assumed that residents will walk to and congregate at pre-designated pick-up locations, and that they can arrive at the stops within the 90 minute bus mobilization time (good weather). Detailed descriptions of each bus route are available in Procedure E of the Oswego County radiological Emergency Preparedness Plan, Table 2; maps of the pick-up points in each ERPA are contained in the EMO calendar.

As previously discussed, a pickup time of 30 minutes (good weather) is estimated for 30 individual stops to pick up passengers, with an average of one minute of delay associated with each stop. Longer pickup times of 40 minutes and 50 minutes are used for rain and snow, respectively.

The travel distance along the respective pick-up routes within the EPZ is estimated using the UNITES software as well as the route lengths given in the County Emergency Plans. Bus travel times within the EPZ are computed using average speeds computed by DYNEV, using the aforementioned methodology that was used for school, preschool, and day camp evacuation.

Table 8-11 through Table 8-13 present the transit-dependent population evacuation time estimates for each bus route calculated using the above procedures for good weather, rain and snow, respectively.

For example, the ETE for the bus route servicing Route 1 is computed as 90 + 80 + 30 = 3:20 for good weather (rounded up to nearest 5 minutes). Here, 80 minutes is the time to travel 18.5 miles at 13.9 mph, the average speed output by the model for this route starting at 90 minutes.

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

Activity: Travel to Reception Centers (E'7F)

The distances from the EPZ boundary to the reception centers are measured using GIS software along the most likely route from the EPZ exit point to the reception center. The reception centers are mapped in Figure 10-1. For a one-wave evacuation, this travel time outside the EPZ does not contribute to the ETE. For a two-wave evacuation, the ETE for buses must be considered separately, since it could exceed the ETE for the general population. Assumed bus speeds of 55 mph, 50 mph, and 45 mph for good weather, rain, and snow, respectively, will be applied for this activity for buses servicing the transit-dependent population.

Activity: Passengers Leave Bus (F'7G)

A bus can empty within 5 minutes. The driver takes a 10 minute break.

Activity: Bus Returns to Route for Second Wave Evacuation (G'7C)

The buses assigned to return to the EPZ to perform a "second wave" evacuation of transit-dependent evacuees will be those that have already evacuated transit-dependent people who mobilized more quickly. The first wave of transit-dependent people depart the bus, and the bus then returns to the EPZ, travels to its route and proceeds to pick up more transit-NMP/JAF 8-8 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate February 24, 2016

dependent evacuees along the route. The travel time back to the EPZ is equal to the travel time to the reception center.

The second-wave ETE for Route 1 is computed as follows for good weather:

• Bus arrives at reception center at 3:49 in good weather (3:20 to exit EPZ + 29 minute travel time to reception center).

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

• Bus returns to EPZ and completes second wave service along the route: 49.2 minutes (equal to travel time to reception center+ travel time to return to the beginning of the route) + 21.0 minutes (18.5 miles @ 52.9 mph to traverse the route providing second wave bus service)= 70 minutes *

• Bus completes pick-ups along route: 30 minutes.

• Bus exits EPZ at time 3:20 + 0:29 + 0:15 + 0:70 + 0:30 = 5:45 (rounded to nearest 5 minutes) after the Advisory to Evacuate.

The ETE for the completion of the second wave for all transit-dependent bus routes are provided in Table 8-11 through Table 8-13. The average ETE for a two-wave evacuation of transit-dependent people exceeds the ETE for the general population at the goth percentile.

The relocation of transit-dependent evacuees from the reception centers to congregate care centers, if the county decides to do so, is not considered in this study.

Evacuation of Medical Facilities The evacuation of these facilities is similar to a school evacuation except:

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

• Wheelchair Buses are assigned on the basis of 20 ambulatory patients and 2 wheelchair bound patients. Again, this number is reduced from the average fleet capacity to allow for staff accompaniment.

• Wheelchair vans are assigned on the basis of 7 ambulatory patients and 3 wheelchair bound patients

• Ambulances are assigned on the basis of 2 bedridden patients per ambulance.

• The passenger loading time will be longer at approximately one minute, 5 minutes, and 15 minutes per ambulatory, wheelchair bound, and bedridden patient, respectively, to account for the time to move patients from inside the facility to the vehicles.

Table 8-4 indicates that 7 bus runs, 216 wheelchair bus runs and 14 ambulance runs are needed to service all of the medical facilities in the EPZ. According to Table 8-5, the county can provide 249 buses, 8 vans, 220 wheel-chair accessible buses, 21 wheelchair accessible vans and 30 ambulances. Thus, there are sufficient resources to evacuate the ambulatory, wheelchair bound and bedridden persons from the medical facilities in a single wave.

NMP/JAF 8-9 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate February 24, 2016

As is done for the schools, it is estimated that mobilization time averages 90 minutes (100 in rain and 110 in snow). Specially trained medical support staff (working their regular shift) will be on site to assist in the evacuation of patients. Additional staff (if needed) could be mobilized over this same 90-minute timeframe.

Table 8-14 through Table 8-16 summarize the ETE for medical facilities within the EPZ for good weather, rain, and snow. Average speeds output by the model for Scenario 6 (Scenario 7 for rain and Scenario 8 for snow) Region 3, capped at 55 mph (50 mph for rain and 45 mph for snow), are used to compute travel time to EPZ boundary. The travel time to the EPZ boundary is computed by dividing the distance to the EPZ boundary by the average travel speed. The ETE is the sum of the mobilization time, total passenger loading time, and travel time out of the EPZ. It is assumed that wheelchair capable vehicles are used to evacuate the ambulatory population at the medical facilities within the EPZ. This will allow the wheelchair bound patients to evacuate with the ambulatory patients and requires less transportation resources.

Concurrent loading on multiple wheelchair buses/vans, and ambulances at capacity is assumed.

All ETE are rounded to the nearest 5 minutes. For example, the calculation of ETE for Bishop Commons at St. Luke's with 66 ambulatory residents during good weather is:

ETE: 90 + 20 + 44 = 2:35 It is assumed that the medical facility population is directly evacuated to appropriate host medical facilities outside of the EPZ. Relocation of this population to permanent facilities and/or passing through the reception center before arriving at the host facility is not considered in this analysis.

8.5 Special Needs Population Oswego County Emergency Management has a combined registration for transit-dependent and homebound special needs persons. Based on data provided by the county in 2012, there are an estimated 208 homebound special needs people within the EPZ who require transportation assistance to evacuate. There are 151 ambulatory, 57 wheelchair bound and no bedridden people which constitute this group.

ETE for Homebound Special Needs Persons Table 8-17 summarizes the ETE for homebound special needs people. The table is categorized by type of vehicle required and then broken down by weather condition. The table takes into consideration the deployment of multiple vehicles to reduce the number of stops per vehicle.

It is conservatively assumed that ambulatory and wheelchair bound special needs households are spaced 3 miles apart and bedridden households are spaced 5 miles apart. It is also assumed wheelchair vans will pick up both ambulatory and wheelchair bound people. Van speeds approximate 20 mph between households (10% slower in rain, 20% slower in snow).

Mobilization times of 90 minutes were used (100 minutes for rain, and 110 minutes for snow).

The last HH is assumed to be 5 miles from the EPZ boundary, and the network-wide average speed, capped at 55 mph (50 mph for rain and 45 mph for snow), after the last pickup is used to compute travel time. ETE is computed by summing mobilization time, loading time at first NMP/JAF 8-10 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate February 24, 2016

household, travel to subsequent households, loading time at subsequent households, and travel time to EPZ boundary. All ETE are rounded to the nearest 5 minutes. Loading time is conservatively estimated as 5 minutes per stop.

For example, assuming no more than one special needs person per HH implies that 208 households need to be serviced. If 19 wheelchair equipped vans are deployed to service these special needs HH, then each would require about 11 stops. The following outlines the ETE calculations:

1. Assume 19 wheelchair vans are deployed, each with about 11 stops, to service a total of 208 HH.

2. The ETE is calculated as follows:

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

b. Load HH members at first pickup: 5 minutes

c. Travel to subsequent pickup locations: 10 @ 9 minutes= 90 minutes

d. Load HH members at subsequent pickup locations: 10 @ 5 minutes = 50 minutes

e. Travel to EPZ boundary: 15 minutes (5 miles @ 20.4 mph, rounded).

ETE: 90 + 5 + 90 + 50 + 15 = 4:10 rounded to the nearest 5 minutes 8.6 Correctional Facilities As detailed in Table E-6, there is one correctional facility within the EPZ - Oswego County Correction Facility. The total inmate population at th.is facility is 160 persons. A total of 6 buses are needed to evacuate this facility, based on a capacity of 30 inmates per bus. Mobilization time is assumed to be 90 minutes (100 minutes in rain and 110 minutes in snow). The detailed evacuation plans for these facilities are confidential. So, it is assumed that it takes 60 minutes to load the inmates onto a bus, and that 6 buses can be loaded in parallel. Thus, total loading time is estimated at approximately 60 minutes. Using GIS software, the shortest route from the facility to the EPZ boundary, traveling away from NMP/JAF, is 5.5 miles. The travel time to traverse 5.5 miles is 23 minutes (14.68 mph at 2:30) in good weather, 20 minutes (16.65 mph at

, 2:40) in rain and 17 minutes (19.98 mph at 2:50) in snow. All ETE are rounded to the nearest 5 minutes.

ETE: 90 + 60 + 23 = 2:55 Rain ETE: 100 + 60 + 20 = 3:00 Snow ETE: 110 + 60 + 17 = 3:10 NMP/JAF 8-11 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate February 24, 2016

{Subsequent Wave)

Time Event A Advisory to Evacuate B Bus Dispatched from Depot C Bus Arrives at Facility/Pick-up Route D Bus Departs for Reception Center E Bus Exits Region F Bus Arrives at Reception Center/Host Facility G Bus Available for "Second Wave" Evacuation Service Activity A~B Driver Mobilization B~C Travel to Facility or to Pick-up Route C~D Passengers Board the Bus D~E Bus Travels Towards Region Boundary E~ F Bus Travels Towards Reception Center Outside the EPZ F~G Passengers Leave Bus; Driver Takes a Break Figure 8-1. Chronology of Transit Evacuation Operations NMP/JAF 8-12 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate February 24, 2016

Table 8-1. Transit-Dependent Population Estimates Survey Average HH Survey Percent Size Survey Percent HH Survey Percent HH Total People Population with Indicated No. of Estimated with Indicated No. of Percent HH with Non- People Estimated Requiring Requiring 2015 EPZ Vehicles No. of Vehicles with Returning Requiring Ridesharing Public Public Population 0 1 2 Households 0 1 2 Commuters Commuters Transport Percentage Transit Transit 41,423 1.75 1.83 2.57 17,332 6.46% 29 .70% 47 .47% 56% 55% 3,720 50%  :

NMP/JAF 8-13 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate February 24, 2016

Table 8-2. School, Preschool, and Day Camp Population Demand Estimates Local Buses ERPA School, Preschool, or Day Camp Name Enrollment Required 1 Ontario Bible Conference 1 91 2 4 New Haven Elementary School 238 4 10 School Age Children Care Program 33 1 12 Charles E. Riley Elementary 497 8 12 Fitzhugh Park Elementary School 416 6 12 Headstart of Oswego 80 2 12 Little Luke's Childcare Center 100 2 12 Oswego Community Christian School 76 2 12 Trinity Catholic School 173 3 13 Children's Center of SUNY Oswego 100 2 13 Frederick Leighton Elementary School 485 7 13 Kingsford Park Elementary 381 6 13 Oswego High School 1,281 26 13 Oswego Middle School 597 12 13 Oswego YMCA School's Out Program 60 1 16 Mexico Elementary School 358 4 16 Mexico High School 700 14 16 Mexico Middle School 701 15 Center for Instructional Technology and 17 Innovation (Oswego County BOCES) 2 446 9 21 Minetto Elementary School 367 8 22 SUNY Oswego 3 8,300 18 S.R. Palermo Elementary School 4 255 4 TOTAL: 15,735 156 1

According to Oswego County officials, Ontario Bible Conference, included in this table, is a summer camp program that requires 2 buses from the Emergency Operations Center (EOC) . The rest of the year, the camp is ope n to retreats for family events for which they can furnish their own transportation.

2 Oswego County BOCES is now kn own as the Center for Instructional Technology and Innovation (Citi) .

3 According to the county emergency plans, 18 buses w ill be dispatched to SUNY Oswego, each with a capacity of 40 students per bus, to evacuate the transit dependent population at the school.

4 Palermo Elementary School is located in the Shadow Region, but will evacuate according to Oswego County emergency plans .

NMP/ JAF 8-14 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate February 24, 2016

Table 8-3. School, Preschool, and Day Camp Reception Centers School/Day Camp Reception Center Ontario Bible Conference New Haven Elementary Schoo l School Age Children Care Program Charles E. Riley Elementary Fitzhugh Park Elementary School Headstart of Oswego Little Luke's Childcare Center Oswego Community Christian School Trinity Catholic School Children's Center of SUNY Osw ego Frederick Leighton Elementary School New York State Fairgrounds, Kingsford Park Elementary Syracuse, NY Oswego High School Oswego M iddle School Oswego YMCA School's Out Program Mexico Elementary School Mexico High School Mexico Middle School Center for Instructional Techno logy and Innovation (Oswego County BOCES)

Minetto Elementary School SUNY Oswego Palermo Elementary School NMP/ JAF 8-15 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estim ate February 24, 2016

Table 8-4. Medical Facility Transit Demand Wheel-Capa- 2012 Ambul- chair Bed- WC Bus Bus Ambulance ERPA Facility Name Municipality city Census atory Bound ridden Runs Runs Runs 12 Bishop Commons at St Luke's Oswego 68 68 66 2 0 1 2 0 12 Ladies Home of Oswego Oswego 21 15 15 0 0 1 0 0 12 Oswego Hosptial Behavioral Health Services Oswego 28 17 15 2 0 1 0 0 12 Pontiac Nursing Home Oswego 80 80 25 55 0 28 0 0 12 Simeon-Dewitt Apts . Oswego 150 150 150 0 0 8 0 0 12 St Luke Health Services Oswego 200 192 57 115 20 58 0 10 12 Valehaven Home for Adults Oswego 35 28 28 0 0 0 1 0 13 Morning Star Nursing Home Oswego 120 117 17 96 4 48 0 2 13 Oswego Hospital Oswego 100 65 55 7 3 4 0 2 13 Pontiac Terrace Apts Oswego 80 80 72 8 0 4 0 0 15 Fravor Rd IRA Mexico 10 9 7 2 0 1 0 0 16 Parkview Manor Apts Mexico 24 24 23 1 0 1 1 0 17 Sabill Drive IRA Mexico 6 6 5 1 0 1 0 0 20 Springside at Seneca Hill Oswego 75 75 74 1 0 1 2 0 20 The Manor at Seneca Hill Oswego 120 116 0 116 0 58 0 0 21 Minetto Senior Housing Oswego 38 38 37 1 0 1 1 0 Totals 1,155 1,080 646 407 27 216 7 14 NMP/JAF 8-16 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate February 24, 2016

Table 8-5. Summary of Transportation Resources Transportation WC Resource Vans Buses Buses WC Van Ambulances Resources Available . * ~

,.-~r .:~ ~\..,,:.:_.:~-.. ..' ... ;!.t,./.,;.*- .~ ~_: .* ~ ~ . ~ ;,~~:.-;~

Durham Transportation 0 13 3 0 0 Central Square Central School District 4 80 2 0 0 Central Square School District 0 48 2 0 0 City School District of Oswego 0 56 4 3 0 CNY CENTRO, Inc. 0 10 158 18 0 Center for Instructional Technology and 0 2 15 0 0 Innovation (Oswego County BOCES)

Oswego County Opportunities 0 11 33 0 0 Phoenix Central School District 4 29 3 0 0 Oswego County Fire & Rescue 0 0 0 0 4 Oswego County EMS 0 0 0 0 26 TOTAL: 8 249 220 21 30 Resources Needed WC Population Group/Mobility Level Buses Buses WC Van Ambulances Schools, Preschools, and Day Camp (Table 8-2): 156 0 0 0 Medical Facilities (Table 8-4): 7 216 0 14 Transit-Dependent Population (Table 8-10): 76 0 0 0 Correctional Facilities (Table 8-18) 6 0 0 0 Homebound Special Needs (Section 8.5): 0 0 19 0 NMP/JAF 8-17 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate February 24, 2016

Table 8-6. Bus Route Descriptions Bus Route Number Description Nodes Traversed to EPZ Boundary 181,203,202,191,604,188,189,306,305,308,310, 1 Transit Dependent Bus Route 1 309,311, 312,212,211,637,214,243,219,635 205,181,203,202,191,604,188,189,306,305,308, 2 Transit Dependent Bus Route 2 310,309,311,312,212,211,637,214,243,219,635 178,172,154,149,148,199,147,146,145,183,143, 3 Transit Dependent Bus Route 3 628,238,236 154,149,148,199,147,146,145,183,143,628,238, 4 Transit Dependent Bus Route 4 236 5 Transit Dependent Bus Route 5 190,145,183,143,628,238,236 6 Transit Dependent Bus Route 6 149,148, 199,147,146,145,183,143,628,238,236 7 Transit Dependent Bus Route 7 152, 153,89, 78, 79, 80,200, 81,82, 83 8 Transit Dependent Bus Route 8 151,152, 153,89, 78, 79,80,200, 81,82,83 9 Transit Dependent Bus Route 9 355,627, 144,698,83 10 Transit Dependent Bus Route 10 82,83, 129 11 Transit Dependent Bus Route 11 144, 698,83 138,632,2 15,221,213,212,211,637,214,243,219, 12 Transit Dependent Bus Route 12 635 333,334,304,687,347,338,342,656,314,657,560, 13 Transit Dependent Bus Route 13 568,567,566,525,661,346,662,549,480, 479,481, 482,214,243,219,635 305,308, 334,304,687, 347,338, 342,656,314,657, 14 Transit Dependent Bus Route 14 560, 568, 567,566,525,661,346,662,549,480,479, 481,482,214,243,219,635 325,307,705,305,308,334,304,687,347, 338,342, 15 Transit Dependent Bus Route 15 656,314,657,560,568,567,566,525,661,346,662, 549,480,479,481,482,214,243,219,635 202,191,604,188,189,306,305,308,334, 304, 687, 347,338,342,656,314,657,560,568,567,566,525, 16 Transit Dependent Bus Route 16 661,346,662, 549,480,479, 481,482,214, 243,219, 635 17 Transit Dependent Bus Route 17 145,183, 143,628,238,236 18 Transit Dependent Bus Route 18 145,183,143,628,238, 236 19 Transit Dependent Bus Route 19 101, 12, 13 20 Transit De pendent Bus Route 20 607,85,86 21 Transit De pendent Bus Route 21 605, 157,86 22 Transit Dependent Bus Route 22 89, 78, 79,80,200,81,82,83 23 Transit De pendent Bus Route 23 89, 78, 79,80,200,81, 82,83 NMP/ JAF 8-18 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate February 24, 2016

Bus Route Number Description Nodes Traversed to EPZ Boundary 24 Transit Dependent Bus Route 24 607,85,86 336,337,338,342,656,314,657,560,568,567,566, 25 Transit Dependent Bus Route 25 525,661,346,662,549,480,479,481,482,214,243, 219,635 304,687,347,338,342,656,314,657,560,568,567, 26 Transit Dependent Bus Route 26 566,525, 661,346,662,549,480,479,481,482,214, 243,219,635 550,303,553,313,554,547,664,480,479,481,482, 27 Transit Dependent Bus Route 27 214,243,219,635 314,657,560,568,567,566,525,661,346, 662,549, 28 Transit Dependent Bus Route 28 480,479,481,482,214,243,219 303,553,313,554,547,664,480,479,481,482,214, 29 Transit Dependent Bus Route 29 243,219, 635 313,554, 547,664,480,479,481,482,214, 243,219, 30 Transit Dependent Bus Route 30 635 313,554,547,664,480,479,481,482,214,243,219, 31 Transit Dependent Bus Route 31 635 32 Transit Dependent Bus Route 32 219,635, 699 33 Transit Dependent Bus Route 33 547,664,480,479,481,482,214,243,219,635 34 Transit Dependent Bus Route 34 547,664,480,479,481,482,214,243, 219,635 525,661,346,662,549,480,479,481,482,2 14,243, 35 Transit Dependent Bus Route 35 219,635 36 Transit Dependent Bus Route 36 692,516,515,484,485,474,473,701 37 Transit Dependent Bus Route 37 518,692,516,515,484,485,474,473,701 38 Transit Dependent Bus Route 38 518,692,516,515,484,485,474,473,701 519,502,468,469,470,471,483, 484, 485, 474,473, 39 Transit Dependent Bus Route 39 701 40 Transit Dependent Bus Route 40 513,517, 518,692,516,515,484,485,474,473,701 541,543,504,512, 505,710,436,466,498, 467,468, 41 Transit Dependent Bus Route 41 469,470,471,483,484,485,474,473 512,505,710,436,466,498, 467,468,469,470,471, 42 Transit Dependent Bus Route 42 483,484,485,474,473,701 532,529,521,511,533,544,512,505,710,436,466, 43 Transit Dependent Bus Route 43 498,467,468,469,470,471,483,484,485,474,473, 701 507,506,505,710,436,466,498,467,468,469,470, 44 Transit Dependent Bus Route 44 471,483,484,485,474,473,701 530,511,533,544,512,505,710,436,466, 498,467, 45 Transit Dependent Bus Route 45 468,469,470,471,483,484,485,474,473,701 NMP/JAF 8-19 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate February 24, 2016

Bus Route Number Description Nodes Traversed to EPZ Boundary 507,506, 505,710, 436,466,498,467,468, 469,470, 46 Transit Dependent Bus Route 46 471,483,484,485, 474,473, 701 47 Transit Dependent Bus Route 47 190,145, 183,143,628,238,236 48 Transit Dependent Bus Route 48 141,194, 142,143,628,238,236 138,632, 215, 221, 213,212, 211,637, 214, 243,219, 49 Transit Dependent Bus Route 49 635 so Transit Dependent Bus Route 50 138,309, 311,312, 212,211, 637, 214, 243, 219,635 51 Transit Dependent Bus Route 51 309, 311, 312,212,211, 637, 214,243,219,635 303, 553, 313,554, 547, 664, 480,479,481, 482,214, 52 Transit Dependent Bus Route 52 243, 219, 635 53 Transit Dependent Bus Route 53 299,82, 83, 129, 259, 359,130, 131, 250, 252 54 Transit Dependent Bus Route 54 628, 238, 236 55 Transit Dependent Bus Route 55 631,235, 236 56 Transit Dependent Bus Route 56 631,235, 236 57 Transit Dependent Bus Route 57 631,235,236 58 Transit Dependent Bus Route 58 217, 218, 700 59 Transit Dependent Bus Route 59 216,217,218 60 Transit Dependent Bus Route 60 217,218,700 61 Transit Dependent Bus Route 61 219,635, 699 62 Transit Dependent Bus Route 62 217,218, 700 63 Transit Dependent Bus Route 63 484,485, 474,473,701 64 Transit Dependent Bus Route 64 473,701, 425 65 Transit Dependent Bus Route 65 485, 426, 425 66 Transit Dependent Bus Route 66 469,499, 500 67 Transit Dependent Bus Route 67 469,499, 500 68 Transit Dependent Bus Route 68 469,499, 500 69 Transit Dependent Bus Route 69 484,485,474, 473, 701 436,466, 498,467, 468, 469, 470, 471,483,484, 485, 70 Transit Dependent Bus Route 70 474,473,701 505,710, 436, 466, 498, 467, 468,469,470, 471,483, 71 Transit Dependent Bus Route 71 484,485, 474,473, 701 72 Transit Dependent Bus Route 72 505,710, 436, 465, 464 73 Transit Dependent Bus Route 73 508,679,463 74 Transit Dependent Bus Route 74 509,708,508, 679 75 Transit Dependent Bus Route 75 309,311,312, 212, 211,637,214,243,219, 635 76 Trans it Dependent Bus Route 76 607, 85,86 NMP/ JAF 8-20 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Est imate February 24, 2016

Bus Route Number Description Nodes Traversed to EPZ Boundary 705,305,308,334,304,687,347,338,342, 656,314, 77 657,560,568,567,566,525,661,346,662,549,480, Ontario Bible Conference 479,481,482,214,243,219,635 78 New Ha ven Elementary School 609,198,190,145,183,143,628,238,236 305,308,334,304,687,347,338,342,656,314,657, 79 560,568,567,566,525,661,346,662,549,480,479, School Age Children Care Program 481,482,214,243,219,635 80 Charles E. Riley Elementary 664,480,479,481,482,214,243,219,635 567,566,525,661,346,662,549, 480,479,481,482, 81 Fitzhugh Park Elementary School 214,243,219,635 566,525,661,346,662,549,480,479,481,482,214, 82 Headstart of Oswego 243,219,635 83 Little Luke's Childcare Center 554,547,664,480,479,481,482, 214,243,219, 635 687,347,338,342,656,314,657,560,568,567,566, 84 525,661,346,662,549,480,479,481,482,214,243, Oswego Community Christian School 219,635 566,525,661,346,662,549,480,479, 481,482,214, 85 Trinity Catholic Sch ool 243,219,635 509,678,507,680,511,530,520,527,526,523,707, 86 525,661,346,662,549, 480,479,481,482,214,243, Children's Center of SUNY Oswego 219,635 533,511,530,520,527,526,523,707,525,661,346, 87 Frederick Leighton Elementary School 662,549,480,479,481, 482,214,243,219,635 540,539,670,513,517,518,692,516,515,484,485, 88 Kingsford Park Elementary 474,473,701 530,520,527,526,523,707,525,661,346, 662,549, 89 Oswego High School 480,479,481,482,214,243,219,635 90 Oswego Middle Sch ool 518,692,516,515,484,485,474,473,701 669,524,539,670,513,517,518,692,516, 515,484, 91 Oswego YMCA School 's Out Program 485,474,473,701 92 Mexico Elementary School 78, 79,80, 200,81,82,83 93 Mexico High Schoo l 77, 78, 79,80,200,81,82,83 94 Mexico M iddle Sch ool 89, 78, 79,80,200,81,82,83 Center for Instructional Techn ology and 95 89, 78, 79,80,200,81,82,83 Innovation (Oswego County BOCES) 96 Minetto Elementary School 485,474,473,701 510,509, 678,507, 680,511,530,520,527,526,523, 97 707,525, 661,346,662,549,480, 479,481,482,214, SUNY Oswego 243,219, 635 NM P/ JAF 8-21 KLD Engi neering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate February 24, 2016 I_

Bus Route Number Description Nodes Traversed to EPZ Boundary 98 Bishop Commons at St Luke's 480,479, 481,482,214,243,219,635 548,566,525,707,523,526, 527,520,530,511,680, 99 Ladies Home of Oswego 507,678,509,708,508,679 313,554,547,664,480,479,481,482,214,243,219, 100 Oswego Hospital Behavioral Health Services 635 101 Pontiac Nursing Home 480,479,481,482,214,243,219,635 661,346,662,549,480,479,481,482,214,243,219, 102 Simeon-Dewitt Apts . 635 103 St Luke Health Services 480,479,481,482,214,243,219,635 525,661,346,662,549,480, 479,481,482,214,243, 104 Valehaven Home for Adults 219,635 511,530,520,527,526,523,707,525,661,346, 662, 105 Morning Star Nursing Home 549,480,479,481,482,214,243,219,635 106 Oswego Hospital 527,520,530,511,680,507,678,509,708,508,679 669,523,707, 525,661,346,662,549,480, 479,481, 107 Pontiac Terrace Apts 482,214,243,219,635 108 Fravor Rd IRA 89, 78, 77, 76,84,607,85,86 109 Parkview Manor Apts 78, 77, 76, 610, 75, 74 110 Sabill Drive IRA 153,89, 78, 77, 76,610, 75, 74 111 Springside at Seneca Hill 479,481,482,214,243,219, 635 112 The Manor at Seneca Hill 214,243, 219,635 113 Minetto Senior Housing 692,516,515,484,485,474, 473,701 114 Oswego County Jail 479,481,482,214, 243,219,635 NMP/JAF 8-22 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estim ate February 24, 2016

Table 8-7. School, Preschool, and Day Camp Evacuation Time Estimates - Good Weather Dist. Travel Driver Loading To EPZ Average Time to Dist. EPZ Travel Time Mobilization Time Bdry Speed EPZ Bdry ETE Bdry to from EPZ Bdry ETE to H.S.

School, Preschool, and Day Camp Time (min) (min) (mi) (mph) (min) (hr:min) R.C. (mi.) to H.S. (min) (hr:min)

Ontario Bible Conference 90 15 13.0 14.7 53 2:40 26.9 30 3:10 New Haven Elementary School 90 15 7.4 47.0 10 1:55 28.9 32 2:30 School Age Children Care Program 90 15 11.7 13.8 51 2:40 26.9 30 3:10 Charles E. Riley Elementary 90 15 6.8 9.4 44 2:30 26.9 30 3:00 Fitzhugh Park Elementary School 90 15 7.9 10.1 47 2:35 26.9 30 3:05 Headstart of Oswego 90 15 7.8 10.1 47 2:35 26 .9 30 3:05 Little Luke's Childcare Center 90 15 7.3 9.4 47 2:35 26.9 30 3:05 Oswego Community Christian School 90 15 9.2 11.1 so 2:35 26 .9 30 3:05 Trinity Catholic School 90 15 7.8 10.1 47 2:35 26 .9 30 3:05 Children's Center of SUNY Oswego 90 15 9.7 10.3 57 2:45 26.9 30 3:15 Frederick Leighton Elementary School 90 15 9.1 9.8 57 2:45 26.9 30 3:15 Kingsford Park Elementary 90 15 6.7 23.4 18 2:05 26.8 30 2:35 Oswego High School 90 15 8.6 10.0 52 2:40 26.9 30 3:10 Oswego Middle School 90 15 5.2 23.6 14 2:00 26.8 30 2:30 Oswego YMCA School's Out Program 90 15 6.7 22.1 19 2:05 26.8 30 2:35 Mexico Elementary School 90 15 4.5 48.9 6 1:55 30.4 34 2:25 Mexico High School 90 15 4.8 47.3 7 1:55 30.4 34 2:30 Mexico Middle School 90 15 5.0 46.7 7 1:55 30.4 34 2:30 Center for Instructional Technology and 90 15 5.0 46.7 7 1:55 35 2:30 Innovation (Oswego County BOCES) 31.4 Minetto Elementary School 90 15 2.2 45.6 3 1:50 26.8 30 2:20 SUNY Oswego 90 15 9.9 10.1 59 2:45 26.9 30 3:15 Palermo Elementary School 90 15 Located outside the EPZ 27.8 31 2:20 Maximum for EPZ: 2:45 Maximum: 3:15 Average for EPZ: 2:20 Average: 2:55 NMP/JAF 8-23 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estim ate February 24, 2016

Table 8-8. School, Preschool, and Day Camp Evacuation Time Estimates - Rain Dist. Travel Driver Loading To EPZ Average Time to Dist. EPZ Travel Time Mobilization Time Bdry Speed EPZ Bdry ETE Bdry to from EPZ Bdry ETE to H.S.

School, Preschool, and Day Camp Time (min) (min) (mi) (mph) (min) (hr:min) R.C. (mi.) to H.S. (min) (hr:min)

Ontario Bib le Conference 100 20 13.0 11.8 66 3:10 26.9 33 3:40 New Haven Elementary School 100 20 7.4 41.2 11 2:15 28 .9 35 2:50 Schoo l Age Chil dren Care Program 100 20 11.7 10.2 70 3:10 26 .9 33 3:45 Charles E. Riley Elementary 100 20 6.8 7.1 58 3:00 26 .9 33 3:35 Fitzhugh Park Elementary School 100 20 7.9 7.7 62 3:05 26 .9 33 3:35 Hea dstart of Osw ego 100 20 7.8 7.7 62 3:05 26.9 33 3:35 Little Luke's Childcare Center 100 20 7.3 7.2 62 3:05 26 .9 33 3:35 Oswego Community Christian School 100 20 9.2 8.6 65 3:05 26 .9 33 3:40 Trinity Cathol ic Sch oo l 100 20 7.8 7.7 62 3:05 26 .9 33 3:35 Chil dren's Center of SU NY Oswego 100 20 9.7 8.6 68 3:10 26 .9 33 3:45 Frederick Leighton Elem entary School 100 20 9.1 8.2 68 3:10 26 .9 33 3:45 Kingsford Park Elementary 100 20 6.7 11.7 35 2:35 26 .8 33 3:10 Oswego High Sch ool 100 20 8.6 7.4 70 3:10 26 .9 33 3:45 Oswego Mi ddle School 100 20 5.2 10.9 29 2:30 26 .8 33 3:05 Oswego YMCA School's Out Program 100 20 6.7 12.1 34 2:35 26 .8 33 3:10 Mexico Elementary School 100 20 4.5 41.5 7 2:10 30 .4 37 2:45 Mexico High School 100 20 4.8 40.3 8 2:10 30.4 37 2:45 M exico M iddle Sch ool 100 20 5.0 40.0 8 2:10 30.4 37 2:45 Center for In structional Technology and 100 20 5.0 40.0 8 2:10 31.4 38 2:50 Innovation (Oswego County BOCES)

Mi netto Elem entary Schoo l 100 20 5.0 42 .6 8 2:10 31.4 38 2:50 SUNY Oswego 100 20 2.2 6.3 21 2:25 26 .8 33 2:55 Palermo Elementary School 100 20 Located outside the EPZ 27.8 34 2:35 Maximum for EPZ: 3:10 Maximum: 3:45 Average for EPZ: 2:45 Average : 3:20 NMP/JAF 8-24 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate February 24, 2016

i---

Table 8-9. School, Preschool, and Day Camp Evacuation Time Estimates - Snow ETE Dist. Travel to Driver Loading To EPZ Average Time to Dist. EPZ Travel Time H.S.

Mobilization Time Bdry Speed EPZ Bdry ETE Bdry to from EPZ Bdry (hr:m School, Preschool, and Day Camp Time (min) (min) (mi) (mph) (min) (hr:min) R.C.(mi.) to H.S. (min) in)

Ontario Bible Conference 110 25 13.0 9.9 79 3:35 26.9 36 4:10 New Haven Elementary School 110 25 7.4 37 .7 12 2:30 28.9 39 3:10 School Age Ch ildren Care Program 110 25 11.7 9.3 76 3:35 26 .9 36 4:10 Charles E. Riley Elementary 110 25 6.8 6.4 64 3:20 26.9 36 3:55 Fitzhugh Park Elementary School 110 25 7.9 7.1 67 3:25 26.9 36 4:00 Headstart of Oswego 110 25 7.8 7.1 67 3:25 26 .9 36 4:00 Little Luke's Childcare Center 110 25 7.3 6.7 66 3:25 26 .9 36 4:00 Oswego Community Christian School 110 25 9.2 7.8 71 3:30 26 .9 36 4:05 Trinity Catholic School 110 25 7.8 7.1 67 3:25 26.9 36 4:00 Children's Center of SUNY Oswego 110 25 9.7 7.6 77 3:35 26 .9 36 4:10 Frederick Leighton Elementary School 110 25 9.1 7.3 76 3:35 26 .9 36 4:10 Kingsford Park Elementary 110 25 6.7 20.0 21 2:40 26 .8 36 3:15 Oswego High School 110 25 8.6 7.1 74 3:30 26.9 36 4:05 Oswego Middle School 110 25 5.2 18.7 17 2:35 26.8 36 3:10 Oswego YMCA School 's Out Program 110 25 6.7 18.8 22 2:40 26.8 36 3:15 Mexico Elementary School 110 25 4.5 39 .8 7 2:25 30.4 41 3:05 Mexico High School 110 25 4.8 38.4 8 2:25 30.4 41 3:05 Mexico M iddle School 110 25 5.0 38 .1 8 2:25 30.4 41 3:05 Center for Instructional Technology and 110 25 5.0 38 .1 8 2:25 31.4 42 3:05 Innovation (Oswego County BOCES)

M inetto Elementary School 110 25 2.2 13.2 10 2:25 26 .8 36 3:05 SUNY Oswego 110 25 9.9 7.5 80 3:35 26.9 36 4:15 Palermo Elementary School 110 25 Located outside the EPZ 27 .8 38 2:55 Maximum for EPZ: 3:35 Maximum: 4:15 Average for EPZ: 3:05 Average: 3:40 NMP/JAF 8-25 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate February 24, 2016

Table 8-10. Summary of Transit-Dependent Bus Routes No. of Number of Length ERPAs Serviced Route Buses Stops Made (mi.)

1 1 1,2,5 9 4.2 2 1 2,4,5 5 2.2 3 1 2,4,7 12 6.75 4 1 4 4 1.4 5 1 4,7,8,9 7 2.9 6 1 4,9 6 2.1 7 1 7,8 8 4 8 1 7 6 2.4 9 1 7,8,9 17 8.1 10 1 8,18 13 6.1 11 1 8,18 17 9.2 12 1 5,6,10,11 7 3 13 1 6 4 1.9 14 1 3,5,6,10,11 12 5.4 15 1 1,3,6 10 3.7 16 1 4,5,9,10 10 3.4 17 1 9 7 2.8 18 1 4,9 11 6.1 19 1 14 13 7.5 20 1 14,15 16 7.5 21 1 14,15,16 28 14.4 22 1 7,15,16 15 7.1 23 1 7,8,15,16,17 8 3.3 24 1 15,16,17 14 5.5 25 1 12 6 0.8 26 1 12 10 1.5 27 1 12 13 1.1 28 1 12 11 0.8 29 1 12 15 1.5 30 1 12 8 0.6 31 1 12 13 1.2 32 1 12 11 2.2 33 1 12 10 0.8 34 1 12 13 0.9 35 1 12 12 0.8 36 1 13 13 1.8 37 1 13 22 4 38 1 13 16 1.25 NMP/JAF 8-26 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate February 24, 2016

39 1 13 16 1.75 40 1 13 7 0.6 41 1 13 15 0.4 42 1 13,22 9 1.3 43 1 13 9 0.5 44 1 13 22 1.35 45 1 13 13 0.7 46 1 22 3 0.7 47 1 9,10 7 2.6 48 1 10 8 3.9 49 1 10 6 2.6 so 1 10,11 4 1.9 51 1 6,11 11 3.8 52 1 11,12 11 1.3 53 1 8,16,17 23 9.8 54 1 18 8 3.4 55 1 18,20 15 7.3 56 1 10,19,20 15 7.3 57 1 20 8 3.4 58 1 10,11,19,20 15 7.2 59 1 19,20 10 4.6 60 1 19,20 12 5.7 61 1 12,19,20 11 6.2 62 1 12,19,20 14 5.4 63 1 13,21 8 2.8 64 1 21 10 4.2 65 1 21 9 4.1 66 1 21 5 2 67 1 21,22 10 2.2 68 1 13,22 8 3.7 69 1 21,22 9 3.2 70 1 13,22 8 3.6 71 1 22 5 1.9 72 1 22 9 3.7 73 1 22 7 2.2 74 1 22 5 2 75 1 11,15,19 13 4.25 76 1 15,16,17 11 3.3 Total : 76 NMP/JAF 8-27 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate February 24, 2016

Table 8-11. Transit-Dependent Evacuation Time Estimates - Good Weather One-Wave Two-Wave Route Travel Route Route Travel Pickup Distance Time to Driver Travel Pickup Route Bus Mobilization Length Speed Time Time ETE to R. C. R.C. Unload Rest Time Time ETE Number Number (min) (miles) (mph) (min) (min) (hr:min) (miles) (min) (min) (min) (min) (min) (hr:min) 1 1 90 18 .5 13.9 80 30 3:20 26.9 29 5 10 70 30 5:45 2 1 90 16.6 14.0 71 30 3:15 26.9 29 5 10 66 30 5:35 3 1 90 16.2 45 .9 21 30 2:25 28.9 32 5 10 69 30 4:55 4 1 90 9.7 46.4 13 30 2:15 28.9 32 5 10 54 30 4:30 5 1 90 8.7 44.6 12 30 2:15 28.9 32 5 10 51 30 4:25 6 1 90 9.9 47 .3 13 30 2:15 28.9 32 5 10 54 30 4:30 7 1 90 10.2 46 .7 13 30 2:15 30.4 33 5 10 56 30 4:30 8 1 90 9.2 47.3 12 30 2:15 30.4 33 5 10 54 30 4:30 9 1 90 10.4 43 .2 14 30 2:15 30.4 33 5 10 57 30 4:35 10 1 90 8.3 45 .6 11 30 2:15 30.4 33 5 10 51 30 4:25 11 1 90 10.3 52.2 12 30 2:15 30.4 33 5 10 55 30 4:30 12 1 90 11.1 9.0 74 30 3:15 26.9 29 5 10 54 30 5:25 13 1 90 12.5 10.1 75 30 3:15 26.9 29 5 10 57 30 5:30 14 1 90 17 .1 10.8 95 30 3:35 26.9 29 5 10 68 30 6:00 15 1 90 17 .7 12 .2 87 30 3:30 26.9 29 5 10 69 30 5:55 16 1 90 19.0 13.4 85 30 3:30 26.9 29 5 10 72 30 6:00 17 1 90 7.1 47.4 9 30 2:10 28.9 32 5 10 48 30 4:15 18 1 90 10.4 47 .4 13 30 2:15 28.9 32 5 10 55 30 4:30 19 1 90 9.8 46 .6 13 30 2:15 35.4 39 5 10 62 30 4:45 20 1 90 8.9 48.4 11 30 2:15 35 .4 39 5 10 59 30 4:40 21 1 90 16.3 36.6 27 30 2:30 35.4 39 5 10 80 30 5:15 22 1 90 12.1 45 .0 16 30 2:20 30.4 33 5 10 60 30 4:40 23 1 90 8.3 45 .0 11 30 2:15 30.4 33 5 10 52 30 4:25 24 1 90 6.9 48.4 9 30 2:10 35.4 39 5 10 54 30 4:30 25 1 90 10.5 11.1 57 30 3:00 26.9 29 5 10 53 30 5:10 NMP/JAF 8-28 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate February 24, 2016

One-Wave Two-Wave Route Travel Route Route Travel Pickup Distance Time to Driver Travel Pickup Route Bus Mobilization Length Speed Time Time ETE to R. C. R. C. Unload Rest Time Time ETE Number Number (min) (miles) (mph) (min) (min) (hr:min) (miles) (min) (min) (min) (min) (min) (hr:min) 26 1 90 11.2 11.2 60 30 3:00 26.9 29 5 10 54 30 5: 10 27 1 90 9.9 8.0 74 30 3:15 26 .9 29 5 10 52 30 5:25 28 1 90 8.2 14.2 35 30 2:35 26 .9 29 5 10 47 30 4:40 29 1 90 9.8 7.7 76 30 3:20 26.9 29 5 10 51 30 5:30 30 1 90 8.2 7.2 68 30 3:10 26 .9 29 5 10 47 30 5:15 31 1 90 8.8 7.2 73 30 3:15 26 .9 29 5 10 48 30 5:20 32 1 90 3.4 8.4 24 30 2:25 26 .9 29 5 10 36 30 4:20 33 1 90 7.9 8.4 56 30 3:00 26 .9 29 5 10 46 30 5:05 34 1 90 8.0 8.4 57 30 3:00 26.9 29 5 10 46 30 5:05 35 1 90 8.6 7.9 65 30 3: 10 26.9 29 5 10 48 30 5:15 36 1 90 6.5 20.6 19 30 2:20 26 .8 29 5 10 44 30 4: 20 37 1 90 9.2 17.5 32 30 2:35 26.8 29 5 10 so 30 4:40 38 1 90 6.5 17.5 22 30 2:25 26.8 29 5 10 44 30 4:25 39 1 90 7.6 4.5 102 30 3:45 26.8 29 5 10 46 30 5:50 40 1 90 6.6 19.0 21 30 2:25 26.8 29 5 10 44 30 4:25 41 1 90 8.3 4.6 107 30 3:50 26.8 29 5 10 49 30 5:55 42 1 90 8.7 5.0 105 30 3:45 26.8 29 5 10 49 30 5: 50 43 1 90 10.0 8.3 72 30 3: 15 26 .8 29 5 10 53 30 5:25 44 1 90 9.9 20.1 29 30 2:30 26.8 29 5 10 52 30 4:40 45 1 90 9.8 10.6 55 30 3:00 26 .8 29 5 10 52 30 5:10 46 1 90 9.2 20.1 27 30 2:30 26.8 29 5 10 so 30 4:35 47 1 90 8.4 46.4 11 30 2:15 28.9 32 5 10 51 30 4:25 48 1 90 8.6 46.4 11 30 2:15 28.9 32 5 10 51 30 4:25 49 1 90 10.7 12.1 53 30 2:55 26.9 29 5 10 53 30 5:05 so 1 90 10.0 12.0 so 30 2:50 26.9 29 5 10 51 30 4:55 51 1 90 10.6 8.0 79 30 3:20 26.9 29 5 10 52 30 5:30 52 1 90 9.6 8.3 69 30 3:10 26.9 29 5 10 51 30 5:15 53 1 90 17.9 45.1 24 30 2:25 30.4 33 5 10 73 30 5:00 NMP/JAF 8-29 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate February 24, 2016

One-Wave Two-Wave Route Travel Route Route Travel Pickup Distance Time to Driver Travel Pickup Route Bus Mobilization Length Speed Time Time ETE to R. C. R. C. Unload Rest Time Time ETE Number Number (min) (miles) (mph) (min) (min) (hr:min) (miles) (min) (min) (min) (min) (min) (hr:min) 54 1 90 4.1 44.9 5 30 2:10 28 .9 32 5 10 42 30 4:10 55 1 90 9.2 47 .7 12 30 2:15 28 .9 32 5 10 52 30 4:25 56 1 90 9.2 47 .7 12 30 2:15 28 .9 32 5 10 52 30 4:25 57 1 90 5.3 47.7 7 30 2:10 28 .9 32 5 10 44 30 4:15 58 1 90 8.5 39.0 13 30 2:15 26 .9 29 5 10 49 30 4:20 59 1 90 6.5 39.9 10 30 2:10 26.9 29 5 10 45 30 4: 10 60 1 90 7.0 39.0 11 30 2:15 26 .9 29 5 10 46 30 4:15 61 1 90 7.4 39.0 11 30 2:15 26 .9 29 5 10 45 30 4:15 62 1 90 6.7 39.0 10 30 2:15 26.9 29 5 10 45 30 4:15 63 1 90 5.2 46 .3 7 30 2:10 26 .8 29 5 10 41 30 4:10 64 1 90 5.2 45.8 7 30 2:10 26 .8 29 5 10 42 30 4:10 65 1 90 7.6 40.3 11 30 2:15 26.8 29 5 10 51 30 4:20 66 1 90 4.4 40.3 7 30 2:10 26 .8 29 5 10 54 30 4:20 67 1 90 4.6 40.3 7 30 2:10 26 .8 29 5 10 56 30 4:20 68 1 90 6.1 40.3 9 30 2:10 26 .8 29 5 10 55 30 4:20 69 1 90 5.6 46 .3 7 30 2:10 26 .8 29 5 10 42 30 4:10 70 1 90 9.7 4.9 119 30 4:00 26.8 29 5 10 51 30 6:10 71 1 90 8.4 5.0 100 30 3:45 26 .8 29 5 10 48 30 5:50 72 1 90 5.8 3.0 117 30 4:00 37.7 41 5 10 54 30 6:20 73 1 90 3.9 6.7 35 30 2:35 37.7 41 5 10 50 30 4:55 74 1 90 4.2 6.3 40 30 2:40 37.7 41 5 10 51 30 5:00 75 1 90 11.1 8.0 83 30 3:25 26 .9 29 5 10 53 30 5:35 76 1 90 4.7 48 .4 6 30 2:10 35.4 39 5 10 49 30 4:25 Maximum ETE: 4:00 M aximum ETE: 6:20 Average ETE : 2:45 Average ETE: 4:55 NMP/JAF 8-30 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate February 24, 2016

Table 8-12. Transit-Dependent Evacuation Time Estimates - Ra in One-Wave Two-Wave Route Travel Route Route Travel Pickup Distance Time to Driver Travel Pickup Route Bus Mobilization Length Speed Time Time ETE to R. C. R. C. Unload Rest Time Time ETE Number Number (min) (miles) (mph) (min) (min) (hr:min) (miles) (min) (min) (min) (min) (min) (hr:min) 1 1 100 18.5 10.3 108 40 4 :10 26.9 32 5 10 77 40 6:55 2 1 100 16.6 10.4 96 40 4 :00 26.9 32 5 10 73 40 6:40 3 1 100 16.2 42.4 23 40 2:45 28.9 35 5 10 75 40 5:35 4 1 100 9.7 42 .9 14 40 2:35 28.9 35 5 10 59 40 5:05 5 1 100 8.7 42.1 12 40 2:35 28.9 35 5 10 56 40 5:05 6 1 100 9.9 43 .1 14 40 2:35 28.9 35 5 10 60 40 5:05 7 1 100 10.2 43 .1 14 40 2:35 28.9 35 5 10 60 40 5:10 8 1 100 9.2 43 .5 13 40 2:35 28.9 35 5 10 58 40 5:05 9 1 100 10.4 38.9 16 40 2:40 28.9 35 5 10 62 40 5:15 10 1 100 8.3 42 .4 12 40 2:35 28 .9 35 5 10 55 40 5:00 11 1 100 10.3 46 .9 13 40 2:35 28.9 35 5 10 60 40 5:05 12 1 100 11 .1 6.7 100 40 4 :00 28.9 35 5 10 63 40 6:35 13 1 100 12 .5 7.5 100 40 4:00 28.9 35 5 10 66 40 6:40 14 1 100 17.1 8 .7 118 40 4 :20 28.9 35 5 10 78 40 7:10 15 1 100 17.7 10.0 107 40 4 :10 28.9 35 5 10 80 40 7:00 16 1 100 19.0 10.8 105 40 4:10 28.9 35 5 10 82 40 7:05 17 1 100 7.1 42 .8 10 40 2:30 28.9 35 5 10 52 40 4:55 18 1 100 10.4 42.8 15 40 2:35 28.9 35 5 10 60 40 5:10 19 1 100 9.8 39.9 15 40 2:35 28.9 35 5 10 60 40 5:10 20 1 100 8.9 43 .9 12 40 2:35 28.9 35 5 10 57 40 5:05 21 1 100 16.3 33.4 29 40 2:50 28.9 35 5 10 80 40 5:45 22 1 100 12 .1 41.4 18 40 2:40 28.9 35 5 10 65 40 5:20 23 1 100 8.3 41.4 12 40 2:35 28.9 35 5 10 56 40 5:05 24 1 100 6.9 43. 9 9 40 2:30 28.9 35 5 10 52 40 4:55 25 1 100 10.5 7.0 90 40 3:55 28.9 35 5 10 61 40 6:30 26 1 100 11.2 6.8 98 40 4:00 28.9 35 5 10 63 40 6:35 27 1 100 9.9 4.5 132 40 4:35 28 .9 35 5 10 60 40 7:05 NMP/JAF 8-31 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate February 24, 2016

One-Wave Two-Wave Route Travel Route Route Travel Pickup Distance Time to Driver Travel Pickup Route Bus Mobilization Length Speed Time Time ETE to R. C. R.C. Unload Rest Time Time ETE Number Number (min) (miles) (mph) (min) (min) (hr:min) (miles) (min) (min) (min) (min) (min) (hr:min) 28 1 100 8.2 8.4 59 40 3:20 28.9 35 5 10 55 40 5:50 29 1 100 9.8 4.4 134 40 4:35 28.9 35 5 10 59 40 7:05 30 1 100 8.2 4.1 120 40 4:20 28.9 35 5 10 55 40 6:50 31 1 100 8.8 4.1 129 40 4:30 28.9 35 5 10 57 40 7:00 32 1 100 3.4 4.0 51 40 3:15 28.9 35 5 10 43 40 5:30 33 1 100 7.9 4.0 119 40 4:20 28.9 35 5 10 54 40 6:45 34 1 100 8.0 4.0 120 40 4:20 28.9 35 5 10 54 40 6:45 35 1 100 8.6 4.2 123 40 4:25 28.9 35 5 10 56 40 6:55 36 1 100 6.5 21.2 18 40 2:40 28.9 35 5 10 52 40 5:05 37 1 100 9.2 19.1 29 40 2:50 28.9 35 5 10 59 40 5:20 38 1 100 6.5 19.1 20 40 2:45 28.9 35 5 10 51 40 5:10 39 1 100 7.6 3.8 119 40 4:20 28.9 35 5 10 54 40 6:45 40 1 100 6.6 16.8 24 40 2:45 28.9 35 5 10 52 40 5:10 41 1 100 8.3 3.7 135 40 4:35 28.9 35 5 10 57 40 7:05 42 1 100 8.7 4.1 127 40 4:30 28.9 35 5 10 58 40 7:00 43 1 100 10.0 4.1 146 40 4:50 28.9 35 5 10 61 40 7:25 44 1 100 9.9 5.3 112 40 4:15 28.9 35 5 10 60 40 6:50 45 1 100 9.8 4.5 131 40 4:35 28.9 35 5 10 60 40 7:10 46 1 100 9.2 5.3 104 40 4:05 28.9 35 5 10 59 40 6:35 47 1 100 8.4 40.7 12 40 2:35 28.9 35 5 10 56 40 5:05 48 1 100 8.6 40.2 13 40 2:35 28.9 35 5 10 56 40 5:05 49 1 100 10.7 5.5 117 40 4:20 28.9 35 5 10 62 40 6:55 50 1 100 10.0 5.4 111 40 4:15 26.9 32 5 10 56 40 6:40 51 1 100 10.6 4.8 133 40 4:35 26.9 32 5 10 57 40 7:00 52 1 100 9.6 4.4 131 40 4:35 26.9 32 5 10 56 40 7:00 53 1 100 17.9 41.0 26 40 2:50 30.4 36 5 10 81 40 5:45 54 1 100 4.1 40.3 6 40 2:30 28.9 35 5 10 46 40 4:50 55 1 100 9.2 44.5 12 40 2:35 28.9 35 5 10 57 40 5:05 NMP/JAF 8-32 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate February 24, 2016

One-Wave Two-Wave Route Travel Route Route Travel Pickup Distance Time to Driver Travel Pickup Route Bus Mobilization Length Speed Time Time ETE to R. C. R.C. Unload Rest Time Time ETE Number Number (min) (miles) (mph) (min) (min) (hr:min) (miles) (min) (min) (min) (min) (min) (hr:min) 56 1 100 9.2 44.5 12 40 2:35 28.9 35 5 10 57 40 5:05 57 1 100 5.3 44.5 7 40 2:30 28.9 35 5 10 48 40 4:50 58 1 100 8.5 34.2 15 40 2:35 26.9 32 5 10 54 40 5:00 59 1 100 6.5 33 .5 12 40 2:35 26.9 32 5 10 49 40 4:55 60 1 100 7.0 34.2 12 40 2:35 26.9 32 5 10 50 40 4:55 61 1 100 7.4 34.2 13 40 2:35 26.9 32 5 10 50 40 4:55 62 1 100 6.7 34.2 12 40 2:35 26.9 32 5 10 50 40 4:55 63 1 100 5.2 40.0 8 40 2:30 26.8 32 5 10 45 40 4:45 64 1 100 5.2 37.7 8 40 2:30 26.8 32 5 10 45 40 4:45 65 1 100 7.6 44.4 10 40 2:35 26.8 32 5 10 53 40 4:55 66 1 100 4.4 44.4 6 40 2:30 26.8 32 5 10 43 40 4:45 67 1 100 4.6 44.4 6 40 2:30 26.8 32 5 10 44 40 4:45 68 1 100 6.1 44.4 8 40 2:30 26.8 32 5 10 48 40 4:45 69 1 100 5.6 40.0 8 40 2:30 26.8 32 5 10 46 40 4:45 70 1 100 9.7 4.0 146 40 4:50 26.8 32 5 10 57 40 7:15 71 1 100 8.4 4.2 120 40 4:20 26.8 32 5 10 53 40 6:45 72 1 100 5.8 4.2 83 40 3:45 37.7 45 5 10 59 40 6:25 73 1 100 3.9 6.8 34 40 2:55 37 .7 45 5 10 55 40 5:35 74 1 100 4.2 4.7 54 40 3:15 37.7 45 5 10 56 40 5:55 75 1 100 11.1 4.8 138 40 4:40 26.9 32 5 10 59 40 7:10 76 1 100 4.7 43.9 6 40 2:30 35.4 42 5 10 54 40 5:05 Maximum ETE: 4:50 Maximum ETE: 7:25 Average ETE: 3:20 Average ETE: 5:50 NMP/JAF 8-33 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate February 24, 2016

Table 8-13. Transit Dependent Evacuation Time Estimates - Snow One-Wave Two-Wave Route Travel Route Route Travel Pickup Distance Time to Driver Travel Pickup Route Bus Mobilization Length Speed Time Time ETE to R. C. R. C. Unload Rest Time Time ETE Number Number (min) (miles) (mph) (min) (min) (hr:min) (miles) (min) (min) (min) (min) (min) (hr:min) 1 1 110 18.5 8 .7 128 so 4:50 26.9 36 5 10 87 so 8:00 2 1 110 16.6 8 .7 114 so 4:35 26.9 36 5 10 82 so 7:40 3 1 110 16.2 38.6 25 so 3:10 28.9 39 5 10 84 so 6:20 4 1 110 9.7 39.0 15 so 2:55 28.9 39 5 10 66 so 5:50 5 1 110 8.7 38.1 14 so 2:55 28.9 39 5 10 63 so 5:45 6 1 110 9.9 39 .3 15 so 3:00 28.9 39 5 10 67 so 5:55 7 1 110 10.2 38.3 16 so 3:00 30.4 41 5 10 69 so 6:00 8 1 110 9.2 38 .7 14 so 2:55 30.4 41 5 10 67 so 5:50 9 1 110 10.4 35.0 18 so 3:00 30.4 41 5 10 71 so 6:00 10 1 110 8.3 37.7 13 so 2:55 30.4 41 5 10 63 so 5:45 11 1 110 10.3 41.6 15 so 2:55 30.4 41 5 10 69 so 5:50 12 1 110 11.1 5.2 129 so 4:50 26.9 36 5 10 67 so 7:40 13 1 110 12 .5 6.4 118 so 4:40 26.9 36 5 10 71 so 7:35 14 1 110 17.1 7.3 141 so 5:05 26.9 36 5 10 84 so 8:15 15 1 110 17.7 8 .3 127 so 4:50 26 .9 36 5 10 86 so 8:00 16 1 110 19.0 9.1 125 so 4:50 26.9 36 5 10 89 so 8:05 17 1 110 7.1 38.8 11 so 2:55 28.9 39 5 10 59 so 5:40 18 1 110 10.4 38.8 16 so 3:00 28.9 39 5 10 68 so 5:55 19 1 110 9.8 37.1 16 so 3:00 35.4 47 5 10 75 so 6:10 20 1 110 8.9 39.3 14 so 2:55 35.4 47 5 10 71 so 6:00 21 1 110 16.3 30.0 33 so 3:15 35.4 47 5 10 98 so 6:45 22 1 110 12.1 37.2 20 so 3:00 30.4 41 5 10 75 so 6:05 23 1 110 8.3 37.2 13 so 2:55 30.4 41 5 10 64 so 5:50 24 1 110 6.9 39.3 11 so 2:55 35.4 47 5 10 66 so 5:55 25 1 110 10.5 5.9 107 so 4:30 26.9 36 5 10 65 so 7:20 26 1 110 11.2 5.9 114 so 4:35 26.9 36 5 10 67 so 7:25 27 1 110 9.9 5.6 106 so 4:30 26.9 36 5 10 64 so 7:15 NMP/JAF 8-34 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuati o n Time Estimate February 24, 2016

One-Wave Two-Wave Route Travel Route Route Travel Pickup Distance Time to Driver Travel Pickup Route Bus Mobilization Length Speed Time Time ETE to R. C. R.C. Unload Rest Time Time ETE Number Number (min) (miles) (mph) (min) (min) (hr:min) (miles) (min) (min) (min) (min) (min) (hr:min) 28 1 110 8.2 6.9 71 50 3:55 26.9 36 5 10 59 50 6:35 29 1 110 9.8 5.4 109 50 4:30 26.9 36 5 10 63 50 7:15 30 1 110 8.2 5.0 98 50 4:20 26.9 36 5 10 58 50 7:00 31 1 110 8.8 5.0 105 50 4:30 26.9 36 5 10 60 50 7:15 32 1 110 3.4 4.8 43 50 3:25 26.9 36 5 10 45 so 5:55 33 1 110 7.9 4.8 99 50 4:20 26.9 36 5 10 57 50 7:00 34 1 110 8.0 4.8 100 50 4:25 26.9 36 5 10 57 50 7:05 35 1 110 8.6 5.0 103 50 4:25 26.9 36 5 10 59 50 7:10 36 1 110 6.5 11.9 33 50 3:15 26.8 36 5 10 55 50 5:55 37 1 110 9.2 10.5 53 50 3:35 26.8 36 5 10 62 50 6:20 38 1 110 6.5 10.5 37 50 3:20 26.8 36 5 10 54 50 6:00 39 1 110 7.6 7.0 65 50 3:45 26.8 36 5 10 57 50 6:25 40 1 110 6.6 10.7 37 50 3:20 26.8 36 5 10 55 50 6:00 41 1 110 8.3 4.3 117 50 4:40 26.8 36 5 10 60 50 7:25 42 1 110 8.7 5.0 104 50 4:25 26.8 36 5 10 61 50 7:10 43 1 110 10.0 5.3 112 50 4:35 26.8 36 5 10 66 50 7:25 44 1 110 9.9 7.9 75 50 3:55 26.8 36 5 10 64 50 6:45 45 1 110 9.8 5.2 112 50 4:35 26.8 36 5 10 64 50 7:20 46 1 110 9.2 7.9 70 50 3:55 26.8 36 5 10 62 50 6:40 47 1 110 8.4 38.1 13 50 2:55 28.9 39 5 10 62 50 5:45 48 1 110 8.6 38.2 14 50 2:55 28.9 39 5 10 63 50 5:45 49 1 110 10.7 5.2 124 50 4:45 26.9 36 5 10 66 50 7:35 so 1 110 10.0 5.3 114 so 4:35 26.9 36 5 10 63 50 7:20 51 1 110 10.6 4.6 139 50 5:00 26.9 36 5 10 65 50 7:50 52 1 110 9.6 5.4 107 50 4:30 26.9 36 5 10 63 50 7:15 53 1 110 17.9 37.1 29 50 3:10 30.4 41 5 10 91 50 6:30 54 1 110 4.1 35.9 7 50 2:50 28.9 39 5 10 51 50 5:30 55 1 110 9.2 39.3 14 50 2:55 28.9 39 5 10 64 50 5:45 NMP/JAF 8-35 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate February 24, 2016

One-Wave Two-Wave Route Travel Route Route Travel Pickup Distance Time to Driver Travel Pickup Route Bus Mobilization Length Speed Time Time ETE to R. C. R.C. Unload Rest Time Time ETE Number Number (min) (miles) (mph) (min) (min) (hr:min) (miles) (min) (min) (min) (min) (min) (hr:min) 56 1 110 9.2 39.3 14 so 2:55 28.9 39 5 10 64 so 5:45 57 1 110 5.3 39 .3 8 so 2:50 28.9 39 5 10 53 so 5:30 58 1 110 8.5 17.7 29 so 3:10 26.9 36 5 10 61 so 5:55 59 1 110 6.5 21.3 18 so 3:00 26 .9 36 5 10 56 so 5:40 60 1 110 7.0 17 .7 24 so 3:05 26.9 36 5 10 57 so 5:45 61 1 110 7.4 17.7 25 so 3:10 26.9 36 5 10 56 so 5:50 62 1 110 6.7 17.7 23 so 3:05 26.9 36 5 10 56 so 5:45 63 1 110 5.2 36.2 9 so 2:50 26.8 36 5 10 51 so 5:25 64 1 110 5.2 35 .1 9 so 2:50 26.8 36 5 10 51 so 5:25 65 1 110 7.6 38.5 12 so 2:55 26.8 36 5 10 60 so 5:40 66 1 110 4.4 38.5 7 so 2:50 26.8 36 5 10 49 so 5:20 67 1 110 4.6 38.5 7 so 2:50 26.8 36 5 10 49 so 5:25 68 1 110 6.1 38.5 10 so 2:50 26.8 36 5 10 53 so 5:25 69 1 110 5.6 36.2 9 so 2:50 26.8 36 5 10 52 so 5:25 70 1 110 9.7 6.9 85 so 4:05 26.8 36 5 10 64 so 6:50 71 1 110 8.4 7.1 71 so 3:55 26.8 36 5 10 60 so 6:40 72 1 110 5.8 4.7 74 so 3:55 37.7 so 5 10 65 so 7:00 73 1 110 3.9 4.0 59 so 3:40 37.7 so 5 10 61 so 6:40 74 1 110 4.2 4.4 57 so 3:40 37.7 so 5 10 62 so 6:40 75 1 110 11.1 4.6 145 so 5:10 26.9 36 5 10 66 so 8:00 76 1 110 4.7 39.3 7 so 2:50 35.4 47 5 10 60 so 5:45 Maximum ETE : 5:05 Maximum ETE : 8:15 Average ETE: 3:40 Average ETE: 6:30 NMP/JAF 8-36 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate February 24, 2016

Table 8-14. Medical Facility Evacuation Time Estimates - Good Weather Travel Loading Time to Rate Total EPZ Mobilization (min per Loading Dist. To EPZ Boundary ETE Medical Facility Patient (min) person) People Time (min) Bdry (mi) (min) (hr:min)

Ambulatory 90 1 66 20 6.8 44 2:35 Bishop Commons at St Luke's Wheelchair bound 90 5 2 10 6.8 40 2:20 Bedridden 90 15 0 0 6.8 38 2:10 Ambulatory 90 1 15 15 4.5 66 2:55 Ladies Home of Oswego Wheelchair bound 90 5 0 0 4.5 75 2:45 Bedridden 90 15 0 0 4.5 75 2:45 Ambulatory 90 1 15 15 7.6 47 2:35 Oswego Hospital Behavioral Health Services Wheelchair bound 90 5 2 10 7.6 48 2:30 Bedridden 90 15 0 0 7.6 46 2:20 Ambulatory 90 1 25 20 6.8 44 2:35 Pontiac Nursing Home Wheelchair bound 90 5 55 10 6.8 40 2:20 Bedridden 90 15 0 0 6.8 38 2:10 Ambulatory 90 1 150 20 7.7 43 2:35 Simeon-Dewitt Apts. Wheelchair bound 90 5 0 0 7.7 43 2:15 Bedridden 90 15 0 0 7.7 43 2:15 Ambulatory 90 1 57 20 6.8 44 2:35 St Luke Health Services Wheelchair bound 90 5 115 10 6.8 40 2:20 Bedridden 90 15 20 30 6.8 38 2:40 Ambulatory 90 1 28 20 7.8 43 2:35 Valehaven Home for Adults Wheelchair bound 90 5 0 0 7.8 43 2:15 Bedridden 90 15 0 0 7.8 43 2:15 Ambulatory 90 1 17 17 8.9 53 2:40 Morning Star Nursing Home Wheelchair bound 90 5 96 10 8.9 59 2:40 Bedridden 90 15 4 30 8.9 48 2:50 Ambulatory 90 1 55 20 3.7 62 2:55 Oswego Hospital Wheelchair bound 90 5 7 10 3.7 64 2:45 Bedridden 90 15 3 30 3.7 58 3:00 Ambulatory 90 1 72 20 8.2 47 2:40 Pontiac Terrace Apts Wheelchair bound 90 5 8 10 8.2 51 2:35 Bedridden 90 15 0 0 8.2 50 2:20 NMP/JAF 8-37 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate February 24, 2016 L._

Travel Loading Time to Rate Total EPZ Mobilization (min per Loading Dist. To EPZ Boundary ETE Medical Facility Patient (min) person) People Time (min) Bdry (mi) (min) (hr:min)

Ambulatory 90 1 7 7 2.9 4 1:45 Fravor Rd IRA Wheelchair bound 90 5 2 10 2.9 4 1:45 Bedridden 90 15 0 0 2.9 4 1:35 Ambulatory 90 1 23 20 2.3 3 1:55 Parkview Manor Apts Wheelcha ir bound 90 5 1 5 2.3 3 1:40 Bedridden 90 15 0 0 2.3 3 1:35 Ambulatory 90 1 5 5 3.4 5 1:40 Sabill Drive IRA Wheelchair bound 90 5 1 5 3.4 5 1:40 Bedridden 90 15 0 0 3.4 5 1:35 Ambulatory 90 1 74

• 20 5.5 39 2:30 Springside at Seneca Hill Wheelchair bound 90 5 1 5 5.5 33 2:10 Bedridden 90 15 0 0 5.5 28 2:00 Ambulatory 90 1 0 0 3.1 24 1:55 The Manor at Seneca Hill Wheelchair bound 90 5 116 10 3.1 29 2:10 Bedridden 90 15 0 0 3.1 24 1:55 Ambulatory 90 1 37 20 4.7 13 2:05 Minetto Senior Housing Wheelchair bound 90 5 1 5 4.7 12 1:50 Bedridden 90 15 0 0 4.7 11 1:45 Maximum ETE: 3:00 Average ETE: 2:20 NMP/JAF 8-38 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate February 24, 2016

Table 8-15. Medical Facility Evacuation Time Estimates - Rain Travel Loading Time to Rate Total EPZ Mobilization (min per Loading Dist. To EPZ Boundary ETE Medical Facility Patient (min) person) People Time (min) Bdry {mi) (min) (hr:min)

Ambulatory 100 1 66 20 6.8 58 3:00 Bis hop Commons at St Luke's Wheelchair bound 100 5 2 10 6.8 60 2:50 Bedridden 100 15 0 0 6.8 58 2:40 Ambulatory 100 1 15 15 4.5 59 2:55 Ladies Home of Oswego Wheelchair bound 100 5 0 0 4.5 67 2:50 Bedridden 100 15 0 0 4.5 67 2:50 Ambulatory 100 1 15 15 7.6 62 3:00 Oswego Hosp ital Behavioral Health Services Wheelchair bound 100 5 2 10 7.6 62 2:55 Bedridden 100 15 0 0 7.6 64 2:45 Ambulatory 100 1 25 20 6.8 58 3:00 Pontiac Nursing Home Wheelchair bound 100 5 55 10 6.8 60 2:50 Bedridden 100 15 0 0 6.8 58 2:40 Ambulatory 100 1 150 20 7.7 60 3:00 Simeon-Dewitt Apts . Wheelchair bound 100 5 0 0 7.7 62 2:45 Bedridden 100 15 0 0 7.7 62 2:45 Ambulatory 100 1 57 20 6.8 58 3:00 St Luke Health Services Wheelchair bound 100 5 115 10 6.8 60 2:50 Bedridden 100 15 20 30 6.8 59 3:10 Ambulatory 100 1 28 20 7.8 61 3:05 Valehaven Home for Adults Wheelcha ir bound 100 5 0 0 7.8 62 2:45 Bedri dd en 100 15 0 0 7.8 62 2:45 Ambulatory 100 1 17 17 8.9 65 3:05 Morning Star Nursing Ho me Wheelchair bound 100 5 96 10 8.9 73 3:05 Bedridden 100 15 4 30 8.9 63 3:15 Ambulatory 100 1 55 20 3.7 54 2:55 Oswego Hospital Wheelchair bound 100 5 7 10 3.7 60 2:50 Bedridden 100 15 3 30 3.7 53 3:05 Ambulatory 100 1 72 20 8.2 63 3:05 Pontiac Terrace Apts Wheelchair bound 100 5 8 10 8.2 64 2:55 Bedridden 100 15 0 0 8.2 67 2:50 Ambulatory 100 1 7 7 2.9 5 1:55 Fravor Rd IRA Wheelchair bound 100 5 2 10 2.9 5 1:55 Bedridden 100 15 0 0 2. 9 5 1:45 NMP/JAF 8-39 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate February 24, 2016

Ambulatory 100 1 23 20 2.3 4 2:05 Parkview Manor Apts Wheelchair bound 100 5 1 5 2.3 4 1:50 Bedridden 100 15 0 0 2.3 4 1:45 Am bulatory 100 1 5 5 3.4 5 1:50 Sabi!! Drive IRA Wheelchair bound 100 5 1 5 3.4 5 1:50 Bedridden 100 15 0 0 3.4 5 1:45 Am bulatory 100 1 74 20 5.5 49 2:50 Springside at Seneca Hill Wheelchair bound 100 5 1 5 5.5 47 2:35 Bedridden 100 15 0 0 5.5 47 2:30 Ambulatory 100 1 0 0 3.1 44 2:25 The Manor at Seneca Hill Wheelchair bound 100 5 116 10 3.1 45 2:35 Bedri dd en 100 15 0 0 3.1 44 2:25 Amb ulatory 100 1 37 20 4.7 25 2:25 Minetto Senior Housing Wheelchair bound 100 5 1 5 4.7 29 2:15 Bedridden 100 15 0 0 4.7 30 2:10 Maximum ETE : 3:15 Ave rage ETE: 2:40 NMP/JAF 8-40 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate February 24, 2016

Table 8- 16. Medical Facility Evacuation Time Estimates - Snow Loading Travel Rate Total Time to (min Loading EPZ Mobilization per Time Dist. To EPZ Boundary ETE Medical Facility Patient (min) person) People (min) Bdry (mi) (min) (hr:min)

Am bulatory 110 1 66 20 6.8 69 3:20 Bish op Comm ons at St Luke's Wheelchair bound 110 5 2 10 6.8 70 3:10 Bedridden 110 15 0 0 6.8 68 3:00 Ambulatory 110 1 15 15 4.5 63 3:10 Ladies Home of Oswego Wheelchair bound 110 5 0 0 4.5 67 3:00 Bedri dden 110 15 0 0 4.5 67 3:00 Am bulatory 110 1 15 15 7.6 74 3:20 Oswego Hospital Behavioral Health Services Wheelchair bound 110 5 2 10 7.6 74 3:15 Bedridden 110 15 0 0 7.6 72 3:05 Ambulatory 110 1 25 20 6.8 69 3:20 Pontiac Nursing Home Wheelchair bound 110 5 55 10 6.8 70 3:10 Bedridden 110 15 0 0 6.8 68 3:00 Ambulatory 110 1 150 20 7.7 73 3:25 Simeon-Dewitt Apts. Wh ee lchair bound 110 5 0 0 7.7 71 3:05 Bedri dden 110 15 0 0 7.7 71 3:05 Ambulatory 110 1 57 20 6.8 69 3:20 St Luke Health Services Wheelchair bound 110 5 115 10 6.8 70 3:10 Bed ridden 110 15 20 30 6.8 65 3:25 Ambulatory 110 1 28 20 7.8 73 3:25 Valehaven Home for Adults Wheelchair bound 110 5 0 0 7.8 71 3:05 Bedridden 110 15 0 0 7.8 71 3:05 Am bulatory 110 1 17 17 8.9 75 3:25 M orning St ar Nursing Home Wh eelchair bound 110 5 96 10 8.9 79 3:20 Bedridden 110 15 4 30 8.9 75 3:35 Ambulatory 110 1 55 20 3.7 59 3:10 Oswego Hospital Wh ee lchair bound 110 5 7 10 3.7 65 3:05 Bedridden 110 15 3 30 3.7 54 3:15 Ambulatory 110 1 72 20 8.2 70 3:20 Pontiac Terrace Apts Whe elchair bound 110 5 8 10 8.2 79 3:20 Bed ri dden 110 15 0 0 8.2 77 3:10 Ambulatory 110 1 7 7 2.9 6 2:05 Fravor Rd IRA Wheelchair bound 110 5 2 10 2.9 6 2:10 Bedridden 110 15 0 0 2.9 5 1:55 NM P/JAF 8-41 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuati on Time Estimate February 24, 2016

Loading Travel Rate Total Time to (min Loading EPZ Mobilization per Time Dist. To EPZ Boundary ETE Medical Facility Patient (min) person) People (min) Bdry (mi) (min) (hr:min)

Am bulatory 110 1 23 20 2.3 4 2:15 Parkview M anor Apts Wheelchair bound 110 5 1 5 2.3 4 2:00 Bedridd en 110 15 0 0 2.3 4 1:55 Ambul at ory 110 1 5 5 3.4 6 2:05 Sa bill Drive IRA Wh eelchair bound 110 5 1 5 3.4 6 2:05 Bedridden 110 15 0 0 3.4 6 2:00 Ambulatory 110 1 74 20 5.5 62 3:15 Springside at Sen eca Hill Wheelchair bound 110 5 1 5 5.5 63 3:00 Bedridden 110 15 0 0 5.5 68 3:00 Ambulatory 110 1 0 0 3.1 64 2: 55 The Manor at Seneca Hill Whe elchair bound 110 5 116 10 3.1 58 3:00 Bedridden 110 15 0 0 3.1 64 2:55 Ambulatory 110 1 37 20 4.7 14 2:25 M inetto Sen ior Housing Wheelcha ir bound 110 5 1 5 4.7 13 2:10 Bedridden 110 15 0 0 4.7 12 2:05 Maxi mum ETE: 3:35 Average ETE : 2:55 NMP/JAF 8-42 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate February 24, 2016

Table 8-17. Homebound Special Needs Population Evacuation Time Estimates Loading People Time at Travel to Total Loading Time Travel Time to Requiring Vehicles Weather Mobilization 1*1 Stop Subsequent at Subsequent EPZ Boundary ETE Vehicle Type Vehicle deployed Stops Conditions Time (min) (min) Stops (min) Stops (min) (min) (hr:min)

Normal 90 90 15 4:10 Wheelchair Vans 208 19 11 Rain 100 5 100 so 15 4:30 Snow 110 110 16 4:55 Maximum ETE: 4:55 Average ETE: 4:35 Table 8-18. Correctional Facilities Evacuation Time Estimates Loading Travel Rate Total Time to Number (min Number Loading Dist. To EPZ Weather Mobilization of per of Time EPZ Bdry Boundary ETE Correctional Facility Conditions (min) Buses person) Inmates (min) (mi) (min) (hr:min)

Normal 90 23 2:55 Oswego Cou nty Correct io nal Facility Ra in 100 6 2 160 60 5.5 20 3:00 Snow 110 17 3:10 Maximum ETE: 3:10 Average ETE: 3:05 NMP/JAF 8-43 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate February 24, 2016

9 TRAFFIC MANAGEMENT STRATEGY This section discusses the suggested traffic control and management strategy that is designed to expedite the movement of evacuating traffic. The resources required to implement this strategy include:

• Personnel with the capabilities of performing the planned control functions of traffic guides (preferably, not necessarily, law enforcement officers).

• Traffic Control Devices to assist these personnel in the performance of their tasks. These devices should comply with the guidance of the Manual of Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD) published by the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) of the U.S.D.O.T. All state and most county transportation agencies have access to the MUTCD, which is available on-line: http://mutcd.fhwa.dot.gov which provides access to the official PDF version.

• A plan that defines all locations, provides necessary details and is documented in a format that is readily understood by those assigned to perform traffic control.

The functions to be performed in the field are:

1. Facilitate evacuating traffic movements that safely expedite travel out of the EPZ.

2. Discourage traffic movements that move evacuating vehicles in a direction which takes them significantly closer to the power plant, or which interferes with the efficient flow of other evacuees.

We employ the terms "facilitate" and "discourage" rather than "enforce" and "prohibit" to indicate the need for flexibility in performing the traffic control function. There are always legitimate reasons for a driver to prefer a direction other than that indicated. For example:

• A driver may be traveling home from work or from another location, to join other family members prior to evacuating.

• An evacuating driver may be travelling to pick up a relative, or other evacuees.

• The driver may be an emergency worker en route to perform an important activity.

The implementation of a plan must also be flexible enough for the application of sound judgment by the traffic guide.

The traffic management plan is the outcome of the following process:

1. The existing TCPs and ACPs identified by the offsite agencies in their existing emergency plans serve as the basis of the traffic management plan, as per NUREG/CR-7002.

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

3. Computer analysis of the evacuation traffic flow environment (see Figures 7-3 through 7-7). As discussed in Section 7.3, congestion within the EPZ is clear by 4 hours4.62963e-5 days <br />0.00111 hours <br />6.613757e-6 weeks <br />1.522e-6 months <br /> after the ATE. The existing traffic management plans place emphasis on appropriate intersections and are adequate. No additional TCPs or ACPs are identified as a result of this study.

4. Prioritization of TCPs and ACPs.

NMP/JAF 9-1 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate February 24, 2016

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

The use of Intelligent Transportation Systems (ITS) technologies can reduce manpower and equipment needs, while still facilitating the evacuation process. Dynamic Message Signs (DMS) can be placed within the EPZ to provide information to travelers regarding traffic conditions, route selection, and reception center information. DMS can also be placed outside of the EPZ to warn motorists to avoid using routes that may conflict with the flow of evacuees away from the power plants. Highway Advisory Radio (HAR) can be used to broadcast information to evacuees en route through their vehicle stereo systems. Automated Traveler Information Systems (ATIS) can also be used to provide evacuees with information. Internet websites can provide traffic and evacuation route information before the evacuee begins their trip, while on board navigation systems (GPS units), cell phones, and pagers can be used to provide information en route. These are only several examples of how ITS technologies can benefit the evacuation process. Considerat ion should be given that ITS technologies be used to facilitate the evacuation process, and any additional signage placed should consider evacuation needs.

The ETE ~rnalysis treated all controlled intersections that are existing TCP and ACP locations in the offsite agency plans as being controlled by actuated signals. Appendix K, Table K-2 identifies those intersections that were modeled as TCPs.

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

The ETE calculations reflect the assumption that all "external-external" trips are interdicted and diverted after 2 hours2.314815e-5 days <br />5.555556e-4 hours <br />3.306878e-6 weeks <br />7.61e-7 months <br /> have elapsed from the ATE.

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

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

NMP/JAF 9-2 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate February 24, 2016

10 EVACUATION ROUTES Evacuation routes are comprised of two distinct components:

• Routing from an ERPA being evacuated to the boundary of the Evacuation Region and thence out of the EPZ.

• Routing of transit-dependent evacuees from the EPZ boundary to the reception center.

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

This expectation is met by the DYNEV II model routing traffic away from the location of NMP/JAF, to the extent practicable. The DTRAD model satisfies this behavior by routing traffic so as to balance traffic demand relative to the available highway capacity to the extent possible. See Appendices B through D for further discussion.

The routing of transit-dependent evacuees from the EPZ boundary to the general reception center or to medical host facilities is designed to minimize the amount of travel outside the EPZ from the points where these routes cross the EPZ boundary.

The Oswego County radiological emergency plans identify the New York State Fairgrounds as the reception center for school and day camp children as well as the general population.

Several host facilities are identified throughout the region to house those living or receiving treatment at various medical facilities and nursing homes within the EPZ.

Figure 10-1 presents a map showing the general reception center as well as the medical host facilities for evacuees. The major evacuation routes for the EPZ are presented in Figure 10-2.

It is assumed that all school and day camp evacuees will be taken to the New York State Fairgrounds and subsequently picked up by parents or guardians. Transit-dependent evacuees are transported to the main Fairground location as well. This study does not consider the transport of evacuees from reception centers to congregate care centers, if the county does make the decision to relocate evacuees.

NMP/JAF 10-1 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate February 24, 2016

/

General Reception Center and

/

Medical Host Facilities I I

I j.;,

legend NMP/JAF General Reception Center Medical Host Facility GJ ERPA

, _,, 2, 5, 10, 15 Mile Rings Shadow Region Figure 10-1. General Reception Center and Medical Host Facilities NMP/JAF 10-2 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate February 24, 2016

Major Evacuation Routes within the Nine Mile Point

& James A. FitzPatrick EPZ 27

/

/

' '\

26 I \

,,,. I Onu,no 28 1{ NMP/JAF GJ ERPA

> - - Evacuation Route

'---:: 2, 5, 10, 15 Mile Rings

~ Shadow Region Figure 10-2. Evacuation Route Map NMP/JAF 10-3 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate February 24, 2016

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

1. Traffic control personnel, located at Traffic and Access Control points, provide fixed-point surveillance.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

• Responding tow trucks would most likely travel counter-flow relative to evacuating traffic.

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

NMP/JAF 11-1 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate February 24, 2016

12 CONFIRMATION TIME It is necessary to confirm that the evacuation process is effective in the sense that the public is complying with the Advisory to Evacuate. The Oswego County radiological emergency plans state that the County Sheriff is assigned the responsibility of traffic control and is tasked with patrolling the plume exposure EPZ for confirmation of evacuation and the provision of security in the evacuated area. This process takes place during the maintenance phase of the evacuation. In addition to this activity, the following complementary approach is suggested.

The suggested procedure employs a stratified random sample and a telephone survey. The size of the sample is dependent on the expected number of households that do not comply with the Advisory to Evacuate. It is reasonable to assume, for the purpose of estimating sample size that at least 80 percent of the population within the EPZ will comply with the Advisory to Evacuate.

On this basis, an analysis could be undertaken (see Table 12-1) to yield an estimated sample size of approximately 300.

The confirmation process should start at about 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, which is when approximately 90 percent of evacuees have completed their mobilization activities (see Figure 5-4). At this time, virtually all evacuees will have departed on their respective trips and the local telephone system will be largely free of traffic.

As indicated in Table 12-1, approximately 7Yi person hours are needed to complete the telephone survey. If six people are assigned to this task, each dialing a different set of telephone exchanges (e.g., each person can be assigned a different set of ERPAs), then the confirmation process will extend over a timeframe of about 75 minutes. Thus, the confirmation should be completed before the evacuated area is cleared. Of course, fewer people would be needed for this survey if the Evacuation Region were only a portion of the EPZ. Use of modern automated computer controlled dialing equipment or other technologies (e.g., emergency notification system or equivalent if available) can significantly reduce the manpower requir:ements and the time required to undertake this type of confirmation survey.

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

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

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

NMP/JAF 12-1 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate February 24, 2016

Table 12-1. Estimated Number of Telephone Calls Required for Confirmation of Evacuation Problem Definition Estimate number of phone calls, n, needed to ascertain the proportion, F of households that have not evacuated.

Reference:

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

• No. of households plus other facilities, N, within the EPZ (est.) = 17,500

• Est. proportion, F, of households that will not evacuate= 0.20

• Allowable error margin, e: 0.05

• Confidence level, a: 0.95 (implies A= 1.96)

Applying Table 10 of cited reference, p = F + e = 0.25; q =1- p = 0.75 A 2 pq +e n = ez = 308 Finite population correction:

nN np = = 303 n+N-1 Thus, some 300 telephone calls will confirm that approximately 20 percent of the population has not evacuated. If only 10 percent of the population does not comply with the Advisory to Evacuate, then the required sample size, nF = 213.

Est. Person Hours to complete 300 telephone calls Assume:

• Time to dial using touch tone (random selection of listed numbers): 30 seconds

• Time for 6 rings (no answer): 36 seconds

• Time for 4 rings plus short conversation: 60 sec.

• Interval between calls: 20 sec.

Person Hours:

_3o_o_[3_o_+_o._s(_3_6)_+_0._2(_6_0)_+_2_0] = 7 _6 3600 NMP/JAF 12-2 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate February 24, 2016

APPENDIX A Glossary of Traffic Engineering Terms

A. GLOSSARY OF TRAFFIC ENGINEERING TERMS Table A-1. Glossary of Traffic Engineering Terms f erm Definition '

I Analysis Network A graphical representation of the geometric topology of a physical roadway system, which is comprised of directional links and nodes.

Link A network link represents a specific, one-directional section of roadway. A link has both physical (length, number of lanes, topology, etc.) and operational (turn movement percentages, service rate, free-flow speed) characteristics.

Measures of Effectiveness Statistics describing traffic operations on a roadway network.

Node A network node generally represents an intersection of network links. A node has control characteristics, i.e., the allocation of service time to each approach link.

Origin A location a~tached to a network link, within the EPZ or Shadow Region, where trips are generated at a specified rate in vehicles per hour (vph). These trips enter the roadway system to travel to their respective destinations.

Prevailing Roadway and Relates to the physical features of the roadway, the nature (e.g.,

Traffic Conditions composition) of traffic on the roadway and the ambient conditions (weather, visibility, pavement conditions, etc.).

Service Rate Maximum rate at which vehicles, executing a specific turn maneuver, can be discharged from a section of roadway at the prevailing conditions, expressed in vehicles per second (vps) or vehicles per hour (vph).

Service Volume Maximum number of vehicles which can pass over a section of roadway in one direction during a specified time period with operating conditions at a specified Level of Service (The Service Volume at the upper bound of Level of Service, E, equals Capacity).

Service Volume is usually expressed as vehicles per hour (vph).

Signal Cycle Length The total elapsed time to display all signal indications, in sequence.

The cycle length is expressed in seconds.

Signal Interval A single combination of signal indications. The interval duration is expressed in seconds. A signal phase is comprised of a sequence of signal intervals, usually green, yellow, red.

NMP/JAF A-1 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate February 24, 2016

rerm Definition .

Signal Phase A set of signal indications (and intervals) which services a particular combination of traffic movements on selected approaches to the intersection. The phase duration is expressed in seconds.

Traffic (Trip) Assignment A process of assigning traffic to paths of travel in such a way as to satisfy all trip objectives (i.e., the desire of each vehicle to travel from a specified origin in the network to a specified destination) and to optimize some stated objective or combination of objectives. In general, the objective is stated in terms of minimizing a generalized "cost". For example, "cost" may be expressed in terms of travel time.

Traffic Density The number of vehicles that occupy one lane of a roadway section of specified length at a point in time, expressed as vehicles per mile (vpm).

Traffic (Trip) Distribution A process for determining the destinations of all traffic generated at the origins. The result often takes the form of a Trip Table, which is a matrix of origin-destination traffic volumes.

Traffic Simulation A computer model designed to replicate the real-world operation of vehicles on a roadway network, so as to provide statistics describing traffic performance. These statistics are called Measures of Effectiveness.

Traffic Volume The number of vehicles that pass over a section of roadway in one direction, expressed in vehicles per hour (vph). Where applicable, traffic volume may be stratified by turn movement.

Travel Mode Distinguishes between private auto, bus, rail, pedestrian and air travel modes.

Trip Table or Origin- A rectangular matrix or table, whose entries contain the number Destination Matrix of trips generated at each specified origin, during a specified time period, that are attracted to (and travel toward) each of its specified destinations. These values are expressed in vehicles per hour (vph) or in vehicles.

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

NMP/JAF A-2 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate February 24, 2016

APPENDIX B DTRAD: Dynamic Traffic Assignment and Distribution Model

IB. DYNAMIC TRAFFIC ASSIGNMENT AND DISTRIBUTION MODEL This section describes the integrated dynamic trip assignment and distribution model named DTRAD (Qynamic Iraffic 8_ssignment and Qistribution) that is expressly designed for use in analyzing evacuation scenarios. DTRAD employs logit-based path-choice principles and is one of the models of the DYNEV II System. The DTRAD module implements path-based Dynamic Traffic Assignment (DTA) so that time dependent Origin-Destination (OD) trips are "assigned" to routes over the network based on prevailing traffic conditions.

To apply the DYNEV II System, the analyst must specify the highway network, link capacity information, the time-varying volume of traffic generated at all origin centroids and, optionally, a set of accessible candidate destination nodes on the periphery of the EPZ for selected origins.

DTRAD calculates the optimal dynamic trip distribution (i.e., trip destinations) and the optimal dynamic trip assignment (i.e., trip routing) of the traffic generated at each origin node traveling to its set of candidate destination nodes, so as to minimize evacuee travel "cost."

Overview of Integrated Distribution and Assignment Model The underlying premise is that the selection of destinations and routes is intrinsically coupled in

• an evacuation scenario. That is, people in vehicles seek to travel out of an area of potential risk as rapidly as possible by selecting the "best" routes. The model is designed to identify these "best" routes in a manner that realistically distributes vehicles from origins to destinations and routes them over the highway network, in a consistent and optimal manner, reflecting evacuee behavior.

For each origin, a set of "candidate destination nodes" is selected by the software logic and by the analyst to reflect the desire by evacuees to travel away from the power plant and to access major highways. The specific destination nodes within this set that are selected by travelers and the selection of the connecting paths of travel are both determined by DTRAD. This determination is made by a logit-based path choice model in DTRAD, so as to minimize the trip "cost", as discussed later.

The traffic loading on the network and the consequent operational traffic environment of the network (density, speed, throughput on each link) vary over time as the evacuation takes place.

The DTRAD model, which is interfaced with the DYNEV simulation model, executes a succession of "sessions" wherein it computes the optimal routing and selection of destination nodes for the conditions that exist at that time.

Interfacing the DYNEV Simulation Model with DTRAD The DYNEV II system reflects NRC guidance that evacuees will seek to travel in a general direction away from the location of the hazardous event. An algorithm was developed to support the DTRAD model in dynamically varying the Trip Table (0-D matrix) over time from one DTRAD session to the next. Another algorithm executes a "mapping" from the specified "geometric" network (link-node analysis network) that represents the physical highway system, to a "path" network that represents the vehicle [turn] movements. DTRAD computations are performed on the "path" network: DYNEV simulation model, on the "geometric" network.

NMP/JAF B-1 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate February 24, 2016

DTRAD Description DTRAD is the DTA module for the DYNEV II System.

When the road network under study is large, multiple routing options are usually available between trip origins and destinations. The problem of loading traffic demands and propagating them over the network links is called Network Loading and is addressed by DYNEV II using macroscopic traffic simulation modeling. Traffic assignment deals with computing the distribution of the traffic over the road network for given 0-D demands and is a model of the route choice of the drivers. Travel demand changes significantly over time, and the road network may have time dependent characteristics, e.g., time-varying signal timing or reduced road capacity because of lane closure, or traffic congestion. To consider these time dependencies, DTA procedures are required.

The DTRAD DTA module represents the dynamic route choice behavior of drivers, using the specification of dynamic origin-destination matrices as flow input. Drivers choose their routes through the network based on the travel cost they experience (as determined by the simulation model). This allows traffic to be distributed over the network according to the time-dependent conditions. The modeling principles of DTRAD include:

• It is assumed that drivers not only select the best route (i.e., lowest cost path) but some also select less attractive routes. The algorithm implemented by DTRAD archives several "efficient" routes for each 0-D pair from which the drivers choose.

• The choice of one route out of a set of possible routes is an outcome of "discrete choice modeling". Given a set of routes and their generalized costs, the percentages of drivers that choose each route is computed. The most prevalent model for discrete choice modeling is the logit model. DTRAD uses a variant of Path-Size-Logit model (PSL). PSL overcomes the drawback of the traditional multinomial logit model by incorporating an additional deterministic path size correction term to address path overlapping in the random utility expression.

• DTRAD executes the traffic assignment algorithm on an abstract network representation called "the path network" which is built from the actual physical link-node analysis network. This execution continues until a stable situation is reached: the volumes and travel times on the edges of the path network do not change significantly from one iteration to the next. The criteria for this convergence are defined by the user.

• Travel "cost" plays a crucial role in route choice. In DTRAD, path cost is a linear summation of the generalized cost of each link that comprises the path. The generalized cost for a link, a, is expressed as where ca is the generalized cost for link a, and a, P, and yare cost coefficients for link travel time, distance, and supplemental cost, respectively. Distance and supplemental costs are defined as invariant properties of the network model, while travel time is a dynamic property dictated by prevailing traffic conditions. The DYNEV simulation model NMP/JAF B-2 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate February 24, 2016

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

The interaction between the DTRAD traffic assignment and DYNEV II simulation models is depicted in Figure B-1. Each round of interaction is called a Traffic Assignment Session (TA session). A TA session is composed of multiple iterations, marked as loop B in the figure.

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

Sa= - ~ In (p), 0 ~ p ~ I ; ~ >O dn p=-

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

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

NMP/JAF B-3 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate February 24, 2016

Network Equilibrium In 1952, John Wardrop wrote:

Under equilibrium conditions traffic arranges itself in congested networks in such a way that no individual trip-maker can reduce his path costs by switching routes.

The above statement describes the "User Equilibrium" definition, also called the "Selfish Driver Equilibrium". It is a hypothesis that represents a [hopeful] condition that evolves over time as drivers search out alternative routes to identify those routes that minimize their respective "costs". It has been found that this "equilibrium" objective to minimize costs is largely realized by most drivers who routinely take the same trip over the same network at the same time (i.e.,

commuters). Effectively, such drivers "learn" which routes are best for them over time. Thus, the traffic environment "settles down" to a near-equilibrium state.

Clearly, since an emergency evacuation is a sudden, unique event, it does not constitute a long-term learning experience which can achieve an equilibrium state. Consequently, DTRAD was not designed as an equilibrium solution, but to represent drivers in a new and unfamiliar situation, who respond in a flexible manner to real-time information (either broadcast or observed) in such a way as to minimize their respective costs of travel.

NMP/JAF B-4 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate February 24, 2016

Start of next DTRAD Session 0 .

~

I Set T0 = Clock time.

Archive System State at T0 I

Define latest Link Turn Percentages I

Execute Simulation Model from B .

~

time, T0 to T1 (burn time)

I Provide DTRAD with link MOE at time, T1 I

Execute DTRAD iteration; Get new Turn Percentages I

Retrieve System State at T0  ;

Apply new Link Turn Percents I

DTRAD iteration converges?

No Yes Simulate from T0 to T2 I Next iteration I (OTA session duration)

Set Clock to T, B

0 Figure B-1. Flow Diagram of Simulation-DTRAD Interface NMP/JAF 8-5 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate February 24, 2016

APPENDIX C DYNEV Traffic Simulation Model

C. DYNEV TRAFFIC SIMULATION MODEL The DYNEV traffic simulation model is a macroscopic model that describes the operations of traffic flow in terms of aggregate variables: vehicles, flow rate, mean speed, volume, density, queue length, on each fink, for each turn movement, during each Time Interval (simulation time step). The model generates trips from "sources" and from Entry Links and introduces them onto the analysis network at rates specified by the analyst based on the mobilization time distributions. The model simulates the movements of all vehicles on all network links over time until the network is empty. At intervals, the model outputs Measures of Effectiveness (MOE) such as those listed in Table C-1.

Model Features Include:

• Explicit consideration is taken of the variation in density over the time step; an iterative procedure is employed to calculate an average density over the simulation time step for the purpose of computing a mean speed for moving vehicles.

• Multiple turn movements can be serviced on one link; a separate algorithm is used to estimate the number of (fractional) lanes assigned to the vehicles performing each turn movement, based, in part, on the turn percentages provided by the DTRAD model.

• At any point in time, traffic flow on a link is subdivided into two classifications: queued and moving vehicles. The number of vehicles in each classification is computed. Vehicle spillback, stratified by turn movement for each.network link, is explicitly considered and quantified. The propagation of stopping waves from link to link is computed within each time step of the simulation. There is no "vertical stacking" of queues on a link.

• Any link can accommodate "source flow" from zones via side streets and parking facilities that are not explicitly represented. This flow represents the evacuating trips that are generated at the source.

• The relation between the number of vehicles occupying the link and its storage capacity is monitored every time step for every link and for every turn movement. If the available storage capacity on a link is exceeded by the demand for service, then the simulator applies a "metering" rate to the entering traffic from both the upstream feeders and source node to ensure that the available storage capacity is not exceeded.

• A "path network" that represents the specified traffic movements from each network link is constructed by the model; this path network is utilized by the DTRAD model.

• A two-way interface with DTRAD: (1) provides link travel times; (2) receives data that translates into link turn percentages.

• Provides MOE to animation software, EVAN

• Calculates ETE statistics NMP/JAF C-1 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate February 24, 2016

All traffic simulation models are data-intensive. Table C-2 outlines the necessary input data elements.

To provide an efficient framework for defining these specifications, the physical highway environment is represented as a network. The unidirectional links of the network represent roadway sections: rural, multi-lane, urban streets or freeways. The nodes of the network generally represent intersections or points along a section where a geometric property changes (e.g. a lane drop, change in grade or free flow speed).

Figure C-1 is an example of a small network representation. The freeway is defined by the sequence of links, (20,21), (21,22), and (22,23). Links (8001, 19) and (3, 8011) are Entry and Exit links, respectively. An arterial extends from node 3 to node 19 and is partially subsumed within a grid network. Note that links (21,22) and (17,19) are grade-separated.

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

Measure Units Applies To Vehicles Discharged Vehicles Link, Network, Exit Link Speed Miles/Hours (mph) Link, Network Density Vehicles/Mile/Lane Link Level of Service LOS Link Content Vehicles Network Travel Time Vehicle-hours Network Evacuated Vehicles Vehicles Network, Exit Link Trip Travel Time Vehicle-minutes/trip Network Capacity Utilization Percent Exit Link Attraction Percent of total evacuating vehicles Exit Link Max Queue Vehicles Node, Approach Time of Max Queue Hours:minutes Node, Approach Length (mi); Mean Speed (mph); Travel Route Statistics Route Time (min)

Mean Travel Time Minutes Evacuation Trips; Network NMP/JAF C-2 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate February 24, 2016

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

• Links defined by upstream and downstream node numbers

• Link lengths

• Number of lanes (up to 9) and channelization

• Turn bays (1 to 3 lanes)

• Destination (exit) nodes

• Network topology defined in terms of downstream nodes for each receiving link

• Node Coordinates (X,Y)

• Nuclear Power Plant Coordinates (X,Y)

GENERATED TRAFFIC VOLUMES

• On all entry links and source nodes (origins), by Time Period TRAFFIC CONTROL SPECIFICATIONS

• Traffic signals: link-specific, turn movement specific

• Signal control treated as fixed time or actuated

• Location of traffic control points (these are represented as actuated signals)

• Stop and Yield signs

• Right-turn-on-red (RTOR)

• Route diversion specifications

• Turn restrictions

• Lane control (e.g. lane closure, movement-specific)

DRIVER'S AND OPERATIONAL CHARACTERISTICS

• Driver's (vehicle-specific) response mechanisms: free-flow speed, discharge headway

• Bus route designation.

DYNAMIC TRAFFIC ASSIGNMENT

• Candidate destination nodes for each origin (optional)

• Duration of DTA sessions

• Duration of simulation "burn time"

• Desired number of destination nodes per origin INCIDENTS

• Identify and Schedule of closed lanes

• Identify and Schedule of closed links NMP/JAF C-3 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate February 24, 2016

Entry, Exit Nodes are numbered 8xxx Figure C-1. Representative Analysis Network NMP/JAF C-4 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate February 24, 2016

C.1 Methodology C.1.1 The Fundamental Diagram It is necessary to define the fundamental diagram describing flow-density and speed-density relationships. Rather than "settling for" a triangular representation, a more realistic representation that includes a "capacity drop", (1-R)Qmax, at the critical density when flow conditions enter the forced flow regime, is developed and calibrated for each link. This representation, shown in Figure C-2, asserts a constant free speed up to a density, kr, and then a linear reduction in speed in the range, kr ::;; k ::;; kc = 45 vpm, the density at capacity. In the flow-density plane, a quadratic relationship is prescribed in the range, kc < k ::;; ks = 95 vpm which roughly represents the "stop-and-go" condition of severe congestion. The value of flow rate, Qs, corresponding to ks, is approximated at 0.7 RQmax. A linear relationship between ks and ki completes the diagram shown in Figure C-2. Table C-3 is a glossary of terms.

The fundamental diagram is applied to moving traffic on every link. The specified calibration values for each link are: (1) Free speed, Vr ; (2) Capacity, Qmax; (3) Critical density, kc =

45 vpm; (4) Capacity Drop Factor, R = 0.9; (5) Jam density, ki. Then, Ve = Q;cax , kr = kc -

(Vf-Vc) kE . Setting k = k - kc, then Q = RQmax - RQmax k2 for O ::;; k::;; ks = 50 . It can be Qmax 8333 .

shown that Q = (0.98 - 0.0056 k) RQmax for ks::;; k::;; kj, where ks= 50 and ki = 175.

C.1.2 The Simulation Model The simulation model solves a sequence of "unit problems." Each unit problem computes the movement of traffic on a link, for each specified turn movement, over a specified time interval (Tl) which serves as the simulation time step for all links. Figure C-3 is a representation of the unit problem in the time-distance plane. Table C-3 is a glossary of terms that are referenced in the following description of the unit problem procedure.

NMP/JAF C-5 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate February 24, 2016

Volume, vph f Capacity Drop Qmax -

RQmax-

--~----:-:-.,....--,.-----;---------....,....------1.. Density, vpm Flow ,Regimes Speed, mph Forced:~

Vf -t-~~:---~~~_;

R Ve -

'---~-----,----i--------......;;:...,________. Density, vpm kc Figure C-2. Fundamental Diagrams NMP/JAF C-6 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate February 24, 2016

Distance l Qoown L

Up

---

Time Figure C-3. A UNIT Problem Configuration with t 1 > 0 NMP/JAF C-7 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate February 24, 2016

Table C-3. Glossary The maximum number of vehicles, of a particular movement, that can discharge Cap from a link within a time interval.

The number of vehicles, of a particular movement, that enter the link over the E

time interval. The portion, Er1, can reach the stop-bar within the Tl.

The green time: cycle time ratio that services the vehicles of a particular turn G/C movement on a link.

h The mean queue discharge headway, seconds.

k Density in vehicles per lane per mile.

The average density of moving vehicles of a particular movement over a Tl, on a k link.

L The length of the link in feet.

The queue length in feet of a particular movement, at the [beginning, end] of a time interval.

The number of lanes, expressed as a floating point number, allocated to service a LN particular movement on a link.

The mean effective length of a queued vehicle including the vehicle spacing, feet.

M Metering factor (Multiplier): 1.

The number of moving vehicles on the link, of a particular movement, that are moving at the [beginning, end] of the time interval. These vehicles are assumed to be of equal spacing, over the length of link upstream of the queue.

The total number of vehicles of a particular movement that are discharged from a 0

link over a time interval.

The components of the vehicles of a particular movement that are discharged from a link within a time interval: vehicles that were Queued at the beginning of the Tl; vehicles that were Moving within the link at the beginning of the Tl; vehicles that Entered the link during the Tl.

The percentage, expressed as a fraction, of the total flow on the link that executes a particular turn movement, x.

NMP/JAF C-8 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate February 24, 2016

The number of queued vehicles on the link, of a particular turn movement, at the

[beginning, end] of the time interval.

The maximum flow rate that can be serviced by a link for a particular movement in the absence of a control device. It is specified by the analyst as an estimate of link capacity, based upon a field survey, with reference to the HCM.

R The factor that is applied to the capacity of a link to represent the "capacity drop" when the flow condition moves into the forced flow regime. The lower capacity at that point is equal to RQmax .

RCap The remaining capacity available to service vehicles of a particular movement after that queue has been completely serviced, within a time interval, expressed as vehicles.

Service rate for movement x, vehicles per hour (vph).

Vehicles of a particular turn movement that enter a link over the first t 1 seconds

• of a time interval, can reach the stop-bar (in the absence of a queue down-stream) within the same time interval.

Tl The time interval, in seconds, which is used as the simulation time step.

V The mean speed of travel, in feet per second (fps) or miles per hour (mph), of moving vehicles on the link.

The mean speed of the last vehicle in a queue that discharges from the link within the Tl. This speed differs from the mean speed of moving vehicles, v.

w The width of the intersection in feet. This is the difference between the link length which extends from stop-bar to stop-bar and the block length.

NMP/JAF C-9 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate February 24, 2016 L_

The formulation and the associated logic presented below are designed to solve the unit problem for each sweep over the network (discussed below), for each turn movement serviced on each link that comprises the evacuation network, and for each Tl over the duration of the evacuation.

Given = Qb , Mb , L, TI , E0 , LN , G/ C , h, Lv , R 0 , Le , E, M Compute = 0 , Qe , Me Define O = OQ + OM + OE ; E = E1 + E2

1. For the first sweep, s = 1, of this Tl, get initial estimates of mean density, k 0 , the R - factor, R0 and entering traffic, E0 , using the values computed for the final sweep of the prior Tl.

For each subsequent sweep, s > 1, calculate E = Li Pi Oi + S where Pi, Oi are the relevant turn percentages from feeder link, i, and its total outflow (possibly metered) over this Tl; Sis the total source flow (possibly metered) during the current Tl.

Set iteration counter, n = 0, k = k 0 , and E = E0 *

2. Calculate v (k) such that k :::; 130 using the analytical representations of the fundamental diagram.

Calculate Cap = Q~~xi~I) (G/ c) LN , in vehicles, this value may be reduced due to metering Set R = 1.0 if GjC < 1 or ifk:::; kc; Set R = 0.9 only if GjC = 1 and k > kc Lv Calculate queue length, Lb = Qb LN

3. Calculate t 1 = TI - ~ . If t 1 -< 0, set t 1 = E1 = OE = 0 ; Else, E1 = E ~~.

4. Then E2 = E - E1  ; t 2 = TI - t 1

5. If Qb ~Cap, then OQ = Cap, OM = OE =0 If t 1 > O , then Q~ = Qb + Mb + E1 - Cap Else Q~ = Qb - Cap End if Calculate Qe and Me using Algorithm A (below)

6. Else (Qb -< Cap)

OQ = Qb , RCap = Cap - OQ

7. If Mb :::; RCap, then NMP/JAF C-10 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate February 24, 2016

8.

Q~ = E1 - OE If Q~ > 0 , then Calculate Qe , Me with Algorithm A Else Qe = 0, Me= E2 End if Else (t 1 = O)

OM = (v(Tl)-Lb)

L-Lb Mb and OE = 0 Me = Mb - OM +E; Qe = 0 End if

9. Else (Mb > RCap)

OE= 0 If t 1 > 0 , then OM = RCap , Q~ = Mb - OM + E1 Calculate Qe and Me using Algorithm A

10. Else (t 1 = 0)

Md = [ (v(~~:bLb) Mb ]

If Md> RCap, then OM= RCap Q~ = Md - OM Apply Algorithm A to calculate Qe and Me Else OM= Md Me = Mb - OM + E and Qe = 0 End if End if End if End if

11. Calculate a new estimate of average density, k 0 = .!.4 [kb + 2 km + ke] ,

where kb = density at the beginning of the Tl ke = density at the end of the Tl km = density at the mid-point of the Tl All values of density apply only to the moving vehicles.

If lkn - k0 _ 1 I > E and n < N where N = max number of iterations, and Eis a convergence criterion, then NMP/JAF C-11 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate February 24, 2016

12. set n =n +1 , and return to step 2 to perform iteration, n, using k = kn .

End if Computation of unit problem is now complete. Check for excessive inflow causing spill back.

13. If Q e

+ Me > (L-W)Lv LN then The number of excess vehicles that cause spill back is: SB = Qe + Me - (L-W)

• LN Lv where W is the width of the upstream intersection. To prevent spillback, meter the outflow from the feeder approaches and from the source flow, S, during this Tl by the amount, SB. That is, set SB M = 1 - (E + S) ~ 0, where Mis the metering factor (over all movements).

This metering factor is assigned appropriately to all feeder links and to the source flow, to be applied during the next network sweep, discussed later.

Algorithm A This analysis addresses the flow environment over a Tl during which moving vehicles can join a standing or discharging queue. For the case Q' e shown, Qb ~ Cap, with t 1 > 0 and a queue of Qe length, Q~ , formed by that portion of Mb and E that reaches the stop-bar within the Tl, but could v not discharge due to inadequate capacity. That is, Qb + Mb + E1 > Cap. This queue length, Q~ =

L3 Qb + Mb + E1 - Cap can be extended to Qe by traffic entering the approach during the current Tl, traveling at speed, v, and reaching the rear of the queue within the Tl. A portion of the entering

.I vehicles, E3 = E t 3 , will likely join the queue. This TI analysis calculates t 3 , Qe and Me for the input values of L, Tl, v, E, t, Lv, LN, Q~ .

When t 1 > 0 and Qb ~ Cap:

~ ~

Define: L~ = Q~ LN . From the sketch, L3 = v(TI - t 1 - t3) =L- (Q~ + E3 ) LN .

Substituting E3 = ~; E yields: - vt 3 + ~1 E ~~ = L - v(TI -

3 t 1) - L'e . Recognizing that the first two terms on the right hand side cancel, solve for t 3 to obtain:

NMP/JAF C-12 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate February 24, 2016

such that O :5 t 3 :5 TI - t 1 If the denominator, [v - .!

TI Lv]

LN

5 0, set t 3 = TI - t1 .

The complete Algorithm A considers all flow scenarios; space limitation precludes its inclusion, here.

C.1.3 Lane Assignment The "unit problem" is solved for each turn movement on each link. Therefore it is necessary to calculate a value, LNx, of allocated lanes for each movement, x. If in fact all lanes are specified by, say, arrows painted on the pavement, either as full lanes or as lanes within a turn bay, then the problem is fully defined. If however there remain un-channelized lanes on a link, then an analysis is undertaken to subdivide the number of these physical lanes into turn movement specific virtual lanes, LNx, C.2 Implementation C.2.1 Computational Procedure The computational procedure for this model is shown in the form of a flow diagram as Figure C-4. As discussed earlier, the simulation model processes traffic flow for each link independently over Tl that the analyst specifies; it is usually 60 seconds or longer. The first step is to execute an algorithm to define the sequence in which the network links are processed so that as many links as possible are processed after their feeder links are processed, within the same network sweep. Since a general network will have many closed loops, it is not possible to guarantee that every link processed will have all of its feeder links processed earlier.

The processing then continues as a succession of time steps of duration, Tl, until the simulation is completed. Within each time step, the processing performs a series of "sweeps" over all network links; this is necessary to ensure that the traffic flow is synchronous over the entire network. Specifically, the sweep ensures continuity of flow among all the network links; in the context of this model, this means that the values of E, M, and Sare all defined for each link such that they represent the synchronous movement of traffic from each link to all of its outbound links. These sweeps also serve to compute the metering rates that control spillback.

Within each sweep, processing solves the "unit problem" for each turn movement on each link.

With the turn movement percentages for each link provided by the DTRAD model, an algorithm NMP/JAF C-13 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate February 24, 2016

allocates the number of lanes to each movement serviced on each link. The timing at a signal, if any, applied at the downstream end of the link, is expressed as a G/C ratio, the signal timing needed to define this ratio is an input requirement for the model. The model also has the capability of representing, with macroscopic fidelity, the actions of actuated signals responding to the time-varying competing demands on the approaches to the intersection.

The solution of the unit problem yields the values of the number of vehicles, 0, that discharge from the link over the time interval and the number of vehicles that remain on the link at the end of the time interval as stratified by queued and moving vehicles: Qe and Me. The procedure considers each movement separately (multi-piping). After all network links are processed for a given network sweep, the updated consistent values of entering flows, E; metering rates, M; and source flows, S are defined so as to satisfy the "no spillback" condition.

The procedure then performs the unit problem solutions for all network links during the following sweep.

Experience has shown that the system converges (i.e. the values of E, M and S "settle down" for all network links) in just two sweeps if the network is entirely under-saturated or in four sweeps in the presence of extensive congestion with link spillback. (The initial sweep over each link uses the final values of E and M, of the prior Tl). At the completion of the final sweep for a Tl, the procedure computes and stores all measures of effectiveness for each link and turn movement for output purposes. It then prepares for the following time interval by defining the values of Qb and Mb for the start of the next Tl as being those values of Qe and Me at the end of the prior Tl. In this manner, the simulation model processes the traffic flow over time until the end of the run. Note that there is no space-discretization other than the specification of network links.

NMP/JAF C-14 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate February 24, 2016

Sequence Network Links 0-- Next Time-step, of duration, Tl Next sweep; Define E, M, S for all B

Links Next Link Next Turn Movement, x Get lanes, LNx Service Rate, Sx; (G/Cx)

Get inputs to Unit Problem:

Qb, Mb, E Solve Unit Problem: Qe, Me, 0 No Last Movement?

Yes No Last Link?

Yes No Last Sweep?

Yes Cale., store all Link MOE Set up next Tl :

No Last Time - step ?

Yes DONE Figure C-4. Flow of Simulation Processing (See Glossary: Table C-3)

NMP/JAF C-15 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate February 24, 2016

C.2.2 Interfacing with Dynamic Traffic Assignment (DTRAD}

The DYNEV II system reflects NRC guidance that evacuees will seek to travel in a general direction away from the location of the hazardous event. Thus, an algorithm was developed to identify an appropriate set of destination nodes for each origin based on its location and on the expected direction of travel. This algorithm also supports the DTRAD model in dynamically varying the Trip Table (O-D matrix) over time from one DTRAD session to the next.

Figure B-1 depicts the interaction of the simulation model with the DTRAD model in the DYNEV U system. As indicated, DYNEV II performs a succession of DTRAD "sessions"; each such session computes the turn link percentages for each link that remain constant for the session duration,

[T0 , T2 ] , specified by the analyst. The end product is the assignment of traffic volumes from each origin to paths connecting it with its destinations in such a way as to minimize the network-wide cost function. The output of the DTRAD model is a set of updated link turn percentages which represent this assignment of traffic.

As indicated in Figure B-1, the simulation model supports the DTRAD session by providing it with operational link MOE that are needed by the path choice model and included in the DTRAD cost function. These MOE represent the operational state of the network at a time, T1 ~ T2 , which lies within the session duration, [T0 , T2 ] . This "burn time", T1 - T0 , is selected by the analyst. For each DTRAD iteration, the simulation model computes the change in network operations over this burn time using the latest set of link turn percentages computed by the DTRAD model. Upon convergence of the DTRAD iterative procedure, the simulation model accepts the latest turn percentages provided by the DTA model, returns to the origin time, T0 , and executes until it arrives at the end of the DTRAD session duration at time, T2

• At this time the next DTA session is launched and the whole process repeats until the end of the DYNEV II run.

Additional details are presented in Appendix B.

NMP/JAF C-16 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate February 24, 2016

APPENDIX D Detailed Description of Study Procedure

D. DETAILED DESCRIPTION OF STUDY PROCEDURE This appendix describes the activities that were performed to compute Evacuation Time Estimates. The individual steps of this effort are represented as a flow diagram in Figure D-1.

Each numbered step in the description that follows corresponds to the numbered element in the flow diagram.

Step 1 The first activity was to obtain EPZ boundary information and create a GIS base map. The base map extends beyond the Shadow Region which extends approximately 15 miles (radially) from the power plant location. The base map incorporates the local roadway topology, a suitable topographic background and the EPZ boundary.

Step 2 2010 Census block population and Census population growth (using 20141 population estimates published by the US Census) information was obtained in GIS format. This information was used to project the resident population within the EPZ and Shadow Region to the year 2015 and to define the spatial distribution and demographic characteristics of the population within the study area. In 2012, employee and transient data were obtained from local emergency management agencies and from phone calls to transient attractions. Information concerning schools, day camp, medical and other types of special facilities within the EPZ was obtained from county and municipal sources.

Step 3 A kickoff meeting was conducted, in 2012, with major stakeholders (state and local emergency managers, on-site and off-site utility emergency managers, local and state law enforcement agencies). The purpose of the kickoff meeting was to present an overview of the work effort, identify key agency personnel, and indicate the data requirements for the study. Specific requests for information were presented to local emergency managers. Unique features of the study area were discussed to identify the local concerns that should be addressed by the ETE study.

Step 4 In 2012, a physical survey of the roadway system in the study area was conducted to determine the geometric properties of the highway sections, the channelization of lanes on each section of roadway, whether there are any turn restrictions or special treatment of traffic at intersections, the type and functioning of traffic control devices, gathering signal timings for pre-timed traffic signals, and to make the necessary observations needed to estimate realistic values of roadway capacity.

1 The annual population estimates prepared by the Census Bureau for the entire U.S. involves an extensive data gathering process. As such, population estimates are a year behind - 2014 data are released in 2015. The schedule for release of Census data is provided on the Census website: http://www.census.gov/popest/schedule.html NMP/JAF D-1 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate February 24, 2016

Step 5 The data from the 2012 telephone survey of households within the EPZ was used to identify household dynamics, trip generation characteristics, and evacuation-related demographic information of the EPZ population. This information was used to determine important study factors including the average number of evacuating vehicles used by each household, and the time required to perform pre-evacuation mobilization activities.

Step 6 A computerized representation of the physical roadway system, called a link-node analysis network, was developed using the UNITES software (see Section 1.3) developed by KLD. Once the geometry of the network was completed, the network was calibrated using the information gathered during the 2012 road survey (Step 4). Estimates of highway capacity for each link and other link-specific characteristics were introduced to the network description. Traffic signal timings were input accordingly. The link-node analysis network was imported into a GIS map.

2010 Census data (extrapolated to 2015 using annual growth rates based on 2014 Census population estimates) were overlaid in the map, and origin centroids where trips would be generated during the evacuation process were assigned to appropriate links.

Step 7 The EPZ is subdivided into 29 ERPAs. Based on wind direction and speed, Regions (groupings of ERPAs) that may be advised to evacuate, were developed.

The need for evacuation can occur over .a range of time-of-day, day-of-week, seasonal and weather-related conditions. Scenarios were developed to capture the variation in evacuation demand, highway capacity and mobilization time, for different time of day, day of the week, time of year, and weather conditions.

Step 8 The input stream for the DYNEV II model, which integrates the dynamic traffic assignment and distribution model, DTRAD, with the evacuation simulation model, was created for a prototype evacuation case - the evacuation of the entire EPZ for a representative scenario.

Step 9 After creating this input stream, the DYNEV II System was executed on the prototype evacuation case to compute evacuating traffic routing patterns consistent with the appropriate NRC guidelines. DYNEV II contains an extensive suite of data diagnostics which check the completeness and consistency of the input data specified. The analyst reviews all warning and error messages produced by the model and then corrects the database to create an input stream that properly executes to completion.

The model assigns destinations to all origin centroids consistent with a (general) radial evacuation of the EPZ and Shadow Region. The analyst may optionally supplement and/or replace these model-assigned destinations, based on professional judgment, after studying the topology of the analysis highway network. The model produces link and network-wide measures of effectiveness as well as estimates of evacuation time.

NMP/JAF D-2 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate February 24, 2016

Step 10 The results generated by the prototype evacuation case are critically examined. The examination includes observing the animated graphics (using the EVAN software which operates on data produced by DYNEV II) and reviewing the statistics output by the model. This is a labor-intensive activity, requiring the direct participation of skilled engineers who possess the necessary practical experience to interpret the results and to determine the causes of any problems reflected in the results.

Essentially, the approach is to identify those bottlenecks in the network that represent locations where congested conditions are pronounced and to identify the cause of this congestion. This cause can take many forms, either as excess demand due to high rates of trip generation, improper routing, a shortfall of capacity, or as a quantitative flaw in the way the physical system was represented in the input stream. This examination leads to one of two conclusions:

• The results are satisfactory; or

• The input stream must be modified accordingly.

This decision requires, of course, the application of the user's judgment and experience based upon the results obtained in previous applications of the model and a comparison of the results of the latest prototype evacuation case iteration with the previous ones. If the results are satisfactory in the opinion of the user, then the process continues with Step 13. Otherwise, proceed to Step 11.

Step 11 There are many "treatments" available to the user in resolving apparent problems. These treatments range from decisions to reroute the traffic by assigning additional evacuation destinations for one or more sources, imposing turn restrictions where they can produce significant improvements in capacity, changing the control treatment at critical intersections so as to provide improved service for one or more movements, or in prescribing specific treatments for channelizing the flow so as to expedite the movement of traffic along major roadway systems. Such "treatments" take the form of modifications to the original prototype evacuation case input stream. All treatments are designed to improve the representation of evacuation behavior.

Step 12 As noted above, the changes to the input stream must be implemented to reflect the modifications undertaken in Step 11. At the completion of this activity, the process returns to Step 9 where the DYNEV II System is again executed.

Step 13 Evacuation of transit-dependent evacuees and special facilities are included in the evacuation analysis. Fixed routing for transit buses and for school/day camp buses, ambulances, and other transit vehicles are introduced into the final prototype evacuation case data set. DYNEV II generates route-specific speeds over time for use in the estimation of evacuation times for the NMP/JAF D-3 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate February 24, 2016

transit dependent and special facility population groups.

Step 14 The prototype evacuation case is used as the basis for generating all region and scenario-specific evacuation cases to be simulated. This process was automated through the UNITES user interface. For each specific case, the population to be evacuated, the trip generation distributions, the highway capacity and speeds, and other factors are adjusted to produce a customized case-specific data set.

Step 15 All evacuation cases are executed using the DYNEV II System to compute ETE. Once results are available, quality control procedures are used to assure the results are consistent, dynamic; routing is reasonable, and traffic congestion/bottlenecks are addressed properly.

Step 16 Once vehicular evacuation results are accepted, average travel speeds for transit and special facility routes are used to compute evacuation time estimates for transit-dependent permanent residents, schools, day camp, hospitals, and other special facilities.

Step 17 The simulation results are analyzed, tabulated and graphed. The results are then documented, as required by NUREG/CR-7002.

Step 18 Following the completion of documentation activities, the ETE criteria checklist (see Appendix N) is completed. An appropriate report reference is provided for each criterion provided in the checklist.

NMP/JAF D-4 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate February 24, 2016

Step 1 Ste 10 Create GIS Base Map Examine Prototype Evacuation Case using EVAN and DYNEV II Output Step 2 Gather Census Block and Demographic Data for Results Satisfactory Study Area. Project population to 2015.

Step 11 Step 3 Modify Evacuation Destinations and/or Develop Conduct Kickoff Meeting with Stakeholders Traffic Control Treatments Step4 Step 12 Field Survey of Roadways within Study Area Modify Database to Reflect Changes to Prototype Evacuation Case Step 5 Analyze Telephone Survey and *Develop Trip Generation Characteristics Step 13 Step 6 Establish Transit and Special Facility Evacuation Create and Calibrate Link-Node Analysis Network Routes and Update DYNEV II Database Step 14 Step 7 Generate DYNEV II Input Streams for All Evacuation Cases Develop Evacuation Regions and Scenarios Step 15 Step 8 Execute DYNEV II to Compute ETE for All Create and Debug DYNEV II Input Stream Evacuation Cases Step 16 Step 9 Use DYNEV II Average Speed Output to Compute ETE for Transit and Special Facility Routes Execute DYNEV II for Prototype Evacuation Case Step 17 Documentation Step 18 Complete ETE Criteria Checklist Figure D-1. Flow Diagram of Activities NMP/JAF D-5 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate February 24, 2016

APPENDIX E Special Facility Data

E. SPECIAL FACILITY DATA Based on conversations with Exelon and Entergy, the database of facility data from May 2012 was maintained. The name of Oswego County BOCES and the Holiday Inn Express in Oswego, scheduled to open in mid-2016, have been updated. The following tables list population information for special facilities, transient attractions, recreational areas, and major employers that are located within the NMP/JAF EPZ. Special facilities are defined as schools, preschools, day camps, hospitals, other medical care facilities, and correctional facilities. Transient population data is included in the tables for recreational areas and lodging facilities.

Employment data is included in the tables for major employers. The location of the facility is defined by its straight-line distance (miles) and direction (magnetic bearing) from the center point of NMP/JAF. Maps of each school, preschools, day camp, medical facility, correctional facility, recreational area, lodging facility, and major employer are also provided.

N.MP/JAF E-1 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate February 24, 2016 l_ _ _ - - -

Table E-1. Schools, Preschools and Day Camp within the EPZ Distance ERPA {miles) Direction School Name Street Address Municipality Phone Enrollment Staff 1 1.1 WSW 1 (315) 343-6111 91 12 Ontario Bible Conference 385 Lakeview Rd Oswego 4 5.2 ESE New Haven Elementary School 4320 SR 104 New Haven (315) 963-8400 238 45 10 4.0 SSW School Age Children Care Program 5495 SR 104E Oswego (315) 342-6919 33 4 12 6.7 SW Charles E. Riley Elementary 268 E 8th St Oswego (315) 341-2980 497 75 12 6.2 SW Fitzhugh Park Elementary School 195 E Bridge St Oswego (315) 341-2940 416 70 12 6.4 SW Headstart of Oswego 43 E Schuyler St Oswego (315) 342-0629 80 11 12 6.7 SW Little Luke 's Ch ildcare Center 10 Burkle St Oswego (315) 342-4600 100 35 12 5.6 SW Oswego Community Christian School 400 E Albany St Oswego (315) 342-9322 76 20 12 6.5 SW Trinity Catholic School 115 E 5th St Oswego (315) 343-6700 173 30 13 8.0 SW Children's Center of SUNY Oswego 131 Sheldon Hall Oswego (315) 342-9322 100 16 13 7.7 SW Frederick Leighton Elementary School 1 Buccaneer Blvd Oswego (315) 341-2970 485 80 13 7.3 SW Kingsford Park Elementary 275 W 5th St Oswego (315) 341-2950 381 60 13 7.6 SW Oswego High School 2 Buccaneer Blvd Oswego (315) 341-2920 1,281 150 13 7.9 SW Oswego Middle School 100 Mark Fitzgibbons Dr Oswego (315) 341-2930 597 80 13 7.0 SW Oswego YMCA School's Out Program 249 W 1st St Oswego (315) 343-1981 60 5 16 9.5 ESE Mexico Elementary School 26 Academy St Mexico (315) 963-8400 358 65 16 9.7 ESE Mexico High School 3338 Main St Mexico (315) 963-8400 700 108 16 9.0 ESE Mexico Middle School 16 Fravor Rd Mexico (315) 963-8400 701 115 Center for Instructional Technology and 17 8.5 ESE Innovation (Oswego County BOCES) 2 176 CR 64 Oswego (315) 963-4481 446 100 21 9.4 SSW Minetto Elementary School 2411 CR 8 Minetto (315) 341-2960 367 78 3

22 8.0 SW SUNY Oswego 7060 SR 104 Oswego (315) 312-2500 8,300 1,721 4

S.R. 12.5 SSE Palermo Elementary School 1638 CR 45 Fulton (315) 963-8400 255 60 EPZTOTAL: 15,735 2,940 1

According to Oswego County officials, Ontario Bible Conference, included in this table, is a summer camp program for which they need transportation assistance . The rest of the year, the camp is open to retreats for family events for which they can furnish their own transportation .

2 Oswego County BOCES is now known as the Center for Instructional Technology and Innovation (Citi) .

3 All SUNY Oswego students including commuter students listed in Table E-4.

4 Palermo Elementary School is located in the Shadow Region, but will be evacuated according to Oswego County Emergency Plans .

NMP/JAF E-2 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate February 24, 2016

Table E-2. Medical Facilities within the EPZ Ambula- Wheel- Bed-Distance Direc- Capa- Current tory chair ridden ERPA (miles) tion Facility Name Street Address Municipality Phone city Census Patients Patients Patients Bishop Commons at St 12 6.8 SW Luke's 4 Burkle St Oswego (315) 349-0798 68 68 66 2 0 12 6.7 SW Ladies Home of Oswego 43 E Utica St Oswego (315) 343-6951 21 15 15 0 0 Oswego Hospital Behavioral 12 6.4 SW Health Services 74 Bunner St Oswego (315) 326-4100 28 17 15 2 0 12 6.8 SW Pontiac Nursing Home 303 E River Rd Oswego (315) 343-1800 80 80 25 55 0 12 6.8 SW Simeon-Dewitt Apts. 150 E 1st St Oswego (315) 343-0440 150 150 150 0 0 12 6.8 SW St Luke Health Services 299 E River Rd Oswego (315) 342-3166 200 192 57 115 20 12 6.7 SW Valehaven Home for Adults 24 E Oneida St Oswego (315) 342-3959 35 28 28 0 0 13 8.0 SW Morning Star Nursing Home 17 Sunrise Dr Oswego (315) 342-4790 120 117 17 96 4 13 7.2 SW Oswego Hospital 110W 6th St Oswego (315) 349-5526 100 65 55 7 3 13 6.9 SW Pontiac Terrace Apts 225 W 1st St Oswego (315) 342-1101 80 80 72 8 0 15 8.9 ESE Fravor Rd IRA 43 Fravor Rd Mexico (315) 963-3995 10 9 7 2 0 16 9.7 ESE Parkview Manor Apts 3313 Main St Mexico (315) 343-3167 24 24 23 1 0 17 8.6 ESE Sabill Drive IRA 9 Sabill Dr Mexico (315) 963-8529 6 6 5 1 0 20 8.9 SSW Springside at Seneca Hill 10 CR 45A Oswego (315) 343-5658 75 75 74 1 0 20 9.0 SSW The Manor at Seneca Hill 20 Manor Dr Oswego (315) 349-5300 120 116 0 116 0 21 9.1 SSW Minetto Senior Housing 12 Schuyler St Oswego (315) 343-2513 38 38 37 1 0 EPZTOTAL: 1,155 1,080 646 407 27 NMP/JAF E-3 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate February 24, 2016

Table E-3. Major Employers within the EPZ Distance Direc- Employees  % Non- Employees ERPA (miles) tion Facility Name Street Address Municipality Phone (max shift) EPZ (Non EPZ)

James A. Fitz Patrick Nuclear 1 0.0 N/A Power Plant 268 Lake Rd Oswego (315) 342-3840 450 57% 257 1 0.0 N/A Nine Mile Point Nuclear Station Lake Rd Oswego (315) 343-2110 724 60% 434 6 3.1 SW Novelis Corporation 448 CR lA Oswego (315) 342-0039 454 35% 159 6 4.3 SW Oswego Wire Inc. 1 Wire Dr Oswego (315) 343-0524 65 52% 34 12 4.8 SW Great Lakes Veneer 375 Mitchell St Oswego (315) 342-9178 47 52% 24 12 5.2 SW Lowe's Home Improvement 445 SR 104 Oswego (315) 326-5030 77 52% 40 12 6.8 SW St Luke Health Services 299 E River Rd Oswego (315) 349-0700 131 52% 68 12 5.6 SW Walmart 341 SR 104 Oswego (315) 342-6210 70 10% 7 13 7.6 SW Oswego Harbor Power LLC 261 Washington Blvd Oswego (315) 349-2200 53 52% 28 13 8.0 SW Sunrise Residential Healthcare 17 Sunrise Dr Oswego (315) 342-4790 88 52% 46 22 8.2 SW Eagle Beverage Co Inc. 1043 CR 25 Oswego (315) 343-9464 54 52% 28 22 8.3 SW SUNY Oswego 7060 SR 104 Oswego (315) 312-2500 1,132 52% 589 EPZTOTAL: 3,345 - 1,714 NMP/JAF E-4 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate February 24, 2016

Table E-4. Recreational Attractions and Commuter Colleges within the EPZ Distance Direc-ERPA (miles) tion Facility Name Facility Type Street Address Municipality Phone Transients Vehicles 4 4.4 E Catfish Creek Fishing Camps Campground 118 Chase Drive New Haven (315) 963-7310 68 24 4 4.4 E Catfish Creek Fishing Camps Marina Marina 118 Chase Drive New Haven (315) 963-7310 22 18 6 3.2 SW K & G Lodge Campground 1881 CR 1 Oswego (315) 343-8171 242 69 6 3.8 SW Tamarak Golf Club Golf 2021 CR 1 Oswego (315) 315-3426 24 16 7 6.8 E Dewie Dale Campground Campground Dewie Dale Beach Rd Mexico (315) 963-7895 670 272 7 6.8 E Dewie Dale Marina Marina Dewie Dale Beach Rd Mexico (315) 963-7895 74 62 12 6.6 SW Oswego Marina Marina 3 Basin Street Oswego (315) 342-0436 71 59 12 5.8 SW Oswego Speedway Race Track 300 E Albany St. Oswego (315) 343: 3329 2,440 1,021 13 7.2 SW Oswego Country Club Golf 610 W 1st Street Oswego (315) 343-4664 35 23 13 6.9 SW Oswego Internati onal Marina Marina 19 Lake Street Oswego (315) 343-0086 84 70 13 6.9 SW Wright's Landing Marina Marina Lake Street Oswego (315) 342-8186 191 160 14 10.9 E Bears Sleepy Hollow State Park Campground 7065 SR 3 Pulaski (315) 298-5560 121 43 14 10.3 E Chedmard o Campsite Campground 110 Patrick Dr Pulaski (315) 298-5739 188 75 14 10.9 E Selkirk Shores State Park Campground 7101 SR 3 Pulaski (315) 298-5737 34 11 15 7.7 E Mexico Point State Boat Launch Marina 245 CR 40 Mexico (315) 963-3656 66 55 15 8.0 E Mike' s Marina Sales & Servi ce Marina 266 SR l04B Mexico (315) 963-3119 131 110 15 8.0 E Mike's Marina Sales & Service Campground 266 SR 1048 Mexico (315) 963-3119 10 3 Salmon Country Inc. Marina & 58 Mexico Point Dr 15 7.8 E Campground Campground West Mexico (315) 963-8049 102 36 Salm on Country Inc. Marina & 58 Mexico Point Dr 15 7.8 E Campground Marina West Mexico (315) 963-8049 109 91 15 7.6 E Yellow Rose Campground Campground 159 Ladd Rd Mexico (315) 963-2060 38 15 15 8.1 ESE Yogi Bear's Jellystone Park Campground 601 CR 16 Mexico (315) 963-7096 300 105 15 8.0 ESE Yogi Bear's Jellystone Park Marina 601 CR 16 Mexico (315) 963-7096 22 18 22 8.0 SW SUNY Oswego 5 Commuter College 7060 SR 104 Oswego (315) 312-2500 2,349 2,155 EPZTOTAL: 7,391 4,511 5

See Section 3.1.1 for details on SUNY Oswego.

NMP/JAF E-5 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate February 24, 2016

Table E-5. Lodging Facilities within the EPZ Distance Direc-ERPA (miles) tion Facility Name Street Address Municipality Phone Transients Vehicles 5 3.9 s All Seasons Motel 5422 SR 104 Oswego (315) 342-9771 54 21 7 5.2 ESE Sticks Sports Bar/Grill and Motel 3738 CR 6 New Haven (315) 963-3084 40 20 10 3.6 SSE Evergreen Motel 5047 SR 104 Oswego (315) 343-6880 32 24 12 6.7 SW Best Western Captain's Quarters 26 E 1st St Oswego (315) 342-4040 200 109 12 5.9 SW Holiday Inn Express 6 E 13th St & SR 104E Oswego N/A 180 88 12 5.9 SW Knights Inn 101 SR 104E Oswego (315) 343-3136 135 44 12 6.2 SW Oswego Inn 180 E 10th St Oswego (315) 342-6200 30 13 12 6.7 SW Quality Inn and Suites 70 E 1st St Oswego (315) 343-1600 200 92 13 7.1 SW Beacon Hotel 75 W Bridge St Oswego (315) 343-3300 42 14 13 8.0 SW The Thomas Inn 309 W Seneca St Oswego (315) 343-4900 100 71 14 11.3 ENE Port Lodge Motel 7351 SR 3 Pulaski (315) 298-6876 91 45 EPZTOTAL: 1,104 541 N/A = Not Available Table E-6. Correctional Facilities within the EPZ Distance Direc- Capa-ERPA (miles) tion Facility Name Street Address Municipality Phone city Oswego County 12 Correctional Facil ity 39 Churchill Rd (315) 349-3302 160 EPZTOTAL: 160 6

See Section 3.3 for details on the Holiday Inn Express, opening in mid-2016 .

NMP/JAF E-6 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate February 24, 2016

10 Schools and Preschools within the Nine Mile Point &

James A. FitzPatrick EPZ N

/w--¢"-*

28

/.~**

fc,;

27

,_ ('

Ott-26 l .,l ,,,.

______...,.___ 1 ----~

See Figure E-2

\

\

\

O.te* 2/22/2016 0

Copynght: BR:I Buem*p Oat,

~

KLO Engineering, he lon Generlt,on, Entersv

/( Parish Legend I I

• ~

.C NMP/JAF School Preschool/Day Camp Mexico ligh School 9 Mexico Berrentary School 10 Mexico Mddle School

/

/

/

/

/

/

(' - , I 2, 5, 10, 15 Mile Ring s 11 New Haven Berrentary School /

m- - - -1~2+c-Pa-le-rm:i

-= 8-erre

-n- ta_ r y _ S c _ h _ o o - l - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -<r /

0 ERPA 38 School Age 0,/dren Care R-ogram 105 Ontario Bible Conference Shadow Region 168 Center for Instructional Technology and Innovation (Oswego County BOCES) 0 Figure E-1. Schools, Preschools and Day Camp within the EPZ NMP/JAF E-7 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate February 24, 2016

-.YddltR_;__.

Schools within the Nine Mile Point i'

& James A. FitzPatrick EPZ i f j 5 Lake 6 OntoriO f

-~

28

$3'f'ROUte104 0

' ' !1 i

' i s~i'e,r ..

..... . ~

f 11 -... \ -'

• c.,S, 10 L

A 147

! .~

~

</!

12 63

~

......... ~

i ,a#eS\

\., <(, Map No.* Facility Name 1 Oswego Hgh School 2 Oswego Mddle School 4 Fitzhugh Park Berrentary School 6 Kingsford Park Berrentary Legend CMc.hR,dgdRd 7 Minetto Serrentary School 13 Oswego Community O,ristian School

• \ ... 53 Children 's C.enter of SUNY Oswego NMP/JAF 21 Little Luke's Oiildcare Center 63 (El Pre-School 147 Charles E RIiey Berrentary

! School \ Afineuo 148 152 Frederick Leighton 8 errentary School Trinity Cathoi c School r _-./ 2, s, 10 Mile Rings ' ' 155 157 Headstart of Oswego Oswego Y we.A School's Out A"ogram GJ ERPA Fum..ss Sta,~ R~

165 SUNY Oswego Shadow Region f)jte-'9/7/2012 Copyrl1ht. BAI B1sem1p D1U1 KLD Entinet!'ring. Con,tebtion E~rgy, En1erey lo 2 Miles I Figure E-2. Schools and Preschools within the City of Oswego NMP/JAF E-8 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate February 24, 2016

Medical Facilities within the Nine Mile Point &

James A. FitzPatrick EPZ Map No .

• Facility Name 16

/

Oswego Hospital 132 Bishop Conrrons at St Luke's 133 Fravor Rd IRA 134 Ladies Horre of Oswego 135 Oswego Hospital Behavioral Health Services 136 Fbntiac Terrace Apts 137 Sabin Drive IRA if 138 The Manor at Seneca HII # /

139 Sirreon- Dew ijt Apts .

140 St Luke Health Services 26 i' 14 1 M::>rning Star Nursing l-lorre "'

142 Valehaven Horre fa, Adults I{

143 Fbntiac i'i.Jrs ing Harre 144 Springside at Seneca HII I 145 Parkview Manor Apts I

146

\

\

\

Legend

• • rn NMP/ JAF Hospital Medical Fa cility

(' _ -,/ 2, 5, 10, 15 Mile Rin gs GJ ERPA Shadow Region Figure E-3. Medical Facilities within the EPZ NMP/JAF E-9 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate February 24, 2016

Major Employers within the Nine Mile Point

James A. FitzPatrick EPZ ~ 10,Miles w--¢-- e/ *10*

I

/ '/ /'"'

t"' 29

(

28

~

/ ......

26 l' r(,

t Lake I Ontar/0

~

\

I 1

i "'

Jarres A. Fitz.Patrk;k Nuclear A:>w er Rant 115 Eagle Beverage Co Inc .

116 Great Lakes Veneer Legend 117 Oswego Harbor Fbw er LLC 11 8 Oswego Wire Inc 119 Sl.ffl Oswego

~

N M P/JA F 122 W.lrrart 125 St Luke Health Services Major Employer 126 Sunrise Res idential t-lealthcare

(' _ - , I 2, 5, 10 Mi le Rings 20 127 Low e's 1-'orre lrrproverrent 166 Nine Mle Fbint Nuclear Slatkin GJ ERPA 167 r,.,b.,elis Corporation 0 10 Sha dow Regio n Miles Figure E-4. Major Employers within the EPZ NMP/JAF E- 10 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate February 24, 2016

Recreationa l Facilities within the Nine Mile Point &

James A. FitzPatrick EPZ Map No. ' Facility Nam e 17 Salm,n Country Inc . Marina & Carrpground 18 II.lex ico Point State Boat Launch 20 Oswego International 1v1arina 22 \Nright's Landing Marina 23 Salm,n Country Inc. Marina & Carrpground 24 Oswego tv'iarina 79 Os w ego Speedway 85 Yogi Bear's Jellystone Park 86 87 88 93 94 Yogi Bear's Jellystone Park Catfish Oeek Fishing Camps Catfish Oeek Fishing Camps Marina D:,w ie Dale Carrpground D:,w ie Dale Marina 8

"y*****

Ontano 96 Mkes Marina Sales & Service 0°'

97 Mke's Marina Sales & Service 1 / ......

98 Selkirk Shores State Park 26 i:

(

100 Yelow Rose Carrpground 101 Bears Sleepy 1-bllow State Park "'

102 Oiedrmrdo Campsite 103 K& G Lodge 165 SUNY Oswego 169 Oswego Country Oub q:

170 Tarmrak Golf Oub ~., I

'11' Legend 5

~

~ '

NMP/ JAF Campgrou nd Golf

@ Mar ina (I

~ Speedway

.t School 20

(

0 --- 2, 5, 10 Mile Rines ERPA Shad ow Region Figure E-5. Recreational Facilities and Commuter Colleges within the EPZ NMP/JAF E-11 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimat e February 24, 2016

Lodging Facilities within the Nine Mile Point &

James A. FitzPatrick EPZ 10 s ~ ,,;,,1es I

I I

/~ .,~e I l" 29 28

/

Lake /~,t,J,i\OS 26 Ont/

I" 1

(

l Lake Ontario

~

I

<J.l I

0

\ j OS)xego  !('

i I!'

\ Oswego Inn 28 Beacon Hotel Legend 29 Best Western Captain's Quarters 30 An Seasons Motel nn 31 The Therres NMP/JAF 32 Knights Inn 80 QJality lnn and Suites e

f Lodgi ng 81 Blergreen Motel 84 R:>r1 Lodge Motel I'_- . I 2, 5, 10, 15 Mile Rings 90 Sticks Sports Bar/Grill and Motel GJ ERPA 171 Holiday hn Ex press 0.. 1e: l/2S/2016 Shadow Region 1 C.Opyr11ht: ESRIBneffilllpDihl 0 10 KLO Eng1neerlnc, Eli1!1on Gener,tlor,. Entugy Miles Figure E-6. Lodging Facilities within the EPZ NMP/JAF E-12 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate February 24, 2016

~l/

<>su'<'y11 County Correctional Facilities within the Nine Mile Point &

James A. FitzPatrick EPZ N /

w~ y l s /

I I

I I

'11 '

I I

Legend I

• NMP/ JAF Correctional Facility I

\

I I

('_-.I 2, 5, 10, 15 Mi le Rings GJ ERPA Shadow Region

\*

O..te: 1/19/2016 Co\ivright: ESRJBasem1 p 01ta Facility Nam e Oswego County Correctional Faciity 10 KlO Engineering. helon Gener ation, Entergy Mites Figure E-7. Correctional Facilities within the EPZ NMP/JAF E-13 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate February 24, 2016

APPENDIX F Telephone Survey

F. TELEPHONE SURVEY F.1 Introduction The development of evacuation time estimates for the NMP/JAF EPZ requires the identification of travel patterns, car ownership and household size of the population within the EPZ.

Demographic information can be obtained from Census data. The use of this data has several limitations when applied to emergency planning. First, the Census data does 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 does not contain attitudinal responses needed from the population of the EPZ and co nsequently may not accurately represent the anticipated behavioral characteristics of the evacuating populace .

Th ese concerns are addressed by conducting a telephone survey of a representative sample of th e EPZ population. The survey is designed to elicit information from the public concerning fa mily 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 qu estions regarding activities with which the respondent is familiar ("How long does it take you t 0 ....7")

NMP/ JAF F-1 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate February 24, 2016

F.2 Survey Instrument and Sampling Plan Attachment A presents the final survey instrument used in this study. Following the completion of the instrument, a sampling plan was developed . A sample size of approximately 500 completed survey form s yields results with a sampling error of +/-4.5% at the 95% confidence level. The sample must be drawn from the EPZ population . Consequently, a list of zip codes in th e EPZ was developed using GIS software . Th is 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 bounda ry, again using GIS software . The proportional number of desired completed survey interviews for each area was identified, as shown in Table F-1. Note that the average household size computed in Table F-1 was an estimate for sampling purposes and was not used in the ETE study.

The completed survey adhered to the sampling plan . The survey discussed herein was performed in 2012 for the Development of Evacuation Time Estimates Techn ical Report - KLD TR - 521, dated November 2012 . The EPZ population has decreased by about 1.11 percent (an est imated 464 people) between 2012, when the survey was conducted, and 2015. As such, demographics within the EPZ have not significantly changed since 2012 and consequently, the use of the 2012 telephone results can be justified on this basis .

Table F-1. NMP/JAF Telephone Survey Sampling Plan Population within Required Zip Code EPZ (2010) Households Sample 13036 84 36 1 13069 1,640 621 20 13114 5,465 2,096 68 13126 34,515 12,620 408 13142 183 78 3 Average Household Size: 2.52 Total Sample Required: 500 Th e preliminary determination of whether a household was located inside the EPZ was based on " land-line" t elephone listings with street addresses . Telephone surveys were then conducted using those numbers, selected in random order, until the target level of surveys was completed, or the entire calling list was exhausted . Rejections or households outside the EPZ were discarded . Numbers with "no answer" were re -cycled for up to ten attempts in different ti me windows .

NM P/JAF F-2 KLD Engineeri ng, P.C.

Eva cuat ion Time Estim ate February 24, 2016

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 2.39 people. The estimated household size (2 .52 persons) used to determine the survey sample (Table F-1) was drawn from 2010 Census data. The close agreement between the average household size obtained from the survey and from the Census is an indication of the reliability of the survey.

Household Size 50%

~ 40%

..c QJ g 30%

c

~ 20%

C QJ u

lii 10%

a.

0%

1 2 3 4 S+

People Figure F-1. Household Size in the EPZ NMP/JAF F-3 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate February 24, 2016

Automobile Ownership The average number of automobiles available per household in the EPZ is 1.81. It should be noted that approximately 6.6 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.

Vehicle Availability 50%

~

"' 40%

0

.r; CII

~ 30%

0

c

~ 20%

C CII

~ 10%

CL 0%

0 1 2 3 4+

Vehicles Figure F-2. Household Vehicle Availability NMP/JAF F-4 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Eva cuation Time Estimate February 24, 2016

Distribution of Vehicles by HH Size 1-5 Person Households

• 1 Person

• 2 People

• 3 People

• 4 People

• 5 People 100%

"C"'

o

.c 80%

QI

"'g 60%

I:

0 C:

QI 40%

~ 20%

QI C.

0%

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9+

Vehicles Figure F-3. Vehicle Availability - 1 to 5 Person Households Distribution of Vehicles by HH Size 6-9+ Person Households

• 6 People

• 7 People

• 8 People

• 9+ People 100%

"C"'

0 80%

.c QI

"':::, 60%

0

I:

0 C:

QI 40%

...u QI 20%

C.

0%

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9+

Vehicles Figure F-4. Vehicle Availability - 6 to 9+ Person Households NMP/JAF F-5 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate February 24, 2016

Ri desharing 89% of the households surveyed who do not own a vehicle responded that they would share a ri de with a neighbor, relative, or frie nd if a car was not available to them when advised to evacuate in the event of an emergency. Note, however, that only those households with no access to a veh icle or refused to answer the question regarding vehicle availability - 28 total re sponses were gathered out of the sample size of 500 - answered this question. Thus, the results are not statistically significant. As such, the NRC recommendation of 50% ridesharing is used throughout this study. Figure F-5 presents this response.

Rideshare with Neighbor/Friend 100%

"' 80%

"C 0

.c CII

"':I0 60%

J:

0 C

CII 40%

...u CII

0. 20%

0%

Yes No Figure F-5. Household Ridesharing Preference NMP/ JAF F-6 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Est imate Fe bruary 24, 2016

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 0.98 commuters in each household in the EPZ, and 56% of households have at least one commuter.

Commuters Per Household 50%

20 40%

.r; (lj

"':I 30%

0

c:

0 20%

C (lj

...u (lj 10%

Q.

0%

0 1 2 3 4+

Commuters Figure F-6. Commuters in Households in the EPZ NMP/ JAF F-7 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate February 24, 2016

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 trave l to work. The data shows an average of 1.09 employees per vehicle, assuming 2 people per vehicle - on average - for carpools.

Commuter Evacuation Response 100%

80%

Ill CII E 60%

E 0

u 0

40%

C CII CII Q.

20%

0%

Bus Walk/Bi ke Drive Alone Carpool (2+)

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 1.24 vehicles .

"Would your family await the return of other family members prior to evacuating the area?"

Of t he survey participants who responded, 45 percent said they would await the return of other family members before evacuating and 55 percent indicated that they would not await the return of other family members.

"If you had a household pet, would you take your pet with you if you were asked to evacuate the area?" Based on the responses from the survey, 77 percent of households do have a family pet. Of the households with pets, 94 percent of them indicated that they would take their pets, as shown in Figure F-9.

NMP/JAF F-8 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate February 24, 2016

Evacuating Vehicles Per Household 100%

80%

"O "'

0

~

(II 60%

0

c 0

C (II 40%

...u (II C. 20%

0%

0 1 2 3+

Vehicles Figure F-8. Evacuating Vehicl es per Household Households Evacuating with Pets 100%

"O"' 80%

0

~

(II

"':::, 60%

0

c 0

C (II 40%

u cii C. 20%

0%

Yes No Figure F-9. Households Evacuating w it h Pets NM P/JAF F-9 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate February 24, 2016

"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 pl ace. The results indicate that 79 percent of households who are advised to shelter in place would do so; the remaining 21 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 70 percent of households would follow instructions and delay the start of evacuation until so advised, while the balance of 30 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 w ithin 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.

NMP/JAF F-10 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate February 24, 2016

"How long does it take the commuter to complete preparation for leaving work?" Figure F-10 presents the cumulative distribution; in all cases, the activity is completed by about 60 minutes.

85 percent can leave within 20 minutes.

Time to Prepare to Leave Work 100%

..."'...cu

I 80%

E E 60%

0 u

0 40%

C cu cu 20%

c..

0%

0 10 20 30 40 so 60 Preparation Time (min)

Figure F-10. Time Required to Prepare to Leave Work/School "How long would it take the commuter to travel home?" Figure F-11 presents the work to home travel time for the EPZ. About 90 percent of commuters can arrive home within about 40 minutes of leaving work; all within 90 minutes.

Work to Home Travel 100%

..."'...cu

I 80%

E E 60%

0 u

0 40%

C cu cu 20%

c..

0%

0 20 40 60 80 Travel Time (min)

Figure F-11. Work to Home Travel Time NMP/JAF F-11 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuati on Time Est imate February 24, 2016

"How long would it take the family to pack clothing, secure the house, and load the car?"

Figure F-12 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-12 has a long "tail." About 90 percent of households can be ready to leave home w ithin 60 minutes; the remaining households require up to an additional 75 minutes.

Preparation Time w ith Everyone Home 100%

Ill "C 80%

0 QI Ill

, 60%

0 J:

0 C

QI 40%

...u QI 20%

0..

0%

0 30 60 90 120 Preparation Time (min)

Figure F-12. Time to Prepare Home for Evacuation NM P/JAF F-12 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate February 24, 2016

___J

"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 th e street. Figure F-13 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 90 percent of driveways are passable within 45 minutes. The last driveway is cleared 150 minutes after the start of this activity. Note that those respondents (53%) who answered that they would not take time to clear their driveway were assumed to be ready immediately at the start of th is act ivity. Essentially they would drive through the snow on the driveway to access the roadway and begin their evacuation trip .

Time to Remove Snow from Driveway 100%

~

~

1 0

80%

60% l-,,,,,,,

/

--:::;a;,c.-- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

-c

c 0

CII 40%

u CII C.

20%

0%

0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 Time (min)

Figure F-13. Time to Clear Driveway of 6"-8" of Snow F.4 Conclusions Th e telephone survey provides valuable, relevant data associated with the EPZ population, wh ich have been used to quantify demographics specific to the EPZ, and "mobilization time" wh ich can influence evacuation t ime estimates .

NM P/JAF F-13 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Eva cuation Time Estim ate February 24, 2016

ATTACHMENT A Telephone Survey Instrument NMP/JAF F-14 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate February 24, 2016

Telephone Survey Instrument Hello, my name is and I' m working on a survey for COL 1 Unused your county emergency management agency to identify local COL. 2 Unused behavior during emergency situations. This information wi ll be COL. 3 Unused used for emergency planning and will be shared with local officials to enhance emergency response plans in your area for all hazards; COL. 4 Unused emergency planning for some hazards may require evacuation . COL 5 Unused Your responses will greatly contribute to local emergency Sex COL. 8 preparedness. I will not ask for your name or any personal 1 Male information, and the survey wil l take less than 10 minutes to co m plete . 2 Fema le INTERVIEWER : ASK TO SPEAK TO THE HEAD OF HOUSEHOLD OR THE SPOUSE OF THE HEAD OF HOUSEH OLD.

(Terminate call if not a residence .)

DO NOT ASK :

lA. Record area code . To Be Determined COL. 9-11

18. 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 COL 20 SKIP TO vehicles are usually ava il able 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. 38 X DON'T KNOW/ REFUSED Q. 38 38 . 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 usua lly 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 TH IRTEEN 5 FIVE 4 FOURTEEN 6 SIX 5 FIFTEEN NM P/JAF F-15 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Ev acuation Time Estimate February 24, 2016

__J

7 SEVEN 6 SIXTEEN 8 EIGHT 7 SEVENTEEN 9 NINE 8 EIGHTEEN 9 NINETEEN OR MORE X DON'T KNOW/REFUSED

5. How many drivers 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. Th inking 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 t ime 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 BETWEEN 1 HOUR 31 BETWEEN 1 HOUR 31 6 26-30 MINUTES 6 MINUTES AND 1 HOUR 6 26-30 MINUTES 6 MINUTES AND 1 45 MINUTES HOUR 45 MINUTES NMP/JAF F-16 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate February 24, 2016

BETWEEN 1 HOUR 46 BETWEEN 1 HOUR 46 7 31-35 MINUTES 7 MINUTES AND 2 7 31-35 MINUTES 7 MINUTES AND 2 HOURS HOURS OVER 2 HOURS OVER 2 HOURS 8 36-40 MINUTES 8 8 36-40 MINUTES 8 (SP ECIFY _ _ ) (SPECIFY _ _ )

9 41-45 MINUTES 9 9 41-45 MINUTES 9 0 0 DON 'T KNOW DON'T KNOW X X

/REFUSED /REFUSED NM P/JAF F-17 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate February 24, 2016

COMMUTER#3 COMMUTER #4 COL. 33 COL. 34 COL. 35 COL. 36 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 BETWEEN 1 HOUR 31 BETWEEN 1 HOUR 31 6 26-30 MINUTES 6 MINUTES AND 1 HOUR 6 26-30 MINUTES 6 MINUTES AND 1 45 MINUTES HOUR 45 MINUTES BETWEEN 1 HOUR 46 BETWEEN 1 HOUR 46 7 31-35 MINUTES 7 MINUTES AND 2 7 31-35 MINUTES 7 MINUTES AND 2 HOURS HOURS OVER 2 HOURS OVER 2 HOURS 8 36-40 MINUTES 8 8 36-40 MINUTES 8 (SPECIFY _ _ ) (SPECIFY _ _ )

9 41-45 MINUTES 9 9 41-45 MINUTES 9 0 0 DON 'T KNOW DON'T KNOW X X

/REFUSED /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 COL. 38 COL. 39 COL. 40 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 BETWEEN 1 HOUR 31 BETWEEN 1 HOUR 31 6 26-30 MINUTES 6 MINUTES AND 1 HOUR 6 26-30 MINUTES 6 MINUTES AND 1 45 MINUTES HOUR 45 MINUTES BETWEEN 1 HOUR 46 BETWEEN 1 HOUR 46 7 31-35 MINUTES 7 MINUTES AND 2 7 31-35 MINUTES 7 MINUTES AND 2 HOURS HOURS OVER 2 HOURS OVER 2 HOURS 8 36-40 MINUTES 8 8 36-40 MINUTES 8 (SPECIFY _ _ ) (SPECIFY _ _ )

9 41-45 MINUTES 9 9 41-45 MINUTES 9 0 0 NMP/ JAF F-18 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate February 24, 2016

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

8 36-40 MINUTES 8 __)

9 41-45 MINUTES 9 9 41-45 MINUTES 9 0 0 X DON'T KNOW /REFUSED X DON'T KNOW /REFUSED

9. If you were advised by local authorities to evacuate, how much t ime would it take the household to pack clothing, medications, secure the house, load the car, and comp lete 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 6 1 HOUR 16 MINUTES TO 1 HOUR 30 MINUTES 6 4 HOURS 16 MINUTES TO 4 HOURS 30 MINUTES 7 1 HOUR 31 MINUTES TO 1 HOUR 45 MINUTES 7 4 HOURS 31 MINUTES TO 4 HOURS 45 MINUTES 8 1 HOUR 46 MINUTES TO 2 HOURS 8 4 HOURS 46 MINUTES TO 5 HOURS 9 2 HOURS TO 2 HOURS 15 MINUTES 9 5 HOURS TO 5 HOURS 30 MINUTES 0 2 HOURS 16 MINUTES TO 2 HOURS 30 MINUTES 0 5 HOURS 31 M INUTES TO 6 HOURS X 2 HOURS 31 MINUTES TO 2 HOURS 45 MINUTES X OVER 6 HOURS (SPECIFY y 2 HOURS 46 MINUTES TO 3 HOURS z WILL NOT EVACUATE (Optional response) COL. 47 1 DON'T KNOW/REFUSED NMP/JAF F- 19 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate February 24, 2016

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 LESS THAN lS MINUTES 1 OVER 3 HOURS (SPECIFY _ __

2 15-30 MINUTES 2 DON'T KNOW/REFUSED 3 31-45 MINUTES 4 46 MINUTES- 1 HOUR 5 1 HOUR TO 1 HOUR 15 MINUTES 6 1 HOUR 16 MINUTES TO 1 HOUR 30 MINUTES 7 1 HOUR 31 MINUTES TO 1 HOUR 45 MINUTES 8 1 HOUR 46 MINUTES TO 2 HOURS 9 2 HOURS TO 2 HOURS 15 MINUTES 0 2 HOURS 16 MINUTES TO 2 HOURS 30 MINUTES X 2 HOURS 31 MINUTES TO 2 HOURS 45 M INUTES y 2 HOURS 46 MINUTES TO 3 HOURS z NO, WILL NOT SHOVEL OUT

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

1 A A. I wou ld await the return of household 2 B commuters to evacuate together.

B. I would evacuate independently and meet X DON'T KNOW/REFUSED other household members later.

12 . How many veh icles would your household use during an evacuation? (DO NOT READ ANSWERS)

COL. 51 1 ONE 2 TWO 3 THREE 4 FOUR 5 FIVE 6 SIX 7 SEVEN 8 EIGHT 9 NINE OR MORE 0 ZERO (NONE)

X DON'T KNOW/REFUSED NMP/JAF F-20 KLD Engineeri ng, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate February 24, 2016

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 138. Emergency officials advise you to take shelter at home now in COL. 53 an emergency and possibly evacuate later while people in 1 A other areas are advised to evacuate now . Would you : (READ 2 B ANSWERS)

X DON'T KNOW/REFUSED A. SHELTER; or B. EVACUATE

14. 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 1 DON'T HAVE A PET 2 YES 3 NO X DON'T KNOW/REFUSED Than k you very much . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __

(TELEPHONE NUMBER CALLED)

IF REQUESTED :

For additional information, contact your County Emergency Management Agency during normal business hours .

County EMA Phone Oswego 1-800-962-2792 NMP/JAF F-21 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate February 24, 2016

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 Oswego County.

These plans were reviewed and the TCPs were modeled accordingly.

G.1 Traffic Control Points As discussed in Section 9, traffic control points at intersections (which are controlled) are modeled as actuated signals. If an intersection has a 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 Traffic Control Point, the control type is indicated as "TCP-Actuated" or "TCP-Uncontrolled" in Table K-2 . The TCPs within the study area are mapped in Figure G-1.

G.2 Access Control Points It is assumed that Access Control Points (ACPs), also known as TCPs to Prohibit EPZ Ingress, 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. In this analysis, as discussed in Section 3.6, external traffic was considered on the major through route which traverses the study area, 1-81.

In the simulation, the generation of the external trips on 1-81 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 due to the ACPs .

Figure G-1 maps the ACPs identified in the county emergency plans. These ACPS are concentrated on roadways giving access to the EPZ. Theses ACPs would be manned during evacuation by traffic guides who would direct evacuees in the proper direction away from NMP/JAF and facilitate the flow of traffic through the intersections.

This study did not identify any additional intersections that should be identified as TCPs or ACPs .

NMP/JAF G-1 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Est imate February 24, 2016

Traffic and Access Control Points - - - w-<r,

/

/ '

/ '

/

/ '

/ Lake

/

I I

I I

I I

I I

I 26 /

I I

I L

I Lake I

Ontario

.,-oj!

\

\ I

\

Legend

,. VI '"' I

~

I ansh

~~

I

.,. I

(}§' ' /

~" i -

• • • NMP/JAF Traffic Control Point Access Control Point

,/

~t:i, ..

<-;,,a ii "

~~

/

/

/

<cc ' /

GJ ER PA l.04) '

/

I... _,. 2, 5, 10, 15 Mile Rings ""V,!9/,:,~ n i b a l Shadow Region 0 0 10

'°'1vrii~t ESlll811M!p011!11!,._ I Miles KLOEnglnetrlng.ExelonGtner.,tion. En1tr1v Figure G-1. Traffic and Access Control Points for NMP/JAF NMP/JAF G-2 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate February 24, 2016

APPENDIX H Evacuation Regions

H EVACUATION REGIONS This appendix presents the evacuation percentages for each Evacuation Region (Table H-1) and maps of all Evacuation Regions (Figure H-1 through Figure H-29). 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 .

NM P/JAF H-1 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Eva cuation Time Estimate February 24, 2016

Table H-1. Percent of Sub-Area Population Evacuating for Each Region ERPA Region Description 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 ROl 2-Mile Radius 20% 20% 20% 20% 20% 20% 20% 20% 20% 20% 20% 20% 20% 100% 100% 20% 20%

R02 5-Mile Radius 20% 20% 20% 20 % 20% 20% 20% 20% 20% 20% 20% 20% 20% 100% 100% 20% 20%

R03 Full EPZ ERP A Region Wind Direction From 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 E. ESE, SE, SSE, S, N/A Refer to ROl SSW,SW,WSW R04 w 20% 20% 20% 20% 20% 20% 20% 20% 20% 20% 20% 20% 20% 100% 100% 20% 20%

ROS WNW 20% 20% 20% 20% 20% 20% 20% 20% 20% 20% 20% 20% 20% 100% 100% 20% 20%

R06 NW, NNW 20% 20% 20% 20% 20% 20% 20% 20% 20% 20% 20% 20% 20% 100% 100% 20% 20%

R07 N 20% 20% 20% 20% 20% 20% 20% 20 % 20% 20% 20% 20% 20% 100% 100% 20% 20%

ROS NNE 20% 20% 20% 20% 20% 20% 20% 20 % 20% 20% 20% 20% 20% 100% 100% 20% 20%

R09 NE 20% 20% 20% 20% 20% 20% 20% 20% 20% 20% 20% 20% 20% 100% 100% 20% 20%

RlO ENE 20% 20% 20% 20% 20% 20% 20% 20% 20% 20% 20% 20% 20% 100% 100% 20% 20%

Region Wind Direction From 10 11 12 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 RU E, ESE , SE 20% 20% 20% 20% 20 % 20% 20% 20% 20% 20% 20% 20% 20% 100% 100% 100% 20%

R12 SSE , S, SSW 20% 20% 20% 20 % 20% 20% 20% 20% 20% 20% 20% 20% 100% 100% 100% 100%

RB SW 20% 20% 20% 20% 20% 20% 20% 20% 20% 20% 100% 100% 20% 100%

R14 WSW 20% 20% 20% 20% 20% 20% 100% 100% 20% 100%

RlS w 20% 20% 20% 20% 100% 100% 20% 100%

R16 WNW 20% 20% 20% 20% 100% 100% 20% 100%

R17 NW 100% 100% 20% 20 %

R18 NNW 100% 100% 20% 20%

R19 N 100% 100% 20% 20%

R20 NNE, NE 100% 100% 100% 20%

R21 ENE 100% 100% 100% 20%

ERPA Region Wind Direction From 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 E, ESE , SE, SSE, S, N/A Refer to ROl SSW,SW,WSW R22 w 20% 20% 20% 20% 20% 20% 20% 20 % 20% 20% 20% 20% 20% 100% 100% 20% 20%

R23 WNW 20% 20% 20% 20% 20% 20% 20% 20% 20% 20% 20% 20% 20% 100% 100% 20% 20%

R24 NW, NNW 20% 20% 20% 20% 20% 20% 20% 20% 20% 20% 20% 20% 20% 100% 100% 20% 20%

R2S N 20% 20% 20% 20% 20% 20% 20% 20% 20% 20% 20% 20% 20% 100% 100% 20% 20%

R26 NNE 20% 20% 20% 20% 20% 20% 20% 20 % 20% 20% 20% 20% 20% 100% 100% 20% 20%

R27 NE 20% 20% 20% 20% 20% 20% 20% 20 % 20% 20% 20% 20% 20% 100% 100% 20% 20%

R28 ENE 20% 20% 20% 20% 20% 20% 20% 20 % 20% 20% 20% 20% 20% 100% 100% 20% 20%

R29 5-Mile Radius 20% 20% 20% 20% 20% 20% 20% 20 % 20% 20% 20% 20% 20% 100% 100% 20% 20%

NM P/JAF H-2 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Eva cuati on Tim e Estim ate February 24, 20 16

J Region Ro1 J Lak<-On1,mo I I I ERPA:29

/

/

Legend NMP/JAF ERPA Evacuate

'--:::. 2, 5, 10 Mile Rings

- - Sector Boun dary

'\

O.te VB/ 201 6 Copyrig~ £SRI ~ 1u, and Maops 2014 IUD [ ncmonng. htlon G_r,tlon, Enttrgv 10 Miles Figure H-1. Region ROl NMP/JAF H-3 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate February 24, 2016

IRegion R02 I Lake Unlurio I I

ERPA: 29

/

/

Legend NMP/JAF ERPA Evacuate

, -:::. 2, 5, 10 M ile Rings

- - Sector Boundary Figure H-2. Region R02 NMP/JAF H-4 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate February 24, 2016

I Region R03 I Lake (}111aru> I ERPA 23, 24 & 25 Evacuate Legend NMP/JAF ERPA Evacuate

'--:::. 2, 5, 10 Mile Rings

- - Sector Boundary 10 Miles Figure H-3, Region R03 NMP/JAF H-5 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate February 24, 2016

IRegion R04 I lake Unrorw I \'nrth Pond I

ERPA: 29

/

/

Legend NMP/JAF ERPA Eva cuate

'--:::. 2, 5, 10 Mi le Rings

- - Sector Boundary Figure H-4. Region R04 NMP/JAF H-6 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estim ate Feb ru ary 24, 2016

IRegion Ros ! Lake Umarw I ERPA: 29

/

/

Legend NMP/JAF ERPA Evacuate

_. 2, 5, 10 M ile Rings

- - Sector Boundary 1

0111: 1/8/2016 Copyricht; ~ ~RI~~ and M1p1 2014 1tlDEnslneertns.E*lonGeneratlon, Entt1n Figure H-5. Region ROS NMP/JAF H-7 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate February 24, 2016

IRegion ROG I Lake Ontario I

I ERPA:28 ERPA:29

/

/

Legend NMP/JAF ERPA Eva cuate

'--.:::. 2, 5, 10 Mile Rings

- - Sector Boundary Figure H-6. Region R06 NMP/JAF H-8 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate February 24, 2016

IRegion R07 I lake Unr,,,.iu I I

ERPA: 28 ERPA: 29

/

/

Legend NMP/JA F ERPA Evacuate

\.-:::. 2, 5, 10 M ile Rings

• 1 O.tt: 1/B/2016

- - Sector Boundary C0pyrig~1; ESRI ~ta *nd Map$ 2014 ICLO Ertg,neerlng. E,elon Generation, EntellY Miles Figure H-7. Region R07 NMP/JAF H-9 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate February 24, 2016

I Region Ros I Lake Untariu I ERPA: 29

/

/

Legend NMP/JAF ERPA Evacuate

\..-:::. 2, 5, 10 M ile Rings

- - Sector Boundary

\

O.tt: 1/ 8/2016 Copv,ighl BRI 0.lil Ind Maps 2014 ll0 £"1CiJeerll\L E..elonGener11lorl.£n1t 11Y Figure H-8. Region ROS NMP/JAF H-10 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate February 24, 2016

IRegion R09 I lakeUntarm I \'orfh Pond ERPA: 29

/

/

Legend NMP/JAF ERPA Evacuate

'--:::. 2, 5, 10 Mi le Rings

• 1 011, : 1/8/2016 10

- - Sector Boundary Cvright; E5RJ ~ta imd Maps 2014 KlOEnglneer1nc,helon~nerfllon,£n1e1sv Figure H-9. Region R09 NMP/JAF H-11 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate February 24, 2016

IRegion RlO I lak.: Omorfo I

ERPA: 29

/

/

Legend NMP/JAF 1.. -:::,

ERPA Eva cuate 2, 5, 10 M ile Rings

• 1 o,t, : 1/872016

- - Sector Boundary COQVrie;ht:E5Rl~ataaodMaps2014 KLOEnc lnnr log,EJRlonGeneratlon, Enter,v Figure H-10. Region RlO NMP/JAF H-12 KLD Enginee ri ng, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimat e February 24, 2016

I Region Rll I lako 011/orio I ERPA: 29

/

/

Legend

'l NMP/JA F ER PA Evacuate

'--:::. 2, 5, 10 Mile Rings 0.1. : 1/8/2016

- - Sector Boundary (Ol)ytight' BRl [)jt,,*ndM,ps 2014 ti: l O En,:ir:ee, 1,i' £,elon Genenrc lon. Enltrgv Figure H-11 Region Rll NMP/JAF H-13 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate February 24, 2016

IRegion R12 I lake Onlano I Legend NMP/J AF ERPA Eva cua te

\. -:::. 2, 5, 10 Mi le Rings

• 1 0.1,: 1/8/2016

- - Sector Bounda ry ( ()Jlyright; ESRl~t*

• ndMaps2014 klOEncineerlng, E,elonGene retlon. Ente11'(

Figure H-12 Region R12 NMP/JAF H-14 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate February 24, 2016

I Region R13 I Lake Onlarto I

Legend NMP/JAF ERPA Evacuate

'---:::. 2, 5, 10 Mile Rings

• 1 0.1t:1/a/l0l6

- - Sector Boundary U,Oy,ight:ESRl~U1111ldMfps2014 10 llOfoglneerlng.E-elon~neratlon.Enteirv Miles Figure H-13 Region R13 NMP/JAF H-15 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate February 24, 2016

IRegion R14 I Lake Omarw I Legend I

NMP/JAF ERPA Evacuate

'--::, 2, 5, 10 Mile Rings O.tt: 1/8/l016

- - Sector Boundary Cooyrigh1: ESF11~ti' *nd M,ps 2014 klOE"1lnetrlnc.EoelonGentr1tlort.En1,rsv Figure H-14 Region R14 NMP/ JAF H-16 KLD Engineeri ng, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate February 24, 2016

IRegion Rls I LakeU/1/cmo I Legend NMP/JA F ERPA Evacuate

'--:::. 2, 5, 10 M ile Rings

- - Sector Boundary 10 Figure H-15 Region RlS NMP/JAF H-17 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Tim e Estim ate February 24, 2016

IRegion R16 I Lake Umario I

Legend NMP/JAF ERPA Evacuate

'--:::. 2, 5, 10 Mile Rings

- - Sector Boundary Mi les Figure H-16 Region R16 NMP/JAF H-18 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate February 24, 2016

I I

IRegion R11 j Lake Unrar10 I \'or,h Pond ERPA:28 ERPA: 29

/

/

Legend NMP/JAF ERPA Evacuate

, -:::. 2, S, 10 Mile Rings

• 1 0.!f: 1/8/2016 10

- - Sector Boundary Cooyri,:ht' E5RI 0.ta tnd M11>1 20 14 klOEng irieer1nl'Eielon~ner1tlon.En1e riv Miles Figure H-17 Region R17 NMP/JAF H-19 KLD Enginee ri ng, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate February 24, 2016

IRegion R1s j lake Unrw*w I ERPA: 29

/

/

Legend NMP/JAF ERPA Eva cuate

'--:::, 2, 5, 10 M ile Rings

- - Sector Boundary 1

Dttt : 1/872016 Copy1lgh1; ESRI ~~ 111nd Maps 2014 l( l DE"1lnet!rl1_11,.£ielonGtnerat km .Ente1gy 10 Figure H-18 Region R18 NMP/JAF H-20 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate February 24, 2016

IRegion R19 I lak1.1 Ontario I Vorth Pond ERPA:28 ERPA: 29

/

/

ERPA 23, 24 & 25 Evacuate Legend NMP/JAF 1,.--:

ERPA Eva cuate 2, 5, 10 Mile Rings

• 1 0.tt: l/B/2016

- - Sector Bo undary Coc,yrigh1' ESRIO.ta1nc1Maps2014 ti:lO Eng;r:e,r1n[ Eoelon Generation. £n1t*CY Figure H-19 Region R19 NMP/JAF H-21 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate February 24, 2016

IRegion R20 I Lake Umario I \'orrh Pond ERPA: 29

/

/

ERPA 23, 24 & 25 Evacuate Legend NMP/J AF ERPA Evacuate

'--:::. 2, 5, 10 M ile Rings

- - Sector Boundary

"\

Ottt: 1/8/2016 10 Copyright: BRI ~;tu, 1nd M;tpi 20 14 KLOEnglrieer!ne,helonGeneretlon.Ente rgy Figure H-20 Region R20 NMP/JAF H-22 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate February 24, 2016

IRegion R21 I Lake Omariu I ERPA:29

/

/

ERPA 23 Evacuates Legend NMP/JAF ERPA Evacuate

, -:::. 2, 5, 10 Mi le Rings

• 1 Date: 1/ 8/2016

- - Sector Bou ndary 0 Cof)yrighl BRIO.ta t nd M* in20 14 ICLOEng!r:.eer 1n[ Eoelon Gener.Mion. En1trgy Figure H-21 Region R21 NMP/JAF H-23 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate February 24, 2016

IRegion R22 I lake Umana I \'orfh Pond I I ERPA: 29

/

/

Legend NMP/ JAF ERPA Eva cuate Shelte r, then Evacuate t _, 2, 5, 10 Mi le Ri ngs

- - Sect or Bou nda ry Figure H-22 Region R22 NMP/JAF H-24 KLD Engineeri ng, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Februa ry 24, 2016

IRegion R23 I l ake OntanO I

ERPA: 28 ERPA: 29

/

/

legend NMP/ JAF ERPA Evacuate Shelter, then Eva cuate

( -=- 2, 5, 10 Mile Rings

- - Sector Boundary 10 Miles Figure H-23 Region R23 NMP/JAF H-25 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate February 24, 2016

IRegion R24 I lakeU111,mo I I

ERPA: 29

/

/

Legend NMP/JAF ER PA Evacuate Shelter, then Eva cuate t -:: 2, 5, 10 M ile Rings

- - Sector Boundary Figure H-24 Region R24 NMP/JAF H-26 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Tim e Estimate February 24, 2016

IRegion R25 I lake Untario I ERPA: 29

/

/

legend NMP/ JAF ERPA Eva cuate

( --

~

Shelter, then Eva cuate 2, 5, 10 M ile Rings

- - Sector Boundary Figure H-25 Region R25 NMP/JAF H-27 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate February 24, 2016

IRegion R26 I lake Umariu I \'orlh Pond ERPA: 28 ERPA: 29

/

/

Legend NMP/JAF ERPA Evacuate Shelter, then Evacuate t -:::: 2, 5, 10 Mile Rings

- - Sector Boundary Figure H-26 Region R26 NMP/JAF H-28 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate February 24, 2016

IRegion R27 I Lake Unt,mo I \'orth Pond I

ERPA: 29

/

/

Legend NMP/JAF ER PA Evacuate Shelter, then Evacuate t -:::: 2, 5, 10 M ile Rings

- - Sector Bou ndary Figure H-27 Region R27 NMP/JAF H-29 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate February 24, 2016

IRegion R28 I Lake Untano I

I ERPA: 28 ERPA: 29

/

/

Legend NMP/JAF ERPA Evacuate Shelter, then Eva cuate

~ -=: 2, 5, 10 M ile Rings

- - Sector Boundary 10 Figure H-28 Region R28 NMP/JAF H-30 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate February 24, 2016

~

I IRegion R29 I lak~ Umario I

I ERPA: 29

/

/

Legend NMP/JAF ERPA Eva cuate Shelter, then Evacuate

{ -:: 2, 5, 10 M ile Rings

- - Sector Bo unda ry 10 Figure H-29 Region R29 NMP/JAF H-31 KLD Enginee rin g, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate February 24, 2016

APPENDIXJ 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 study area. A residual queue, existing at the start of the RED signal indication, indicates that the demand could not be entirely served by the GREEN phase. No residual queue indicates that the traffic movement is under-saturated (i.e., not congested) throughout the duration of evacuation.

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 several roadway segments (links) 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, Scenario 13, which is the special event, exhibits the slowest average speed and longest average travel times of all scenarios.

Table J-4 provides statistics (average speed and travel time) for the major evacuation routes -

SR 481, SR 104, SR 48, and SR 3 - 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 7-7, SR 104 westbound and SR 481 southbound are congested for the first 3 hours3.472222e-5 days <br />8.333333e-4 hours <br />4.960317e-6 weeks <br />1.1415e-6 months <br /> of the evacuation, respectively. As such, the average speeds are comparably slower (and travel times longer) than other evacuation routes during these times.

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.

Figure J-1 through Figure 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 Figure J-1 through Figure J-14, the curves are spatially separated due to the presence of traffic congestion within Oswego, which was discussed in detail in Section 7.3.

NMP/JAF J-1 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate February 24, 2016

Table J-1. Characteristics of the Ten Highest Volume Signalized Intersections Approach Total Max. Turn Intersection (Up Volume Queue Node Location Control Node) (Veh) (Veh) 368 5,431 0 TCP- 654 1,306 0 367 SR 481 and SR3 Actuated 371 2,415 0 TOTAL 9,152 42 653 1,863 1 TCP- 652 5,111 0 366 SR 481 and Oneida St Actuated 651 2,069 0 TOTAL 9,043 -

392 0 0 SR 481 and CR57 (S 1st 390 Actuated 393 7,569 0 St)

TOTAL 7,569 42 397 1,233 3 389 37 0 387 SR 481 and Fay St Actuated 399 6,262 62 TOTAL 7,532 -

530 2,221 383 521 1,474 149 TCP-511 SR 104 and Hillside Ave 533 1,205 44 Actuated 546 226 10 TOTAL 2,156 42 346 2,805 91 669 1,228 77 524 W 1st St and W Utica St Actuated 539 0 0 538 2,854 46 TOTAL 6,887 -

520 2,176 256 529 1,006 110 530 SR 104 and Liberty St Actuated ?31 529 13 511 2,893 157 TOTAL 6,604 -

409 2,900 0 TCP- 371 1,081 2 406 SR 3 and SR 48 Actuated 644 2,569 0 TOTAL 6,550 -

661 2,822 82 548 1,257 23 346 E 1st St and E Utica St Actuated 662 394 12 524 1,814 40 TOTAL 6,287 -

526 1,885 87 689 493 80 TCP-527 SR 104 and W 5th St 538 551 29 Actuated 520 3,303 178 TOTAL 6,232 -

NMP/JAF J-2 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate February 24, 2016

Table J-2. Sample Simulation Model Input Vehicles

' Entering '

Link Network Direc~ional Destination Destination Number on this Link . Preference Nodes Capacity 3 4 E 8048 1,700 8282 1,575 138 72 SE 8298 6,750 8279 1,700 8282 1,575 1052 131 SE 8298 6,750 8279 1,700 8456 1,700 314 12 s 8730 1,700 8431 1,700 8431 1,700 457 35 s 8442 1,575 8391 1,575 8730 1,700 547 26 s 8431 1,700 8442 1,575 8457 1,700 645 0 SW 8456 1,700 722 44 SW 8391 1,575 826 110 SW 8440 2,250 8457 1,700 986 241 SW 8456 1,700 8730 1,700 NMP/JAF J-3 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate February 24, 2016

Tabie j-3. Seiected ivlodel Outputs for the Evacuation of the Entire EPZ (Region R03j Scenario 1 ,, 2 3 ,, 4 5 6 I

h 7 8 9 10 11 " 12 , 13 I

,I 14 I

Network-Wide Average 2.7 3.0 2.8 3.2 3.0 2.9 3.1 3.2 2.6 2.8 2.9 2.9 5.6 2.8 Travel Time (Min/Veh-Mi)

Network-Wide Average 21.3 20.6 21.3 18.8 20.0 20.4 19.6 19.2 22.9 21.4 20.8 20.4 10.6 21.2 Speed (mph)

Total Vehicles Exiting 36,831 36,874 36,943 37,605 31,558 38,754 38,922 38,716 34,657 35,088 34,630 30,702 58,473 36,680 Network NMP/JAF J-4 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate February 24, 2016

Table j-4. Average Speed (mphj and Travei Time (min) for Major Evacuation Routes (Region R03, Scenario 1)

Elapsed Time (hours) 1 2 Travel Length Speed Time Travel Travel Travel Route# (miles) (mph) (min) Speed Time $peed Time Speed Time SR 481 SB 7.4 15.9 28.0 5.0 88.6 22.2 20.0 57.2 7.8 SR 104 WB 9.6 11.4 50.9 10.0 57.7 43.8 13.2 44.7 12.9 SR 48 SB 6.1 33.9 10.7 26.4 13.7 46.5 7.8 48.0 7.6 SR 104 EB 10.4 48.0 12.9 47.9 13.0 47.0 13.2 49.5 12.6 SR 3 NB 4.6 42.1 6.6 48.7 5.7 49.2 5.6 50.6 5.5 NMP/JAF J-5 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate February 24, 2016

Table J-5. Simulation Model Outputs at Network Exit Links for Region R03, Scenario 1 Elapsed Time {hours)

Network 1 2 3 4 Exit Link Cumulative Vehicles Discharged by the Indicated Time Cumulative Percent of Vehicles Discharged by the Indicated Time Interval 39 109 124 124 27 0.4% 0.5% 0.4% 0.3%

67 166 185 185 37 0.7% 0.7% 0.6% 0.5%

1,315 2,711 3,189 3,190 so 14.5% 11.6% 9.8% 8.7%

42 151 181 183 53 0.5% 0.7% 0.6% 0.5%

195 419 472 473 66 2.1% 1.8% 1.5% 1.3%

309 822 907 909 74 3.4% 3.5% 2.8% 2.5%

254 614 688 689 85 2.8% 2.6% 2.1% 1.9%

110 300 345 347 94 1.2% 1.3% 1.1% 0.9%

325 797 894 896 360 3.6% 3.4% 2.8% 2.4%

162 649 775 780 393 1.8%' 2.8% 2.4% 2.1%

1,478 3,330 3,934 3,943 397 16.2% 14.2% 12.1% 10.7%

73 289 350 353 399 0.8% 1.2% 1.1% 1.0%

415 1,132 2,104 2,356 543 4.6% 4.8% 6.5% 6.4%

651 1,960 2,816 3,417 554 7.2% 8.4% 8.7% 9.3%

390 1,402 2,174 2,566 588 4.3% 6.0% 6.7% 7.0%

224 1,002 1,591 1,858 593 2.5% 4.3% 4.9% 5.0%

878 2,199 3,388 4,167 631 9.7% 9.4% 10.4% 11.3%

734 1,636 2,192 2,624 632 8.1% 7.0% 6.7% 7.1%

522 1,184 1,762 1,849 637 5.7% 5.1% 5.4% 5.0%

24 654 1,733 2,028 639 0.3% 2.8% 5.3% 5.5%

896 1,928 2,745 3,893 640 9.6% 7.9% 8.1% 10.6%

NMP/JAF J-6 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate February 24, 2016

ETE and Trip Generation Summer, Midweek, Midday, Good (Scenario 1)

- Trip Ge nerat ion - ETE 100%

"'QI u 80%

cQI iii 60%

0 I-40%

0 C

QI V

QI 20%

C.

0%

0 30 60 90 120 150 180 210 240 270 Elapsed Time (min)

Figure J-1. ETE and Trip Generation : Summer, Midweek, Midday, Good Weather (Scenario 1)

ETE and Trip Generation Summer, Midweek, Midday, Rain (Scenario 2)

- Trip Generati on - ETE 100%

"'QI u 80%

.c QI iii 60%

0 I-40%

0 C

QI V

QI 20%

C.

0%

0 30 60 90 120 150 180 210 240 270 El apsed Time (min)

Figu re J-2. ETE and Trip Generation : Summer, M idweek, Midday, Rain (Scena rio 2)

NMP/JAF J-7 KLD Enginee ring, P.C.

Evacuati on Tim e Estimate February 24, 2016

ETE and Trip Generation Summer, Weekend, Midday, Good (Scenario 3)

- Trip Generation - ETE 100%

Ill Qj

~ 80%

~

Qj iii 60%

0 I-40%

0 C

Qj

...u Qj 20%

0.

0%

0 30 60 90 120 150 180 210 240 270 Elapsed Time (min)

Figure J-3. ETE and Trip Generation: Summer, Weekend, Midday, Good Weather (Scenario 3)

ETE and Trip Generation Summer, Weekend, Midday, Rain (Scenario 4)

- Trip Generation - ETE 100%

Ill Qj

~ 80%

~

Qj iii 60%

0 I-40%

0 C

Qj u 20%

iii 0.

0%

0 30 60 90 120 150 180 210 240 270 Elapsed Time (min)

Figure J-4. ETE and Trip Generation: Summer, Weekend, Midday, Rain (Scenario 4)

NMP/JAF J-8 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate February 24, 2016

ETE and Trip Generation Summer, Midweek, Weekend, Evening, Good (Scenario 5)

- Trip Gen eration - ETE 100%

Ill Cl.I

~ 80%

.c Cl.I iii 60%

0

....0 I-40%

....C Cl.I

...u Cl.I 20%

0.

0%

0 30 60 90 120 150 180 210 240 270 Elapsed Time (min)

Figure J-5. ETE and Trip Generation: Summer, Midweek, Weekend, Evening, Good Weather (Scenario 5)

ETE and Trip Generation Winter, Midweek, Midday, Good (Scenario 6)

- Trip Gene ration - ETE 100%

Ill Cl.I u 80%

cCl.I iii 60%

0

....I-0 40%

....C Cl.I

...u Cl.I 20%

0.

0%

0 30 60 90 120 150 180 210 240 270 Elapsed Time (min)

Figure J-6. ETE and Trip Generation: Winter, Midweek, Midday, Good Weather (Scenario 6)

NMP/JAF J-9 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacua ti on Time Esti mate February 24, 2016

ETE and Trip Generation Winter, Midweek, Midday, Rain (Scenario 7}

- Trip Generation - ETE 100%

"'ci,

~ 80%

.c ci, "iii 60%

0 I-0 40%

C:

ci,

...u ci, 20%

C.

0%

0 30 60 90 120 150 180 210 240 270 Elapsed Time (min)

Figure J-7. ETE and Trip Generation: Winter, Midweek, Midday, Rain (Scenario 7)

ETE and Trip Generation Winter, Midweek, Midday, Snow (Scenario 8}

- Trip Generation - ETE 100%

"'ci,

~ 80%

.c ci, iii 60%

0 I-0 40%

C:

ci,

...u ci, 20%

C.

0%

0 30 60 90 120 150 180 210 240 270 Elapsed Time (min)

Figure J-8. ETE and Trip Generation: Winter, Midweek, Midday, Snow (Scenario 8)

NMP/JAF J-10 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate February 24, 2016

ETE and Trip Generation Winter, Weekend, Midday, Good (Scenario 9)

- Trip Generation - ETE 100%

Ill CII

g 80%

.c CII iii 60%

0

....0

~

40%

....C CII 20%

CII Q.

0%

0 30 60 90 120 150 180 210 240 270 Elapsed Time (min)

Figure J-9. ETE and Trip Generation: Winter, Weekend, Midday, Good Weather (Scenario 9)

ETE and Trip Generation Winter, Weekend, Midday, Rain (Scenario 10)

- Trip Generation - ETE 100%

Ill CII u 80%

cCII iii

.... 60%

0

....0

~

40%

....C CII 20%

CII Q.

0%

0 30 60 90 120 150 180 210 240 270 Elapsed Time (min)

Figure J-10. ETE and Trip Generation: Winter, Weekend, Midday, Rain (Scenario 10)

NMP/JAF J-11 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Eva cuation Time Estimate February 24, 2016

ETE and Trip Generation Winter, Weekend, Midday, Snow (Scenario 11)

- Trip Generation - ETE 100%

"'QI u 80%

c QI iv 60%

0 I-40%

0 C

QI

...u QI 20%

0.

0%

0 30 60 90 120 150 180 210 240 270 Elapsed Time (min)

Figure J-11. ETE and Trip Generation: Winter, Weekend, Midday, Snow {Scenario 11)

ETE and Trip Generation Winter, Midweek, Weekend, Evening, Good (Scenario 12)

- Trip Generation - ETE 100%

"'QI u 80%

cQI iv 60%

0 I-40%

0 C

QI

...u QI 20%

0.

0%

0 30 60 90 120 150 180 210 240 270 Elapsed Time (min)

Figure J-12. ETE and Trip Generation: Winter, Midweek, Weekend, Evening, Good Weather (Scenario 12)

NMP/JAF J-12 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate February 24, 2016

ETE and Trip Generation Summer, Weekend, Evening, Good, Special Event (Scenario 13)

- Trip Generation - ETE 100%

"'QJ

~ 80%

~

QJ iii 60%

0 I-0 40%

C QJ 20%

QJ a..

0%

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

Figure J-13. ETE and Trip Generation: Summer, Weekend, Evening, Good Weather, Special Event (Scenario 13)

ETE and Trip Generation Summer, Midweek, Midday, Good, Roadway Impact (Scenario 14)

- Trip Generation - ETE 100%

"'QJ

~ 80%

~

QJ iii 60%

0 I-0 40%

C QJ 20%

QJ a..

0%

0 30 60 90 120 150 180 210 240 270 Elapsed Time (min)

Figure J-14. ETE and Trip Generation: Summer, Midweek, Midday, Good Weather, Roadway Impact (Scenario 14)

NMP/JAF J- 13 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate February 24, 2016

APPENDIX K Evacuation Roadway Network

K. EVACUATION ROADWAY NETWORK As discussed in Section 1.3, a link-node analysis network was constructed to model the roadway network within the study area. Figure K-1 provides an overview of the link-node analysis network. The figure has been divided up into 32 more detailed figures (Figure K-2 through Figure K-33) which show each of the links and nodes in the network.

The analysis network was calibrated using the observations made during the field survey conducted in March 2012. Table K-1 'lists the characteristics of each roadway section modeled in the ETE analysis. Each link is identified by its road name and the upstream and downstream node numbers. The geographic location of each link can be observed by referencing the grid map number provided in Table K-1. The roadway type identified in Table K-1 is generally based on the following criteria:

• Freeway: limited access highway, 2 or more lanes in each direction, high free flow speeds

• Freeway ramp: ramp on to or off of a limited access highway

• Minor arterial: 2 or more lanes in each direction

• Collector: single lane in each direction

• Local roadways: single lane in each direction, local roads with low free flow speeds The term, "No. of Lanes" Table K-1 identifies the number of lanes that extend throughout the length of the link. Many links have additional lanes on the immediate approach to an intersection (turn pockets); these have been recorded and entered into the input stream for the DYNEV II System .

As discussed in Section 1.3, lane width and shoulder width were not physically measured during the road survey. Rather, estimates of these measures were based on visual observations and recorded images.

Table K-2 identifies each node in the network that is controlled and the type of control (stop sign, yield sign, pre-timed signal, actuated signal, traffic control point) at that node.

Uncontrolled nodes are not included in Table K-2. The location of each node can be observed by referencing the grid map number provided .

NMP/JAF K-1 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate February 24, 2016

Lacona

,v

- ~ /1mar Legend NMP/JAF Node i,.- Link GI ER PA Constanl,a Index Grid Sand Ridge

,.-_:: 2, 5, 10, 15 M ile Rings t2Za Shadow Region Oate. 91412012 Copyright ESRI Basemap Data 10 Miles KLO Engineel'Yl9. Cons1ehtion Energy. Ente<gy.

Figure K-1. Nine Mile Point/James A. FitzPatrick Link-Node Analysis Network NMP/JAF K-2 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate February 24, 2016

Sand Pl

<Js11tego--..-__

<'otmty I ~

0/tRd

\ --------------~~~::...- -1~- --=j l

\ ; - --

~.,.

Caster Rd Grid I

Hadley Rd

..* 8043 J.? 43 I

'\~ 44 ,

. 8044 I

~

f\.34 2>

Franklrn St '"

.... .&  ;;" \

1

...Js_ _iti 33

..,. Sahsbury St 36 f county Rte 22A

-=--== HtHWood Dr

• *41

/* s88 l&

Legend Keymap NMP/JAF Evacuation Time Estimate NMP/ JAF Node Link

-=-

Shadow Region 2, 5, 10, 15 M ile Rings W ater

(~, ,

\.-,,.~ ,Ml~

't!; ~ id' l1 Link-Node Analys is Network Figures

-~

• Grid 1 Q ERPA [-:-J Index Grid -,

I/ ' 0.25

- -==-- - -Miles 0.5

..... _ . . . .. h .... , , . . - .... , - , , ... ,.

Figure K-2. Link-Node Ana lysis Network - Grid 1 NMP/JAF K-3 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate February 24, 2016

/:

eo...,

LaJ.e Ontario °' ~

~

i

\,

~

~~ . i

\

5awm1/I Rd

\

0 1

~\6 i' 32 "1! MaltbY Rd  :.

i i

ERPi\29 i

i i

Legen d NMP/JAF Evacuation Time Estim ate

• NM P/JAF Shadow Region Link- Node Analysis Network Figures

• Node --=-- 2, 5, 10, 15 M ile Rings

_ .,., Link Water Grid 2 GJ ER PA [ l index Grid 0.5

---===-----Mil es '< .. l'Oa..*-= - -* -

a,,,.,....., ...-, - ~ t llO"'U Figure K-3. Link-Node Analysis Network - Grid 2 NMP/JAF K-4 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate February 24, 2016

Couoty 'l..<!1te 15 588 MIiier Rd

\

\

\ Button Rd Edwards Rd Hilton Rd

\.,..

~

up1on Rd

\

5a ~ 111Rd

\

\

\

I Balcom I

01\

i \ co"'"'if'l9 s"-d

\~ if2_

"'~

0,

\

\

g

~

'. 1,, Cobb

\

32

. MallbyRd ~

~

t6 l

county Route 2 Legend NMP/JAF Evacuation Time Esti ma te

• NMP/JA F Shadow Region Link-Node Analysis Networ k Figures

• Node

_ .,., Link

-=- 2, 5, 10, 15 Mile Rings Wa ter Grid 3 Q ERPA LJ Index Grid ---====------MIies -.-.-"-.-..1\fi,~l

- ( -W,, lllGJO\ /, C -. _ 1,...ttl-111' Figure K-4. Link-Node Analysis Network - Grid 3 NMP/JAF K-5 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate February 24, 2016

ERPA 26 ERPA 28 Lake Onl800

/

/

/

/

I Grid I 4

Legen d NM P/JAF Evacuation Time Est imate

• Link-Node Analys is Network Figures

-=-

NMP/ JAF Shadow Region

• Node 2, 5, 10, 15 Mile Ri ngs

_ .,.., Link Water Grid 4 Q ERPA [ _l Index Grid --c:==:aa___

0 .5 I Miles ___._..... ,....,.,

c;., , .,. .,.

• D.,,J.'--i.-...-w1 _ ,.

Figure K-5. Link-Node Analysis Network - Grid 4 NMP/JAF K-6 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Esti mate February 24, 2016

ERPA 29 ij'~-

E RPA26 E RPA 27 "ls,

"'~

, Ii i

i i

i i

i i

- 2 Miles i

/ i

.,,, ,,/ i i

i i '

i ' \

\

Gr i cl ,

5 \

\

i i

i i

i 629 696 i  !  : Lske,"liRi-"-iiiiiioiiii d

i 1 --p *-695_ 321>* .-,.

i 320 i

1 :i

'O I

I '!J

~

i~~317 <I ~

.A : 1io /

1 f

l);

! ~ ERPA I ~

350 I

'- I i~E RPA 3 iL-:=hrcr---r:=~~~1~!

i

\'

M,no,Rd

l!'! !I; I

~ 180~* - ~te' ERPA4

~ ~ ntY f ......

I ..._

1a1l<s" k

• - - 2-Miles -  :'f'

l!

/

325 182 9 _ _,_,,.ERPA 5 Woo/sOn Rd Legend NMP/JAF Eva cu ation Time Estimate

• NMP/JAF Shadow Region Link-Node Analysis Network Figures

• Node --=- 2, 5, 10, 15 M ile Ri ngs Grid 5

_ .,.., link Water 0.5 Q ERPA [ J Index Grid - -ir:::::==-- - -* Miles - -~ 11'.&>ll

- * -

• aO>>IJ. ' l - f f l - "

Figure K-6. Link- Node Analysis Network - Grid 5 NMP/JAF K-7 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacu ati on Time Estimat e February 24, 2016

ERPA29 Lake Oflario

'I\ i i

I

<-'.)

\

i i

i i

i i

i i

i i

i Grid i 6 i

i ERPA27 i

i i

i i

i i

i i

i Arter Rd Legend NMP/JAF Evacuation Time Estimate

• NMP/JAF Shadow Region Link-Node Analysis Network Figures

• Node ~ 2, 5, 10, 15 Mi le Rings

_ .,.., Link Water Grid 6 Q ERPA D Index Grid 05

---===-----Miles _..__,,,,...,u

- ( - ~ ~ ll D101 .. I * , - . . . . - . 1- p Figure K-7. Link-Node Analysis Network - Grid 6 NMP/JAF K-8 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate February 24, 2016

ERPA 15 ~

~

I o;

Gibb~

159 Rd '

/~

I Lamphere Rd Ii Legend NMP/JA F Evacuation Time Est imate

• NMP/JAF Shadow Region Link-Node Analysis Network Figures

• Nod e ~ 2, S, 10, 15 M ile Rings

- ~

• Li nk Water Grid 7 Q ERPA Cl Index Grid ---==::::i0.5_____ Miles

-*-"'*"'11-t . ..... '°",._

- -'-or~1~,;u l;o, ......

Figure K-8. Link-Node Analysis Network - Grid 7 NMP/JAF K-9 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate February 24, 2016

l county Routo 2 i

i wnot I

o, i

i i

I

!i Centef\lllle ftd Cl

?

}

I .J

"""YRe1 1 Stale Route 13 I G ri cl V,

8

~  ?

l r  ?

1/ I IS I

ii iJ I f I

/

~.., Has10Dr Has,Of?d

"-?.,.

I f

I I I I /

/

.. ~* - *-

11 5 45 Y.

105 ~ "'~ ur* 2s~

• -a..'coun*,

693 5,..

1*

i

...~5~

I 8056 I

castor Rd

~""ij,-11 f

IS

?J

.t \

j ov,..6.?e s

Legend NMP/JAF Evacuation Time Estimate

• NMP/JAF Shadow Region Link-Node Analysis Network Figures

• Node ~ 2, 5, 10, 15 Mile Rings

_ ,.., Link Water Grid 8 Q ERPA [_-=:J Index Grid 0.5

---====-- - - - *Miles ---- 1....... ,

o.~;i,o a11 JOU.c - . - ......n1-"

Figure K-9. Link-Node Analysis Network - Grid 8 NMP/JAF K-10 KLD Eng in eering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate February 24, 2016

ERPA 28 I

\

\

\

\

\

\

\

\

Grid 9

I

\

I 1

Legend NMP/JAF Evacuation Time Estimate

• NMP/JAF Shadow Region Li nk- Node Analysis Network Figures

• Node -=-- 2, 5, 10, 15 Mile Rings Grid 9

_ .,.., Link Water Q ERPA D Index Grid 0.5

--c::= =----*Miles - H-~,c't. 1'11 .llll

- f..- ..... GIIJll!/. t,,,-w O- l orpl- ..

Figure K-10. Link-Node Analysis Network - Grid 9 NMP/JAF K-11 KLD Engineering, P. C.

Evacuation Time Est im ate February 24, 2016

ERPA 28 Grid I0

.r

• NMP/JAF Shadow Region Link-Node Analysis Network Figu res

• Node -=-- 2, 5, 10, 15 M ile Rings

_ .,,., Lin k Q

Water

[:::J Index Grid 0.25

. 0.5 Grid 10 ERPA

---===-----Miles - H-~ l ,0.~IJ

.._,_. ....

• PJ011.'-._,..,...,.,_,.

Figure K-11. Link-Node Analysis Network - Grid 10 NM P/JAF K-12 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate February 24, 2016

L.:ike On/Df/0 I ERPA26 i

! 307

! 70~

1'6 o,

' Grid I 1 i

ERP;AS ERPA6 M1dd/e Rdj 339

' ERPA 12  !

"" i

~

!Q.

660 4

308 I \1 i

\ i~ l~

§srate aov1e 10  ;;*~

ERPA 11

• \

i ERfA 10 i

334

---

' _ '- '- -----------i~--------------

1-~- ~ ---------- ----------------- 121

e..or1~

l*i-:

, ~  !

Csrsa,,Dr ' ' i1 Kennedy or Legend NMP/JAF Evacuation Time Estimate

• NM P/JAF Shadow Region Link-Node Analysis Network Figures

• Node -:=' 2, 5, 10, 15 Mile Rin gs

_ .,., Link Water *--¢"-* Grid 11 Q ERPA L ] Index Grid 0.2

--=:::::11---*Miles 0.4

- ,,Dl'OILt*

- '°"....__,

IIIOll:U' _

Figure K-12. Link-Node Analysis Network - Grid 11 NMP/JAF K-13 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate February 24, 2016

~*\* ~ /t ~ sa Tallman SI 504

• • -*c----~--..J**-.. .

,r 543 Ellen SI 503

- -"'i ERPA 2 1 Gray Rd Legend NM P/ JAF Evacuation Time Estimate

• NMP/JAF Shadow Region Lin k- Node Analys is Network Figures

~ 2. 5, 10, 15 Mile Rings

• Node

_ .,., Link Water -~

• Grid 12 GJ ERPA [_ ] Index Grid 0 .2S

---==:::::i----*M 0.5 ltes _,,__ 110.IDU

.._,_._. .ll.,j - - - , . , -..

Figure K-13. Link-Node Analysis Network - Grid 12 NMP/JAF K-14 KLD Engin eering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate February 24, 2016

308 ERPA6 I

g

~ ..\.,

Corso,,

8tJttprnu1~r

' Kennedy Dr Be9Cl1Dr ' ' \  !

ls ' '-3~l  !  !

E RPA II ' ' 9.  !

-s~i"s s  !

-- i ii 0 0 ?ca,,,,Or

f §  !;;,O' f r  !

Q

"' i Legen d NMP/JAF Evacuation Time Estimate

• NMP/JAF Shadow Region Link- Node Analysis Network Figures

• Node -=-- 2, 5, 10, 15 Mile Ri ngs Grid 13

_ .,., Link Water Q ERPA LI Index Grid --=:::,,---*Miles 0.2 0 .4

- t . . w .... 1~,cu

..... .. o,. .... , - -*-

Figure K-14. Link-Node Analysis Network - Grid 13 NMP/JAF K- 15 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacu ati on Time Est imate February 24, 2016

i" I u, ~ i o lb 5 179 "

i

.. ~ .-*----i?-"!:c~ou~n!.ty'."Rt;:::e-;t,

~~~...... ~~ - -+--::,~<'c..,,, _-+--+-

1 --+-_~ 1

/ ~ ~i

~1 80 i i Woolson Rd ERPA4  !

j

-g_l

/

/

/

ERPA9

/ / -4 192 u).Marsh Rd

- - s-,~,,, \ '"

724

• ~

j j

~Ji38 726

"'it~'\_

i *~

'-'!*6---1"""-"1

!632' j

Whittemore Rd ) lra,,,eq i 1Dr ERPA 19 "\ 19~ f E:RPA 18 j

\-g_ i j

Legend NMP/JAF Evacuation Time Estimate

• NMP/JAF Shadow Region Link-Node Analysis Netwo rk Figure s

• Node ":=' 2, 5, 10, 15 Mile Rings

_ .,., Link Water Grid 14 Q C l o.s ERPA Index Grid

---===-----M iles _,_ ......

-..~ , 10,.,, .. _ll'OA'.U Figure K-15. Link-Node Analysis Network - Grid 14 NMP/JAF K-16 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Est imat e February 24, 2016

178 ERPA 7 eounry Rte f i 176!f,*

~~

,1~j i

,lb i f i: ERPA 4 "' ~ 5

!f*

! / /

i~ . ./

(\ ~ 4.,,l*" m 156 . ~

!f, '1l J 09 7J/ 9-

~ ~ . 149

.... ....1...~* ~ * ....- - - ... . ..... ..

155!

/!

/ ,..,98 ml 716

/  ! 11

~ i §

,'l l " ';,

' I '\

WSt°"*Rd i

<irid 15 i

LilllyMarsh ~ O

! Rd i

i i

i i

i 199, *.~ ; ..._ _ _ _

3

,~~\4 141.+I

! 14s./,. '

Coun~Y. Roule 51 i

-.l l l 145 357 **

/

/ Flsh-90'

~

/

Hanson Rd G11/ene Rd

/

Legend NMP/JAF Evacuation Time Estimate

• NMP/ JAF Shadow Region Link-Node Analys is Network Figures

• Node -=-- 2, 5, 10, lS M ile Rings Grid 15

_ .,. , Link Water Q ERPA L ] Index Grid

---===-----M 0.5 iles - ~ .-. 11,11,.o;u

-*-c'~"DM .... t.. _ _

Figure K-16. Link-Node Analysis Network - Grid 15 NMP/JAF K-1 7 KLD En ginee ri ng, P.C.

Evacuation Tim e Estimate Fe bruary 24, 201 6

"0:

I 159 it

• ii 120 i ~

Cou,,'

(IJ,171<111 Rd  :? I i

I I

! LampheJ Rd c, 01§ i /ERPA 15 1>0-  !

i i

i i

171 ruobs Rd

• i

~,".\ 8/4-J(/1?0 1 G r id i I 6 608 l SIJ:Jts Ruut 104 i

,?;

1!~

La Cass~ Rd Richardson RJ /

./

i

/'I

~~ooe Rd / i

'.I: Rice Rd I

ti 77

~

""c..,_,~

'1'>o

~

<-~

'S, lj

? I ,/f

ff, Jii',

Legend NMP/JAF Evacuation Time Estimate

• NM P/ JAF Shadow Region Li nk- Node Analysis Net work Figures

• Node ":=' 2, 5, 10, 15 M ile Rings

_ .,., Link Wa te r Grid 16 Q ERPA l-=:J Index Grid ---===----*M 0.5 iles °""'_,.-.,

--~

..o...,._,.,...,_.._,-

, ... :,,:u Figure K-17. Link-Node Analysis Network -Grid 16 NMP/JAF K-18 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate February 24, 2016

I I

I j

t"'

I suH Run Rd t

A. 59 G.r_i.d ' - - - - - - - - -

J1/\**-..-*-..-* so~ I 7 l**-----'S.,r*.,**,.R~ou,.**.,'.°,-

56 57 I

~vs 50\ "~eoo a 61 so17 Or I

I I

I I

Grahan Sq R,chardson Rd /

1\

I I  !

Ca,,r1e1r1

,:, l?u I i f Rico '{

Rd I i Jj

.~~

I I

I ,, I I

~

s

~

8 59 3. .,

/!

i I J Legend NMP/J AF Evac uation Time Est imate

• Lin k- Node An alysis Network Figures

-=-

NMP/JAF Shadow Region

• Node 2, 5, 10, 15 Mile Rings

_ .,., Link Water

. Grid 17 Q ERPA LJ Index Grid ---===-----Miles 0.5

- **t.o-_1,,-,u

( _ . , . 0 .:,11, c-.-_ _ ,, , _,.

Figure K-18. Link-Node Ana lysis Network - Grid 17 NMP/JAF K-19 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacu ati on Tim e Estimate February 24, 2016

Pc,ryi 'll'lq \

\

\

• • 679 Grid 18

)

\

Hsi/Rd Engles 'fI I

r I

Andrews Rd

' - ** - ....4:;: 3 _ _ __,!-'

3;:. i, 6-7.:,:

f 446 445 I Blytho Rd ~

' f

.p

' ",t; ' Sloe!< Rd

'{1 Legen d NM P/JAF Evacuation Time Estimate

• NMP/JAF Shadow Region Link-Node Analysis Network Figures

• Node

.... Link

-=- 2. 5, 10, 15 Mile Rings Water Grid 18 Q ERPA (____J Index Grid 0.5'

- --====-- - - -Miles 1

---~... ......

_ ,_..,. *0111111.,---...,-

Figure K-19. Link-Node Ana lysis Network - Grid 18 NMP/JAF K-20 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuati on Time Est im at e February 24, 2016

outch Ridge Rd ngles Rd i

i i

i 676 i--~...-~~6~~~ ~*

~

~

~

ii Stoney Robby Rd Legend NMP/JAF Evacuation Time Estimate

• NMP/ JAF Shadow Region Link-Node Analysis Network Figures

• Node ~ 2, 5, 10, 15 Mile Rings

_ .,., Li nk Water Grid 19 0.5:; I Q ERPA C"J lndex Grid ---===----*Miles - .*._...,._,.,.&:u 0-,_ .... *OJDU.~--,.1-..

Figure K-20. link-Node Analysis Network - Grid 19 NMP/JAF K-21 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate February 24, 2016

~1ttemoreRd

'632 142

---

"'*{'--------

\

~

L

. o,etn~l!.Rd__ - - -

Rowleetrrf I

_ _ _ _ _1_1~.,,, _____

Howard Rd r

364

J

\ I l

Ci/kins Rd ~

Legen d NMP/JAF Evacuation Time Estimate

• Link-Node Analysis Network Figure s

-=-

NMP/JAF Shadow Region

• Node 2, 5, 10, 15 Mile Rings

- i,,., Link Water Grid 20 0 .5 ~

Q ERPA D Index Grid ---====----- Miles - * - - -..... , ...... 11 Doool-W,, II OJOII.C . - r, l -f' Figure K-21. Link-Node Analysis Network - Grid 20 NMP/JAF K-22 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate February 24, 2016

/

/

C) i /

ti o.. \)j~

ef Frsh_/i>.

q

"' Hanson Rd Gillette Rd PC?Ple Ridge Rd

~-------1-*!299 i

i

(

i

/

\

Legend NMP/JAF Evacu ation Time Esti mate

• NMP/JAF Shadow Region Li nk- Node Ana lysis Net wor k Figures

• Node ' : : ' 2, 5, 10, 15 Mile Rings

_ .,., Link Water Grid 21 Q ERPA D Index Grid --c::==-----Mites 1

- ...'-' .... ,10...,,,

"'"-w,,au;iouc-,_ ,.,.....,_.,.

Figure K-22. Link-Node Analysis Network - Grid 21 NM P/JAF K- 23 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuati on Ti m e Estimate Febru ary 24, 2016

Rico Rd I

Gille tte Rd t ~ . 73

~R,&

tl' 0 ~ ' 300

• Tudo Rd " I

• p opJe Ridge Rd

/

299 I I

i Czebefliak -?O' I a'

"'*'*o"',1~Rc1 266 Grid /

22 /

I I

./onnso,,"'t

/

Ci

/

\

/ 11.,

?

~

J Hogsback ~O

?

f rS Legend NMP/ JAF Evacuatio n Time Estimate

• Link-Node Analysis Network Figures

-=-

NMP/ JAF Shadow Regio n

• Node 2, 5, 10, 15 M ile Rings

• -<?* Grid 22

- II>* Lin k Wa ter 0.5 '

Q ERPA D Index Grid Miles

--l-,pt*A'11 ,_,,,,_

Figure K-23. Link-Node Analysis Network - Grid 22 NMP/JAF K-24 KLD Engineering, P. C.

Evacuation Tim e Estimate February 24, 2016

I Red MIii Ra County Routo 26 I

I Grid I

J I 23

(

I L

?

.t iJ

~Ln s

I 615 *

~

\

\

\ /

Legend NMP/JAF Evacuation Time Estimate

• NMP/JAF Shadow Region Link-Node Analysis Netwo rk Figures

~ 2, 5, 10, 15 Mile Rings

• Node

• -<r* . Grid 23

---===------Miles

- *

• Link Water 0 .5 l Q ERPA CJ Index Grid __ t_.... 1. . .a.11

, _ , _ "-IIIDU <.. wloO_t_p,l* ... e>

Figure K-24. Link-Node Analysis Network - Grid 23 NMP/JAF K-2 5 KLD Enginee ri ng, P.C.

Eva cuati on Ti m e Estimate Fe bruary 24, 2016

67

...,:Co~u:.;n*~r"'R"ou.r_e _,es- -..*

Andrews Rd

<<sr~::-*4 433t 11 i

I ' Stock Rd Laxton Rd I

I ' '

.J. Grid 24 Onionvilfe Rd i Muck Durbin Rd Kellogg r

)

Rd

\ Hams Hill Rd Cemetery Dr rt"\\\8 J

";.o ...,

i

~

Nichols Rel gQ r-~ l!!

5

!l !i "'

Ix a' "'l!!

En_oRu bi

,- j Dunham Rd Legend NMP/JAF Evacuation Time Esti mate

• NMP/JAF Shadow Region Link-Node Analysis Network Figures

• Node --:=- 2, 5, 10, 15 Mi le Rings

_ ..,.. link Wate r *-¢-* Grid 24 GJ ERPA C:J Index Grid 0.5

---===-----M iles - ~... l\11.IOll

_....,.,.,"' ..~"",.._1 ........- -.1.....

Figure K-25. Link-Node Analysis Network - Grid 24 NMP/JAF K-2 6 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacua tion Time Estimate February 24, 2016

675 676

_...~ **1*~27 677 1-- -..~ * -

Prall Dr

.S-91}

':"Ii,(}~,. 1~ Stoney Robby Rd a' "

~-

\ ~. . 428

\

~

y 494~*-m**t . 492

\

1491 ~*nvo°"J

~

M*o,~:t l

"' "' 430

'"\ \

\ \ \ .4418;9:,_____...;_______ .t.----:>*

I --~S~ta;;te~H

!:wy~J~---~-:;:;:"'----:>,

~t...

-11', .&

I.,__.--- *- t -

County Route 3

'?*-------*

I 418 412 r-'-..,;::.;;,-4-1: . ~ 413 Bergman ,._Rd

' TS Dr & "

1 I

~i'es ,

- ...... .._ Grid

-- 25 peat Bed Rd Best Dr Is -,""431-Muck 11 p'11nn ey-?u i 8431

~

I~a' \)

1 Lake Shore Rd \

l \

Germandale Dr Rega/Of Legend NMP/JAF Eva cu ati on Time Estimate

• Shadow Region Link-Node Analys is Network Figures NMP/JAF Node -=- 2, 5, 10, 15 Mile Rings Water *-<?* Grid 25

- *

• Li nk 5 0.5 I Q ERPA 0 1ndex Grid *--===-----Miles Figure K-26. Link-Node Analysis Network - Grid 25 NMP/JAF K-27 KLD Engin eering, P.C.

Evacuat ion Ti me Estimate February 24, 2016

Calkins Rd I

I I

I J Lege nd NMP/JAF Evacuation Time Estimate Lin k- Node Analysis Network Figures NMP/JAF

-=-

Shadow Region Node Link 2, 5, 10, 15 Mile Rings Water -~

• 0.2~ 0.5 Grid 26 Q ERPA c::J lndexGrid *--== = - - - - -Miles _ _ . _ .... c.,a,11

,_,_,11>10111 .......... ,,.. ......... " _

Figure K-27, Link-Node Analysis Network- Grid 26 NMP/JAF K-28 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuati on Time Est imate February 24, 2016

\I I

/

I (

Grid 27

\

I

ti

_Map/9!:f!

J/

-~ 5 t,lile Legend NMP/J AF Evacuation Time Est imate

• NMP/JAF Shadow Region Lin k-Node Ana lys is Network Fi gures

• Node -=- 2, 5, 10, 15 M ile Rings Grid 27

- *

• Link Water 0.5 Q ERPA C ) lndexGrid --c::= =----*M l es ,_( _

d U"'U r.. - ., .1-..,,. .,.

-l-rlW.tl,\I Figure K-28, Link-Node Analysis Network - Grid 27 NMP/JAF K-2 9 KLD Enginee ri ng, P.C.

Evacuati on Time Estimate February 24, 2016

NPollard Dr s Pollard Dr Ln Daisy 0a,sy Ln Owens Rd

)

l l

\

Legend NM P/ JAF Evacuation Time Estimate

• NMP/JAF Shadow Region Link-Node Analysis Netwo rk Figures

• Node

_ .,. , Li nk

-=- 2, 5, 10, 15 Mi le Rings Wa ter *-<;-* Grid 28 0.2~ 0 .5 Q ERPA l-="J Index Grid Miles __ ,_..... ,* ..,1,

...... _...., ..... ,.. --1-a, ,....,..

Figure K-29. Link-Node Analysis Network - Grid 28 NMP/JAF K-30 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate February 24, 2016

I Maple Ave 1*5*Mi/es -

-~~

Gr di OwensRd 29 Rd l

\

I Rd ShermsA~

I Lannmg Dr L'-

Legen d NMP/JAF Eva cuation Time Est imate

• NMP/ JAF Shadow Region Link -Node Analysis Network Figures

--=-- 2, 5, 10, 15 Mile Ring s

• Node

_ .,._, lin k Water *-<r*

0.25 5

0.5 Grid 29 G) ERPA [:::_:::) Index Grid --c::= =----*Mil es ---,-.... ,.....1, C . t - Oll> IPll<""*W.,. t .,..,w,1-rv Figure K-30. Link-Node Analysis Network - Grid 29 NMP/ JAF K-31 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacu ation Time Estimate Fe bruary 24, 2016

I I

/ \

I/

/r ,.

I I If 302 y 250 /

/

..,. s2s3 I

I ..s; 2s2 6)1',s, 1So'1:

Grid 6

'b~ -1o

\,..9

't>?~

°" I 30 I

I

)

I Legend NM P/JAF Evacuation Ti me Estimate Link-Node Analysis Netw ork Figures

• NMP/JAF Shadow Region

":='

• Node

_ .,., Link 2, 5, 10, 15 Mile Rings Water -~

• 0.5 I I Grid 30 Q ERPA D Index Grid ---== =-----Miles --,-""1""11111_'"""n'

...... , _ .. 11 .... , ............

Figure K-31. Link-Node Analysis Network - Grid 30 NMP/ JAF K-32 KLD En gi neering, P.C.

Evacua t ion Time Esti mate February 24, 2016

/

/

Hagsback Rd

~

.~

er I

• • 1

. .,~*

296

..t 271 297 272 273~ ~! 7~

I ,

.286 Legen d NMP/ JAF Evacuation Time Estimate NMP/JAF Node Shadow Region

~ 2, 5, 10, 15 Mile Rings Lin k-Node Analysis Network Figures

_ .,.., Link Wate r *-¢-* Grid 31 I

Q ERPA CJ Index Grid ---===----*MIies r..,,,_--*-*'"1911All1

...,,.,.1r........ ,.1-!'V>,"°"T'.

Figure K-32. Link-Node Analysis Network - Grid 31 NMP/JAF K-33 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuati on Time Estimate February 24, 2016

Su,,ss10.,.. cl or f\01

,., ,~°"e.ro,. <a\

.Jl-t,111,,19

"'.,_ I if ti Grid  ;§ 32 if 1 'i><-

~

j -~  ?;.

I i

.,_ ~ 1, Afttoo,.

\'!. "'v II

~

I y

.Onvewa 81rc1, -!!

I

?u\$-1 Rd I (,,

¢ Q:

8 j

I

§

/.ta'7Rq "o, Gu1rB,ta9o 7

c']

~'l11ack, !?a Run ,90' 28~

~

e.asl 619

~** ...

620 ~

f 618

• t 2~~t W: /$

t~!J ..., ........

}

<3 279~.

8279 I Stattt Hwj 49 I ""~'); *,

R<t f Q' 1* 621 4 '27 8 o;

298 I' i 1:;,

l

~ 8298 I,

,$ ~

I t

f 'cf

-+--+- ~ -+-+- I -""

' lf--+--+----+- +- , j+----+-+--+-- +--+--+--+---+- +--+--+--+J ;+- +----+--e---;..._

Legend NMP/JAF Eva cuation Time Estimate

• Shadow Region Link-Node Ana lysis Network Figures NMP/ JAF Node

_ .,,., Lin k

-=- 2, 5, 10, 15 Mi le Rings Water Grid 32 Q o.s ERPA L J lndex Grid

---==:: : 11-----*M l es - -**-'&.,. 1.. .-J\I

,,_,_... .. ~ia .. , ..- ......- , -.. . , .....

Figure K-33. Link-Node Analysis Network - Grid 32 NMP/JAF K-3 4 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate February 24, 2016

Tabie K-1. Evacuation Roadway Network Characteristics I

,. Saturation :*

. Free Up- Down- Lane Shoulder Roadway .. Roadway Length No. of Flow I Flow Grid I Link#

• Stream .: Str~am L . Width Width I Name Type (ft.) : anes : Rate Speed Number:

Node Node (ft.) (ft.)

- " - *- - -** IL.

(pcphp_l) *- (m_ph) *._ """ J 1 2 3 us 11 collector 1355 1 12 0 1350 30 8 2 2 599 us 11 collector 1552 1 12 0 1575 35 8 3 2 683 SR 13 collector 2432 1 12 0 1750 40 8 4 3 2 us 11 collector 1355 1 12 0 1750 30 8 5 3 4 us 11 collector 374 1 12 0 1125 25 8 6 4 3 us 11 collector 374 1 12 0 1125 25 8 7 4 6 us 11 collector 277 1 12 0 1750 30 8 8 5 2 SR 13 collector 1203 1 12 0 1750 35 8 local 9 5 4 S Jefferson St 1861 1 10 0 1350 30 7 roadway 10 6 4 us 11 collector 277 1 12 0 1350 30 8 11 6 7 us 11 collector 389 1 12 0 1750 30 8 12 7 6 us 11 collector 389 1 12 0 1750 30 8 13 7 22 CR 2 collector 1060 1 12 0 1575 35 8 14 7 27 us 11 collector 5123 1 12 6 1575 35 3 15 7 29 Park St collector 254 1 12 0 1350 30 8 16 8 598 CR 5 collector 4394 1 12 0 1700 50 2 17 9 8 CR 5 collector 1979 1 12 0 1700 50 2 18 10 9 CR 5 collector 2813 1 12 0 1700 50 2 19 11 12 SR 3 collector 2085 1 12 4 1750 55 2 20 11 21 SR 3 collector 2966 1 12 4 1700 55 2 21 11 721 CR 5 collector 1594 1 12 0 1700 50 2 22 12 11 SR 3 collector 2085 1 12 4 1750 55 2 23 12 720 SR 13 collector 1794 1 12 3 1700 50 7 24 13 14 SR 13 collector 4691 1 12 3 1700 50 7 25 14 15 SR 13 collector 2229 1 12 3 1700 50 7 26 15 5 SR 13 collector 1440 1 12 3 1700 40 7 NMP/JAF K-35 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate February 24, 2016

0-------- ----- Saturation Free Up- Dowh- Lane Shoulder Roadway Roadway Length No. of Flow Flow I Grid Link# Stream Stream Width Width Name Type (ft.) Lanes Rate Speed

• Number Node Node (ft.) (ft.)

_(pcph_pl) __ (~ph)_

27 16 17 SR 3 collector 2215 1 12 4 1700 55 2 28 16 28 CR 15 collector 5550 1 12 0 1700 50 2 29 18 16 CR 15 collector 1952 1 12 0 1700 45 2 30 19 16 SR3 collector 3886 1 12 4 1700 55 2 31 20 19 SR 3 collector 12283 1 12 4 1700 55 2 32 21 11 SR 3 collector 2968 1 12 4 1750 55 2 33 21 20 SR 3 collector 4954 1 12 4 1700 55 2 34 22 23 CR2 collector 1091 1 12 0 1575 35 8 35 23 24 CR 2 collector 2121 1 12 0 1700 45 8 181- CR 2 freeway 36 24 25 907 1 12 6 1700 50 8 Ramp ramp 37 24 26 CR 2 collector 461 1 12 0 1700 45 8 38 25 47 181 freeway 6190 2 12 10 2250 75 8 39 25 589 181 freeway 10140 2 12 10 2250 75 3 40 27 42 us 11 collector 15421 1 12 6 1700 55 3 41 28 16 CR 15 collector 5550 1 12 0 1700 so 2 42 28 38 Lake St collector 2319 1 12 0 1700 45 2 43 29 7 Park St collector 254 1 12 0 1750 30 8 44 29 30 North St collector 1141 1 12 0 1575 35 3 45 30 29 North St collector 1141 1 12 0 1575 35 3 46 30 32 North St collector 5623 1 12 0 1700 45 3 local 47 31 30 Lincoln Ave 438 1 12 4 1350 30 3 roadway 48 32 28 North St collector 15394 1 12 0 1700 so 2 I 181- CR 22A freeway so 49 I 33 I 34 1173 I 1 12 I 4 I 1700 I I 1 Ramp ramp 50 34 43 181 freeway 900 2 12 10 2250 75 1 51 34 588 181 freeway 5999 2 12 10 2250 75 3 NMP/JAF K-36 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate February 24, 2016

. --- - u - -. : - * - * - - L Sh - Id Saturation - ~ Free ,.

. p- 0 own- ; ane . ou er , . .

L"mk # St ream Stream Roadway Roadway Length No. of w*d I t h W"d I t h

• Flow Flow . Grid

. Node Node Name Type (ft.) Lanes : (ft.) (ft.) Rate Speed .' Number :

. - -** -- ___ : . - . . __ _ . .. . __ __ _ (pci~_h_e1)_ _ {!_llph) . ________

52 35 33 CR 22A collector 2080 1 12 0 1700 45 1 53 35. 44 us 11 collector 805 1 12 0 1575 35 1 54 36 35 us 11 collector 648 1 12 0 1575 35 1 55 37 36 CR 15 collector 912 1 12 0 1750 35 1 56 38 39 Lake St collector 3189 1 12 0 1700 so 3 57 39 40 Lake St collector 5795 1 12 0 1700 so 3 58 40 36 Lake St collector 2943 1 12 0 1750 45 1 59 41 36 us 11 collector 2122 1 12 0 1750 35 1 60 42 41 us 11 collector 7375 1 12 6 1700 55 3 61 43 34 181 freeway 900 2 12 10 2250 75 1 62 45 51 CR 28 collector 1311 1 12 0 1700 55 8 63 45 116 us 11 collector 16298 1 12 10 1700 55 8 64 45 163 us 11 collector 9635 1 12 10 1700 55 16 181- SR 13 freeway 65 46 47 Ramp ramp 1650 1 12 3 1700 so 8 66 46 48 SR 13 collector 2821 1 12 0 1700 40 8 67 47 25 181 freeway 6190 2 12 10 2250 75 8 68 47 590 181 freeway 6688 2 12 10 2250 75 8 local 69 49 11 CR 5 1286 1 12 0 1750 35 2 roadway Brennan local 70 so 21 Beach Rd roadway 2072 1 12 0 1575 35 2 71 51 52 CR 28 collector 1001 1 12 0 1700 55 8 181- CR 28 freeway 72 51 54 1225 1 12 6 1700 50 8 Ramp ramp 181- CR 28 freeway 73 52 53 1415 1 12 6 1700 50 8 Ramp ramp 74 52 -55 CR 28 collector 2790 1 12 0 1700 55 8 75 53 54 181 freeway 2380 2 12 10 2250 75 8 NMP/JAF K-37 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate February 24, 2016

---

---- --~

Saturation Free U.P- Down- Lane Shoulder Roadway Roadway Length No. of Flow Flow Grid Link# Stream Stream Width Width Name Type (ft.) Lanes Rate Speed . Number Node Node (ft.) (ft.)

(pc_e_h_pl) *~.J~ph)__ ~~

76 53 590 181 freeway 8911 2 12 10 2250 75 8 77 54 53 181 freeway 2380 2 12 10 2250 75 8 78 54 591 181 freeway 7143 2 12 10 2250 75 17 79 56 57 SR 104 collector 6062 1 12 6 1700 55 16 80 56 163 us 11 collector 8900 1 12 10 1700 55 16 81 56 166 us 11 collector 13419 1 12 6 1700 55 16 82 57 58 SR 104 collector 1353 1 12 6 1700 55 17 I 181-SR 104 freeway so 83 I 57 I 60 1084 I 1 I 12 I 6 I 1700 I I 17 Ramp ramp 181-SR 104 freeway I 84 58 59 941 I 1 I 12 I 6 I 1700 I so I 17 Ramp ramp 85 58 61 SR 104 collector 923 1 12 6 1700 55 17 86 59 60 181 freeway 1914 2 12 10 2250 75 17 87 59 591 181 freeway 8873 2 12 10 2250 75 17 88 60 59 181 freeway 1914 2 12 10 2250 75 17 89 60 592 181 freeway 5379 2 12 10 2250 75 17 90 62 63 SR 69 collector 1543 1 12 0 1575 35 23 91 63 64 SR 69 collector 1230 1 12 8 1700 40 23 181-SR69 freeway 92 63 71 997 1 12 4 1350 30 I 23 Ramps ramp 93 64 65 CR 26 collector 1239 1 I 12 I 6 I 1700 I 60 I 23 94 64 67 SR 69 collector 853 1 I 12 I 8 I 1700 I 40 I 23 181- CR 26 freeway 95 65 66 810 1 I 12 I 4 I 1575 I 35 I 23 Ramp ramp 96 66 71 181 freeway 1453 2 12 10 2250 75 23 97 66 593 181 freeway 5464 2 12 10 2250 75 23 98 68 71 181 freeway 1591 2 12 10 2250 75 23 99 68 594 181 freeway 4172 2 12 10 2250 75 23 NMP/JAF K-38 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate February 24, 2016

-- --*- u .. ~ D ** - *- ** - ** , L ** Sh - Id Saturation Free-.---

, . p- , own- . . ane ou er ,, .

L"mk #

• St ream Stream Roadway Roadway Length No. of W"d I t h .. W"d I t h . Flow Flow ,* Grid

• Node Node Name Type (ft.) , Lanes (ft.) . (ft.) Rate Speed Number

' - ---- --- -- --- ,,__ " " - - --  : - ' ---- " "- " (p~phel) Jmp~_)_ _:_ -- -- -

100 69 70 us 11 collector 8151 1 12 6 1700 55 22 101 69 166 us 11 collector 549 1 12 6 1700 55 22 102 69 686 SR 69 collector 3860 1 12 8 1700 55 22 103 70 617 us 11 collector 6284 1 12 6 1700 55 22 104 71 66 181 freeway 1453 2 12 10 2250 75 23 105 71 68 181 freeway 1591 2 12 10 2250 75 23 106 72 73 SR 69 collector 6860 1 12 8 1700 55 16 107 73 69 SR 69 collector 4887 1 12 8 1700 55 22 108 74 72 SR 69 collector 3860 1 12 8 1700 55 16 109 75 74 SR 69 collector 8464 1 12 8 1700 55 16 110 75 610 SR 69 collector 258 1 12 0 1350 30 16 111 76 77 SR 104 collector 899 1 12 0 1750 30 15 112 76 84 SR 104 collector 968 1 12 0 1575 35 16 113 76 610 SR 69 collector 1379 1 12 0 1350 30 16 114 77 76 SR 104 collector 899 1 12 0 1350 30 15 115 77 78 SR 104 collector 1390 1 12 0 1750 30 15 116 77 88 Scenic Ave collector 2212 1 12 8 1575 35 15 117 78 77 SR 104 collector 1390 1 12 0 1750 30 15 118 78 79 SR 3 collector 979 1 12 8 1700 40 15 119 79 78 SR 3 collector 979 1 12 8 1750 40 15 120 79 80 SR 3 collector 3000 1 12 8 1700 45 15 121 80 79 SR 3 collector 3000 1 12 8 1700 45 15 122 80 200 SR 3 collector 3091 1 12 8 1700 55 15 123 81 82 SR 3 collector 2606 1 12 8 1750 55 21 124 82 83 SR 3 collector 5971 1 12 8 1750 55 21 125 83 128 CR4 collector 9517 1 12 0 1700 50 21 126 83 129 SR 3 collector 5603 1 12 8 1700 55 21 127 84 169 Pulaski Dr local 1183 1 12 0 1575 35 16 NMP/JAF K-39 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate February 24, 2016

- - *___ * * --- -----* -- - - - - - - - ----- - - -- - ** - - * - - - - - - - - - Saturation Free ---

Up- Down- Lane Shoulder _

L"m k # St ream Stream Roadway Roadway Length No. of

• W"d , th W"d, th Flow Flow Grid N0 d NO d Name Type (ft.) Lanes (ft ) (ft ) Rate Speed Number

.- . . - e - e - - . ,* * . * (pcphpl)

. -- (m p h) '-. . - ----

roadway 128 84 607 SR 104 collector 1865 1 12 6 1700 40 16 129 85 86 SR 104 collector 4747 1 12 6 1750 55 16 130 86 608 SR 104 collector 10757 1 12 6 1700 60 16 local 131 86 613 Rowe Rd 5965 1 12 0 1575 35 16 roadway 132 87 78 Academy St collector 1047 1 12 0 1750 40 15 133 88 77 Scenic Ave collector 2212 1 12 8 1750 35 15 134 88 96 Scenic Ave collector 3876 1 12 8 1700 45 15 135 89 78 SR 104 collector 2673 1 12 6 1750 40 15 local 136 90 88 Liberty St 629 1 12 0 1350 30 15 roadway local 137 92 79 Spring St 719 1 12 0 1350 30 15 roadway local 138 93 79 Spring St 636 1 12 0 1350 30 15 roadway Munger Hill local 139 94 75 704 1 12 0 1700 40 16 Rd roadway Munger Hill local 140 95 80 1099 1 12 0 1700 40 15 Rd roadway 141 96 88 Scenic Ave collector 3876 1 12 8 1700 45 15 142 96 120 SR 3 collector 7645 1 12 4 1700 55 15 143 97 98 SR 3 collector 3882 1 12 4 1700 55 7 144 97 121 SR 3 collector 3873 1 12 4 1700 55 7 145 98 99 SR 3 collector 3761 1 12 4 1700 55 7 146 99 100 SR 3 collector 5296 1 12 4 1700 55 7 147 100 102 SR 3 collector 1766 1 12 4 1700 55 7 148 100 103 CR 28 collector 1885 1 12 0 1700 45 7 149 101 12 SR 3 collector 4835 1 12 4 1750 45 7 NMP/JAF K-40 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate February 24, 2016

__ __J

l~-

1

- -*- -----,- -- ----~----. ----* . ----- ----- ~~~ ' .

• .i U , * ,

• l

• Sh Id  :. Saturation Free ..

p- Oown- * , ane ou er * * .

. l"m k # St ream Stream Roadway . Roadway length No. of

• w*dI t h *. w*d I t h . Flow Flow Grid

• N d , N d

• Name Type :' (ft.) . lanes (ft ) (ft ) Rate , Speed . Number

• • o e . o e , . , . , .  :' ( h I) . ( h)  :*

- - - .- . . --- , - - . -- _.,. -. - , . . . . -* . . . .. , - . - , pc~ e. - . - ~p --- . . - -

150 102 101 SR 3 collector 2740 1 12 4 1700 55 7 151 103 104 CR 28 collector 975 1 12 0 1700 45 7 152 104 161 CR 28 collector 1977 1 12 0 1700 50 7 153 105 115 CR 28 collector 1435 1 12 0 1700 55 7 154 106 694 CR 28 collector 3016 1 12 0 1700 55 7 155 107 110 Salisbury Rd collector 872 1 12 0 1700 40 7 156 108 109 Salisbury Rd collector 2099 1 12 0 1700 40 7 157 109 111 CR 28 collector 2778 1 12 0 1700 50 7 158 110 109 Salisbury Rd collector 193 1 12 0 1700 40 7 159 111 112 CR28 collector 2331 1 12 0 1700 50 7 160 112 113 CR 28 collector 1223 1 12 0 1575 35 7 161 113 114 CR 28 collector 1283 1 12 0 1700 45 7 162 113 118 CR41 collector 3988 ~ 1 12 0 1700 55 7 163 114 106 CR 28 collector 1467 1 12 0 1700 45 7 164 115 45 CR 28 collector 1855 1 12 0 1700 55 7 165 116 45 us 11 collector 16298 1 12 10 1700 55 8 166 116 599 us 11 collector 2352 1 12 6 1700 45 8 167 117 116 CR41 collector 1990 1 12 0 1700 50 7 168 118 602 CR41 collector 8745 1 12 0 1700 55 7 169 119 113 CR41 collector 4506 1 12 0 1700 55 7 170 120 96 SR3 collector 7645 1 12 4 1700 55 15 171 120 121 SR 3 collector 2927 1 12 4 1700 55 6 172 121 97 SR 3 collector 3873 1 12 4 1700 55 7 173 121 120 SR 3 collector 2902 1 12 4 1700 55 6 174 122 97 SR 1048 collector 5895 1 12 6 1700 60 6 175 123 122 SR 1048 collector 1499 1 12 6 1700 50 6 Meixco Point 176 124 123 collector 1891 1 12 0 1575 35 6 DrW NMP/JAF K-41 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate February 24, 2016 I

L

---

=*- ..:::;.:..... -_- -.------ ____ . - - - - - ~..-

Up- Down- Lane Shoulder j Saturation . Free ,.

Roadway . Roadway . Length No. of

• Width

• Flow *, Grid Link# Stream Stream Width

• Flow Name Type (ft.) Lanes . (ft.) (ft.) Rate Speed  : Number Node. Node

!!!I!! * (pcp_~pl) :: __ Lmph)__'.~ __

177 125 122 CR40 collector 2057 1 12 0 1575 35 6 178 126 123 SR 104B collector 2146 1 12 6 1700 so 6 179 127 126 SR 104B collector 3254 1 12 6 1700 55 6 180 128 254 CR4 collector 6035 1 12 0 1700 so 21 181 129 259 SR 3 collector 5232 1 12 8 1700 55 21 182 130 131 SR 3 collector 5309 1 12 8 1700 so 21 183 130 136 CR45 collector 7245 1 12 0 1700 so 21 184 131 132 SR 3 collector 3272 1 12 8 1700 55 30 185 131 250 SR 264 collector 9748 1 12 6 1700 55 30 186 132 131 SR 3 collector 3277 1 12 8 1700 55 30 187 132 133 SR 3 collector 2718 1 12 8 1700 55 30 188 133 132 SR 3 collector 2709 1 12 8 1700 55 30 189 133 134 SR 3 collector 6537 1 12 8 1700 55 30 190 134 133 SR 3 collector 6538 1 12 8 1700 55 30 191 134 135 SR 3 collector 1693 1 12 8 1700 55 30 192 135 134 SR 3 collector 1695 1 12 8 1700 55 30 193 135 237 SR 3 collector 7823 1 12 8 1700 55 27 194 135 253 SR49 collector 7795 1 12 6 1700 so 30 195 136 301 CR 45 collector 3794 1 12 0 1700 45 21 196 137 139 CR 4 collector 2792 1 12 0 1700 55 14 197 137 715 CR 176 collector 1278 1 12 0 1700 55 14 198 138 632 Myers Rd collector 2304 1 12 0 1700 45 14 199 138 724 CR4 collector 1191 1 12 0 1700 55 14 200 138 726 CR 4 collector 1224 1 12 0 1700 55 14 201 139 187 CR 4 collector 3396 1 12 0 1700 45 14 202 140 141 CR4 collector 4062 1 12 0 1700 55 20 203 141 194 CR4 collector 2312 1 12 0 1700 so 20 204 142 143 CR4 collector 5978 1 12 0 1700 55 20 NMP/JAF K-42 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate February 24, 2016

___ _____:___: _ _*_----,.--__ - - - - - - ~ - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - . - - - - - , ~ - -~ i ~ F r e e * :. - - -

Up- , Down- *

• Lane . Shoulder " ,. . .

. 1.:* k # , St *: St ' Roadway ; Roadway Length No. of

• w*d h W"d h

• Flow Flow : Gnd

• m ,, ream ream .

• 1 t I t "

Node Node *, Name Type (ft.) .. Lanes ; (ft.) . (ft.) '. ( Ra~e I) Spe:d :; Number :

- ------ --*---------*-- ---- - -- - - --*-------- ----- -- -- ---- - .. !'_______ :_ pcp_p_ ___._(_111pJ_, __________

205 143 144 CR4 collector 13490 1 12 0 1750 55 21 206 143 628 CR 6 collector 10680 1 12 0 1700 55 20 207 144 626 CR 35 collector 1985 1 12 0 1700 50 21 208 144 698 CR4 collector 2817 1 12 0 1700 55 21 209 145 146 CR6 collector 2065 1 12 4 1700 50 15 210 145 183 CR 6 collector 3428 1 12 0 1700 55 15 211 146 145 CR 6 collector 2050 1 12 4 1700 50 15 212 146 147 CR 6 collector 1480 1 12 4 1700 50 15 213 147 146 CR6 collector 1480 1 12 4 1700 50 15 214 147 199 CR 6 collector 1221 1 12 4 1700 50 15 215 148 199 CR 6 collector 2328 1 12 4 1700 50 15 216 149 716 SR 104 collector 1109 1 12 6 1700 55 15 217 149 728 CR 6 collector 1360 1 12 4 1700 50 15 218 150 363 SR 104 collector 1790 1 12 6 1700 55 15 219 151 152 SR 104 collector 2906 1 12 6 1700 55 15 220 151 363 SR 104 collector 1987 1 12 6 1700 55 15 221 151 729 Tollgate Rd collector 706 1 12 6 1700 55 15 222 152 153 SR 104 collector 3317 1 12 6 1700 55 15 223 153 89 SR 104 collector 2904 1 12 6 1700 55 15 224 154 149 CR 6 collector 2776 1 12 4 1700 45 15 225 154 717 SR 1048 collector 809 1 12 6 1700 60 15 226 155 156 SR 1048 collector 1643 1 12 10 1700 55 14 227 155 609 SR 104 collector 989 1 12 6 1700 40 15 228 156 154 SR 1048 collector 3565 1 12 10 1700 55 15 229 157 86 Smithers Rd collector 4855 1 10 0 1750 40 16 local 230 157 605 Spath Rd 4997 1 12 0 1700 45 16 roadway 231 158 157 Tubbs Rd collector 377 1 12 0 1750 50 16 NMP/JAF K-43 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate February 24, 2016

- . . -- -- - - -- -- . . . -- -- . . -- - - ---=--------

• ~  : D ---:- L - - Sh Id . Saturation

• Free ,

, p- , own- f . ane ou er . *d L" k # St

• S . Roadway Roadway

• Length No. o W"d h w*d h F1ow Flow ., Gn m ream tream

• 1 t I t

• Node . Node *, Name Type * (ft.) . Lanes .' (ft.) : (ft.) . Rate .' Speed :: Number

--- - - - - - - ; . --- 't. -  :: -- -- . - . . --' . -- .: _{p£e!1PD  ; (mph)_;, ----'

Fort Leazier 232 159 121 collector 3172 1 12 0 1700 40 7 Rd local 233 160 161 S Daysville Rd 1726 1 12 0 1700 40 7 roadway 234 161 110 CR 28 collector 2298 1 12 0 1700 50 7 235 162 163 Drybridge Rd collector 5445 1 12 0 1700 40 16 236 163 45 us 11 collector 9635 1 12 10 1700 55 16 237 163 56 us 11 collector 8899 1 12 10 1750 55 16 238 164 605 CR41 collector 3832 1 12 4 1700 55 16 239 164 719 CR41 collector 791 1 12 4 1700 55 16 240 165 119 CR 41 collector 2048 1 12 0 1700 55 7 241 166 56 us 11 collector 13419 1 12 6 1750 55 16 242 166 69 us 11 collector 549 1 12 6 1700 55 22 local 243 167 164 Sherman Rd 2948 1 12 0 1750 40 16 roadway 244 169 170 Tubbs Rd collector 1017 1 12 0 1700 40 16 245 170 158 Tubbs Rd collector 4202 1 12 0 1700 50 16 246 171 157 Tubbs Rd collector 4014 1 12 0 1750 50 16 247 172 154 CR 6 collector 5379 1 12 4 1700 50 15 248 172 718 CR 1 collector 730 1 12 0 1700 55 6 249 174 127 SR 1048 collector 2600 1 12 6 1700 60 6 250 174 603 Tollgate Rd collector 1066 1 12 6 1700 40 6 251 175 176 SR 1048 collector 4017 1 12 6 1700 60 15 252 176 174 SR 1048 collector 4129 1 12 6 1700 60 6 local 253 178 172 CR 6 793 1 12 10 1700 40 6 roadway 254 179 172 CR 1 collector 7136 1 12 0 1700 55 5 255 180 179 CR 1 collector 3056 1 12 0 1700 55 5 NMP/JAF K-44 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate February 24, 2016

~:- * ---- ---* * *-*- ---- -- - -- * --- *----~------.-Satur~F~

• Up- Down- . Lane Shoulder

• 1 , *

. k# St St Roadway Roadway Length : No. of W'd h , w*d h

• Flow

• Flow .: Grid Lm . ream ream I t I t *

' Node , Node

• Name Type (ft.) Lanes : (ft.) (ft.)  : Rate

• Speed , Number :

.._ - -- ---- - -- :: _. . __ . __ _ ~.  ; *. (pcphpl) . (mph) tj .

256 181 205 CR 1 collector 411 1 12 0 1750 55 14 local 257 181 714 Dennis Rd 676 1 12 0 1700 40 14 roadway 258 182 181 CR 1 collector 4563 1 12 0 1700 45 14 259 182 706 CR 29 collector 868 1 12 0 1700 55 14 260 183 143 CR 6 collector 4945 1 12 0 1700 55 21 261 184 185 CR 29 collector 5084 1 12 0 1700 50 14 262 185 186 CR 29 collector 2720 1 12 0 1700 50 14 263 186 187 CR 29 collector 4063 1 12 0 1700 55 14 264 187 140 CR 4 collector 2348 1 12 0 1700 45 14 265 188 189 SR 104 collector 1164 1 12 6 1700 55 14 266 188 604 SR 104 collector 4497 1 12 6 1700 55 14 267 189 184 CR 29 collector 3668 1 12 0 1700 50 14 268 189 188 SR 104 collector 1164 1 12 6 1700 55 14 269 189 306 SR 104 collector 3465 1 12 6 1700 55 14 local 270 190 145 Darrow Rd 7742 1 12 0 1700 50 15 roadway 271 191 202 SR 104 collector 1177 1 12 6 1700 55 14 272 191 604 SR 104 collector 1816 1 12 6 1700 55 14 273 191 722 CR 51 collector 811 1 12 0 1700 55 14 274 192 193 CR 51 collector 4493 1 12 0 1700 55 14 275 193 195 CR 51 collector 1477 1 12 0 1700 45 14 276 193 197 Mud Lake Rd collector 3477 1 10 0 1700 45 14 277 194 142 CR 4 collector 1955 1 12 0 1700 50 20 278 195 196 CR 51 collector 4168 1 12 0 1700 45 14 279 196 145 CR 51 collector 3788 1 12 0 1700 45 15 280 197 194 Mud Lake Rd collector 4359 1 10 0 1700 45 14 281 198 190 Darrow Rd local 7573 1 12 0 1700 45 15 NMP/JAF K-45 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate February 24, 2016

_______ :___* ____:::__-;- ---------.:-~------ -- - -- ** * * *---=-----.--=-----*saturation Free

• Up- Down- , Lane , Shoulder .. .

• L"mk # , St ream

• Stream Roadway

• Roadway Length No. of , w*dI t h w*dI t h Flow Flow Grid

• Node Node Name Type (ft.) Lanes , (ft.) (ft.)  : Rate  ;' Speed . Number

- **~- -

. --- -- (pcphpl)

,. (mph) ---, -

roadway 282 199 147 CR 6 collector 1212 1 12 4 1700 so 15 local 283 199 723 Hurlbut Rd roadway 725 1 10 0 1700 so 15 284 200 81 SR 3 collector 8301 1 12 8 1700 55 15 Munger Hill local 285 201 80 1431 1 12 0 1700 40 15 Rd roadway Munger Hill local 286 201 200 1842 1 12 0 1700 40 15 Rd roadway 287 202 155 SR 104 collector 6970 1 12 6 1700 55 14 local 288 202 191 SR 104 1177 1 12 6 1700 55 14 roadway 289 203 202 Middle Rd collector 1082 1 12 0 1350 30 14 290 205 180 CR 1 collector 4078 1 12 0 1700 55 14 291 205 181 CR 1 collector 411 1 12 0 1700 55 14 Nine Mile local 292 206 205 8924 1 12 0 1750 40 5 Point Rd roadway 293 207 208 CR 176 collector 5193 1 12 0 1700 55 20 294 208 209 CR 176 collector 606 1 12 0 1700 55 20 295 208 210 CR 45 collector 2980 1 12 0 1700 so 20 296 209 327 CR 45 collector 1972 1 12 0 1700 so 20 297 209 328 CR 176 collector 7600 1 12 0 1700 55 20 298 210 208 CR 45 collector 2980 1 12 0 1700 so 20 299 210 216 CR45 collector 2040 1 12 0 1700 so 20 local 300 211 239 Kingdom Rd 5059 1 12 0 1700 40 19 roadway 301 211 637 CR 45 collector 3731 1 12 0 1700 45 19 local 302 212 211 Kingdom Rd 426 1 12 0 1700 40 19 roadway NMP/JAF K-46 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate February 24, 2016

_-_-_------=~-----D *::.____ - -- - - - -- - -~- *-.- ; ; -d--. Saturation -~

. p- own- . ane

• ou 1 er . .

L"mk # ** St ream Stream Roadway Roadway Length No. of W"d I t h W"dI t h Flow Flow

• Grid N d N d Name Type * (ft.) Lanes . (ft ) . (ft ) Rate . Speed . Number

. o e o e * * ( h I) ( h) *

-- -- - - - :, - -- -- - - - - - -- - - - - -  : - -- - - --- - -- ,!..... pep P - -~P - -* - ----

303 212 213 CR 45 collector 3822 1 12 0 1700 so 19 304 213 212 CR 45 collector 3821 1 12 0 1700 so 19 305 213 221 CR 45 collector 3040 1 12 0 1700 so 20 minor 306 214 243 SR 481 7865 2 12 12 1900 60 19 arterial 307 214 475 CR 45 collector 2468 1 12 0 1700 45 19 308 214 637 CR45 collector 462 1 12 0 1700 45 19 309 215 216 Myers Rd collector 2557 1 12 0 1700 so 20 310 215 221 CR45 collector 648 1 12 0 1575 35 20 311 216 210 CR45 collector 2040 1 12 0 1700 so 20 312 216 217 Myers Rd collector 5917 1 12 0 1700 45 20 313 217 218 Myers Rd collector 4375 1 12 0 1700 45 20 314 218 700 CR 57 collector 2339 1 12 0 1700 so 20 315 219 634 CR 57 collector 239 1 12 0 1575 35 19 minor 316 219 635 SR 481 5233 2 12 12 1900 60 19 arterial 317 220 218 CR 57 collector 918 1 12 0 1700 so 20 318 221 213 CR 45 collector 3031 1 12 0 1700 so 20 319 221 215 CR45 collector 649 1 12 0 1575 35 20 320 222 224 CR 57 collector 1387 1 12 0 1700 45 26 321 223 225 CR 57 collector 192 1 12 0 1700 so 26 322 224 223 CR 57 collector 4140 1 12 0 1700 45 26 323 225 384 SR481 collector 1534 1 12 12 1700 45 26 local 324 226 223 Van Buren St 1216 1 12 0 1350 30 26 roadway 325 227 231 SR481 collector 1217 1 12 12 1700 55 26 326 228 230 SR481 collector 2182 1 12 12 1700 55 26 327 229 228 SR481 collector 2760 1 12 12 1700 55 20 NMP/JAF K-47 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate February 24, 2016

---

~---

up-D

---

---- --** ~ - L

• Sh Id Saturation

• Free '

own-

• ane ou er . .

, L"mk # St ream

• St ream Roadway Roadway Length No. of W"dI t h

• W"d 1 t h Flow

• Flow Gnd

• Node . Node Name Type (ft.) Lanes . (ft.) (ft.) :a~e I) s:e~d Number

--- ----- - - - ---- - - --- ______ (pp __ p _( p_) __ - - '

328 230 227 SR481 collector 1346 1 12 12 1700 55 26 329 231 225 SR481 collector 783 1 12 12 1700 55 26 330 232 222 CR 57 collector 2984 1 12 0 1700 45 20 local 331 232 711 Howard Rd 4026 1 12 0 1700 40 20 roadway 332 233 234 CR45 collector 1451 1 12 0 1700 so 20 333 233 327 CR45 collector 3066 1 12 0 1700 so 20 334 234 233 CR45 collector 1451 1 12 0 1700 so 20 335 234 631 CR45 collector 467 1 12 0 1575 35 20 336 235 236 CR45 collector 2279 1 12 0 1700 55 20 337 236 237 CR 6 collector 12864 1 12 0 1700 55 20 338 236 246 CR45 collector 1158 1 12 0 1700 45 20 339 237 135 SR 3 collector 7823 1 12 8 1700 55 27 340 237 329 CR 6 collector 6487 1 12 0 1700 55 27 341 237 383 SR 3 collector 6633 1 12 12 1700 55 27 342 238 236 CR 6 collector 2183 1 12 0 1700 45 20 local 343 239 240 Kingdom Rd 2310 1 12 0 1700 40 19 roadway local 344 240 245 Kingdom Rd 5378 1 12 0 1700 40 19 roadway local 345 240 636 March Rd 1862 1 12 0 1700 40 19 roadway 346 241 219 CR 57 collector 3694 1 12 0 1700 45 19 local 347 241 243 March Rd 616 1 12 0 1700 40 19 roadway Minetto 348 242 472 collector 1033 1 12 0 1575 35 19 Bridge Rd 349 242 476 CR 57 collector 6535 1 12 0 1700 so 19 350 243 219 SR481 minor 3313 2 12 12 1900 60 19 NMP/JAF K-48 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate February 24, 2016

--- ----------~------- ----~- - ---- - ----------------~~

Up- Down- Lane Shoulder .

L"mk # . St ream Stream Roadway Roadway Length No. of W"d I t h W"d I t h Flow Flow Grid N d 0

N d Name Type (ft.) Lanes (ft ) (ft ) Rate Speed Number O

_ e e _ * * (pcphpl) _(mph} _

arterial local 351 243 241 March Rd 616 1 12 0 1700 40 19 roadway local 352 243 636 March Rd 467 1 12 0 1700 40 19 roadway 353 244 220 CR 57 collector 3338 1 12 0 1700 50 19 local 354 245 220 Kingdom Rd 553 1 12 0 1350 30 20 roadway 355 246 247 CR45 collector 3472 1 12 0 1700 45 20 356 247 248 CR45 collector 4885 1 12 0 1700 50 21 357 248 249 CR 45 collector 3336 1 12 0 1700 50 21 358 249 130 CR 45 collector 6675 1 12 0 1700 50 21 359 250 251 SR49 collector 5452 1 12 6 1700 50 30 360 250 252 SR 264 collector 1643 1 12 6 1700 55 30 361 251 625 SR49 collector 3379 1 12 6 1700 50 30 362 253 250 SR49 collector 4367 1 12 6 1700 55 30 363 254 255 CR4 collector 4539 1 12 0 1700 50 22 364 254 257 CR 45 collector 4304 1 12 0 1700 50 21 365 254 262 CR45 collector 2341 1 12 0 1700 45 22 366 255 258 CR4 collector 4109 1 12 0 1700 50 31 367 256 268 CR4 collector 760 1 12 0 1700 45 31 368 257 254 CR 45 collector 4304 1 12 0 1700 50 21 369 257 258 CR45 collector 6662 1 12 0 1700 45 31 370 257 301 CR45 collector 4007 1 12 0 1700 45 21 371 258 256 CR4 collector 3002 1 12 0 1700 50 31 372 259 359 SR 3 collector 2360 1 12 8 1700 55 21 373 260 263 CR45 collector 4838 1 12 0 1700 50 22 374 260 622 Graves Rd local 5355 1 12 0 1700 45 22 NMP/JAF K-49 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate February 24, 2016

- - - - - - .--~---- Free ,

Lane *. ~h~u;der - Sati,iration II Pown-Link# Stream Roadway Roadway Length No. of Width Width Flc,w Flow Grid Node Name Type (ft.) Lanes (ft.) (ft.) lllimllll Speed Number

[mmmm (mph) _J ___ _

roadway 375 I 260 623 CR45 collector I 2162 I 1 I 12 I 0 I 1700 I 45 I 22 376 261 260 Paradise Rd local I 2670 I 1 I 12 I 0 I 1700 I 40 I 22 roadway 377 262 254 CR 45 collector 2361 1 12 0 1700 45 22 378 262 623 CR 45 collector 2632 1 12 0 1700 45 22 379 263 265 CR 45 collector 1370 1 12 0 1700 so 22 380 264 267 us 11 collector 1743 1 12 12 1700 40 22 381 265 616 CR 45 collector 6510 1 12 0 1700 so 22 local 382 266 263 Villiard Rd 7199 I 1 I 12 I 0 I 1575 I 35 I 22 roadway 383 267 288 us 11 collector 10574 1 12 10 1700 55 22 384 268 269 CR 18 collector 3749 1 12 0 1700 so 31 385 268 292 CR4 collector 4993 1 12 0 1700 so 31 386 269 270 CR 33 collector 4522 1 12 0 1700 so 31 387 270 271 CR 33 collector 7832 1 12 0 1700 so 31 388 271 272 CR 33 collector 1377 1 12 0 1700 so 31 389 272 273 SR 49 collector 2565 1 12 6 1700 so 31 390 273 287 SR 49 collector 3203 1 12 6 1700 so 31 391 274 297 SR 49 collector 7603 1 12 6 1700 55 30 392 275 280 SR49 collector 2680 1 12 6 1700 40 31 393 275 281 us 11 collector 1073 1 12 0 1575 35 31 394 276 277 SR 49 collector 1247 1 12 6 1750 40 32 181-SR 49 freeway 395 277 278 Ramps ramp 973 I 1 I 12 I 4 I 1700 I so I 32 396 277 279 SR 49 collector 523 1 12 6 1750 40 32 397 278 298 181 freeway 797 3 12 10 2250 75 32 398 278 597 181 freeway 5884 2 12 10 2250 75 32 NMP/JAF K-50 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate February 24, 2016

Free II

• Up-II Lane Roadway Roadway Length No. of Flow

• Grid link# Stream Width .

Name Type (ft.) Lanes Speed , Number Node (ft.)

• (mph)_ '. _ ____ _

399 279 713 SR 49 collector 612 1 12 6 1700 45 32 400 280 276 SR 49 collector 1978 1 12 6 1750 40 31 401 282 275 SR49 collector 2194 1 12 0 1750 35 31 402 283 282 SR49 collector 1075 1 12 6 1700 45 31 403 284 283 SR49 collector 831 1 12 6 1700 45 31 404 285 284 SR49 collector 1406 1 12 6 1700 50 31 405 286 285 SR49 collector 2748 1 12 6 1700 50 31 406 287 286 SR49 collector 4298 1 12 6 1700 50 31 407 288 289 us 11 collector 8665 1 12 10 1700 55 31 408 289 290 us 11 collector 4425 1 12 10 1700 55 31 409 290 295 us 11 collector 2656 1 12 10 1700 55 31 410 291 290 CR4 collector 4120 1 12 0 1700 50 31 411 292 293 CR4 collector 3869 1 12 0 1700 50 31 412 293 294 CR4 collector 5308 1 12 0 1700 50 31 413 294 291 CR4 collector 1293 1 12 0 1700 40 31 414 295 275 us 11 collector 3879 1 12 10 1750 40 31 415 296 272 SR49 collector 2554 1 12 6 1700 50 31 416 297 296 SR49 collector 988 1 12 6 1700 45 31 417 298 278 181 freeway 797 3 12 10 2250 75 32 I Pople Ridge local I

418 I 299 I 82 Rd roadway I 5708 I 1 I 10 I 0 I 1750 I 40 21 I I I local 1700 40 22 419 300 7.3 I French St roadway 2747 1 10 0 420 301 257 CR45 collector 4006 1 12 0 1700 45 21 421 301 624 Winks Rd collector 2485 1 12 0 1700 45 30 422 302 274 Winks Rd collector 8255 1 12 0 1700 45 30 423 303 309 CR 4 collector 7829 1 12 0 1700 55 13 424 303 553 East Ave collector 2645 1 12 0 1700 40 12 NMP/JAF K-51 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate February 24, 2016

-- - - :* u -- --~- * - - - -- L

• Sh ld~aturat1on ~

• p- own- ane ou er L"mk # St ream Stream Roadway Roadway Length No. of W"d I t h W"d I t h Flow Flow Grid

. N0 d , N d O

Name Type (ft.) Lanes (ft ) (ft ) .. Rate Speed : Number ,

,, e e . * * * (pc hpl) (mph)

- - ------ - -- - --- - - - - - - - - --- - - - -- p - - -- -- - -

local 425 304 550 City Line Rd 2527 1 12 0 1575 35 13 roadway 426 304 687 SR 104 collector 2616 1 12 0 1750 40 11 427 305 725 SR 104 collector 1351 1 12 6 1700 50 11 Klocks 428 305 727 collector 1682 1 12 0 1700 45 11 Corners Rd 429 306 189 SR 104 collector 3465 1 12 6 1700 55 14 430 306 305 SR 104 collector 8434 1 12 6 1700 50 14 431 307 633 CR 1 collector 3737 1 12 0 1700 55 11 432 307 705 Creamery Rd collector 1094 1 12 0 1700 45 11 433 308 310 CR 53 collector 3371 1 12 0 1700 45 13 434 308 334 SR 104 collector 6025 1 12 6 1700 50 11 435 309 138 CR4 collector 6560 1 12 0 1700 55 13 436 309 303 CR4 collector 7829 1 12 0 1700 55 13 437 309 311 CR 53 collector 2798 1 12 0 1700 50 13 438 310 309 CR 53 collector 4491 1 12 0 1700 55 13 439 311 312 CR 53 collector 8855 1 12 0 1700 55 19 440 312 212 CR 53 collector 3411 1 12 0 1700 55 19 441 313 344 E 10th St collector 1178 1 12 0 1350 30 12 442 313 553 East Ave collector 1392 1 12 0 1700 40 12 local 443 313 554 Church St 1334 1 12 0 1350 30 12 roadway 444 314 570 E 10th St collector 1406 1 12 0 1750 30 12 minor 445 314 657 SR 104 553 2 12 0 1750 45 12 arterial 446 315 331 Lake Rd collector 1870 1 12 0 1700 50 11 447 316 315 Lake Rd collector 1795 1 12 0 1750 50 11 448 317 350 Lake Rd collector 1646 1 12 0 1700 50 4 NMP/JAF K-52 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate February 24, 2016

_ _ _ _ ~ __ _:D____ -_-_ _:_ -=-- -- --- --- - L ~

p- own- . ane

• ou er . . .

L" k # Roadway Roadway Length ,. No. of w*d h w*d h Flow Flow Grid m 5tream 5tream I t I t

N d N d Name Type (ft.) Lanes (ft ) (ft ) Rate , Speed Number o e o e * * ( h I) ( h) *

... - --- -------- - -- - -- - -' - - -- - - -- -- _: ___ pcp __e___ mp--*-- - --

449 318 317 Lake Rd collector 2027 1 12 0 1700 so 5 450 319 318 Lake Rd collector 3481 1 12 0 1700 so 5 451 320 695 Lake Rd collector 954 1 12 0 1700 40 5 452 321 206 Lake Rd collector 4452 1 12 0 1700 40 5 453 321 322 CR 29 collector 6581 1 12 0 1700 55 5 454 322 182 CR 29 collector 3955 1 12 0 1700 so 14 Nine Mile local 455 323 206 1589 1 12 0 1700 40 5 Point Rd roadway 456 324 182 CR 1 collector 3727 1 12 0 1700 55 14 457 324 325 CR 1 collector 4246 1 12 0 1700 55 14 458 325 307 CR 1 collector 4503 1 12 0 1700 55 14 459 327 209 CR45 collector 1972 1 12 0 1700 so 20 460 327 233 CR45 collector 3066 1 12 0 1700 so 20 461 328 364 CR 176 collector 4495 1 12 0 1700 55 20 462 329 380 CR 9 collector 2506 1 12 0 1700 55 27 463 329 381 CR 6 collector 2799 1 12 0 1700 55 27 Novelis 464 330 315 collector 785 1 12 0 1750 35 11 Driveway 465 331 333 Lake Rd collector 5146 1 12 0 1700 so 11 Novelis 466 332 331 collector 1338 1 12 0 1575 35 11 Driveway 467 333 334 CR E 63 collector 4541 1 12 0 1700 so 11 468 333 335 Lake Rd collector 1021 1 12 0 1700 so 11 469 334 304 SR 104 collector 659 1 12 0 1750 45 11 470 335 337 E Seneca St collector 4002 1 12 0 1750 so 10 471 335 339 Mitchell St collector 203 1 12 8 1700 so 11 472 336 337 St Paul collector 1405 1 12 0 1750 40 10 473 336 340 Mitchell St collector 3816 1 12 8 1700 40 10 NMP/JAF K-53 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate February 24, 2016

- - - - - - - - ~ - - - - _ : : _ - -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - * - - - - - - * *- * .-~Free

• Up- Down- . Lane Shoulder .

• L"mk # St ream Stream Roadway Roadway Length No. of W"d I t h W"d I t h Flow Flow Gnd N d N d . Name Type (ft.) Lanes (ft ) (ft ) Rate Speed , Number

. o e . o e . . (pcphpl) (mph)

• * - - * *- * ***** "" I * * - -

474 337 336 St Paul collector 1405 1 12 0 1700 40 10 475 337 338 E 4th St collector 2312 1 12 0 1750 40 10 476 337 552 E Seneca St collector 3892 1 12 0 1575 35 10 477 338 342 SR 104 collector 1286 1 12 0 1750 40 12 478 339 336 Mitchell St collector 3842 1 12 8 1700 50 10 479 340 584 E 10th St collector 987 1 12 0 1350 30 10 480 341 340 Mitchell St collector 581 1 12 8 1350 30 10 local 481 342 571 E 13th St 560 1 12 0 1350 30 12 roadway 482 342 656 SR 104 collector 930 1 12 0 1700 40 12 483 343 345 E Albany St collector 1057 1 12 0 1575 35 12 484 344 313 E 10th St collector 1178 1 12 0 1350 30 12 485 344 563 E Albany St collector 1138 1 12 0 1350 30 12 486 344 570 E 10th St collector 445 1 12 0 1750 30 12 487 345 344 E Albany St collector 1857 1 12 0 1575 35 12 488 346 524 E Utica St collector 1014 2 12 0 1750 35 12 local 489 346 661 E 1st St 1237 2 12 0 1900 30 12 roadway local 490 346 662 E 1st St 213 2 12 0 1900 30 12 roadway 491 347 338 SR 104 collector 610 1 12 0 1750 40 12 Jim local 492 347 348 Shampine 1004 1 12 0 1700 40 12 roadway Blvd 493 348 343 E Albany St collector 334 1 12 0 1575 35 12 494 349 316 Lake Rd collector 3092 1 12 0 1700 50 11 495 350 349 Lake Rd collector 2642 1 12 0 1700 50 4 496 351 319 Lake Rd collector 2356 1 12 0 1700 50 5 497 351 320 Lake Rd collector 1012 1 12 2 1700 50 5 NMP/JAF K-54 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate February 24, 2016

Shoulder Saturation Free .

Up- Down- Lane Roadway Roadway Length

• No. of

• Width Width Flow Flow Grid Link# Stream Stream Node Node:

Name Type (ft.) Lanes (ft.) (ft,) lllimmlll Speed Number

~ .'.. (_mph} _.:_ . __

NMP local 498 I 352 I 351 I Driveway I 698 I 1 I 12 I 0 I 1575 I 35 I 5 roadway local 499 353 306 Duke Rd 3269 I 1 12 0 1700 45 14 I I I roadway I I I I I 500 I 354 I 357 I CR 35 collector 3083 I 1 I 12 I 0 I 1700 I so I 15 local 501 I 354 I 361 I Hurlbut Rd I roadway 2541 1 10 0 1700 so 15 502 355 627 CR 35 collector 2037 -1 12 0 1575 35 21 503 357 355 CR 35 collector 7703 1 12 0 1700 55 15 504 358 359 CR 35 collector 5033 1 12 0 1700 so 21 505 359 130 SR 3 collector 1371 1 12 8 1700 45 21 506 360 358 CR 35 collector 2097 1 12 0 1700 so 21 local 507 I 361 I 201 I Hurlbut Rd I roadway 11507 I 1 I 10 I 0 I 1700 I 45 I 15 local 508 361 354 Hurlbut Rd roadway 2541 1 10 0 1700 so 15 509 362 612 CR44 collector 4847 1 12 0 1700 so 15 510 363 151 SR 104 collector 1987 1 12 6 1700 55 15 511 363 362 CR44 collector 4277 1 12 0 1700 so 15 512 364 405 CR 176 collector 9141 1 12 0 1700 55 26 local 513 365 374 CR 176 521 1 12 0 1350 30 26 roadway 514 365 376 Oneida St collector 1735 1 12 0 1575 35 26 515 365 653 Oneida St collector 2059 1 12 0 1575 35 26 minor 516 366 368 SR481 816 2 12 0 1750 35 26 arterial 517 366 651 Oneida St collector 188 1 12 0 1575 35 26 518 366 653 Oneida St collector 355 1 12 0 1575 35 26 519 367 371 SR 3 minor 455 2 12 0 1750 35 28 NMP/JAF K-55 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate February 24, 2016

---

~----~--- ------ - - -- -*- ~ a t i o n Free Up-

• Down- .* Lane

• Shoulder * .

. L"mk # Stream Stream Roadway Roadway Length No. of W"d I t h w*dI t h Flow Flow Grid N d 0

N d Name Type (ft.) Lanes (ft ) (ft ) Rate

• Speed

• Number O

e -* --

e -- " " " - * "

• (pcphpl)

(mph) :

- "-* * * * "" I arterial minor 520 367 399 SR 481 1432 2 12 0 1900 35 28 arterial 521 367 654 SR 3 collector 313 1 12 0 1575 35 26 minor 522 368 367 SR481 1852 2 12 0 1750 35 26 arterial 523 369 368 Rochester St collector 1377 1 12 0 1750 30 26 524 370 371 1st St collector 983 1 12 0 1750 30 26 minor 525 371 367 SR3 455 2 12 0 1750 35 28 arterial minor 526 371 406 SR 3 1325 2 12 0 1750 35 28 arterial 527 372 371 1st St collector 442 1 12 0 1750 30 28 528 373 377 CR 9 collector 1122 1 12 0 1575 35 26 529 373 386 SR 3 collector 1067 1 12 0 1575 35 26 local 530 374 375 CR 176 1451 1 12 0 1350 30 26 roadway 531 375 386 SR 3 collector 1107 1 12 0 1575 35 26 532 375 395 SR 3 collector 1204 1 12 0 1750 35 26 533 376 365 Oneida St collector 1735 1 12 0 1575 35 26 534 376 373 SR 3 collector 1415 1 12 0 1750 35 26 535 377 373 CR 9 collector 1122 1 12 0 1750 35 26 536 377 378 CR 9 collector 2318 1 12 0 1700 so 26 537 378 377 CR 9 collector 2335 1 12 0 1700 so 26 538 378 379 CR 9 collector 4565 1 12 0 1700 55 27 539 379 378 CR 9 collector 4565 1 12 0 1700 55 27 540 379 380 CR9 collector 1276 1 12 0 1700 so 27 541 380 329 CR 9 collector 2502 1 12 0 1700 55 27 542 380 379 CR 9 collector 1249 1 12 0 1700 so 27 NMP/JAF K-56 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate February 24, 2016

.::_* _- __ --- --- - - - . - - -~------~----

• Saturation Free Up- Down- ,. Lane Shoulder Roadway

• Roadway Length . No. of Flow Flow Grid Link# Stream Stream Width Width Name Type (ft.) . Lanes Rate Speed Number

.: Node Node (ft.) (ft.)

(J?C.Pi!PI) (mph). ~

543 381 704 CR 6 collector 4048 1 12 0 1700 55 29 544 382 376 SR 3 collector 2521 1 12 12 1700 45 26 545 383 382 SR 3 collector 3876 1 12 12 1700 55 26 546 384 402 SR481 collector 1769 1 12 12 1700 40 26 local 547 385 365 CR 176 1172 1 12 0 1350 30 26 roadway local 548 385 404 Ontario St 1163 1 12 0 1350 30 26 roadway 549 386 373 SR 3 collector 1070 1 12 0 1750 35 26 550 386 375 SR 3 collector 1107 1 12 0 1575 35 26 minor 551 387 393 SR481 2736 2 12 0 1900 40 28 arterial 552 388 397 Fay St collector 2429 1 12 0 1700 40 28 553 389 387 Fay St collector 680 1 12 0 1750 40 28 554 390 391 CR 57 collector 2232 1 12 0 1575 35 28 minor 555 390 439 SR 481 3684 2 12 12 1900 60 28 arterial 556 392 390 Driveway collector 500 1 12 0 1750 30 28 minor 557 393 390 SR481 644 2 12 0 1750 35 28 arterial 558 394 393 Pierce Dr collector 1237 1 12 0 1575 35 28 559 395 375 SR 3 collector 1204 1 12 0 1575 35 26 local 560 395 397 4th St 2480 1 12 0 1350 30 28 roadway 561 395 654 SR3 collector 558 1 12 0 1575 35 26 local 562 396 395 4th St 790 1 12 0 1750 30 26 roadway 563 397 387 Fay St collector 138 1 12 0 1750 40 28 564 398 377 S 12th St local 629 1 12 0 1350 30 26 NMP/JAF K-57 KLD Engineering, P.C.

' Evacuation Time Estimate February 24, 2016 I_

_ __:__.._.:_ _ _ _ - ..:.:....:.:..:.._*..:._____-__-_ _ _ ---=---*--------*-----------Saturation Free

• Up- Down- " Lane Shoulder .

L"mk # St ream St ream Roadway Roadway Length No. of w*d I t h w*d I t h Flow Flow : Grid Node Node

• Name Type . (ft.) : Lanes . (ft.)

(ft.) _ :a~e I)

- - - (p _p__ p f:e~~ :. Number

- - P. - -*- -*- --- -*

roadway minor 565 399 387 SR 481 1273 2 12 0 1750 35 28 arterial 566 400 368 Rochester St collector 335 1 12 0 1750 30 26 567 401 409 SR 48 collector 1397 1 12 0 1750 35 26 568 401 410 SR48 collector 790 1 12 0 1575 35 26 569 401 650 Oneida St collector 1231 1 12 0 1575 35 26 570 402 652 SR481 collector 775 1 12 12 1700 45 26 local 571 403 402 Ontario St 474 1 12 0 1350 30 26 roadway local 572 404 402 Ontario St 980 1 12 0 1350 30 26 roadway local 573 405 382 Gillespie Rd 1996 1 12 0 1575 35 26 roadway 574 405 385 CR 176 collector 2494 1 12 0 1700 45 26 minor 575 406 371 SR 3 1325 2 12 0 1750 35 28 arterial 576 406 441 SR48 collector 3454 1 12 0 1575 35 28 577 406 644 SR 3 collector 1014 2 12 0 1750 35 28 578 407 420 SR 3 collector 3177 1 12 10 1700 45 25 579 407 641 SR3 collector 3255 1 12 6 1750 45 25 local 580 408 409 Phillips 669 1 12 0 1750 30 26 roadway 581 409 406 SR48 collector 1943 1 12 0 1750 35 39 582 410 401 SR48 collector 790 1 12 0 1750 35 26 583 410 411 Hannibal St collector 5759 1 12 0 1750 35 25 584 411 419 SR3 collector 2558 1 12 12 1700 55 25 585 411 641 SR 3 collector 990 1 12 6 1750 45 25 586 411 643 CR 3 collector 1303 1 12 0 1700 45 25 NMP/JAF K-58 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate February 24, 2016

Up- Down- Lane . Shoulder Saturation Free Roadway Roadway Length ** No. of : Width Width Flow Flow Grid Link# Stream Stream Name Type (ft.) Lanes (ft.) (ft.) Rate Speed Number Node Node

_ (pcphpl) . jmph} _'--*

587 412 413 CR 3 collector 8607 1 12 0 1700 50 25 588 412 431 CR 8 collector 6797 1 12 0 1700 55 25 589 413 414 CR 3 collector 6522 1 12 0 1700 45 25 590 413 489 Rathburn Rd collector 1245 1 12 0 1575 35 25 591 414 415 CR3 collector 4741 1 12 0 1700 45 24 592 415 432 CR 7 collector 1075 1 12 0 1700 45 24 593 415 730 CR 7 collector 1743 1 12 0 1700 45 24 594 417 453 SR 104 collector 779 1 12 0 1700 55 24 595 417 638 SR 3 collector 3035 1 12 4 1700 40 24 596 418 412 CR 8 collector 910 1 12 0 1700 55 25 597 418 419 SR 3 collector 3095 1 12 12 1700 55 25 598 418 489 SR 3 collector 8613 1 12 12 1700 60 25 599 419 411 SR 3 collector 2569 1 12 12 1750 55 25 600 419 418 SR 3 collector 3095 1 12 12 1750 55 25 601 420 407 SR 3 collector 3165 1 12 6 1700 45 25 602 420 644 SR 3 collector 681 2 12 0 1750 35 28 603 421 407 Phillips St collector 1195 1 12 0 1575 35 25 604 422 410 SR 48 collector 1413 1 12 0 1575 35 26 605 423 422 SR 48 collector 5373 1 12 3 1700 50 26 606 424 423 SR 48 collector 6377 1 12 3 1700 50 25 607 425 424 SR 48 collector 2325 1 12 3 1700 50 19 608 425 426 CR 85 collector 7134 1 12 0 1700 50 19 609 426 425 CR 85 collector 7134 1 12 0 1700 50 19 610 426 428 CR 8 collector 5325 1 12 0 1700 55 19 611 426 501 CR 85 collector 2552 1 12 0 1700 55 19 612 427 494 Rathburn Rd collector 4951 1 12 0 1700 40 25 613 427 675 CR 85 collector 5560 1 12 0 1700 55 19 614 427 676 CR 85 collector 1578 1 12 0 1700 50 19 NMP/JAF K-59 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate February 24, 2016 j

---

-

• Saturation Free Up- Down- Lane Shoulder Roadway Roadway Length No. of

• Width Flow Flow Grid Link# Stream Stream Width Name Type (ft.) Lanes (ft.) Rate Speed Number Node Node (ft.)

(p<<_;J?~.PU ___ *_jmph)_- ~ _

615 428 429 CR 8 collector 2568 1 12 0 1700 55 25 616 429 430 CR 8 collector 1808 1 12 0 1700 55 25 617 430 418 CR 8 collector 3460 1 12 0 1750* 55 25 618 432 415 CR 7 collector 1075 1 12 0 1700 45 24 619 432 459 SR 3 collector 4359 1 12 12 1700 60 24 620 432 489 SR 3 collector 10770 1 12 12 1700 60 25 621 433 432 CR 7 collector 10664 1 12 0 1700 55 24 622 433 446 CR 85 collector 1890 1 12 0 1700 50 18 623 433 677 CR 85 collector 4366 1 12 0 1700 50 18 624 434 433 CR 7 collector 5363 1 12 0 1700 50 18 625 435 437 CR 7 collector 3193 1 12 0 1700 50 18 626 436 438 CR 7 collector 3669 1 12 0 1700 50 18 627 436 465 CR 20 collector 5257 1 12 0 1700 50 18 628 436 466 CR 20 collector 1490 1 12 0 1700 50 18 629 437 434 CR 7 collector 4219 1 12 0 1700 50 18 630 438 703 CR 7 collector 2830 1 12 0 1700 50 18 631 439 440 1481 freeway 2422 1 12 12 2250 75 29 632 441 442 SR48 collector 1772 1 12 0 1575 35 28 633 443 460 SR 104 collector 8242 1 12 8 1700 60 24 634 444 443 CR 85 collector 3860 1 12 0 1700 50 18 635 445 444 CR 85 collector 1516 1 12 0 1700 40 18 636 446 445 CR 85 collector 1014 1 12 0 1700 40 18 637 447 452 SR 104A collector 1370 1 12 4 1700 55 18 638 453 458 SR 104 collector 3234 1 12 0 1700 55 24 639 455 456 CR 34 collector 2119 1 12 4 1700 55 24 640 455 457 SR 104 collector 1299 1 12 0 1700 55 24 641 458 455 SR 104 collector 3724 1 12 0 1700 55 24 642 459 417 SR 3 collector 3757 1 12 12 1750 55 24 NMP/JAF K-60 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate February 24, 2016

_-------------U--=---.-* ---=------------------------------._l_ _ _S_h~ i o n

• Free .

l" k # St p-

• 0S own- *

• Roadway Roadway length No. of w*d h ane ou er W"d h Flow Flow Grid m ream tream . 1 t I t *

• . Node Node Name

• Type . (ft.) lanes , (ft.) (ft.) Rate Speed . Number

_ __ __ . _ _ , __ .. __ _ , _ .__ ... _ __ _ . __._ (pcp~pl) . _(mphl _: . __

643 460 417 SR 104 collector 2799 1 12 8 1750 55 24 644 461 443 SR 104 collector 16427 1 12 8 1700 60 18 645 462 461 SR 104 collector 4337 1 12 8 1700 55 18 646 462 486 SR 104A collector 3776 1 12 4 1700 so 18 647 463 462 SR 104 collector 1245 1 12 0 1700 so 18 648 464 463 CR 20 collector 2758 1 12 0 1700 so 18 649 465 464 CR 20 collector 3631 1 12 0 1700 so 18 650 466 436 CR 20 collector 1490 1 12 0 1700 so 18 651 466 498 CR 20 collector 1276 1 12 0 1700 so 19 652 467 468 CR 20 collector 2572 1 12 0 1700 so 19 653 467 498 CR 20 collector 3096 1 12 0 1700 so 19 654 468 467 CR20 collector 2572 1 12 0 1700 so 19 655 468 469 CR 25 collector 3625 1 12 0 1700 so 19 656 469 468 CR 25 collector 3625 1 12 0 1700 so 19 657 469 470 CR 24 collector 1245 1 12 0 1700 45 19 658 469 499 CR 25 collector 1919 1 12 0 1700 45 19 659 470 469 CR 24 collector 1245 1 12 0 1700 45 19 660 470 471 CR 24 collector 1655 1 12 0 1700 45 19 661 471 470 CR 24 collector 1655 1 12 0 1700 45 19 662 471 483 CR 24 collector 4245 1 12 0 1700 so 19 Minetto 663 472 483 collector 519 1 12 0 1125 25 19 Bridge Rd 664 473 701 SR48 collector 3181 1 12 3 1700 so 19 665 474 473 SR 48 collector 4865 1 12 3 1700 so 19 666 475 242 CR 57 collector 957 1 12 0 1700 45 19 667 476 241 CR 57 collector 1575 1 12 0 1700 45 19 668 477 475 CR 57 collector 6336 1 12 0 1700 so 19 669 478 477 CR 57 collector 670 1 12 0 1700 so 19 NMP/JAF K-61 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate February 24, 2016

Saturation Free Up- Down- Lane

• Shoulder Roadway  : Roadway Length ' No. of Flow Flow Grid Link# Stream Stream Width Width Name Type (ft.) Lanes Rate Speed

• Number Node Node (ft.) (ft.)

--- -- - -- ,. - -- -- - ___ *__ (pcp_h_pl) __ J_mph) -*'-- --

670 479 478 CR 57 collector 4757 1 12 0 1700 50 12 671 479 481 SR 481 collector 2638 1 12 12 1700 55 12 672 480 479 E River Rd collector 6776 1 12 12 1700 55 12 minor 673 481 482 SR 481 1618 2 12 12 1900 60 13 arterial minor 674 482 214 SR481 8439 2 12 12 1900 60 19 arterial 675 483 471 CR 24 collector 4245 1 12 0 1700 50 19 676 483 484 CR 24 collector 312 1 12 0 1575 35 19 677 484 483 CR 24 collector 312 1 12 0 1575 35 19 678 484 485 SR48 collector 1072 1 12 12 1700 40 19 679 485 426 CR 8 collector 11458 1 12 0 1700 50 19 680 485 474 SR 48 collector 3321 1 12 3 1700 50 19 681 486 447 SR 104A collector 15063 1 12 4 1700 55 18 682 487 463 CR 20 collector 7757 1 12 0 1700 50 18 local 683 488 447 CR96 4098 1 12 0 1700 40 18 roadway 684 489 418 SR 3 collector 8613 1 12 12 1750 60 25 685 489 432 SR 3 collector 10771 1 12 12 1700 60 25 686 490 489 Rathburn Rd collector 3704 1 12 0 1700 40 25 687 491 490 Rathburn Rd collector 1390 1 12 0 1700 40 25 688 492 491 Rathburn Rd collector 574 1 12 0 1350 30 25 689 493 492 Rathburn Rd collector 1537 1 12 0 1700 40 25 690 494 493 Rathburn Rd collector 414 1 12 0 1350 30 25 691 495 427 Rathburn Rd collector 3556 1 12 0 1700 45 19 local 692 495 712 Phillips Rd 4796 1 12 0 1575 35 19 roadway 693 496 495 Rathburn Rd collector 6733 1 12 0 1700 45 19 NMP/JAF K-62 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate February 24, 2016

- - - - - - - - - . - U- _ _._--_D___ - _ . - - - - - * - - - - - - - - -------- - - - - - - L - - - ~ ~ ~ - - -

own-L"mk #

. p-

• St ream Stream

• Roa way d . d Roa way Lengt h

• No. o f

w*ane d h I t w*ouI dt her F1ow F1ow G "d n

N d N d Name Type (ft.) Lanes (ft) (ft) Rate Speed Number

, o e o e . . . (f)cphpl) (mph)

. *-** ----- - --- --- -- - -~-- -- ---- - ---- ' ----- ---- **---- --

694 497 673 Rathburn Rd collector 4538 1 12 0 1700 45 19 695 498 466 CR 20 collector 1275 1 12 0 1700 so 19 696 498 467 CR 20 collector 3095 1 12 0 1700 so 19 697 498 702 Rathburn Rd collector 7455 1 12 0 1700 45 19 698 499 500 CR 25 collector 10918 1 12 0 1700 so 19 699 500 501 CR 25 collector 2010 1 12 0 1700 so 19 700 501 426 CR 85 collector 2553 1 12 0 1700 55 19 701 501 675 CR 85 collector 2736 1 12 0 1700 55 19 702 502 468 CR 25 collector 5776 1 12 0 1700 55 19 local 703 503 514 Ellen St 1631 1 12 0 1350 30 12 roadway 704 503 519 W 5th St collector 5338 1 12 0 1700 40 12 local 705 503 537 W 5th St 991 1 12 0 1350 30 12 roadway local 706 503 543 Ellen St 2153 1 12 0 1350 30 12 roadway local 707 504 512 Liberty St 4044 1 12 0 1700 40 12 roadway 708 505 710 CR 7 collector 585 1 12 0 1700 55 18 709 506 505 CR 7 collector 3113 1 12 0 1700 55 9 710 507 506 CR 7 collector 7214 1 12 0 1700 45 9 minor 711 507 678 SR 104 620 2 12 0 1900 40 9 arterial minor 712 507 680 SR 104 1572 2 12 0 1750 40 9 arterial 713 508 679 SR 104 collector 4550 1 12 4 1700 so 9 714 509 678 SR 104 collector 888 1 12 0 1700 45 9 715 509 708 SR 104 collector 645 1 12 4 1700 so 9 716 510 509 Sweet Rd collector 1282 2 12 0 1750 40 9 NMP/JAF K-63 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate February 24, 2016

-- -- u-- - D --------:--- - - - ----------L___-----;~ -Id--. Saturation Free ---

p- own- * '

• ane ou er . .

L"m k # St ream St ream Roadway Roadway Length No. of . w*d 1 t h w*d I t h Flow Flow

• Grid Node Node Name Type . (ft.) Lanes (ft.) (ft.) Rate Speed . Number

_ ___ __ _ __ __ __ _ . __ . _ ___ , _ __ __ _: (pcpf!J?_I)__ _lmph)_ ;* __ . _ ___ _ .

major 717 511 530 SR 104 1446 2 12 0 1750 35 12 arterial 718 511 533 Hillside Ave collector 1475 1 12 0 1750 35 12 minor 719 511 680 SR 104 1277 2 12 0 1750 40 9 arterial Gardenier local 720 512 505 4983 1 12 0 1700 40 9 Hill Rd roadway local 721 513 514 Ellen St 863 1 12 0 1350 30 12 roadway 722 513 517 SR48 collector 1901 1 12 3 1700 40 12 723 513 670 W 1st St collector 851 1 12 0 1575 35 12 local 724 514 503 Ellen St 1631 1 12 0 1350 30 12 roadway local 725 514 513 Ellen St 863 1 12 0 1350 30 12 roadway 726 515 484 SR48 collector 4100 1 12 3 1700 45 19 727 516 515 SR 48 collector 3027 1 12 3 1700 so 19 728 517 518 SR 48 collector 2461 1 12 0 1700 45 12 729 518 692 SR 48 collector 2985 1 12 3 1700 45 12 730 519 497 Rathburn Rd collector 2824 1 12 0 1700 45 12 731 519 502 CR 25 collector 1326 1 12 0 1700 so 12 major 732 520 527 SR 104 1087 2 12 0 1750 35 12 arterial minor 733 520 530 SR 104 908 2 12 0 1750 35 12 arterial local 734 521 511 W Seneca St 1031 1 12 0 1750 30 12 roadway 735 522 523 W 1st St collector 956 1 12 0 1750 30 12 736 522 668 W Seneca St local 275 1 12 0 1350 30 12 NMP/JAF K-64 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate February 24, 2016

._ _ _ _ _:_:_ _-.:._.,_.;__*- - * - - * - - - - *-* . -* ..... -*----* *saturat~~---

Up- Down- Lane Shoulder * .

L"mk # Stream Stream Roadway Roadway Length No. of w*d I t h W"dth 1

Flow Flow Grid d d Name Type (ft.) Lanes (ft ) (ft ) Rate Speed Number No e No e _ *

• _ -*-

• (

• pep h p I) ( h) mp .... __

0 roadway 737 523 522 W 1st St collector 956 1 12 0 1350 30 12 minor 738 523 526 SR 104 246 2 12 0 1750 35 12 arterial 739 523 669 W 1st St collector 1212 1 12 0 1350 30 12 minor 740 523 707 SR 104 859 2 12 0 1900 35 12 arterial 741 524 346 E Utica St collector 1014 2 12 0 1750 35 12 742 524 538 W Utica St collector 1200 2 12 0 1750 35 12 743 524 539 W 1st St collector 1014 2 12 0 1750 35 12 744 524 669 W 1st St collector 267 2 12 0 1900 30 12 local 745 525 661 E 1st St 265 2 12 0 1900 30 12 roadway minor 746 525 707 SR 104 206 2 12 0 1900 35 12 arterial minor 747 526 523 SR 104 245 2 12 0 1750 35 12 arterial minor 748 526 527 SR 104 878 2 12 0 1750 35 12 arterial local 749 526 666 W 2nd St 483 1 12 0 1125 25 12 roadway minor 750 527 520 SR 104 1087 2 12 0 1900 35 12 arterial minor 751 527 526 SR 104 878 2 12 0 1750 35 12 arterial local 752 527 538 W 5th St 1472 1 12 0 1750 35 12 roadway local 753 527 689 W 5th St 541 1 12 0 1350 30 12 roadway NMP/JAF K-65 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate February 24, 2016

___-_. -______-___-__.:_ ___________.- -- --=---*

L"mk #

• Up-Stream Node Down-Stream Node Roadway Name Roadway Type Length No. of (ft.) Lanes Lane W"d I t (ft.)

h Shoulder W"d I t (ft.)

h Flow Rate Flow Speed Grid Number

_ _ __ _ __ _ _ ___ _ _. _ _ __ _. _ ___ _ _: (pq~hpl) _. .JmehL __ _ _

754 528 522 W 1st St collector 1094 1 12 0 1350 30 12 local 755 529 521 W Seneca St 399 1 12 0 1350 30 12 roadway local 756 529 530 Liberty St 710 1 12 0 1750 30 12 roadway minor 757 530 511 SR 104 1446 2 12 0 1750 35 12 arterial minor 758 530 520 SR 104 909 2 12 0 1900 35 12 arterial local 759 530 529 Liberty St 710 1 12 0 1350 30 12 roadway local 760 530 531 Liberty St 1544 1 12 0 1350 30 12 roadway local 761 531 530 Liberty St 1544 1 12 0 1750 30 12 roadway 762 531 533 W Utica St collector 1469 1 12 0 1750 35 12 763 531 534 W Utica St collector 888 1 12 0 1575 35 12 local 764 531 665 Liberty St 1041 1 12 0 1350 30 12 roadway local 765 532 529 Liberty St 1831 1 12 0 1350 30 12 roadway 766 533 511 Hillside Ave collector 1475 1 12 0 1750 35 12 767 533 531 W Utica St collector 1469 1 12 0 1575 35 12 768 533 544 - Hillside Ave collector 740 1 12 0 1575 35 12 769 534 531 W Utica St collector 889 1 12 0 1575 35 12 770 534 538 W Utica St collector 1574 2 12 0 1750 35 12 771 535 533 W Utica St collector 596 1 12 0 1750 35 9 local 772 536 529 W Seneca St 1930 1 12 0 1350 30 12 roadway NMP/JAF K-66 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate February 24, 2016

- -_:_ - --- _---- -- -- - - ~ - - ~

Up- Down- . Lane Shoulder , . .

L" k # St S Roadway Roadway Length No. of w*d h w*d h . Flow Flow Grid m ream tream I t I t Node Node Name Type (ft.) Lanes . (ft.) (ft.)  : Rate Speed Number

, ________ , ____ __ ___ __ _ __ _ _ _  : __ ': _ _ (p~phpl} .__ _(mph) _ _ _

local 773 536 689 W 5th St 455 1 12 0 1350 30 12 roadway local 774 537 503 W 5th St 991 1 12 0 1350 30 12 roadway local 775 537 540 W 5th St 859 1 12 0 . 1350 30 12 roadway 776 538 524 W Utica St collector 1199 2 12 0 1750 35 12 local 777 538 527 W 5th St 1472 1 12 0 1750 35 12 roadway 778 538 534 W Utica St collector 1574 2 12 0 1900 35 12 local 779 538 540 W 5th St 996 1 12 0 1350 30 12 roadway 780 539 524 W 1st St collector 1014 2 12 0 1750 35 12 local 781 539 540 Erie St 1254 1 12 0 1350 30 12 roadway 782 539 670 W 1st St collector 1466 1 12 0 1575 35 12 local 783 540 537 W 5th St 859 1 12 0 1350 30 12 roadway local 784 540 538 W 5th St 996 1 12 0 1750 30 12 roadway local 785 540 539 Erie St 1254 1 12 0 1750 30 12 roadway local 786 540 691 Erie St 1173 1 12 0 1350 30 12 roadway local 787 541 543 Hawley St 1075 1 12 0 1350 30 12 roadway local 788 541 665 Erie St 870 1 12 0 1350 30 12 roadway 789 541 691 Erie St local 785 1 12 0 1350 30 12 NMP/JAF K-67 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate February 24, 2016

- u p-

.~

own-

--- . --- *- - -- -L -

ane

=-Sh";~

ou er Saturation Free ---

L"in k # St ream St ream Roadway Roadway Length No. of

• w*dI t h W"dI t h Flow Flow Grid N d N d Name Type , (ft.) Lanes (ft ) (ft )  : Rate Speed

• Number o e o e , * * * ( h I) ( h)

- ------- -- - -- - - -  : -- - - -- - - _._ ---- , - -- - -- pcp __p - ---~P __ __ ,_ ---

roadway local 790 542 544 Erie St 393 1 12 0 ' 1350 30 12 roadway local 791 542 665 Erie St 1190 1 12 0 1575 35 12 roadway local 792 543 503 Ellen St 2153 1 12 0 1350 30 12 roadway local 793 543 504 Ellen St 632 1 12 0 1350 30 12 roadway 794 544 512 Hillside Ave collector 5150 1 12 0 1700 45 12 795 544 533 Hillside Ave collector 740 1 12 0 1750 35 12 local 796 544 542 Erie St 393 1 12 0 1350 30 12 roadway local 797 545 536 W 5th St 514 1 12 0 1350 30 12 roadway Washington 798 546 511 collector 1631 1 12 0 1750 35 9 Blvd local 799 547 586 Syracuse St 1102 1 12 0 1350 30 12 roadway local 800 547 664 Syracuse St 1686 1 12 0 1350 30 12 roadway 801 548 346 E Utica St collector 339 2 12 0 1750 30 12 local 802 548 566 E 2nd St 1479 1 12 0 1750 30 12 roadway local 803 548 572 E 2nd St 533 1 12 0 1350 30 12 roadway 804 549 480 SR481 collector 3201 1 12 4 1700 45 12 local 805 549 662 E 1st St 322 1 12 0 1350 30 12 roadway NMP/JAF K-68 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate February 24, 2016

_ _ _ -_ _ _ _ _ U*-----D-----------~----L-----Sh -Id-- Saturai~Free

• p- own- ane ou er ,

. k# Stream Stream Roadway Roadway Length No. of w*d h w*d h Flow Flow

• Grid Lm I t I t

. . Node Node Name Type (ft.) Lanes (ft.) (ft.)

1 Rate Speed Number

_ ________ , __ -* , _ _ . .  : . .. . . _ .  : (pcphpl) . (mp~)_: **---* _

local 806 550 303 City Line Rd 2404 1 12 0 1575 35 13 roadway 807 550 348 E Albany*st collector 2370 1 12 0 1575 35 12 local 808 551 342 E 13th St 314 1 12 0 1750 30 12 roadway 809 552 565 E Seneca St collector 1177 1 12 0 1350 30 10 810 552 582 E 10th St collector 493 1 12 0 1350 30 10 811 553 303 East Ave collector 2645 1 12 0 1700 40 12 812 553 313 East Ave collector 1392 1 12 0 1700 40 12 local 813 554 547 Church St 877 1 12 0 1350 30 12 roadway local 814 554 563 E 7th St 1107 1 12 0 1350 30 12 roadway local 815 555 553 Bunner St 1001 1 12 0 1350 30 12 roadway local 816 556 525 E 1st St 505 1 12 0 1750 30 12 roadway local 817 557 556 E Cayuga St 265 1 12 0 1750 30 12 roadway local 818 557 566 E 2nd St 526 1 12 0 1750 30 12 roadway local 819 558 556 E 1st St 711 1 12 0 1750 30 12 roadway local 820 559 557 E 2nd St 929 1 12 0 1750 30 12 roadway minor 821 560 568 SR 104 932 2 12 0 1750 35 12 arterial local 822 560 569 E 7th St 1457 1 12 0 1350 30 12 roadway NMP/JAF K-69 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate February 24, 2016

_-_-_ _ _ _ _ _ _ U____ - - - - - - - - - - - - *

• L - Sh Id Saturation Free p- 0 own- ane ou er ,

L"in k # Stream Stream Ro11dway Roadway

• Length No. of W"d 1 t h W"d I t h Flow . Flow , Grid '

. N d N d . Name Type . (ft.) Lanes (ft ) (ft ) Rate , Speed Number 0 0

__

• e , e , ', * * * (pcphpl) * (m h) ..

- -- - -- - - - - - ----- -- - - - - - - _p - -- --- -- - - -

local 823 561 578 E Schuyler St 870 1 12 0 1350 30 10 roadway local 824 563 554 E 7th St 1107 1 12 0 1350 30 12 roadway local 825 563 569 E 7th St 517 1 12 0 1350 30 12 roadway 826 563 663 E Albany St collector 919 1 12 0 1350 30 12 827 565 580 E Seneca St collector 885 1 12 0 1350 30 10 local 828 565 581 E 7th St 482 1 12 0 1350 30 10 roadway minor 829 566 525 SR 104 303 2 12 0 1750 35 12 arterial local 830 566 548 E 2nd St 1479 1 12 0 1350 30 12 roadway minor 831 567 566 SR 104 290 2 12 0 1750 35 12 arterial minor 832 568 567 SR 104 276 2 12 0 1750 35 12 arterial local 833 568 577 E 4th St 1499 1 12 0 1750 30 12 roadway local 834 569 560 E 7th St 1457 1 12 0 1350 30 12 roadway local 835 569 563 E 7th St 516 1 12 0 1350 30 12 roadway 836 569 577 E Utica St collector 888 1 12 0 1750 30 12 837 570 314 E 10th St collector 1406 1 12 0 1750 30 12 838 570 344 E 10th St collector 445 1 12 0 1350 30 12 839 570 569 E Utica St collector 1192 1 12 0 1350 30 12 840 571 570 E Utica St collector 1781 1 12 0 1750 30 12 NMP/JAF K-70 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate February 24, 2016

Saturation Free Up- Down- Lane Shoulder Roadway Roadway Length No. of Flow Flow Grid Link# ,, Stream Stream Width

• Width Name Type (ft.) Lanes Rate Speed Number Node Node (ft.) (ft.)

-- - * - * - --* I " ~ - - -~ -- -- - - - -- -- -- " -- "

_.'.. (pcphpl) ___ (~P.i!) _: __ - --

local 841 572 548 E 2nd St 533 1 12 0 1350 30. 12 roadway 842 572 549 E Albany St collector 281 1 12 0 1350 30 12 local 843 573 572 E 2nd St 463 1 12 0 1350 30 12 roadway local 844 - 574 557 E Cayuga St 304 1 12 0 1750 30 12 roadway local 845 574 567 E 3rd St 496 1 12 0 1750 30 12 roadway local 846 575 568 E 4th St 471 1 12 0 1750 30 12 roadway local 847 575 574 E Cayuga St 290 1 12 0 1350 30 12 roadway 848 577 548 E Utica St collector 578 1 12 0 1350 30 12 local 849 577 568 E 4th St 1499 1 12 0 1750 30 12 roadway local 850 577 663 E 4th St 508 1 12 0 1350 30 12 roadway local 851 578 559 E Schuyler St 584 1 12 0 1750 30 10 roadway local 852 578 580 E 4th St 496 1 12 0 1350 30 10 roadway local 853 579 578 E 4th St 385 1 12 0 1350 30 10 roadway local 854 580 575 E 4th St 495 1 12 0 1350 30 12 roadway local 855 581 560 E 7th St 531 1 12 0 1350 30 12 roadway 856 581 575 E Cayuga St local 911 1 12 0 1350 30 12 NMP/JAF K-71 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate February 24, 2016 i__

• - . Saturation I Free Up- Down- Lane Shoulder Roadway Roadway Length No. of Flow Flow Grid Link# Stream Stream Width Width Name Type (ft.) Lanes Rate Speed Number Node Node (ft.) (ft.) h) '

Ill (pq~hpl) {mp ----- .

roadway 857 I 582 I 314 E 10th St collector 662 1 12 0 1750 30 12 local 858 I 582 I 658 E Cayuga St 524 I 1 I 12 I 0 I 1350 I 30 I 10 roadway local 859 I 583 I 582 I E Cayuga St 645 1 12 0 1350 30 10 roadway 860 I 584 I 552 I E 10th St collector 462 1 12 0 1350 30 10 local 861 I 584 I 561 I ESchuyler St 1177 I 1 I 12 I 0 I 1350 I 30 I 10 roadway local 862 I 585 I 584 I ESchuyler St I d roa way I 629 I 1 12 I 0 I 1350 I 30 I 10 local 863 I 586 I 547 I Syracuse St 1102 1 12 0 1350 30 12 roadway 864 I 586 I 572 I EAlbany St collector 282 1 12 0 1350 30 12 local 865 I 587 I 554 I E 7th St 423 1 12 0 1350 30 12 roadway 866 588 34 81 freeway 5999 2 12 10 2250 75 3 867 588 589 81 freeway 14746 2 12 10 2250 75 3 868 589 25 81 freeway 10128 2 12 10 2250 75 3 869 589 588 81 freeway 14802 2 12 10 2250 75 3 870 590 47 81 freeway 6696 2 12 10 2250 75 8 871 590 53 81 freeway 8881 2 12 10 2250 75 8 872 591 54 81 freeway 7136 2 12 10 2250 75 17 873 591 59 81 freeway 8848 2 12 10 2250 75 17 874 592 60 81 freeway 5379 2 12 10 2250 75 17 875 592 593 81 freeway 6219 2 12 10 2250 75 17 876 593 66 81 freeway 5464 2 12 10 2250 75 23 877 593 592 81 freeway 6219 2 12 10 2250 75 17 878 594 68 81 freeway 4172 2 12 10 2250 75 23 NMP/JAF K-72 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate February 24, 2016 I

L__

___-_--_ _U_____ - _D_:=-::..~--------------- - - -- - -_ _L____S_h_~ Saturation Free

• p- own- *

• ane ou er . , .

L"mk # St ream St ream Roadway Roadway Length . No. of W"d I t h ,. W"d 1 t h Flow Flow Grid

Node Node . Name Type (ft.) Lanes . (ft.) , (ft.) Rate Speed Number .

__ _ __ __ . __ __ _ __ __ _ _ ____ _ '* _ _ ' (pcp_~_pl) --~-L'!!RhL __ __ _

• 879 594 595 181 freeway 5778 2 12 10 2250 75 23 880 595 594 181 freeway 5778 2 12 10 2250 75 23 881 595 615 181 freeway 3430 2 12 10 2250 75 23 882 596 597 181 freeway 12349 2 12 10 2250 75 32 883 596 615 181 freeway 11581 2 12 10 2250 75 32 884 597 278 181 freeway 5884 2 12 10 2250 75 32 885 597 596 181 freeway 12339 2 12 10 2250 75 32 886 598 6 CR 5 collector 2614 1 12 o 1750 35 7 887 599 2 us 11 collector 1552 1 12 o 1750 35 8 888 599 116 us 11 collector 2352 1 12 6 1700 45 8 local 889 600 12 Sharoun Dr roadway 739 1 10 o 1750 30 7 890 601 117 CR41 collector 1229 1 12 o 1700 50 7 891 602 601 CR41 collector 1865 1 12 o 1700 55 7 892 603 151 Tollgate Rd collector 9721 1 12 6 1700 55 15 893 603 174 Tollgate Rd collector 1065 1 12 6 1700 40 6 894 604 188 SR 104 collector 4495 1 12 6 1700 55 14 895 604 191 SR 104 collector 1816 1 12 6 1700 55 14 local 896 605 157 Spath Rd roadway 4997 1 12 o 1750 45 16 897 605 164 CR 41 collector 3832 1 12 4 1750 55 16 898 606 605 CR41 collector 4799 1 12 o 1700 50 16 899 607 85 SR 104 collector 2527 1 12 6 1700 50 16 900 607 697 Sandpipe Rd collector 3227 1 12 o 1700 45 16 901 608 56 SR 104 collector 1484 1 12 6 1750 50 16 902 609 149 SR 104 collector 3361 1 12 6 1700 40 15 Soper Mills local 903 609 198 Rd roadway 745 1 12 o 1350 30 15 NMP/JAF K-73 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate February 24, 2016

_______________ - -_..,:___ ________ ,.;____-_____. - - ~ - - :

.

• Up- . Down- Lane . Shoulder * . .

. L"mk # St ream St ream Roadway

• Roadway . Length No. of W"d 1 t h W"d I t h Flow , Flow Grid

• Node . Node Name . Type (ft.) , Lanes (ft.) (ft.) Rate Speed , Number

. --- . -  ; - - . -*- : - - . - . ,' - -- ' (ecphpl) __ !_mph)__ -- .. -- '

904 610 75 SR 69 collector 258 1 12 0 1350 30 16 905 610 76 SR69 collector 1379 1 12 0 1350 30 16 local 906 611 610 Madison Ave 685 1 10 0 1350 30 16 roadway 907 612 361 CR 44 collector 2106 1 12 0 1700 45 15 local 908 613 166 Rowe Rd 9085 1 12 0 1700 50 16 roadway 909 614 62 SR 69 collector 2273 1 12 8 1575 35 23 910 615 595 181 freeway 3430 2 12 10 2250 75 23 911 615 596 181 freeway 11581 2 12 10 2250 75 32 912 616 264 CR45 collector 2155 1 12 0 1700 40 22 913 617 264 us 11 collector 2524 1 12 6 1700 40 22 181- SR 49 freeway 914 618 277 612 1 12 4 1750 50 32 Ramps ramp local 915 619 276 Driveways 621 1 12 0 1750 30 32 roadway local 916 620 276 Driveways 393 1 12 0 1750 30 32 roadway 181- SR 49 freeway 917 621 279 671 1 12 4 1750 50 32 Ramps ramp local 918 622 255 Pangborn Rd 261 1 12 0 1700 40 22 roadway 919 623 260 CR 45 collector 2142 1 12 0 1700 45 22 920 623 262 CR 45 collector 2632 1 12 0 1700 45 22 921 624 302 Winks Rd collector 7207 1 12 0 1700 45 30 922 625 274 SR 49 collector 2905 1 12 6 1700 50 30 923 626 360 CR 35 collector 3325 1 12 0 1700 50 21 924 627 144 CR 35 collector 4149 1 12 0 1750 50 21 925 628 238 CR 6 collector 1622 1 12 0 1700 45 20 NMP/JAF K-74 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate February 24, 2016

---~---_-__-_.---=---*_-___.-----=--~~-________.--------------------- ,. Saturation . Free '

Up- Down- Lane . Shoulder

' Roadway Roadway Length No. of Flow Flow Grid Link# Stream Stream Width . Width Name Type (ft.) Lanes Rate

• Speed

• Number Node Node (ft.) (ft.)

-- - - " " ~- . -- -- .. -- - ', -- - -

___ (pcphpl)_ :. _(".!1J2h) _ __

local 926 629 320 JAF Driveway 676 1 12 0 1575 35 5 roadway Mt Pleasant local 927 630 234 5678 1 12 0 1700 40 20 Rd roadway 928 631 235 CR45 collector 7487 1 12 0 1700 55 20 929 632 215 Myers Rd collector 11859 1 12 0 1700 45 20 930 633 315 CR 1 collector 919 1 12 0 1750 55 11 931 634 244 CR 57 collector 417 1 12 0 1575 35 19 932 635 699 SR481 collector 1049 1 12 4 1700 60 20 local 933 636 240 March Rd 1862 1 12 0 1700 40 19 roadway local 934 636 243 March Rd 467 1 12 0 1700 40 19 roadway 935 637 211 CR 45 collector 3730 1 12 0 1700 45 19 936 637 214 CR 45 collector 461 1 12 0 1700 45 19 937 638 455 CR 34 collector 5517 1 12 4 1700 40 24 938 641 407 SR 3 collector 3255 1 12 6 1700 45 25 939 641 411 SR 3 collector 990 1 12 6 1750 45 25 940 642 641 Driveway collector 453 1 12 0 1750 30 25 941 643 412 CR 3 collector 4005 1 12 0 1700 45 25 942 644 406 SR 3 collector 1014 2 12 0 1750 35 28 943 644 420 SR 3 collector 681 2 12 0 1900 35 28 local 944 645 644 W 4th St 813 1 12 0 1750 30 28 roadway local 945 646 644 W 4th St 674 1 12 0 1750 30 28 roadway 946 647 650 Oneida St collector 250 1 12 0 1575 35 26 947 647 651 Oneida St collector 189 2 12 0 1900 35 26 948 648 647 1st St local 264 1 12 0 1750 30 26 NMP/JAF K-75 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate February 24, 2016

-- - - -- - - - -- -- - -.- - - ~ - -

Saturation Free Up- Down- Lane . Shoulder

' Roadway Roadway Length No. of Flow Flow Grid Link# Stream Stream Width I Width Name Type (ft.) Lanes Rate Speed Number Node Node (ft.) (ft.)

~ -- - . . .. " . " -- (pcphpl) . _{mph)_

• roadway local 949 649 647 1st St 271 1 12 0 1750 30 26 roadway 950 650 401 Oneida St collector 1240 1 12 0 1750 35 26 951 650 647 Oneida St collector 253 2 12 0 1750 35 26 952 651 366 Oneida St collector 188 1 12 0 1750 35 26 953 651 647 Oneida St collector 188 1 12 0 1750 35 26 minor 954 652 366 SR481 410 2 12 0 1750 35 26 arterial 955 653 365 Oneida St collector 2059 1 12 0 1575 35 26 956 653 366 Oneida St collector 354 1 12 0 1750 35 26 minor 957 654 367 SR 3 313 2 12 0 1750 35 26 arterial 958 654 395 SR 3 collector 558 1 12 0 1750 35 26 local 959 655 559 E 2nd St 305 1 12 0 1750 30 10 roadway 960 656 314 SR 104 collector 1004 2 12 0 1750 40 12 minor 961 657 560 SR 104 644 2 12 0 1900 45 12 arterial local 962 658 581 E Cayuga St 647 1 12 0 1350 30 12 roadway local 963 658 657 E 9th St 564 1 12 0 1750 30 12 roadway local 964 659 657 E 9th St 396 1 12 0 1750 30 12 roadway local 965 660 304 Driveway 395 1 12 0 1750 30 11 roadway local 966 661 346 E 1st St 1237 2 12 0 1750 30 12 roadway NMP/JAF K-76 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate February 24, 2016 I

L

I~

- - - - -- ~ ~ - D - - - - - - = - - - - - - - - -=---*-----* ----------_ L _ - - - - ; - - ~

. p- own- , ane

• ou er .

L"mk # Stream Stream Roadway Roadway Length No. of W"d h W"d h Flow Flow Gnd Node Node ,

Name Type (ft.) Lanes I t (ft.)

I t (ft.) :a~e (p p p I} - --

fp-

!e~~ , Number local 967 661 525 E 1st St 265 1 12 0 1750 30 12 roadway local 968 662 346 E 1st St 213 2 12 0 1750 30 12 roadway local 969 662 549 E 1st St 322 1 12 0 1350 30 12 roadway local 970 663 577 E 4th St 508 1 12 0 1750 30 12 roadway 971 663 586 E Albany St collector 290 1 12 0 1350 30 12 local 972 664 480 Syracuse St 174 1 12 0 1350 30 12 roadway local 973 665 531 Liberty St 1041 1 12 0 1350 30 12 roadway local 974 665 541 Erie St 870 1 12 0 1350 30 12 roadway local 975 665 542 Erie St 1190 1 12 0 1575 35 12 roadway local 976 666 526 W 2nd St 483 1 12 0 1750 25 12 roadway local 977 666 668 W 2nd St 477 1 12 0 1125 25 12 roadway local 978 667 526 W 2nd St 519 1 12 0 1750 25 12 roadway local 979 668 536 W Seneca St 881 1 12 0 1350 30 12 roadway local 980 668 666 W 2nd St 477 1 12 0 1125 25 12 roadway 981 669 523 W 1st St collector 1212 1 12 0 1750 30 12 982 669 524 W 1st St collector 266 1 12 0 1750 30 12 NMP/JAF K-77 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate February 24, 2016

_-_-----~___:_~-_:;:_~_-.;-___:. ______. ---*---*=--*- - - - - - - - - L - - - - ; ; ~ :

p-

• own- ane ou er .

L"mk # . St ream St ream Roadway Roadway Length No. of

• w*d I t h w*dI t h Flow Flow Grid N d N d . Name Type (ft.) Lanes (ft ) (ft ) Rate Speed Number

. o e o e . . ( c h I) (m h) .

- - -- -- - - -- ~ -- -- - - - ----- - - -* - P. p _p - -- p - -- - - - -

983 670 513 W 1st St collector 851 1 12 0 1575 35 12 local 984 670 514 Murray St 966 1 12 0 1350 30 12 roadway 985 670 539 W 1st St collector 1466 2 12 0 1750 35 12 local 986 671 514 Murray St 2374 1 12 0 1350 30 12 roadway local 987 672 539 Birdie Cir 226 1 12 0 1750 30 12 roadway 988 673 674 Rathburn Rd collector 244 1 12 0 950 20 19 989 674 498 Rathburn Rd collector 1064 1 12 0 1700 45 19 990 675 427 CR 85 collector 5560 1 12 0 1700 55 19 991 675 501 CR 85 collector 2737 1 12 0 1700 55 19 992 676 427 CR 85 collector 1578 1 12 0 1350 30 19 993 676 677 CR 85 collector 2278 1 12 0 1700 40 19 994 677 433 CR 85 collector 4366 1 12 0 1700 50 18 995 677 676 CR 85 collector 2285 1 12 0 1700 40 19 minor 996 678 507 SR 104 620 2 12 0 1900 40 9 arterial minor 997 678 509 SR 104 888 1 12 0 1750 45 9 arterial 998 679 463 SR 104 collector 4562 1 12 4 1700 45 18 minor 999 680 507 SR 104 1571 2 12 0 1900 40 9 arterial minor 1000 680 511 SR 104 1277 2 12 0 1750 40 9 arterial local 1001 681 680 5th Ave 255 1 12 0 1750 30 9 roadway local 1002 682 680 5th Ave 372 1 12 0 1750 30 9 roadway NMP/JAF K-78 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate February 24, 2016

Saturation Free Up- Down- Lane Shoulder Roadway Roadway Length No. of Flow Flow Grid Link# Stream Stream Width Width Name Type (ft.) Lanes Rate Speed Number Node Node (ft.) (ft.)

-- (pcphpl) (mph) _

1003 683 46 SR 13 collector 956 1 12 0 1700 40 8 local 1004 684 683 Driveway 256 1 12 0 1750 30 8 roadway 1005 685 614 SR 69 collector 2851 1 12 8 1700 55 22 1006 686 685 SR 69 collector 1584 1 12 8 1700 45 22 1007 687 347 SR 104 collector 444 1 12 0 1700 40 10 local 1008 688 687 Driveway 279 1 12 0 1750 30 10 roadway local 1009 689 527 W 5th St 541 1 12 0 1750 30 12 roadway local 1010 689 536 W 5th St 455 1 12 0 1350 30 12 roadway 1011 690 528 Lake collector 937 1 12 0 1350 30 10 local 1012 691 540 Erie St 1173 1 12 0 1350 30 12 roadway local 1013 691 541 Erie St 784 1 12 0 1350 30 12 roadway 1014 692 516 SR 48 collector 5010 1 12 3 1700 55 19 1015 693 105 CR 28 collector 767 1 12 0 1700 55 7 1016 694 693 CR 28 collector 709 1 12 0 1700 40 7 1017 695 321 Lake Rd collector 2280 1 12 0 1700 40 5 local 1018 696 695 JAF Driveway 596 1 12 0 1350 30 5 roadway 1019 697 613 Sandpipe Rd collector 8866 1 12 0 1700 45 16 1020 698 83 CR4 collector 3233 1 12 0 1750 55 21 1021 699 229 SR481 collector 1204 1 12 4 1700 60 20 1022 700 232 CR 57 collector 729 1 12 0 1700 so 20 local 1023 700 699 Van Bruen 904 1 12 0 1700 40 20 roadway NMP/JAF K-79 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate February 24, 2016

---

- - - ---- . - . - --.---=-.-- Saturation Free Up- Down- Lane Shoulder Roadway Roadway Length No. of

• Width Flow Flow Grid Link# Stream Stream Width Name Type (ft.) . Lanes . (ft.) Rate Speed Number Node Node (ft.)

-- - - - ., -----* (pcp~pl) (~ph}

1024 701 425 SR 48 collector 2284 1 12 3 1700 so 19 1025 702 496 Rathburn Rd collector 3503 1 12 0 1700 45 19 1026 703 435 CR 7 collector 3142 1 12 0 1700 so 18 1027 705 305 Creamery Rd collector 6719 1 12 0 1700 45 11 1028 706 188 CR 29 collector 4946 1 12 0 1700 55 14 minor 1029 707 523 SR 104 857 2 12 0 1750 35 12 arterial minor 1030 707 525 SR 104 205 1 12 0 1750 35 12 arterial 1031 708 508 SR 104 collector 6598 1 12 4 1700 so 9 Thompson local 1032 708 709 6186 1 12 0 1700 40 9 Rd roadway Thompson local 1033 709 710 4006 1 12 0 1700 40 18 Rd roadway 1034 710 436 CR 7 collector 1772 1 12 0 1700 55 18 local 1035 711 364 Howard Rd 3011 1 12 0 1700 40 20 roadway local 1036 712 675 Ridge Road 1604 1 12 0 1575 35 19 roadway local 1037 714 203 Dennis Rd 4954 1 12 0 1700 40 14 roadway 1038 715 207 CR 176 collector 8167 1 12 0 1700 55 20 1039 716 150 SR 104 collector 5651 1 12 6 1700 55 15 1040 717 175 SR 1048 collector 2615 1 12 6 1700 60 15 1041 718 174 CR 1 collector 9429 1 12 0 1700 55 6 1042 719 165 CR 41 collector 4344 1 12 4 1700 55 16 1043 720 13 SR 13 collector 5281 1 12 3 1700 so 7 1044 721 10 CR 5 collector 2916 1 12 0 1700 so 2 1045 722 192 CR 51 collector 6985 1 12 0 1700 55 14 NMP/JAF K-80 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate February 24, 2016

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - *- - * - - - - - - - ~ * - .---- Saturation Free ,

Up- . Down- , Lane Shoulder ,. .

L"mk # St ream . Stream Roadway Roadway Length No. of W"d I t h W"dI t h Flow Flow Grid Node . Node Name Type (ft.) Lanes (ft.) (ft.) Rate '. Speed Number

____ __

• ___ . _ __ _ _ _ _ , ___ ___ (pcph_pl) _ {mph) . _

local 1046 723 354 Hurlbut Rd 3187 1 10 0 1700 50 15 roadway 1047 724 309 CR 4 collector 5369 1 12 0 1700 55 14 1048 725 308 SR 104 collector 2765 1 12 6 1700 50 11 1049 726 137 CR4 collector 4637 1 12 0 1700 55 14 Klocks 1050 727 138 collector 8549 1 12 0 1700 45 13 Corners Rd 1051 728 148 CR 6 collector 9631 1 12 4 1700 50 15 1052 729 603 Tollgate Rd collector 9015 1 12 6 1700 55 15 1053 8043 43 181 freeway 450 2 12 10 2250 75 1 1054 8298 298 181 freeway 837 3 12 10 2250 75 32 (exit link) 17 8017 SR 3 collector 519 1 12 4 1700 55 2 (exit link) 26 8026 CR 2 collector 343 1 12 0 1700 45 8 (exit link) 43 8043 181 freeway 450 2 12 10 2250 75 1 (exit link) 44 8044 us 11 collector 351 1 12 6 1700 55 1 (exit link) 48 8048 SR 13 collector 1422 1 12 0 1700 55 8 (exit link) 55 8056 CR 28 collector 1157 1 12 0 1700 55 8 (exit link) 61 8061 SR 104 collector 851 1 12 6 1700 55 17 (exit link) 67 8067 SR 69 collector 506 1 12 8 1700 45 23 (exit link) 252 8253 SR 264 collector 771 1 12 6 1700 55 30 (exit link) 281 8282 us 11 collector 428 1 12 0 1575 35 31 (exit link) 298 8298 181 freeway 837 3 12 10 2250 75 32 (exit link) 391 8391 CR 57 collector 416 1 12 0 1700 55 28 (exit link) 431 8431 CR 8 collector 511 1 12 0 1700 55 25 (exit link) 440 8440 1481 freeway 1002 1 12 12 2250 75 29 (exit link) 442 8442 SR48 collector 443 1 12 0 1700 40 28 (exit link) 452 8452 SR 104A collector 854 1 12 4 1700 55 18 (exit link) 456 8456 CR 34 collector 400 1 12 4 1700 55 24 NMP/JAF K-81 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate February 24, 2016

- ---- . ---- ----------~--------------

Saturation Free Up- Down- Lane Shoulder Roadway Roadway Length No. of Flow Flow Grid Link# Stream Stream Width Width Name Type (ft.)

• Lanes Rate Speed Number Node Node (ft.) (ft.)

(pcphpl) __(mph)

(exit link) 457 8457 SR 104 collector 320 1 12 4 1700 60 24 (exit link) 704 8381 CR 6 collector 420 1 12 0 1700 55 29 (exit link) 713 8279 SR 49 collector 704 1 12 6 1700 45 32 (exit link) 730 8730 CR 7 collector 2022 1 12 0 1700 45 24 NMP/JAF K-82 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate February 24, 2016

Table K-2. Nodes in the Link-Node Analysis Network which are Controlled Node  :: X _Coordinate , V Coordi~ate Control Grid Map 2 941271 1298261 Actuated 8 4 940930 1299861 Stop 8 6 941048 1300112 Actuated 8 7 941255 1300442 Actuated 8 11 925344 1301924 TCP-Actuated 2 12 925125 1299850 Actuated 7 16 934094 1324086 Stop 2 21 926839 1304437 Stop 2 28 939456 1322649 Stop 2 29 941023 1300546 Stop 8 30 940891 1301680 Stop 3 36 951731 1328340 Actuated 1 45 940947 1278062 Stop 8 56 936666 1260028 Actuated 16 69 933064 1246560 Stop 22 73 928256 1247247 Stop 22 75 914525 1259199 Stop 16 76 914481 1260838 Stop 16 77 913582 1260863 Actuated 15 78 912195 1260959 TCP-Actuated 15 79 912262 1259982 Stop 15 80 912448 1256987 Stop 15 82 908817 1243723 TCP-Actuated 21 83 907028 1238025 TCP-Actuated 21 86 924440 1259431 TCP-Actuated 16 88 913432 1263070 Stop 15 97 915707 1280562 Stop 7 TCP-No 100 923651 1290773 7 Control 109 928226 1285485 Stop 7 110 928072 1285367 Stop 7 113 931858 1280655 Stop 7 116 941293 1294356 Stop 8 121 913605 1277309 Stop 6 122 909823 1280195 Stop 6 123 908324 1280150 Stop 6 130 900208 1226118 Stop 21 131 900361 1221043 Stop 30 138 861928 1252649 Stop 14 143 888473 1244027 Stop 21 NMP/JAF K-83 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate February 24, 2016 L_

' . 1*

Node :: X Coordinate ,: V Coordinate : Control

• Grid Map 144 901122 1239335 TCP-Actuated 21 145 889941 1252116 Stop 15 149 891534 1268011 Stop 15 151 901715 1266098 Stop 15 154 891321 1270778 Stop 15 157 921457 1263262 TCP-Actuated 16 161 926672 1287191 Stop 7 163 938764 1268677 Stop 16 164 925842 1270925 TCP-Actuated 16 TCP-No 165 928194 1275491 7 Control 166 933037 1247109 Stop 22 172 890969 1276146 Stop 6 174 901103 1276869 Stop 6 182 872828 1271246 Stop 14 187 873533 1249694 Stop 14 188 873121 1265439 Stop 14 194 881683 1247475 Stop 20 200 911076 1254216 Stop 15 201 911379 1256034 Stop 15 202 880221 1267564 Stop 14 205 877259 1273111 TCP-Actuated 14 206 876741 1282021 Stop 5 208 869066 1236599 Stop 20 209 869228 1236014 Stop 20 211 856881 1239881 Stop 19 212 856997 1240291 Stop 19 214 852712 1239430 Stop 19 215 863943 1238651 Stop 20 216 864072 1236097 Stop 20 218 862216 1226917 Stop 20 219 858651 1229960 Stop 19 220 861864 1227765 Stop 20 223 865177 1216054 Stop 26 225 864990 1216007 Stop 26 234 874743 1234306 Stop 20 TCP-No 235 882118 1231515 20 Control 236 884137 1230458 Stop 20 237 880195 1218213 Stop 27 NMP/JAF K-84 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate February 24, 2016 I__

Node

. . . . t

• , X Coordinate ; Y Coordi11ate Control Grid Map 240 859087 1232917 Stop 19 241 856157 1232611 Stop 19 243 856768 1232691 Stop 19 250 898907 1211404 Stop 30 254 914627 1225262 Stop 22 255 918597 1223060 Stop 22 257 913366 1221146 Stop 30 258 919716 1219130 Stop 31 260 920477 1228066 Stop 22 263 925223 1229006 Stop 22 264 934909 1229749 Stop 22 268 921470 1215939 Stop 31 272 919353 1202669 Stop 31 274 908648 1205098 Stop 30 275 936517 1198091 Actuated 31 276 940772 1198035 Actuated 32 277 941992 1197777 Actuated 32 279 942503 1197658 Actuated 32 290 934852 1204362 Stop 31 303 848269 1257175 Stop 13 304 849930 1261818 Actuated 11 305 860678 1262784 Stop 11 306 869105 1263135 Stop 14 309 855677 1254640 Stop 13 313 844355 1258167 Stop 12 314 843118 1260922 Actuated 12 315 855859 1270694 TCP-Actuated 11 TCP-No 318 863061 1279014 5 Control TCP-No 321 872316 1281770 5 Control TCP-No 325 864864 1270844 14 Control TCP-No 328 869986 1228451 20 Control 329 879785 1211823 Stop 27 331 854424 1269495 Stop 11 334 850590 1261818 Stop 11 336 845702 1264709 Stop 10 337 846269 1263423 Actuated 10 NMP/JAF K-85 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate February 24, 2016

Node X Coordinate Y Coordinate Control Grid Map 338 846327 1261111 TCP-Actuated 12 342 845052 1260939 Actuated 12 344 843766 1259188 Stop 12 346 840837 1258531 Actuated 12 348 846790 1260232 Stop 12 351 868096 1281568 Yield 5 359 900177 1227447 Stop 21 364 869991 1223956 Stop 20 365 866945 1212165 Stop 26 366 864609 1211553 TCP-Actuated 26 367 865692 1209119 TCP-Actuated 28 368 864872 1210780 TCP-Actuated 26 371 865305 1208880 Actuated 28 373 868889 1211588 Actuated 26 374 867004 1211647 Stop 26 375 867428 1210258 Stop 26 377 869987 1211822 Stop 26 382 870451 1214539 Stop 26 387 867662 1207388 Actuated 28 390 870077 1205031 Actuated 28 393 869558 1205414 Stop 28 395 866414 1209608 Actuated 26 397 867733 1207507 Stop 28 401 862777 1211339 TCP-Actuated 26 402 864595 1212738 Stop 26 406 864122 1208281 TCP-Actuated 28 407 859777 1208944 Stop 25 409 863356 1210067 TCP-Actuated 26 411 856759 1211930 Actuated 25 412 851520 1212127 Stop 25 415 832159 1211130 Stop 24 417 824249 1210851 Actuated 24 418 851481 1213036 Actuated 25 425 857193 1226028 Stop 19 426 850061 1225866 Stop 19 427 839710 1223155 Stop 19 432 832115 1212192 Stop 24 433 831535 1222840 Stop 18 436 833334 1244195 Stop 18 443 823622 1221874 Stop 18 NMP/JAF K-86 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate February 24, 2016 L

Node X Coordinate Y Coordinate Control Grid Map 447 809615 1228096 Yield 18 455 821190 1204555 Stop 24 463 821704 1243558 Stop 18 TCP-No 465 828086 1243868 18 Control 468 841538 1242849 Stop 19 469 842615 1239387 Stop 19 475 850256 1239192 Stop 19 480 843361 1255918 Yield 12 483 849168 1238265 Stop 19 484 849480 1238278 Stop 19 489 842877 1212630 Stop 25 498 836046 1243772 Stop 19 501 847508 1225854 Stop 19 503 839570 1255007 Stop 12 sos 833318 1246553 Stop 18 509 831360 1255984 TCP-Actuated 9 511 834930 1258482 TCP-Actuated 12 512 835299 1251126 Stop 12 513 841870 1255583 Stop 12 514 841201 1255037 Stop 12 523 839315 1259512 TCP-Actuated 12 524 839896 1258151 Actuated 12 525 840293 1259932 Actuated 12 526 839083 1259431 TCP-Actuated 12 527 838278 1259080 TCP-Actuated 12 528 838580 1261426 Stop 10 529 836117 1259264 Stop 12 530 836372 1258600 Actuated 12 531 836443 1257057 Stop 12 533 834974 1257007 Actuated 12 536 837901 1260002 Stop 12 537 839530 1255998 Stop 12 538 838785 1257698 Actuated 12 539 840347 1257242 Actuated 12 540 839179 1256783 Stop 12 541 837366 1256042 Stop 12 543 837417 1254968 Stop 12 547 842271 1257428 Stop 12 548 841147 1258670 Stop 12 NMP/JAF K-87 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate February 24, 2016

Node X Coordinate V Coordinate Control Grid Map 549 841083 1258055 Stop 12 552 842654 1261981 Stop 10 553 845708 1257840 Stop 12 554 843094 1257731 Stop 12 556 840126 1260409 Actuated 12 557 840368 1260518 Actuated 12 559 840048 1261390 Actuated 10 560 841969 1260599 Stop 12 563 842708 1258769 Stop 12 565 841566 1261529 Stop 10 566 840578 1260035 Actuated 12 567 840841 1260162 Actuated 12 568 841094 1260278 Actuated 12 569 842498 1259241 Stop 12 570 843631 1259612 Actuated 12 572 841339 1258172 Stop 12 575 840928 1260719 Stop 12 577 841679 1258897 Actuated 12 578 840574 1261646 Stop 10 580 840751 1261182 Stop 12 581 841761 1261089 Stop 12 582 842848 1261527 Stop 10 584 842475 1262408 Stop 10 586 841593 1258298

• Stop 12 605 923915 1267613 Stop 16 610 914514 1259458 Stop 16 613 927486 1254302 Stop 16 622 918841 1222967 Stop 22 TCP-No 628 885332 1233819 20 Control 634 858890 1229979 Stop 19 636 857234 1232726 Stop 19 637 853170 1239492 Stop 19 641 857444 1211215 Actuated 25 644 863191 1207876 Actuated 28 647 864233 1211581 Actuated 26 657 842581 1260802 Actuated 12 658 842364 1261324 Stop 10 663 841857 1258420 Stop 12 664 843244 1256050 Stop 12 NMP/JAF K-88 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate February 24, 2016

- ' - I Node X Coordinate Y Coordi~ate '. Control Grid Map 665 836496 1256016 Stop 12 666 838897 1259878 Stop 12 668 838722 1260323 Stop 12 675 844817 1225354 Stop 19 TCP-No 679 823063 1247913 18 Control 680 833865 1257776 Actuated 9 683 943294 1296923 Actuated 8 687 847359 1261333 Actuated 10 689 838068 1259579 Stop 12 691 838089 1256348 Stop 12 695 870037 1281825 Stop 5 TCP-No 697 919801 1258551 16 Control TCP-No 698 903888 1238801 21 Control 699 861844 1224569 Stop 20 TCP-No 701 856309 1228134 19 Control TCP-No 702 836516 1236331 19 Control TCP-No 703 832160 1237968 18 Control 710 833267 1245970 Stop 18 712 844181 1226826 Stop 19

'Coordinates are in the North American Datum of 1983 New York Central Plane Zone NMP/JAF K-89 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate February 24, 2016

APPENDIX L ERPA Boundaries

L. ERPA BOUNDARIES ERPA 1 Lake Ontario on the North; Nine Mile Point, and Parkhurst Rds. to the East; Miner Rd. to the South; Bayshore, and Lakeview Rds. to the West.

ERPA 2 Lake Ontario on the North; Shore Oaks Drive to the East; County Rte. 1 on the South; and to just west of County Rte. 29 between Miner and North Rds. to the West.

ERPA 3 Lake View and Miner Rds. on the North; just east of County Rte. 29 to the East; to County Rte. 1 on the South; corner of County Rtes. 1 and lA to the West.

ERPA 4 Lake Ontario on the North; Dempster Beach Drive, County Rte 6 and 6A to the East; US Rte 104 on the South; Shore Oaks Dr., County Rte. 1, and to just west of Woolson and Dennis Rds. to the West.

ERPA 5 County Rte. 1 on the North; just west of Woolson and Dennis Rds. to the East; U.S. Rte. 104 on the South; and Creamery Rd. to the West.

ERPA 6 The road just east of the Alcan Plant and Co. Rte. lA on the North; Creamery Rd. to the East; U.S. Rte. 104 on the South; and County Rte. 63 to the West.

ERPA 7 Lake Ontario on the North; just west of Mexico Pt. between County Rte. 43 and Ladd Rd. to the East; U.S. Rte. 104 on the South; and County Rte. 6 and Dempster Beach Drive to the West.

ERPA 8 U.S. Rte. 104 on the North; just east of and Green Rd. to the East; the intersection of Johnson and Craw Rds. in Vermillion on the South; and County Rte. 6 to the West.

ERPA 9 U.S. Rte. 104 on the North; County Rte. 6 to the East; just North of Tapian Drive on the South; and to just west of Co. Rte. 51 to the West.

ERPA 10 U.S. Rte. 104 on the North; just east of Co. Rte. 51 to the East; County Rte. 4 on the South; and Klocks Corners Rd. to the West.

ERPA 11 U.S. Rte. 104 on the North; Klocks Corners Rd. to the East; County Rte. 4 on the South; and City Line Rd. to the West.

ERPA 12 The City of Oswego, east of the Oswego River.

ERPA 13 The City of Oswego, west of the Oswego River.

ERPA 14 County Rte. 5 (just past the bridge in Port Ontario) on the North; N.Y. Rte. 3, Manwaring Rd.

and just east of S. Daysville Rd. to the East; Sherman Rd. on the South; and Lake Ontario to the West.

ERPA 15 Just north of the intersections of N.V. 1048, N.V. Rte. 3 and Sherman Rd. on the North; Sherman, Spath and Smithers Rds. to the East; U.S. Rte. 104, excluding the Village of Mexico ori the South; the intersection of George Rd. and U. S. Rte. 104, just west of Mexico Pt., and between County Rte. 43 and Ladd Rd. to the West.

ERPA 16 The Village of Mexico.

NMP/JAF L-1 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate February 24, 2016 L

ERPA 17 U.S. Rte. 104 and the southern boundary of Village of Mexico, on the North; Emery, Stone, Larson and Pumphouse Rds. to the East; Gillette Rd. on the South; and just east of and Green Rd. to the West.

ERPA 18 Just below County Rte. 51, just above Tapian Dr and the intersections of Johnson and Craw Rds. on the North; N.Y. Rte. 3, County Rte. 4, and County Rte. 35 to the East; Clifford Rd. on the South; Baldwin, Silk, and just east of O'Connor Rds. to ERPA 19 County Rte. 4 on the North; just east of Silk Rd. to the East; just above County Rte. 45 (intersecting with County Rte. 53), Myers, Black Creek, and Paddy Lake Rds. on the South; the Oswego River to the West.

ERPA 20 Just above Co. Rte. 45 (intersecting with County Rte. 53), Myers, Black Creek, and Paddy Lake Rds. on the North; Silk, and Baldwin Rds. to the East; Hawk and Rowlee Rds. on the South; the Oswego River to the West.

ERPA 21 Oswego City Line on the North; the Oswego River to the East, Hickory Grove Rd.

ERPA 22 Lake Ontario on the North; County Rte. 7, Byer Rd., and County Rte. 25 to the East; Furniss and Tug Hill Rds. on the South; Bunker Hill Rd. and Maple Ave. to just west of Crestwood Dr.

to the West.

ERPA 23 Oswego River within the Oswego City limits.

ERPA 24 Oswego River south of the Oswego City limits to Lock #5 in Minetto.

ERPA 25 *Oswego River south of Lock #5 in Minetto north to Hickory Grove Rd.

ERPA 26 Portion of Lake Ontario within 5 miles and west of the plants.

ERPA 27 Portion of Lake Ontario within 5 miles and west of the plants.

ERPA 28 Portion of Lake Ontario between 5 and 10 miles west of the plants.

ERPA 29 Portion of Lake Ontario between 5 and 10 miles east of the plants.

NMP/JAF L-2 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate February 24, 2016

APPENDIX M Evacuation Sensitivity Studies

M. EVACUATION SENSITIVITY STUDIES This appendix presents the results of a series of sensitivity analyses. These analyses are designed to identify the sensitivity of the ETE to changes in some base evacuation conditions .

M.1 Effect of Changes in Trip Generation Times A sensitivity study was performed to determine whether changes in the estimated trip generation time have an effect on the ETE for the entire EPZ. Specifically, if the tail of the mobilization distribution were truncated {i.e ., if those who responded most slowly to the Advisory to Evacuate, could be persuaded to respond much more rapidly), how would the ETE be affected? The case considered was Scenario 6, Region 3; a winter, midweek, midday, with good weather evacuation of the entire EPZ. Tab le M -1 presents the results of this study.

Table M-1. Evacuation Time Estimates for Trip Generation Sensitivity Study Trip Evacuation Time Estimate for Entire EPZ Generation Period 901h Percentile 1001h Percentile 2 Hours 30 Minutes 2:50 3:45 3 Hours 2:55 3:45 3 Hours 30 M inutes (Base) 2:55 3:50 As discussed in Section 7.3, for Scenario 6, Region 3, traffic congestion persists within the EPZ fo r about 3 hou rs and 50 minutes. As such, the ETE for the 100th percentile is not affected by the trip generation time {at most 5 minutes), but by the time needed to clear the congestion within the EPZ. The goth percentile ETE are also not sensitive to truncating the tail of the mobilization time distribution.

NMP/JAF M -1 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuati on Time Est imat e February 24, 2016

M.2 Effect of Changes in the Number of People in the Shadow Region Who Relocate A sensitivity study was conducted to determine the effect on ETE of changes in the percentage of people who decide to relocate from the Shadow Region. The case considered was Scenario 6, Region 3; a winter, midweek, midday, with good weather evacuation of the entire EPZ. The movement of people in the Shadow Region has the potential to impede vehicles evacuating from an Evacuation Region within the EPZ. Refer to Sections 3.2 and 7.1 for additional information on population within the Shadow Region.

Table M -2 presents the evacuation time estimates for each of the cases considered . The results show that reducing the shadow percentage from 20 percent to O percent will reduce the goth percentile by 5 minutes and 10 minutes in the 100th percentile ETE. Reducing the shadow percentage of the base care by 5 percent will reduce the goth and 100th percentile ETE by 5 minutes. Tripling the shadow percentage from 20 percent to 60 percent results in no change in the goth percentile ETE and increases the 100th percentile ETE by 15 minutes. Evacuating 100 percent of the shadow region will increase the goth percentile ETE by 5 minutes and increase the 100th percentile ETE by 25 minutes.

The telephone survey results presented in Appendix F indicate that 21 percent of households would elect to evacuate if advised to shelter, which differs from assumption of 20 percent non-compliance suggested in NUREG/CR-7002. The difference in percentage is minimal, thus, the base assumption of 20 percent is valid and a sensitivity study for 21 percent was not performed .

Table M-2. Evacuation Time Estimates for Shadow Sensitivity Study Evacuating Evacuation Time Estimate for Entire EPZ Percent Shadow Shadow Evacuation Vehicles 90'h Percentile lOO'h Percentile 0 0 2:50 3:40 15 2,402 2:50 3:45 20 (Base) 3,203 2:55 3:50 60 9,609 2:55 4:05 100 16,015 3:00 4:15 NMP/JAF M-2 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate February 24, 2016

M.3 Effect of Changes in EPZ Resident Population A sensitivity study was conducted to determine the effect on ETE of changes in the resident population within the study area (EPZ plus Shadow Region) . As population in the study area changes over time, the time required to evacuate the public may increase, decrease, or remain the same. Since the ETE is related to the demand to capacity ratio present within the study area, changes in population will cause the demand side of the equation to change and could impact the ETE.

As per the NRC's response to the Emergency Planning Frequently Asked Question (EPFAQ) 2013-001, the ETE population sensitivity study must be conducted to determine what percentage increase in permanent resident population causes an increase in the goth percentile ETE of 25 percent or 30 minutes, whichever is less. The sensitivity study must use the scenario with the longest goth percentile ETE (excluding the roadway impact scenario and the special event scenario if it is a 1 day per year special event).

Thus, the sensitivity study was conducted using the following parameters:

1. The percent change in population within the study area was increased by up to 30 percent. Changes in population were applied to permanent residents only (as per federal guidance), in both the EPZ area and in the Shadow Region.

2. The transportation infrastructure remained fixed; the presence of new roads or highway capacity improvements was not considered .

3. The study was performed for the 2-Mile Region (ROl), the 5-Mile Region (R02) and the entire EPZ (R03).

4. The scenario (excluding roadway impact and special event) with the highest goth percentile ETE values was selected as the case to be considered in this sensitivity study (Scenario 8 - winter, midweek, midday, with snow).

Table M-3 presents the results of the sensitivity study.Section IV of Appendix E to 10 CFR Part 50 (10CFR50), and NUREG/CR-7002, Section 5.4, require licensees to provide an updated ETE analysis to the NRC when a population increase within the EPZ causes ETE values (for the 2-Mile Region, 5-Mile Region or entire EPZ) to increase by 25 percent or 30 minutes, whichever is less.

All base ETE values, except for the 2-mile region, are greater than 2 hours2.314815e-5 days <br />5.555556e-4 hours <br />3.306878e-6 weeks <br />7.61e-7 months <br />; 25 percent of these base ETEs is always greater than 30 minutes. Therefore, 30 minutes is the lesser and is the criterion for updating. Twenty five percent of the goth percentile ETE for the 2-mile region (1:50) is 28 minutes, which is less than 30 minutes and is the criterion for updating for this region.

Those percent population changes which result in the goth percentile ETE changes greater than 30 minutes (or 28 minutes for the 2-mile region) are highlighted in red in Table M-3. ETE Variation with Population Change - a population increase of 22 percent or more would require a full ETE update. Exelon will have to estimate the EPZ population on an annual basis. If the EPZ population increases by 22 percent or more, an updated ETE analysis will be needed .

NMP/JAF M-3 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate February 24, 2016

Table M-3. ETE Variation with Population Change Resident+ Population Change Base 20% 20% 21% 22%

Shadow 47,292 56 ,750 57,223 57 ,696 Population ETE for 901h Percentile Population Change Region Base 20% 21% 22%

2-Mile 1 :50 1:50 1:50 1:50 5-MILE 2:10 2:15 2:15 2 :15 FULL EPZ 3:15 3:40 3:40 3:50

.... ETE for 1001h Percentile

'. '"I I **'"'

Population Change Region Base 20% 21% 22%

2-Mile 4 :15 4:15 4:15 4:15 5-MILE 4:20 4:20 4:20 4 :20 FULL EPZ 4 :25 4:25 4:40 5:00 M.4 Enhancements in Evacuation Time This appendix documents sensitivity studies on critical variables that could impact ETE.

• Reducing trip generation time does not significantly impact the goth and 100th percentile ETE since congestion continues beyond the trip generation (Section M .1). Nonetheless, public outreach should be considered to inform people within the EPZ to mobilize quicker.

• Shadow evacuation can have a margina l impact on ETE (Section M.2) . If the evacuating shadow vehicles drop below 15%, it will drop the goth percentile ETE by 5 minutes and not affect the 100th percentile ETE. If a full shadow evacuation were to occur, then the goth percentile ETE would increase by 5 minutes and the 100th percentile ETE would increase by 25 minutes. Nonetheless, public outreach could be considered to inform those people within the EPZ (and potentially beyond the EPZ) that if they are not advised to evacuate, they should not.

• Population growth results in more evacuating vehicles which could significantly increase ETE (Section M .3). If the population were to increase by 22% or more, then a new ETE study will need to be conducted . Public outreach to inform those people within the EPZ to evacuate as a family in a single vehicle would reduce the number of evacuating vehicles and could reduce ETE or offset the impact of population growth.

NMP/JAF M -4 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate February 24, 2016

APPENDIX N ETE Criteria Checklist

N. ETE CRITERIA CHECKLIST Table N-1. ETE Review Criteria Checklist

• - -* - - -~ .. - - ----

NRC Review Criteria Criterion Addressed Comments in ETE Analysis 1.0 Introduction

a. The emergency planning zone (EPZ) and surrounding area Yes Section 1 should be described.

b. A map should be included that identifies primary features Yes Figure 1-1 of the site, including major roadways, significant topographical features, boundaries of counties, and population centers within the EPZ.

C. A comparison of the current and previous ETE should be Yes Table 1-3 provided and includes similar information as identified in Table 1-1, "ETE Comparison," of NUREG/CR-7002.

1.1 Approach

a. A discussion of the approach and level of detail obtained Yes Section 1.3 during the field survey of the roadway network should be provided.

b. Sources of demographic data for schools, special facilities, Yes Section 2.1 large employers, and special events should be identified.

Section 3 C. Discussion should be presented on use of traffic control Yes Section 1.3, Section 2.3, Section 9, plans in the analysis. Appendix G

d. Traffic simulation models used for the analyses should be Yes Section 1.3, Table 1-3, Appendix B, C and identified by name and version. D NMP/JAF N-1 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate February 24, 2016

~ - - -__ - - - --- - - - - NRC-Rev1ewCr1tena*-- --- -- - -- - - -- . - -- - * -Cntenon ::Aita-ressea * -- - -- ; - _-- -- -------comments -* -_ - -- - -- --- -- -.

in ETE Analysis

~ " -- -- -- .. -- - - -- -

e. Methods used to address data uncertainties should be Yes Section 3 - avoid double counting described.

Section 5, Appendix F - 4.5% sampling error at 95% confidence interval for telephone survey 1.2 Assumptions

a. The planning basis for the ETE includes the assumption Yes Section 2.3 -Assumption 1 that the evacuation should be ordered promptly and no Section 5.1 early protective actions have been implemented.

b. Assumptions consistent with Table 1-2, "General Yes Sections 2.2, 2.3 Assumptions," of NUREG/CR-7002 should be provided and include the basis to support their use.

1.3 Scenario Development

a. The ten scenarios in Table 1-3, Evacuation Scenarios, Yes Tables 2-1, 6-2 should be developed for the ETE analysis, or a reason should be provided for use of other scenarios.

1.3.1 Staged Evacuation

a. A discussion should be provided on the approach used in Yes Sections 5.4.2, 7.2 development of a staged evacuation.

1.4 Evacuation Planning Areas

a. A map of EPZ with emergency response planning areas Yes Figure 6-1 (ERPAs) should be included.

b. A table should be provided identifying the ERPAs Yes Table 6-1 considered for each ETE calculation by downwind direction in each sector.

NMP/JAF N-2 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate February 24, 2016

- .. -- - - .. - ~-- -

- -- - -- - - NRC-RevieW Criteria - - - "

. - -criterion -Adaresse<f - - . - -- Comments*

in ETE Analysis C. A table similar to Table 1-4, "Evacuation Areas for a Staged Yes Table 7-5 Evacuation Keyhole," of NUREG/CR-7002 should be provided and includes the complete evacuation of the 2, 5, and 10 mile areas and for the 2 mile area/5 mile keyhole evacuations.

2.0 Demand Estimation

a. Demand estimation should be developed for the four Yes Permanent residents, employees, population groups, including permanent residents of the transients - Section 3, Appendix E EPZ, transients, special facilities, and schools.

Special facilities, schools - Section 8, Appendix E 2.1 Permanent Residents and Transient Population

a. The US Census should be the source of the population Yes Section 3.1 values, or another credible source should be provided.

b. Population values should be adjusted as necessary for Yes Used 2010 US Census data to project out growth to reflect population estimates to the year of the to 2015 using 2014 growth rates.

ETE.

C. A sector diagram should be included, similar to Figure 2-1, Yes Figure 3-3 "Population by Sector," of NUREG/CR-7002, showing the population distribution for permanent residents.

2.1.1 Permanent Residents with Vehicles

a. The persons per vehicle value should be between 1 and 2 Yes 1.93 persons per vehicle - Table 1-3 or justification should be provided for other values.

b. Major employers should be listed. Yes Appendix E - Table E-3 NMP/JAF N-3 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate February 24, 2016

'""*---- ---- --*- *- -- - --NRCRev1ew Criteria*-* - - * *--- - -* --- -*.C- Criterion Addressed- .-- * - ****-- -- -- ~Comments - -- - * * -*- - - ,

1 in ETE Analysis I 2.1.2 Transient Population

a. A list of facilities which attract transient populations Yes Sections 3.3, 3.4, Appendix E should be included, and peak and average attendance for these facilities should be listed. The source of information used to develop attendance values should be provided.

b. The average population during the season should be used, Yes Tables 3-6, 3-7 and Appendix E itemize the itemized and totaled for each scenario. transient population and employee estimates. These estimates are multiplied by the scenario specific percentages provided in Table 6-3 to estimate transient population by scenario.

C. The percent of permanent residents assumed to be at Yes Sections 3.3, 3.4 facilities should be estimated.

d. The number of people per vehicle should be provided. Yes Sections 3.3, 3.4 Numbers may vary by scenario, and if so, discussion on why values vary should be provided.

e. A sector diagram should be included, similar to Figure 2-1 Yes Figure 3 transients of NUREG/CR-7002, showing the population distribution Figure 3 employees for the transient population.

2.2 Transit Dependent Permanent Residents

a. The methodology used to determine the number of transit Yes Section 8.1, Table 8-1 dependent residents should be discussed.

b. Transportation resources needed to evacuate this group Yes Section 8.1, Tables 8-5, 8-10 should be quantified.

C. The county/local evacuation plans for transit dependent Yes Sections 8.1, 8.4, Table 8-6 residents should be used in the analysis.

NMP/JAF N-4 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate February 24, 2016

~- _:- _..__-::-:. :-.:. : .:.-_:_:...:. "NRCRe~-.e~Crftena- .:_**_: *::.*_:* _:_- :_-*- *-** -- ,* -Ci'itenorfAddressecf- ~ -** **-*. -.--. -- -. *comments>.-* --.--*- ---

' in ETE Analysis

" ~ " - "" " - " - - -* -- -

d. The methodology used to determine the number of Yes Section 8.5 people with disabilities and those with access and functional needs who may need assistance and do not reside in special facilities should be provided. Data from local/county registration programs should be used in the estimate, but should not be the only set of data.

e. Capacities should be provided for all types of Yes Section 2.3 - Assumption 10 transportation resources. Bus seating capacity of 50%

Sections 3.5, 8.1, 8.2, 8.3 should be used or justification should be provided for higher values.

f. An estimate of this population should be provided and Yes Table 8 transit dependents information should be provided that the existing Sections 8-1, 8.4 registration programs were used in developing the estimate.

g. A summary table of the total number of buses, Yes Section 8.3, 8.4 ambulances, or other transport needed to support Table 8-5 evacuation should be provided and the quantification of resources should be detailed enough to assure double counting has not occurred.

2.3 Special Facility Residents

a. A list of special facilities, including the type of facility, Yes Appendix E, Tables E-2, E list facilities, location, and average population should be provided. type, location, and population Special facility staff should be included in the total special facility population.

b. A discussion should be provided on how special facility Yes Section 3.5 data was obtained.

NMP/JAF N-5 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate February 24, 2016

• - -- - 1:omments-- - -- ........ ---- -

- -- --- . -

• NRCRevlew Criteria - *- - -- . - *- - - - " - -Criterion Adaressed- -- . - . -

in ETE Analysis C. The number of wheelchair and bed-bound individuals Yes Section 3.5 and Table 8-4 should be provided.

d. An estimate of the number and capacity of vehicles Yes Section 8.3 needed to support the evacuation of the facility should be Tables 8-4, 8-6 provided.

e. The logistics for mobilizing specially trained staff (e.g., Yes Sections 3.5, 8.3 medical support or security support for prisons, jails, and other correctional facilities) should be discussed when appropriate.

2.4 Schools

a. A list of schools including name, location, student Yes Table 8-2, E-1 population, and transportation resources required to Section 8.2 support the evacuation, should be provided. The source of this information should be provided.

b. Transportation resources for elementary and middle Yes Table 8-2 schools should be based on 100% of the school capacity.

C. The estimate of high school students who will use their Yes Section 8.2 discusses it is conservatively personal vehicle to evacuate should be provided and a assumed no students will evacuate in their basis for the values used should be discussed. personal vehicles.

d. The need for return trips should be identified if necessary. Yes There are sufficient resources to evacuate schools in a single wave. However, Section 8.4 and Figure 8-1 discuss the potential for a multiple wave evacuation.

NMP/JAF N-6 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate February 24, 2016

-- NRCReviewCi'iteria - *criterion Addressed* *- - - Comments**- - -

in ETE Analysis 2.5.1 Special Events

a. A complete list of special events should be provided and Yes Section 3.7 includes information on the population, estimated duration, and season of the event_

b. The special event that encompasses the peak transient Yes Section 3.7 population should be analyzed in the ETE.

c. The percent of permanent residents attending the event Yes Section 3.7 should be estimated.

2.5.2 Shadow Evacuation

a. A shadow evacuation of 20 percent should be included for Yes Section 2.2 -Assumption 5 areas outside the evacuation area extending to 15 miles Figure 2-1 from the NPP.

Section 3.2

b. Population estimates for the shadow evacuation in the 10 Yes Section 3.2 to 15 mile area beyond the EPZ are provided by sector.

Figure 3-5 Table 3-5 C. The loading of the shadow evacuation onto the roadway Yes Section 5 - Table 5-9 footnote network should be consistent with the trip generation time generated for the permanent resident population.

NMP/JAF N-7 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate February 24, 2016

- *- - - - ------ * -NRC-Rev1ew-Cntena * - * --- ** - -  :- CntenonAadressea * -- - - Comments* *- - - -*

in ETE Analysis 2.5.3 Background and Pass Through Traffic

a. The volume of background traffic and pass through traffic Yes Section 3.6 is based on the average daytime traffic. Values may be Table 3-8 reduced for nighttime scenarios.

Section 6 Table 6-3, 6-4

b. Pass through traffic is assumed to have stopped entering Yes Section 2.3 -Assumption 5 the EPZ about two hours after the initial notification.

Section 3.6 2.6 Summary of Demand Estimation

a. A summary table should be provided that identifies the Yes total populations and total vehicles used in analysis for Section 3.8 permanent residents, transients, transit dependent Tables 3-9, 3-10 residents, special facilities, schools, shadow population, and pass-through demand used in each scenario.

3.0 Roadway Capacity

a. The method(s) used to assess roadway capacity should be Yes Section 4 discussed.

3.1 Roadway Characteristics

a. A field survey of key routes within the EPZ has been Yes Section 1.3 conducted.

b. Information should be provided describing the extent of Yes Section 1.3 the survey, and types of information gathered and used in the analysis.

NMP/JAF N-8 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate February 24, 2016

.- - -- - - ------ -NRCRev1ewCritena ____ ------ - -- --*- -- Cntenon7~ddressea--** *-**- -- -- --- Comments-- - - -- - --* *-

' in HE Analysis C. A table similar to that in Appendix A, "Roadway Yes Appendix K, Table K-1 Characteristics," of NUREG/CR-7002 should be provided.

d. Calculations for a representative roadway segment should Yes Section 4 be provided.

e. A legible map of the roadway system that identifies node Yes Appendix K, Figures K-1 through K-33 numbers and segments used to develop the ETE should be present the entire link-node analysis provided and should be similar to Figure 3-1, "Roadway network at a scale suitable to identify all Network Identifying Nodes and Segments," of NUREG/CR- links and nodes 7002.

3.2 Capacity Analysis

a. The approach used to calculate the roadway capacity for Yes Section 4 the transportation network should be described in detail and identifies factors that should be expressly used in the modeling.

b. The capacity analysis identifies where field information Yes Section 1.3, Section 4 should be used in the ETE calculation.

3.3 Intersection Control

a. A list of intersections should be provided that includes the Yes Appendix K, Table K-2 total number of intersections modeled that are unsignalized, signalized, or manned by response personnel.

b. Characteristics for the 10 highest volume intersections Yes Table J-1 within the EPZ are provided including the location, signal cycle length, and turn lane queue capacity.

C. Discussion should be provided on how signal cycle time is Yes Section 4.1, Appendix C used in the calculations.

NMP/JAF N-9 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate February 24, 2016

- - ----- - . - -- --- ---------- - --~--------- -*------------------*-------- ---- ---------------

---

*--- - "NRC-Rev1eWCntena *----- -- ---------. -cntenonAclaressed-~- -----*-- -eommenfs ___ ----*-- ----.

in ETE Analysis 3.4 Adverse Weather

a. The adverse weather condition should be identified and Yes Table 2-1, Section 2.3 -Assumption 9 the effects of adverse weather on mobilization time Mobilization time - Table 2-2, Section 5.3 should be considered.

(page 5-10)

b. The speed and capacity reduction factors identified in Yes Table 2 based on HCM 2010. The Table 3-1, "Weather Capacity Factors," of NUREG/CR-7002 factors provided in Table 3-1 of should be used or a basis should be provided for other NUREG/CR-7002 are from HCM 2000.

values.

C. The study identifies assumptions for snow removal on Yes Section 2.3 -Assumption 9 streets and driveways, when applicable.

Section 5.3 - page 5-10 Appendix F -Section F.3.3 4.0 Development of Evacuation Times 4.1 Trip Generation Time

a. The process used to develop trip generation times should Yes Section 5 be identified.

b. When telephone surveys are used, the scope of the Yes Appendix F survey, area of survey, number of participants, and statistical relevance should be provided.

C. Data obtained from telephone surveys should be Yes Appendix F summarized.

d. The trip generation time for each population group should Yes Section 5, Appendix F be developed from site specific information.

NMP/JAF N-10 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate February 24, 2016

---

-*-- -- -- --- -- -- ----*--*--**** -- -- -- - *---~ ------------** ---- -~--- . ----------

.- - --* - * - - -- -NRCRev1ew~iiteria **-- - ~- - *--* --- -critenonAddressea * * -~- --- -- -- Comments-*-- - -- - *-

in ETE Analysis 4.1.1 Permanent Residents and Transient Population

a. Permanent residents are assumed to evacuate from their Yes Section 5 discusses trip generation for homes but are not assumed to be at home at all times. households with and without returning Trip generation time includes the assumption that a commuters. Table 6-3 presents the percentage of residents will need to return home prior to percentage of households with returning evacuating. commuters and the percentage of households either without returning commuters or with no commuters.

Appendix F presents the percent households who will await the return of commuters.

b. Discussion should be provided on the time and method Yes Section 5.4.3 used to notify transients. The trip generation time discusses any difficulties notifying persons in hard to reach areas such as on lakes or in campgrounds.

C. The trip generation time accounts for transients Yes Section 5, Figure 5-1 potentially returning to hotels prior to evacuating.

d. Effect of public transportation resources used during Yes Section 3.7 special events where a large number of transients should be expected should be considered.

e. The trip generation time for the transient population Yes Section 5, Table 5-9, Figure 5-4 should be integrated and loaded onto the transportation network with the general public.

NMP/JAF N-11 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate February 24, 2016 L

J- - - -- - --- - - .NRCRev1ewCnte.na --- - - - - ---*- - - . Cnteno-n°Addressecf*- - *-. - ---** ---* Comments------- -- *- .-.. -

in ETE Analysis 4.1.2 Transit Dependent Residents

a. If available, existing plans and bus routes should be used Yes Section 8.4. 76 pre-established bus routes in the ETE analysis. If new plans should be developed with were used in the ETE analysis - see Table the ETE, they have been agreed upon by the responsible 8-6.

authorities.

b. Discussion should be included on the means of evacuating Yes Section 8.3, 8.5 ambulatory and non-ambulatory residents.

C. The number, location, and availability of buses, and other Yes Section 8.4 resources needed to support the demand estimation Table 8-5 should be provided.

d. Logistical details, such as the time to obtain buses, brief Yes Section 8.4, 8.5, 8.6 drivers, and initiate the bus route should be provided.

Figure 8-1

e. Discussion should identify the time estimated for transit Yes Section 8.4, 8.5 dependent residents to prepare and travel to a bus pickup point, and describes the expected means of travel to the pickup point.

f. The number of bus stops and time needed to load Yes Section 8.4 passengers should he discussed.

g. A map of bus routes should be included. Yes Maps of the bus pick-up routes in each

-- ERPA are contained in the EMO calendar.

h. The trip generation time for non-ambulatory persons Yes Section 8.5 includes the time to mobilize ambulances or special vehicles, time to drive to the home of residents, loading time, and time to drive out of the EPZ should be provided.

NMP/JAF N-12 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate February 24, 2016

" - . *- -- . - - NR-C-Review Criteria - - - - - . **criferion Addre*ssed - - - . - - Comments - - "

in ETE Analysis

i. Information should be provided to supports analysis of Yes Sections 8.4 return trips, if necessary.

Figure 8-1 Tables 8-11 through 8-13 4.1.3 Special Facilities

a. Information on evacuation logistics and mobilization times Yes Section 8.3, 8.4, 8.6, Tables 8-4, 8-14 should be provided. through 8-16, Table 8-17

b. Discussion should be provided on the inbound and Yes Sections 8.4, 8.6 outbound speeds.

C. The number of wheelchair and bed-bound individuals Yes Section 8.3 should be provided, and the logistics of evacuating these Tables 8-4, 8-14 through 8-16 residents should be discussed.

d. Time for loading of residents should be provided Yes Section 8.4, 8.6

e. Information should be provided that indicates whether Yes Section 8.4, Table 8-4, 8-5 the evacuation can be completed in a single trip or if additional trips should be needed.

f. If return trips should be needed, the destination of Yes Section 8.4 vehicles should be provided.

Figure 10-1

g. Discussion should be provided on whether special facility Yes Section 8.4 residents are expected to pass through the reception center prior to being evacuated to their final destination.

h. Supporting information should be provided to quantify the Yes Section 8.4 time elements for the return trips.

NMP/JAF N-13 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate February 24, 2016

__J

- - - - -- -- - NR'Clteview Criteria.:. - -- - - - -" *crite-riori Acfi:fressea - - - - - tommifots - - - - ---- -

in ETE Analysis 4.1.4 Schools

a. Information on evacuation logistics and mobilization time Yes Section 8.4 should be provided.

Tables 8-7 through 8-9

b. Discussion should be provided on the inbound and Yes School bus routes are presented in Table outbound speeds. 8-6.

School bus speeds are presented in Tables 8-7 (good weather), 8-8 (rain) and 8-9 (snow). Outbound speeds are defined as the minimum of the evacuation route speed and the State school bus speed limit.

Inbound speeds are limited to the State school bus speed limit.

c. Time for loading of students should be provided. Yes Tables 8-7 through 8-9, Discussion in Section 8.4 d_ Information should be provided that indicates whether Yes Section 8.4 - page 8-8 the evacuation can be completed in a single trip or if Table 8-5 additional trips are needed.

e. If return trips are needed, the destination of school buses Yes Return trips are not needed should be provided.

f. If used, reception centers should be identified. Discussion Yes Table 8-3. Students are evacuated to should be provided on whether students are expected to reception center where they will be picked pass through the reception center prior to being up by parents or guardians.

evacuated to their final destination.

NMP/JAF N-14 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate February 24, 2016

.. - - -- - ... -- - "NRCReView Criteri~f - *- -* - . - -- -- - ~

Criterion AdiJressed - -- . -- - - - . co-mmenfs" - - -- ........

in ETE Analysis

g. Supporting information should be provided to quantify the Yes Return trips are not needed. Tables 8-7 time elements for the return trips. through 8-9 provide time needed to arrive at reception center, which could be used to compute a second wave evacuation if necessary 4.2 ETE Modeling

a. General information about the model should be provided Yes DYNEV II (Ver. 4.0.19.2). Section 1.3, Table and demonstrates its use in ETE studies. 1-3, Appendix B, Appendix C.

b. If a traffic simulation model is not used to conduct the ETE No Not applicable as a traffic simulation calculation, sufficient detail should be provided to validate model was used.

the analytical approach used. All criteria elements should have been met, as appropriate.

4.2.1 Traffic Simulation Model Input

a. Traffic simulation model assumptions and a representative Yes Appendices Band C describe the set of model inputs should be provided. simulation model assumptions and algorithms Table J-2

b. A glossary of terms should be provided for the key Yes Appendix A performance measures and parameters used in the Tables C-1, C-2 analysis.

NMP/JAF N-15 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate February 24, 2016

- - - - - - -- - - NR"C Review Criteria- - -- - *- - - - trifeifon AadressecJ --- - - . - - - Commeiits - - - - - - -

in ETE Analysis 4.2.2 Traffic Simulation Model Output

a. A discussion regarding whether the traffic simulation Yes Appendix B model used must be in equilibration prior to calculating the ETE should be provided.

b. The minimum following model outputs should be provided Yes 1. Table J-5.

to support review: 2. Table J-3.

1. Total volume and percent by hour at each EPZ exit 3. Table J-1.

node. 4. Table J-3.

2. Network wide average travel time. 5. Figures J-1 through J-14 (one plot

3. Longest queue length for the 10 intersections with the for each scenario considered).

highest traffic volume. 6. Table J-4. Network wide average

4. Total vehicles exiting the network. speed also provided in Table J-3.

5. A plot that provides both the mobilization curve and evacuation curve identifying the cumulative percentage of evacuees who have mobilized and exited the EPZ.

6. Average speed for each major evacuation route that exits the EPZ.

c. Color coded roadway maps should be provided for various Yes Figures 7-3 through 7-7 times (i.e., at 2, 4, 6 hrs., etc.) during a full EPZ evacuation scenario, identifying areas where long queues exist including level of service (LOS) "E" and LOS "F" conditions, if they occur.

4.3 Evacuation Time Estimates for the General Public

a. The ETE should include the time to evacuate 90% and Yes Tables 7-1, 7-2 100% of the total permanent resident and transient population NMP/JAF N-16 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate February 24, 2016

. --- -- " - **- -*. - ---NRC-Rev,ewCriteria **- -.. *- - - .. _. -- - H

• Criterion Aadresseil ~- .. -

- -- ----*comments*- -* **--* --- -** -- -

in ETE Analysis

b. , The ETE for 100% of the general public should include all Yes Section 5.4 - truncating survey data to members of the general public. Any reductions or eliminate statistical outliers truncated data should be explained.

Table 7 100th percentile ETE for general public C. Tables should be provided for the 90 and 100 percent ETEs Yes Tables 7-3, 7-4 similar to Table 4-3, "ETEs for Staged Evacuation Keyhole,"

of NUREG/CR-7002.

d. ETEs should be provided for the 100 percent evacuation of Yes Section 8.4, 8.5, 8.6 special facilities, transit dependent, and school Tables 8-7 through 8-9 populations.

Tables 8-11 through 8-18 5.0 Other Considerations 5.1 Development of Traffic Control Plans

a. Information that responsible authorities have approved Yes Section 9, Appendix G the traffic control plan used in the analysis should be provided.

b. A discussion of adjustments or additions to the traffic Yes Appendix G control plan that affect the ETE should be provided.

5.2 Enhancements in Evacuation Time

a. The results of assessments for improvement of evacuation Yes Appendix M time should be provided.

b. A statement or discussion regarding presentation of Yes No recommended enhancements. ETE enhancements to local authorities should be provided. results were reviewed by local authorities in the draft report and were accepted.

NMP/JAF N-17 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate February 24, 2016

" - ---~---- .

- --~RCRev1ewCri'tena -------------- --- .:***cntenonAddressea- .-----*-----~--comments--*--------

in ETE Analysis 5.3 State and Local Review

a. A list of agencies contacted and the extent of interaction Yes Table 1-1. ETE results were reviewed by with these agencies should be discussed. local authorities in the draft report and were accepted.

b. Information should be provided on any unresolved issues Yes There are no outstanding issues.

that may affect the ETE.

5.4 Reviews and Updates

a. A discussion of when an updated ETE analysis is required Yes Appendix M, Section M.3 to be performed and submitted to the NRC.

5.5 Reception Centers and Congregate Care Center

a. A map of congregate care centers and reception centers Yes Figure 10-1 should be provided.

b. If return trips are required, assumptions used to estimate Yes Section 8.4 discusses a multi-wave return times for buses should be provided. evacuation procedure. Figure 8-1 C. It should be clearly stated if it is assumed that passengers Yes Section 2.3 -Assumption 7h are left at the reception center and are taken by separate Section 10 buses to the congregate care center.

NMP/JAF N-18 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate February 24, 2016