NRC-12-0086, Evacuation Time Estimate Report

Evacuation Time Estimate Report

ML12356A180
Person / Time
Site:	Fermi
Issue date:	12/20/2012
From:	Rad Z Detroit Edison
To:	Document Control Desk, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
References
NRC-12-0086
Download: ML12356A180 (389)

Text

Fermi 2 6400 North Dixie Hwy., Newport, MI 48166 Detroit Edison 10 CFR 50 Appendix E December 20, 2012 NRC-12-0086 U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Attention: Document Control Desk Washington, DC 20555-0001

Reference:

Fermi 2 NRC Docket No. 50-341 NRC License No. NPF-43

Subject:

Fermi 2 Evacuation Time Estimate Report Pursuant to 10 CFR Part 50, Appendix E.IV.4, The Detroit Edison Company, the current licensee for Fermi 2, is transmitting an Evacuation Time Estimate (ETE) analysis for Fermi 2. The analysis was prepared using 2010 data froim the U.S.

Census Bureau. The Enclosure to this letter provides the ETE Report.

No commitments are being made in this letter.

Should you have any questions or require additional information, please contact Mr. Zackary W. Rad of my staff at (734) 586-5076.

Sincerely, Zackary W. Rad Manager, Nuclear Licensing Enclosure cc: NRC Project Manager NRC Resident Office Reactor Projects Chief, Branch 4, Region III Regional Administrator, Region III Supervisor, Electric Operators, Michigan Public Service Commission A DTE Energy Company

Enclosure to NRC-12-0086 Fermi 2 NRC Docket No. 50-341 Operating License No. NPF-43 Fermi 2 Evacuation Time Estimate Report

Project Name: Fermi 2 2010 Evacuation Time Estimate Report Department: Radiological Emergency Response and Preparedness Product: Fermi Nuclear Power Plant Development of Evacuation Time Estimates Project Closure Report Version Control Version Date Author Change Description 0 10/12/12 KLD Engineering, Draft Report for review P.C.

1 12/10/12 KLD Engineering, Final report P.C.

1. REPORT APPROVALS Technical Review By VGE Garber / - ii /.

Principal Technica Specialist Date Approved By /i A YesiT-Manager, RERP Date ARMS - INFORMATION DTC: TMPLAN File: 1715.03 DSN: Fermi ETE Rev: 1 Date: 12/12/12 Recipient:

Fermi Nuclear Power Plant Development of Evacuation Time Estimates Work performed for DTE Energy, by:

KLD Engineering, P.C.

43 Corporate Drive Hauppauge, NY 11788 mailto:kweinisch@kldcompanies.com December 2012 Final Report, Rev. 1 KLD TR - 532

Table of Contents 1 INTRODUCTION .................................................................................................................................. 11 1.1 Overview of the ETE Process...................................................................................................... 11 1.2 The Fermi Nuclear Power Plant Location................................................................................... 13 1.3 Preliminary Activities ................................................................................................................. 15 1.4 Comparison with Prior ETE Study .............................................................................................. 19 2 STUDY ESTIMATES AND ASSUMPTIONS............................................................................................. 21 2.1 Data Estimates ........................................................................................................................... 21 2.2 Study Methodological Assumptions .......................................................................................... 22 2.3 Study Assumptions ..................................................................................................................... 25 3 DEMAND ESTIMATION ....................................................................................................................... 31 3.1 Permanent Residents ................................................................................................................. 32 3.2 Shadow Population .................................................................................................................... 37 3.3 Transient Population ................................................................................................................ 310 3.4 Employees ................................................................................................................................ 314 3.5 Medical Facilities ...................................................................................................................... 318 3.6 Total Demand in Addition to Permanent Population .............................................................. 318 3.7 Special Event ............................................................................................................................ 318 3.8 Summary of Demand ............................................................................................................... 320 4 ESTIMATION OF HIGHWAY CAPACITY................................................................................................ 41 4.1 Capacity Estimations on Approaches to Intersections .............................................................. 42 4.2 Capacity Estimation along Sections of Highway ........................................................................ 44 4.3 Application to the FNPP Study Area .......................................................................................... 46 4.3.1 TwoLane Roads ................................................................................................................. 46 4.3.2 MultiLane Highway ........................................................................................................... 46 4.3.3 Freeways ............................................................................................................................ 47 4.3.4 Intersections ...................................................................................................................... 48 4.4 Simulation and Capacity Estimation .......................................................................................... 48 5 ESTIMATION OF TRIP GENERATION TIME .......................................................................................... 51 5.1 Background ................................................................................................................................ 51 5.2 Fundamental Considerations ..................................................................................................... 53 5.3 Estimated Time Distributions of Activities Preceding Event 5 ................................................... 56 5.4 Calculation of Trip Generation Time Distribution .................................................................... 512 5.4.1 Statistical Outliers ............................................................................................................ 513 5.4.2 Staged Evacuation Trip Generation ................................................................................. 517 5.4.3 Trip Generation for Waterways and Recreational Areas ................................................. 518 6 DEMAND ESTIMATION FOR EVACUATION SCENARIOS ..................................................................... 61 7 GENERAL POPULATION EVACUATION TIME ESTIMATES (ETE) .......................................................... 71 7.1 Voluntary Evacuation and Shadow Evacuation ......................................................................... 71 7.2 Staged Evacuation ...................................................................................................................... 71 7.3 Patterns of Traffic Congestion during Evacuation ..................................................................... 72 7.4 Evacuation Rates ........................................................................................................................ 73 7.5 Evacuation Time Estimate (ETE) Results .................................................................................... 74 7.6 Staged Evacuation Results ......................................................................................................... 75 7.7 Guidance on Using ETE Tables ................................................................................................... 76 8 TRANSITDEPENDENT AND SPECIAL FACILITY EVACUATION TIME ESTIMATES ................................. 81 Fermi Nuclear Power Plant i KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 1

8.1 Transit Dependent People Demand Estimate ............................................................................ 82 8.2 School Population - Transit Demand ......................................................................................... 84 8.3 Medical Facility Demand ............................................................................................................ 84 8.4 Evacuation Time Estimates for Transit Dependent People ....................................................... 85 8.5 Special Needs Population......................................................................................................... 810 8.6 Correctional Facilities ............................................................................................................... 811 9 TRAFFIC MANAGEMENT STRATEGY ................................................................................................... 91 10 EVACUATION ROUTES .................................................................................................................. 101 11 SURVEILLANCE OF EVACUATION OPERATIONS ........................................................................... 111 12 CONFIRMATION TIME .................................................................................................................. 121 13 RECOMMENDATIONS................................................................................................................... 131 List of Appendices A. GLOSSARY OF TRAFFIC ENGINEERING TERMS .................................................................................. A1 B. DYNAMIC TRAFFIC ASSIGNMENT AND DISTRIBUTION MODEL ......................................................... B1 C. DYNEV TRAFFIC SIMULATION MODEL ............................................................................................... C1 C.1 Methodology .............................................................................................................................. C5 C.1.1 The Fundamental Diagram ................................................................................................. C5 C.1.2 The Simulation Model ........................................................................................................ C5 C.1.3 Lane Assignment .............................................................................................................. C13 C.2 Implementation ....................................................................................................................... C13 C.2.1 Computational Procedure ................................................................................................ C13 C.2.2 Interfacing with Dynamic Traffic Assignment (DTRAD) ................................................... C16 D. DETAILED DESCRIPTION OF STUDY PROCEDURE .............................................................................. D1 E. SPECIAL FACILITY DATA ...................................................................................................................... E1 F. TELEPHONE SURVEY ........................................................................................................................... F1 F.1 Introduction ............................................................................................................................... F1 F.2 Survey Instrument and Sampling Plan ....................................................................................... F2 F.3 Survey Results ............................................................................................................................ F3 F.3.1 Household Demographic Results ........................................................................................... F3 F.3.2 Evacuation Response ............................................................................................................. F7 F.3.3 Time Distribution Results ....................................................................................................... F9 F.4 Conclusions .............................................................................................................................. F12 G. TRAFFIC MANAGEMENT PLAN .......................................................................................................... G1 G.1 Traffic and Access Control Points .............................................................................................. G1 H. EVACUATION REGIONS ..................................................................................................................... H1 J. REPRESENTATIVE INPUTS TO AND OUTPUTS FROM THE DYNEV II SYSTEM ..................................... J1 K. EVACUATION ROADWAY NETWORK .................................................................................................. K1 L. PROTECTIVE ACTION AREA BOUNDARIES .......................................................................................... L1 M. EVACUATION SENSITIVITY STUDIES ............................................................................................. M1 M.1 Effect of Changes in Trip Generation Times ............................................................................ M1 M.2 Effect of Changes in the Number of People in the Shadow Region Who Relocate ................. M2 M.3 Effect of Changes in EPZ Resident Population ......................................................................... M3 N. ETE CRITERIA CHECKLIST ................................................................................................................... N1 Note: Appendix I intentionally skipped Fermi Nuclear Power Plant ii KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 1

List of Figures Figure 11. FNPP Location ......................................................................................................................... 14 Figure 12. FNPP LinkNode Analysis Network.......................................................................................... 17 Figure 21. Voluntary Evacuation Methodology ....................................................................................... 24 Figure 31. Fermi EPZ ................................................................................................................................ 33 Figure 32. Permanent Resident Population by Sector ............................................................................. 35 Figure 33. Permanent Resident Vehicles by Sector ................................................................................. 36 Figure 34. Shadow Population by Sector ................................................................................................. 38 Figure 35. Shadow Vehicles by Sector ..................................................................................................... 39 Figure 36. Transient Population by Sector............................................................................................. 312 Figure 37. Transient Vehicles by Sector ................................................................................................. 313 Figure 38. Employee Population by Sector ............................................................................................ 316 Figure 39. Employee Vehicles by Sector ................................................................................................ 317 Figure 41. Fundamental Diagrams ............................................................................................................ 49 Figure 51. Events and Activities Preceding the Evacuation Trip .............................................................. 55 Figure 52. Evacuation Mobilization Activities ........................................................................................ 511 Figure 53. Comparison of Data Distribution and Normal Distribution....................................................... 515 Figure 54. Comparison of Trip Generation Distributions....................................................................... 520 Figure 55. Comparison of Staged and Unstaged Trip Generation Distributions in the 2 to 5 Mile Region - Winter Midweek and Winter Weekend ......................................................................... 522 Figure 61. Fermi EPZ PAAs ....................................................................................................................... 64 Figure 71. Voluntary Evacuation Methodology ..................................................................................... 714 Figure 72. FNPP Shadow Region ............................................................................................................ 715 Figure 73. Congestion Patterns at 30 Minutes after the Advisory to Evacuate .................................... 716 Figure 74. Congestion Patterns at 1 Hour after the Advisory to Evacuate ............................................ 717 Figure 75. Congestion Patterns at 1 Hour, 30 Minutes after the Advisory to Evacuate........................ 718 Figure 76. Congestion Patterns at 2 Hours after the Advisory to Evacuate .......................................... 719 Figure 77. Congestion Patterns at 2 Hours, 30 Minutes after the Advisory to Evacuate ...................... 720 Figure 78. Congestion Patterns at 3 Hours after the Advisory to Evacuate .......................................... 721 Figure 79. Evacuation Time Estimates Scenario 1 for Region R03 ...................................................... 722 Figure 710. Evacuation Time Estimates Scenario 2 for Region R03 .................................................... 722 Figure 711. Evacuation Time Estimates Scenario 3 for Region R03 .................................................... 723 Figure 712. Evacuation Time Estimates Scenario 4 for Region R03 .................................................... 723 Figure 713. Evacuation Time Estimates Scenario 5 for Region R03 .................................................... 724 Figure 714. Evacuation Time Estimates Scenario 6 for Region R03 .................................................... 724 Figure 715. Evacuation Time Estimates Scenario 7 for Region R03 .................................................... 725 Figure 716. Evacuation Time Estimates Scenario 8 for Region R03 .................................................... 725 Figure 717. Evacuation Time Estimates Scenario 9 for Region R03 .................................................... 726 Figure 718. Evacuation Time Estimates Scenario 10 for Region R03 .................................................. 726 Figure 719. Evacuation Time Estimates Scenario 11 for Region R03 .................................................. 727 Figure 720. Evacuation Time Estimates Scenario 12 for Region R03 .................................................. 727 Figure 721. Evacuation Time Estimates Scenario 13 for Region R03 .................................................. 728 Figure 722. Evacuation Time Estimates Scenario 14 for Region R03 .................................................. 728 Figure 81. Chronology of Transit Evacuation Operations ...................................................................... 812 Figure 82. TransitDependent Bus Routes ............................................................................................. 813 Figure 101. General Population Reception Centers and Host Schools .................................................. 102 Fermi Nuclear Power Plant iii KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 1

Figure 102. Evacuation Route Map ........................................................................................................ 103 Figure B1. Flow Diagram of SimulationDTRAD Interface........................................................................ B5 Figure C1. Representative Analysis Network ........................................................................................... C4 Figure C2. Fundamental Diagrams ........................................................................................................... C6 Figure C3. A UNIT Problem Configuration with t1 > 0 .............................................................................. C7 Figure C4. Flow of Simulation Processing (See Glossary: Table C3) .................................................... C15 Figure D1. Flow Diagram of Activities ..................................................................................................... D5 Figure E1. Schools within the EPZ (1 of 3) ............................................................................................. E10 Figure E2. Schools within the EPZ (2 of 3) ............................................................................................. E11 Figure E3. Schools within the EPZ (3 of 3) ............................................................................................. E12 Figure E4. Medical Faciities within the EPZ ........................................................................................... E13 Figure E5. Major Employers within the EPZ (1 of 2) .............................................................................. E14 Figure E6. Major Employers within the EPZ (2 of 2) .............................................................................. E15 Figure E7. Recreational Areas within the EPZ ........................................................................................ E16 Figure E8. Lodging Facilities within the EPZ ............................................................................................ E17 Figure E9. Correctional Facilities within the EPZ .................................................................................... E18 Figure F1. Household Size in the EPZ ....................................................................................................... F3 Figure F2. Household Vehicle Availability ................................................................................................ F4 Figure F3. Vehicle Availability 1 to 5 Person Households ...................................................................... F5 Figure F4. Vehicle Availability 6 to 9+ Person Households .................................................................... F5 Figure F5. Commuters in Households in the EPZ ..................................................................................... F6 Figure F6. Modes of Travel in the EPZ ..................................................................................................... F7 Figure F7. Number of Vehicles Used for Evacuation ............................................................................... F8 Figure F8. Households Evacuating with Pets ........................................................................................... F8 Figure F9. Time Required to Prepare to Leave Work/School ................................................................ F10 Figure F10. Work to Home Travel Time ................................................................................................. F10 Figure F11. Time to Prepare Home for Evacuation................................................................................ F11 Figure F12. Time to Clear Driveway of 6"8" of Snow ........................................................................... F12 Figure G1. Access Control Points for the FNPP EPZ ................................................................................ G2 Figure H1. Region R01 ............................................................................................................................. H3 Figure H2. Region R02 ............................................................................................................................. H4 Figure H3. Region R03 ............................................................................................................................. H5 Figure H4. Region R04 ............................................................................................................................. H6 Figure H5. Region R05 ............................................................................................................................. H7 Figure H6. Region R06 ............................................................................................................................. H8 Figure H7. Region R07 ............................................................................................................................. H9 Figure H8. Region R08 ........................................................................................................................... H10 Figure H9. Region R09 ........................................................................................................................... H11 Figure H10. Region R10 ......................................................................................................................... H12 Figure J1. ETE and Trip Generation: Summer, Midweek, Midday, Good Weather (Scenario 1) .............. J8 Figure J2. ETE and Trip Generation: Summer, Midweek, Midday, Rain (Scenario 2) ............................... J8 Figure J3. ETE and Trip Generation: Summer, Weekend, Midday, Good Weather (Scenario 3).............. J9 Figure J4. ETE and Trip Generation: Summer, Weekend, Midday, Rain (Scenario 4) .............................. J9 Figure J5. ETE and Trip Generation: Summer, Midweek, Weekend, Evening, Good Weather (Scenario 5) ..................................................................................................................... J10 Figure J6. ETE and Trip Generation: Winter, Midweek, Midday, Good Weather (Scenario 6) .............. J10 Figure J7. ETE and Trip Generation: Winter, Midweek, Midday, Rain (Scenario 7) ............................... J11 Fermi Nuclear Power Plant iv KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 1

Figure J8. ETE and Trip Generation: Winter, Midweek, Midday, Snow (Scenario 8) ............................. J11 Figure J9. ETE and Trip Generation: Winter, Weekend, Midday, Good Weather (Scenario 9) .............. J12 Figure J10. ETE and Trip Generation: Winter, Weekend, Midday, Rain (Scenario 10) ........................... J12 Figure J11. ETE and Trip Generation: Winter, Weekend, Midday, Snow (Scenario 11) ......................... J13 Figure J12. ETE and Trip Generation: Winter, Midweek, Weekend, Evening, Good Weather (Scenario 12) ................................................................................................................... J13 Figure J13. ETE and Trip Generation: Summer, Weekend, Midday, Good Weather, Special Event (Scenario 13) ...................................................................................................................... J14 Figure J14. ETE and Trip Generation: Summer, Midweek, Midday, Good Weather, Roadway Impact (Scenario 14) ................................................................................................................ J14 Figure K1. FNPP LinkNode Analysis Network.......................................................................................... K2 Figure K2. LinkNode Analysis Network - Grid 1 ..................................................................................... K3 Figure K3. LinkNode Analysis Network - Grid 2 ..................................................................................... K4 Figure K4. LinkNode Analysis Network - Grid 3 ..................................................................................... K5 Figure K5. LinkNode Analysis Network - Grid 4 ..................................................................................... K6 Figure K6. LinkNode Analysis Network - Grid 5 ..................................................................................... K7 Figure K7. LinkNode Analysis Network - Grid 6 ..................................................................................... K8 Figure K8. LinkNode Analysis Network - Grid 7 ..................................................................................... K9 Figure K9. LinkNode Analysis Network - Grid 8 ................................................................................... K10 Figure K10. LinkNode Analysis Network - Grid 9 ................................................................................. K11 Figure K11. LinkNode Analysis Network - Grid 10 ............................................................................... K12 Figure K12. LinkNode Analysis Network - Grid 11 ............................................................................... K13 Figure K13. LinkNode Analysis Network - Grid 12 ............................................................................... K14 Figure K14. LinkNode Analysis Network - Grid 13 ............................................................................... K15 Figure K15. LinkNode Analysis Network - Grid 14 ............................................................................... K16 Figure K16. LinkNode Analysis Network - Grid 15 ............................................................................... K17 Figure K17. LinkNode Analysis Network - Grid 16 ............................................................................... K18 Figure K18. LinkNode Analysis Network - Grid 17 ............................................................................... K19 Figure K19. LinkNode Analysis Network - Grid 18 ............................................................................... K20 Figure K20. LinkNode Analysis Network - Grid 19 ............................................................................... K21 Figure K21. LinkNode Analysis Network - Grid 20 ............................................................................... K22 Figure K22. LinkNode Analysis Network - Grid 21 ............................................................................... K23 Figure K23. LinkNode Analysis Network - Grid 22 ............................................................................... K24 Fermi Nuclear Power Plant v KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 1

List of Tables Table 11. Stakeholder Interaction ........................................................................................................... 11 Table 12. Highway Characteristics ........................................................................................................... 15 Table 13. ETE Study Comparisons ............................................................................................................ 19 Table 21. Evacuation Scenario Definitions............................................................................................... 23 Table 22. Model Adjustment for Adverse Weather................................................................................. 27 Table 31. EPZ Permanent Resident Population ....................................................................................... 34 Table 32. Permanent Resident Population and Vehicles by PAA ............................................................ 34 Table 33. Shadow Population and Vehicles by Sector ............................................................................. 37 Table 34. Summary of Transients and Transient Vehicles ..................................................................... 311 Table 35. Summary of NonEPZ Resident Employees and Employee Vehicles...................................... 315 Table 36. FNPP EPZ External Traffic ....................................................................................................... 319 Table 37. Summary of Population Demand ........................................................................................... 321 Table 38. Summary of Vehicle Demand ................................................................................................. 322 Table 51. Event Sequence for Evacuation Activities ................................................................................ 53 Table 52. Time Distribution for Notifying the Public ............................................................................... 56 Table 53. Time Distribution for Employees to Prepare to Leave Work ................................................... 57 Table 54. Time Distribution for Commuters to Travel Home .................................................................. 58 Table 55. Time Distribution for Population to Prepare to Evacuate ....................................................... 59 Table 56. Time Distribution for Population to Clear 6"8" of Snow ...................................................... 510 Table 57. Mapping Distributions to Events ............................................................................................ 512 Table 58. Description of the Distributions ............................................................................................. 513 Table 59. Trip Generation Histograms for the EPZ Population for Unstaged Evacuation ..................... 519 Table 510. Trip Generation Histograms for the EPZ Population for Staged Evacuation ....................... 521 Table 61. Description of Evacuation Regions........................................................................................... 63 Table 62. Evacuation Scenario Definitions............................................................................................... 65 Table 63. Percent of Population Groups Evacuating for Various Scenarios ............................................ 66 Table 64. Vehicle Estimates by Scenario.................................................................................................. 67 Table 71. Time to Clear the Indicated Area of 90 Percent of the Affected Population ........................... 79 Table 72. Time to Clear the Indicated Area of 100 Percent of the Affected Population ....................... 710 Table 73. Time to Clear 90 Percent of the 2Mile Area within the Indicated Region ............................ 711 Table 74. Time to Clear 100 Percent of the 2Mile Area within the Indicated Region .......................... 712 Table 75. Description of Evacuation Regions......................................................................................... 713 Table 81. TransitDependent Population Estimates .............................................................................. 814 Table 82. School Population Demand Estimates ................................................................................... 815 Table 83. Host Schools ........................................................................................................................... 816 Table 84. Medical Facility Transit Demand ............................................................................................ 817 Table 85. Summary of Transportation Resources .................................................................................. 818 Table 86. Bus Route Descriptions .......................................................................................................... 819 Table 87. School Evacuation Time Estimates Good Weather .............................................................. 821 Table 88. School Evacuation Time Estimates Rain............................................................................... 823 Table 89. School Evacuation Time Estimates Snow ............................................................................. 825 Table 810. Summary of TransitDependent Bus Routes ........................................................................ 827 Table 811. TransitDependent Evacuation Time Estimates Good Weather ........................................ 828 Table 812. TransitDependent Evacuation Time Estimates Rain ......................................................... 830 Table 813. Transit Dependent Evacuation Time Estimates Snow ....................................................... 832 Fermi Nuclear Power Plant vi KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 1

Table 814. Special Facility Evacuation Time Estimates Good Weather ............................................... 834 Table 815. Medical Facility Evacuation Time Estimates Rain .............................................................. 835 Table 816. Medical Facility Evacuation Time Estimates Snow ............................................................ 836 Table 817. Homebound Special Needs Population Evacuation Time Estimates .................................... 837 Table 121. Estimated Number of Telephone Calls Required for Confirmation of Evacuation .............. 123 Table A1. Glossary of Traffic Engineering Terms .................................................................................... A1 Table C1. Selected Measures of Effectiveness Output by DYNEV II ........................................................ C2 Table C2. Input Requirements for the DYNEV II Model ........................................................................... C3 Table C3. Glossary ....................................................................................................................................C8 Table E1. Schools within the EPZ ............................................................................................................. E2 Table E2. Medical Facilities within the EPZ .............................................................................................. E4 Table E3. Major Employers within the EPZ .............................................................................................. E5 Table E4. Parks/Recreational Attractions within the EPZ ........................................................................ E7 Table E5. Lodging Facilities within the EPZ .............................................................................................. E8 Table E6. Correctional Facilities within the EPZ ....................................................................................... E9 Table F1. Fermi Telephone Survey Sampling Plan ................................................................................... F2 Table H1. Percent of PAA Population Evacuating for Each Region ......................................................... H2 Table J1. Characteristics of the Ten Highest Volume Signalized Intersections........................................ J2 Table J2. Sample Simulation Model Input ............................................................................................... J3 Table J3. Selected Model Outputs for the Evacuation of the Entire EPZ (Region R03) ........................... J4 Table J4. Average Speed (mph) and Travel Time (min) for Major Evacuation Routes (Region R03, Scenario 1) ............................................................................................................................ J5 Table J5. Simulation Model Outputs at Network Exit Links for Region R03, Scenario 1 ......................... J6 Table K1. Evacuation Roadway Network Characteristics ...................................................................... K25 Table K2. Nodes in the LinkNode Analysis Network which are Controlled ........................................... K69 Table M1. Evacuation Time Estimates for Trip Generation Sensitivity Study ....................................... M1 Table M2. Evacuation Time Estimates for Shadow Sensitivity Study .................................................... M2 Table M3. ETE Variation with Population Change ................................................................................. M4 Table N1. ETE Review Criteria Checklist ................................................................................................. N1 Fermi Nuclear Power Plant vii KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 1

EXECUTIVE

SUMMARY

This report describes the analyses undertaken and the results obtained by a study to develop Evacuation Time Estimates (ETE) for the Fermi Nuclear Power Plant (FNPP) located in Monroe County, MI. ETE are part of the required planning basis and provide DTE Energy and State and local governments with sitespecific information needed for Protective Action decisionmaking.

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

Criteria for Development of Evacuation Time Estimate Studies, NUREG/CR7002, November 2011.

Criteria for Preparation and Evaluation of Radiological Emergency Response Plans and Preparedness in Support of Nuclear Power Plants, NUREG0654/FEMAREP1, Rev. 1, November 1980.

Development of Evacuation Time Estimates for Nuclear Power Plants, NUREG/CR6863, January 2005.

10CFR50, Appendix E - Emergency Planning and Preparedness for Production and Utilization Facilities Overview of Project Activities This project began in February, 2012 and extended over a period of 9 months. The major activities performed are briefly described in chronological sequence:

Attended kickoff meetings with DTE Energy personnel and emergency management personnel representing state and county governments.

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

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

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

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

Telephone calls to specific facilities supplemented the data provided.

Fermi Nuclear Power Plant ES1 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 1

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

Following federal guidelines, the EPZ is subdivided into 5 Protective Action Areas (PAA).

These PAA are then grouped within circular areas or keyhole configurations (circles plus radial sectors) that define a total of 10 Evacuation Regions.

The timevarying external circumstances are represented as Evacuation Scenarios, each described in terms of the following factors: (1) Season (Summer, Winter); (2) Day of Week (Midweek, Weekend); (3) Time of Day (Midday, Evening); and (4) Weather (Good, Rain, Snow). One special event scenario involving the River Raisin Jazz Festival was considered. One roadway impact scenario was considered wherein a single lane was closed on Interstate 75 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/CR7002, the Planning Basis for the calculation of ETE is:

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

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

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

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

Computation of ETE A total of 140 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 10 Evacuation Regions to evacuate from that Region, under the circumstances defined for one of the 14 Fermi Nuclear Power Plant ES2 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 1

Evacuation Scenarios (10 x 14 = 140). Separate ETE are calculated for transitdependent evacuees, including schoolchildren for applicable scenarios.

Except for Region R03, which is the evacuation of the entire EPZ, only a portion of the people within the EPZ would be advised to evacuate. That is, the Advisory to Evacuate applies only to those people occupying the specified impacted region. It is assumed that 100 percent of the people within the impacted region will evacuate in response to this Advisory. The people occupying the remainder of the EPZ outside the impacted region may be advised to take shelter.

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

Staged evacuation is considered wherein those people within the 2mile region evacuate immediately, while those beyond 2 miles, but within the EPZ, shelterinplace. Once 90% of the 2mile region is evacuated, those people beyond 2 miles begin to evacuate. As per federal guidance, 20% of people beyond 2 miles will evacuate (noncompliance) even though they are advised to shelterinplace.

The computational procedure is outlined as follows:

A linknode representation of the highway network is coded. Each link represents a unidirectional length of highway; each node usually represents an intersection or merge point. The capacity of each link is estimated based on the field survey observations and on established traffic engineering procedures.

The evacuation trips are generated at locations called zonal centroids located within the EPZ and Shadow Region. The trip generation rates vary over time reflecting the mobilization process, and from one location (centroid) to another depending on population density and on whether a centroid is within, or outside, the impacted area.

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

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 90th percentile ETE have been identified as the values that should be considered when making protective action decisions because the 100th percentile ETE are prolonged by those relatively few people who take longer to mobilize. This is referred to as the evacuation tail in Section 4.0 of NUREG/CR7002.

Fermi Nuclear Power Plant ES3 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 1

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 Monroe and Wayne Counties, and identifies critical intersections.

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

Figure 61 displays a map of the FNPP EPZ showing the layout of the 5 PAA that comprise, in aggregate, the EPZ.

Table 31 presents the estimates of permanent resident population in each PAA based on the 2010 Census data.

Table 61 defines each of the 10 Evacuation Regions in terms of their respective groups of PAA.

Table 62 lists the Evacuation Scenarios.

Tables 71 and Table 72 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 73 and Table 74 present ETE for the 2mile region for unstaged and staged evacuations for the 90th and 100th percentiles, respectively.

Table 87 presents ETE for the schoolchildren in good weather.

Table 811 presents ETE for the transitdependent population in good weather.

Figure H7 presents an example of an Evacuation Region (Region R07) to be evacuated under the circumstances defined in Table 61. Maps of all regions are provided in Appendix H.

Conclusions General population ETE were computed for 140 unique cases - a combination of 10 unique Evacuation Regions and 14 unique Evacuation Scenarios. Table 71 and Table 72 document these ETE for the 90th and 100th percentiles. These ETE range from 1:35 (hr:min) to 2:40 at the 90th percentile.

Inspection of Table 71 and Table 72 indicates that the ETE for the 100th percentile are significantly longer than those for the 90th percentile. This is the result of the long trip generation tail. As these stragglers mobilize, the aggregate rate of egress slows since many vehicles have already left the EPZ. Towards the end of the process, relatively few evacuation routes service the remaining demand. See Figures 79 through 722.

Inspection of Table 73 and Table 74 indicates that a staged evacuation provides no Fermi Nuclear Power Plant ES4 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 1

benefits to evacuees from within the 2 mile region and unnecessarily delays the evacuation of those beyond 2 miles (compare Regions R02, R04 and R05 with Regions R08 through R10, respectively, in Tables 71 and 72). See Section 7.6 for additional discussion.

Comparison of Scenarios 3 (summer, weekend, midday, good weather) and 13 (summer, weekend, midday, special event) in Table 71 indicates that the special event does not materially affect the ETE with increases of only 5 minutes at the 90th percentile. The special event has no impact on the 100th percentile ETE. See Section 7.5 for additional discussion.

Comparison of Scenarios 1 and 14 in Table 71 indicates that the roadway closure - a single lane southbound on Interstate75 from the interchange with I275 (Exit 20) to the end of the EPZ at Laplaisance Rd (before Exit 9) - does not have a material impact on 90th percentile ETE, with increases of only up to 5 minutes for an evacuation of the entire EPZ (Region R03). The roadway impact scenario has no impact on the 100th percentile ETE. See Section 7.5 for additional discussion.

The city of Monroe is the most congested area during an evacuation. All congestion within the EPZ clears by 2 hours2.314815e-5 days <br />5.555556e-4 hours <br />3.306878e-6 weeks <br />7.61e-7 months <br /> and 30 minutes after the Advisory to Evacuate. See Section 7.3 and Figures 73 through 78.

Separate ETE were computed for schools, medical facilities, transitdependent persons, homebound special needs persons and correctional facilities. The average singlewave ETE for schools and correctional facilities are within a similar range as the general population ETE at the 90th percentile. The average singlewave ETE for transit dependents, medical facilities, and homebound special needs exceed the general population ETE at the 90th percentile. See Section 8.

Table 85 indicates that there are sufficient transportation resources available to evacuate the transitdependent population within the EPZ in a single wave. See Sections 8.4 and 8.5.

The general population ETE at the 90th percentile is insensitive to reductions in the base trip generation time of 4 hours4.62963e-5 days <br />0.00111 hours <br />6.613757e-6 weeks <br />1.522e-6 months <br /> due to the traffic congestion within the EPZ. The 100th percentile ETE, however, mirrors trip generation time. See Table M1.

The general population ETE is relatively insensitive to the voluntary evacuation of vehicles in the Shadow Region (tripling the shadow evacuation percentage only increases 90th percentile ETE by 5 minutes). See Table M2.

A population increase of 55% results in ETE changes which meet the criteria for updating ETE between decennial Censuses. See Section M.3.

Fermi Nuclear Power Plant ES5 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 1

Figure 61. FNPP EPZ Subareas Fermi Nuclear Power Plant ES6 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 1

Table 31. EPZ Permanent Resident Population PAA 2000 Population 2010 Population 1 3,723 3,429 2 2,576 4,746 3 5,628 5,434 4 33,723 38,810 5 47,049 45,406 TOTAL 92,699 97,825 EPZ Population Growth: 5.53%

Fermi Nuclear Power Plant ES7 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 1

Table 61. Description of Evacuation Regions Basic Regions PAA Region Description 1 2 3 4 5 R01 2Mile Region x R02 5Mile Region x x x R03 Full EPZ x x x x x Evacuate 2Mile Region and Downwind to 5 Miles PAA Region Wind Direction From: 1 2 3 4 5 W,WNW,NW,NNW,N,NNE Refer to Region R01 R04 NE,ENE,E x x ESE,SE Refer to Region R02 R05 SSE,S,SSW,SW,WSW x x Evacuate 5Mile Region and Downwind to the EPZ Boundary PAA Region Wind Direction From: 1 2 3 4 5 WSW,W,WNW,NW,NNW,N Refer to Region R02 R06 NNE,NE,ENE x x x x E,ESE,SE Refer to Region R03 R07 SSE,S,SSW,SW x x x x Staged Evacuation 2Mile Region Evacuates, then Evacuate Downwind to 5 Miles PAA Region Wind Direction From: 1 2 3 4 5 R08 No Wind x x x W,WNW,NW,NNW,N,NNE Refer to Region R01 R09 NE,ENE,E x x ESE,SE Refer to Region R02 R10 SSE,S,SSW,SW,WSW x x Key PAA(s) Evacuate PAA(s) ShelterinPlace ShelterinPlace until 90% ETE for R01, then Evacuate Fermi Nuclear Power Plant ES8 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 1

Table 62. Evacuation Scenario Definitions Day of Time of Scenario Season1 Week Day Weather Special 1 Summer Midweek Midday Good None 2 Summer Midweek Midday Rain None 3 Summer Weekend Midday Good None 4 Summer Weekend Midday Rain None Midweek, 5 Summer Weekend Evening Good None 6 Winter Midweek Midday Good None 7 Winter Midweek Midday Rain None 8 Winter Midweek Midday Snow None 9 Winter Weekend Midday Good None 10 Winter Weekend Midday Rain None 11 Winter Weekend Midday Snow None Midweek, 12 Winter Weekend Evening Good None 13 Summer Weekend Midday Good River Raisin Jazz Festival Roadway Impact - Lane 14 Summer Midweek Midday Good Closure on I75 SB 1

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

Fermi Nuclear Power Plant ES9 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 1

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

Midday Midday Evening Midday Midday Evening Midday Midday Region Good Good Good Good Good Good Special Roadway Rain Rain Rain Snow Rain Snow Weather Weather Weather Weather Weather Weather Event Impact Entire 2Mile Region, 5Mile Region, and EPZ R01 1:55 1:55 1:35 1:35 1:35 1:55 1:55 2:30 1:35 1:35 2:10 1:35 1:35 1:55 R02 2:00 2:00 1:55 1:55 1:50 2:00 2:00 2:10 1:55 2:00 2:05 1:50 1:55 2:00 R03 2:10 2:15 2:00 2:05 1:50 2:05 2:10 2:35 1:55 2:00 2:20 1:50 2:05 2:15 2Mile Region and Keyhole to 5 Miles R04 2:00 2:00 1:55 2:00 1:55 2:00 2:00 2:10 2:00 2:00 2:05 1:55 1:55 2:00 R05 2:00 2:00 2:00 2:00 1:55 2:00 2:00 2:05 2:00 2:00 2:05 1:55 2:00 2:00 5Mile Region and Keyhole to EPZ Boundary R06 2:00 2:05 1:55 1:55 1:50 2:00 2:05 2:15 1:55 1:55 2:10 1:50 1:55 2:00 R07 2:05 2:05 1:55 2:00 1:50 2:05 2:05 2:20 2:00 2:00 2:10 1:50 1:55 2:05 Staged Evacuation 2Mile Region and Keyhole to 5 Miles R08 2:10 2:10 2:10 2:10 2:10 2:10 2:10 2:40 2:10 2:10 2:35 2:10 2:10 2:10 R09 2:10 2:10 2:10 2:10 2:10 2:10 2:10 2:40 2:10 2:10 2:35 2:10 2:10 2:10 R10 2:05 2:05 2:05 2:05 2:05 2:05 2:05 2:25 2:05 2:05 2:25 2:05 2:05 2:05 Fermi Nuclear Power Plant ES10 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 1

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

Midday Midday Evening Midday Midday Evening Midday Midday Region Good Good Good Good Good Good Special Roadway Rain Rain Rain Snow Rain Snow Weather Weather Weather Weather Weather Weather Event Impact Entire 2Mile Region, 5Mile Region, and EPZ R01 4:00 4:00 4:00 4:00 4:00 4:00 4:00 4:30 4:00 4:00 4:30 4:00 4:00 4:00 R02 4:05 4:05 4:05 4:05 4:05 4:05 4:05 4:35 4:05 4:05 4:35 4:05 4:05 4:05 R03 4:10 4:10 4:10 4:10 4:10 4:10 4:10 4:40 4:10 4:10 4:40 4:10 4:10 4:10 2Mile Region and Keyhole to 5 Miles R04 4:05 4:05 4:05 4:05 4:05 4:05 4:05 4:35 4:05 4:05 4:35 4:05 4:05 4:05 R05 4:05 4:05 4:05 4:05 4:05 4:05 4:05 4:35 4:05 4:05 4:35 4:05 4:05 4:05 5Mile Region and Keyhole to EPZ Boundary R06 4:10 4:10 4:10 4:10 4:10 4:10 4:10 4:40 4:10 4:10 4:40 4:10 4:10 4:10 R07 4:10 4:10 4:10 4:10 4:10 4:10 4:10 4:40 4:10 4:10 4:40 4:10 4:10 4:10 Staged Evacuation 2Mile Region and Keyhole to 5 Miles R08 4:05 4:05 4:05 4:05 4:05 4:05 4:05 4:35 4:05 4:05 4:35 4:05 4:05 4:05 R09 4:05 4:05 4:05 4:05 4:05 4:05 4:05 4:35 4:05 4:05 4:35 4:05 4:05 4:05 R10 4:05 4:05 4:05 4:05 4:05 4:05 4:05 4:35 4:05 4:05 4:35 4:05 4:05 4:05 Fermi Nuclear Power Plant ES11 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 1

Table 73. Time to Clear 90 Percent of the 2Mile 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 Unstaged Evacuation 2Mile Region and Keyhole to 5Miles R01 1:55 1:55 1:35 1:35 1:35 1:55 1:55 2:30 1:35 1:35 2:10 1:35 1:35 1:55 R02 1:55 2:00 1:35 1:35 1:35 1:55 1:55 2:30 1:35 1:35 2:10 1:35 1:35 1:55 R04 1:55 1:55 1:35 1:35 1:35 1:55 1:55 2:30 1:35 1:35 2:10 1:35 1:35 1:55 R05 1:55 1:55 1:35 1:35 1:35 1:55 1:55 2:30 1:35 1:35 2:10 1:35 1:35 1:55 Staged Evacuation 2Mile Region and Keyhole to 5Miles R08 2:00 2:05 2:00 2:00 2:00 2:00 2:05 2:35 2:00 2:00 2:30 2:00 2:00 2:00 R09 2:00 2:00 1:55 1:55 1:55 2:00 2:00 2:30 1:55 1:55 2:30 1:55 1:55 2:00 R10 2:00 2:05 2:00 2:00 2:00 2:00 2:00 2:35 2:00 2:00 2:30 2:00 2:00 2:00 Fermi Nuclear Power Plant ES12 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 1

Table 74. Time to Clear 100 Percent of the 2Mile 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 Unstaged Evacuation 2Mile Region and Keyhole to 5Miles R01 4:00 4:00 4:00 4:00 4:00 4:00 4:00 4:30 4:00 4:00 4:30 4:00 4:00 4:00 R02 4:00 4:00 4:00 4:00 4:00 4:00 4:00 4:30 4:00 4:00 4:30 4:00 4:00 4:00 R04 4:00 4:00 4:00 4:00 4:00 4:00 4:00 4:30 4:00 4:00 4:30 4:00 4:00 4:00 R05 4:00 4:00 4:00 4:00 4:00 4:00 4:00 4:30 4:00 4:00 4:30 4:00 4:00 4:00 Staged Evacuation 2Mile Region and Keyhole to 5Miles R08 4:00 4:00 4:00 4:00 4:00 4:00 4:00 4:30 4:00 4:00 4:30 4:00 4:00 4:00 R09 4:00 4:00 4:00 4:00 4:00 4:00 4:00 4:30 4:00 4:00 4:30 4:00 4:00 4:00 R10 4:00 4:00 4:00 4:00 4:00 4:00 4:00 4:30 4:00 4:00 4:30 4:00 4:00 4:00 Fermi Nuclear Power Plant ES13 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 1

Table 87. School Evacuation Time Estimates - Good Weather Travel Time Travel Dist. from Dist. Time EPZ EPZ Driver Loading To EPZ Average to EPZ Bdry Bdry to ETE to Mobilization Time Bdry Speed Bdry ETE to H.S. H.S. H.S.

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

MONROE COUNTY SCHOOLS Airport Senior High School 15 15 2.4 50.0 3 0:35 17.0 26 1:00 Carleton Country Day 30 15 1.3 50.0 2 0:50 17.0 26 1:15 Custer Elementary School #1 45 15 4.0 15.2 16 1:20 13.9 21 1:40 Custer Elementary School #2 45 15 4.0 15.2 16 1:20 13.9 21 1:40 Eyler Elementary School 45 15 2.3 45.0 3 1:05 17.2 26 1:30 Hollywood Elementary School 45 15 5.9 42.6 8 1:10 14.3 21 1:30 Holy Ghost Lutheran School 45 15 5.0 33.1 9 1:10 13.5 20 1:30 Hurd Elementary School 90 15 5.8 54.2 6 1:55 7.4 11 2:05 Jefferson High School 15 15 7.9 49.8 10 0:40 7.4 11 0:55 Jefferson Middle School 15 15 7.6 49.8 9 0:40 7.4 11 0:50 Lutheran High School South 30 15 6.3 48.4 8 0:55 6.0 9 1:05 Manor Elementary School 45 15 3.7 27.3 8 1:10 15.1 23 1:35 Monroe Middle School 45 15 2.7 5.4 30 1:30 14.3 21 1:55 Monroe Senior High School 45 15 3.1 26.7 7 1:10 18.4 28 1:35 Neidermeier Elementary School 45 15 7.7 43.7 11 1:15 16.8 25 1:40 North Elementary School 45 15 12.6 55.0 14 1:15 7.4 11 1:25 Orchard Center High School 45 15 4.7 32.9 9 1:10 7.3 11 1:20 Pathway Christian Academy/ Daycare 90 15 7.4 46.8 9 1:55 8.0 12 2:10 Raisinville Elementary School 45 15 2.9 33.1 5 1:05 18.4 28 1:35 Ritter Elementary School 45 15 6.9 41.1 10 1:10 17.3 26 1:40 Riverside Elementary School 45 15 6.1 43.1 8 1:10 14.9 22 1:30 Sodt Elementary School 45 15 9.2 35.6 16 1:20 7.4 11 1:30 St. Charles School 45 15 11.1 36.4 18 1:20 5.9 9 1:30 St. John's School 45 15 2.8 5.7 29 1:30 6.4 10 1:40 St. Mary's Catholic Center High School 45 15 5.5 43.1 8 1:10 6.3 9 1:20 Fermi Nuclear Power Plant ES14 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 1

Travel Time Travel Dist. from Dist. Time EPZ EPZ Driver Loading To EPZ Average to EPZ Bdry Bdry to ETE to Mobilization Time Bdry Speed Bdry ETE to H.S. H.S. H.S.

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

St. Mary's Parish School 45 15 5.5 42.5 8 1:10 6.3 9 1:20 St. Michael's School 45 15 5.6 30.4 11 1:15 6.8 10 1:25 St. Patrick School 45 15 1.5 50.0 2 1:05 16.5 25 1:30 Sterling Elementary School 30 15 2.6 50.0 3 0:50 16.8 25 1:15 Trinity Lutheran School 45 15 2.7 5.6 29 1:30 6.3 9 1:40 Wager Junior High School 15 15 2.3 50.0 3 0:35 17.6 26 1:00 Waterloo Elementary School 45 15 3.0 28.4 6 1:10 18.7 28 1:35 Zion Lutheran School 45 15 4.0 40.4 6 1:10 19.7 30 1:40 WAYNE COUNTY SCHOOLS Chapman Elementary School 90 15 3.5 55.0 4 1:50 10.7 16 2:05 David Oren Hunter Elementary School 90 15 1.7 33.4 3 1:50 10.7 16 2:05 Downriver High School 90 15 5.4 50.5 6 1:55 13.6 20 2:15 Ethel C. Bobcean Elementary School 90 15 3.5 53.0 4 1:50 8.7 13 2:05 Flat Rock / Gibraltar Head Start 90 15 3.7 53.0 4 1:50 8.7 13 2:05 Flat Rock Community High School 90 15 3.6 53.0 4 1:50 11.3 17 2:10 Hellen C. Shumate Junior High School 90 15 3.5 50.0 4 1:50 13.5 20 2:10 John M. Barnes Elementary 90 15 4.9 47.9 6 1:55 8.7 13 2:05 Oscar A. Carlson High School 90 15 3.5 50.0 4 1:50 13.5 20 2:10 Parsons Elementary School 90 15 3.2 47.6 4 1:50 13.5 20 2:10 Simpson Middle School 90 15 4.9 47.9 6 1:55 8.7 13 2:05 St. Mary's Rockwood Elementary School 90 15 3.2 44.6 4 1:50 10.7 16 2:05 Summit Academy/Summit Early Childhood 90 15 2.4 54.3 3 1:50 10.7 16 2:05 Center Maximum for EPZ: 1:55 Maximum: 2:15 Average for EPZ: 1:25 Average: 1:40 Fermi Nuclear Power Plant ES15 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 1

Table 811. TransitDependent Evacuation Time Estimates - Good Weather OneWave TwoWave Route Route Route Route Travel Pickup Distance Travel Driver Travel Pickup Route Bus Mobilization Length Speed Time Time ETE to R. C. Time to R. Unload Rest Time Time ETE Number Number (min) (miles) (mph) (min) (min) (hr:min) (miles) C. (min) (min) (min) (min) (min) (hr:min) 1&2 90 12.5 30.7 24 30 2:25 6.2 9 5 10 48 30 4:10 3&4 95 12.5 31.4 24 30 2:30 6.2 9 5 10 48 30 4:15 5&6 100 12.5 31.8 24 30 2:35 6.2 9 5 10 48 30 4:20 7&8 105 12.5 32.0 23 30 2:40 6.2 9 5 10 48 30 4:25 1

9 & 10 110 12.5 32.8 23 30 2:45 6.2 9 5 10 48 30 4:30 11 & 12 115 12.5 34.2 22 30 2:50 6.2 9 5 10 48 30 4:35 13 & 14 120 12.5 35.3 21 30 2:55 6.2 9 5 10 48 30 4:40 15 & 16 125 12.5 36.4 21 30 3:00 6.2 9 5 10 47 30 4:45 1&2 90 8.9 31.1 17 30 2:20 6.1 9 5 10 36 30 3:55 3&4 95 8.9 29.3 18 30 2:25 6.1 9 5 10 36 30 4:00 5&6 100 8.9 28.5 19 30 2:30 6.1 9 5 10 36 30 4:05 2 7&8 105 8.9 28.0 19 30 2:35 6.1 9 5 10 36 30 4:10 9 & 10 110 8.9 27.9 19 30 2:40 6.1 9 5 10 36 30 4:15 11 & 12 115 8.9 29.8 18 30 2:45 6.1 9 5 10 36 30 4:20 13 & 14 120 8.9 32.4 16 30 2:50 6.1 9 5 10 36 30 4:25 1&2 90 9.1 10.9 50 30 2:50 12.4 19 5 10 47 30 4:45 3&4 95 9.1 11.4 48 30 2:55 12.4 19 5 10 47 30 4:50 5&6 100 9.1 12.2 45 30 2:55 12.4 19 5 10 47 30 4:50 7&8 105 9.1 13.2 41 30 3:00 12.4 19 5 10 47 30 4:55 3

9 & 10 110 9.1 14.4 38 30 3:00 12.4 19 5 10 47 30 4:55 11 & 12 115 9.1 15.8 35 30 3:00 12.4 19 5 10 47 30 4:55 13 & 14 120 9.1 20.4 27 30 3:00 12.4 19 5 10 47 30 4:55 15 125 9.1 22.9 24 30 3:00 12.4 19 5 10 47 30 4:55 1&2 90 9.4 13.6 42 30 2:45 12.2 18 5 10 47 30 4:40 3&4 95 9.4 13.9 41 30 2:50 12.2 18 5 10 47 30 4:45 5&6 100 9.4 14.4 39 30 2:50 12.2 18 5 10 47 30 4:45 4 7&8 105 9.4 16.2 35 30 2:50 12.2 18 5 10 47 30 4:45 9 & 10 110 9.4 17.1 33 30 2:55 12.2 18 5 10 47 30 4:50 11 & 12 115 9.4 19.3 29 30 2:55 12.2 18 5 10 47 30 4:50 13 & 14 120 9.4 20.8 27 30 3:00 12.2 18 5 10 46 30 4:50 Fermi Nuclear Power Plant ES16 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 1

OneWave TwoWave Route Route Route Route Travel Pickup Distance Travel Driver Travel Pickup Route Bus Mobilization Length Speed Time Time ETE to R. C. Time to R. Unload Rest Time Time ETE Number Number (min) (miles) (mph) (min) (min) (hr:min) (miles) C. (min) (min) (min) (min) (min) (hr:min) 1&2 90 7.3 41.4 11 30 2:15 18.2 27 5 10 48 30 4:20 3&4 95 7.3 41.2 11 30 2:20 18.2 27 5 10 48 30 4:25 5&6 100 7.3 41.7 10 30 2:20 18.2 27 5 10 48 30 4:25 5 7&8 105 7.3 41.7 11 30 2:30 18.2 27 5 10 48 30 4:35 9 & 10 110 7.3 41.9 10 30 2:30 18.2 27 5 10 48 30 4:35 11 115 7.3 40.7 11 30 2:40 18.2 27 5 10 48 30 4:45 12 120 7.3 41.2 11 30 2:45 18.2 27 5 10 48 30 4:50 1&2 90 10.2 42.8 14 30 2:15 12.2 18 5 10 47 30 4:10 3&4 95 10.2 42.4 14 30 2:20 12.2 18 5 10 47 30 4:15 5&6 100 10.2 42.3 14 30 2:25 12.2 18 5 10 47 30 4:20 6 7&8 105 10.2 42.8 14 30 2:30 12.2 18 5 10 47 30 4:25 9 & 10 110 10.2 43.2 14 30 2:35 12.2 18 5 10 47 30 4:30 11 115 10.2 43.6 14 30 2:40 12.2 18 5 10 47 30 4:35 12 120 10.2 44.0 14 30 2:45 12.2 18 5 10 47 30 4:40 1&2 90 5.9 23.3 15 30 2:15 8.7 13 5 10 31 30 3:45 3&4 95 5.9 24.5 14 30 2:20 8.7 13 5 10 31 30 3:50 5&6 100 5.9 25.2 14 30 2:25 8.7 13 5 10 31 30 3:55 7 7&8 105 5.9 28.1 13 30 2:30 8.7 13 5 10 31 30 4:00 9 & 10 110 5.9 31.6 11 30 2:35 8.7 13 5 10 31 30 4:05 11 115 5.9 33.8 10 30 2:35 8.7 13 5 10 31 30 4:05 12 120 5.9 34.4 10 30 2:40 8.7 13 5 10 31 30 4:10 Maximum ETE: 3:00 Maximum ETE: 4:55 Average ETE: 2:40 Average ETE: 4:30 Fermi Nuclear Power Plant ES17 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 1

Figure H7. Region R07 Fermi Nuclear Power Plant ES18 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 1

1 INTRODUCTION This report describes the analyses undertaken and the results obtained by a study to develop Evacuation Time Estimates (ETE) for the Fermi Nuclear Power Plant (FNPP), located in Monroe County, MI. ETE provide State and local governments with sitespecific information needed for Protective Action decisionmaking.

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

• Criteria for Development of Evacuation Time Estimate Studies, NUREG/CR7002, November 2011.

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

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

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

The work effort reported herein was supported and guided by local stakeholders who contributed suggestions, critiques, and the local knowledge base required. Table 11 presents a summary of stakeholders and interactions.

Table 11. Stakeholder Interaction Stakeholder Nature of Stakeholder Interaction Meetings to define data requirements and set up DTE Energy contacts with local government agencies Provide means for data collection and obtaining County Emergency Management Departments county emergency plans Obtain existing traffic management plans and state MSP/EMHSD emergency plans 1.1 Overview of the ETE Process The following outline presents a brief description of the work effort in chronological sequence:

1. Information Gathering:

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

b. Attended meetings with emergency planners from Monroe County EMW and Wayne County HSEM to identify issues to be addressed and resources available.

Fermi Nuclear Power Plant 11 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 1

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

d. Obtained demographic data from the 2010 census, county emergency management departments.

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

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

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

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

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

5. Used existing Protective Action Areas (PAA) to define evacuation regions. The EPZ is partitioned into 5 PAA along jurisdictional and geographic boundaries. Regions are groups of contiguous PAA for which ETE are calculated. The configurations of these Regions reflect wind direction and the radial extent of the impacted area. Each Region, other than those that approximate circular areas, approximates a keyhole section within the EPZ as recommended by NUREG/CR7002.

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, DTE Energy and from the telephone survey.

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

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

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

Fermi Nuclear Power Plant 12 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 1

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

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

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/CR7002.

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

1.2 The Fermi Nuclear Power Plant Location The FNPP is located along the western shore of Lake Erie in Frenchtown Charter Township, Monroe County, Michigan. The site is approximately 25 miles northeast of Toledo, OH and 25 miles southwest of Detroit, MI. The Emergency Planning Zone (EPZ) consists of parts of Monroe and Wayne Counties in Michigan. Figure 11 displays the area surrounding the FNPP. This map identifies the communities in the area and the major roads.

Fermi Nuclear Power Plant 13 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 1

Figure 11. FNPP Location Fermi Nuclear Power Plant 14 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 1

1.3 Preliminary Activities These activities are described below.

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

Table 12. Highway Characteristics Number of lanes Posted speed Lane width Actual free speed Shoulder type & width Abutting land use Interchange geometries Control devices Lane channelization & queuing Intersection configuration (including capacity (including turn bays/lanes) roundabouts where applicable)

Geometrics: curves, grades (>4%) Traffic signal type Unusual characteristics: Narrow bridges, sharp curves, poor pavement, flood warning signs, inadequate delineations, toll booths, etc.

Video and audio recording equipment were used to capture a permanent record of the highway infrastructure. No attempt was made to meticulously measure such attributes as lane width and shoulder width; estimates of these measures based on visual observation and recorded images were considered appropriate for the purpose of estimating the capacity of highway sections. For example, Exhibit 157 in the HCM indicates that a reduction in lane width from 12 feet (the base value) to 10 feet can reduce free flow speed (FFS) by 1.1 mph - not a material difference - for twolane highways. Exhibit 1530 in the HCM shows little sensitivity for the estimates of Service Volumes at Level of Service (LOS) E (near capacity), with respect to FFS, for twolane highways.

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

As documented on page 155 of the HCM 2010, the capacity of a twolane highway is 1700 passenger cars per hour in one direction. For freeway sections, a value of 2250 vehicles per hour per lane is assigned, as per Exhibit 1117 of the HCM 2010. The road survey has identified several segments which are characterized by adverse geometrics on twolane highways which are reflected in reduced values for both capacity and speed. These estimates are consistent with the service volumes for LOS E presented in HCM Exhibit 1530. These links may be Fermi Nuclear Power Plant 15 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 1

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

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

These detectors are typically magnetic loops in the roadway, or video cameras mounted on the signal masts and pointed toward the intersection approaches. If detectors were observed on the approaches to a signalized intersection during the road survey, detailed signal timings were not collected as the timings vary with traffic volume. 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 pretimed, and detailed signal timings were gathered for several signal cycles. These signal timings were input to the DYNEV II system used to compute ETE, as per NUREG/CR7002 guidance.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Fermi Nuclear Power Plant 16 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 1

Figure 12. FNPP LinkNode Analysis Network Fermi Nuclear Power Plant 17 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 1

DYNEV II consists of four submodels:

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

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

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

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

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

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, IDYNEV, the following references are suggested:

NUREG/CR4873 - Benchmark Study of the IDYNEV Evacuation Time Estimate Computer Code NUREG/CR4874 - The Sensitivity of Evacuation Time Estimates to Changes in Input Parameters for the IDYNEV Computer Code The evacuation analysis procedures are based upon the need to:

Route traffic along paths of travel that will expedite their travel from their respective points of origin to points outside the EPZ.

Restrict movement toward the plant to the extent practicable, and disperse traffic demand so as to avoid focusing demand on a limited number of highways.

Move traffic in directions that are generally outbound, relative to the location of the FNPP.

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 Fermi Nuclear Power Plant 18 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 1

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

1.4 Comparison with Prior ETE Study Table 13 presents a comparison of the present ETE study with the 2008 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:

A decrease in permanent resident population.

The model used in the previous study used highway capacities based upon the 2000 HCM. The current study uses an updated model reflecting increased highway capacities based upon the 2010 HCM.

The previous study modeled all traffic signals as pretimed signals with fixed signal timings. NUREG/CR7002 requires the ETE to consider actuated signals in the traffic simulation model where they exist in the real word. Actuated signals allocate green time based on the volume at each approach and will vary throughout the simulation.

This adaptive intersection control has improved capacity at critical intersections along congested corridors, thus decreasing ETE.

Table 13. ETE Study Comparisons Topic Previous ETE Study Current ETE Study ArcGIS Software using 2010 US Census Resident Population 2000 US Census Data; blocks; area ratio method used.

Basis Population = 103,343 Population = 97,825 2.72 persons/household, 1.24 2.72 persons/household, 1.24 Resident Population evacuating vehicles/household evacuating vehicles/household Vehicle Occupancy yielding: 2.19 persons/vehicle yielding: 2.19 persons/vehicle Employees treated as separate Employees treated as separate population group. Employee population group. Employee estimates estimates based on information based on information provided by the provided by the counties, by Internet Employee counties, by Internet searches, and by searches, and by direct phone calls to Population direct phone calls to major employers.

major employers. 1.01 1.02 employees/vehicle based on employees/vehicle based on phone phone survey results.

survey results.

Employees = 5,047 Employees = 4,797 Fermi Nuclear Power Plant 19 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 1

Topic Previous ETE Study Current ETE Study Estimates based upon U.S. Census data Estimates based upon U.S. Census and the results of the telephone data and the results of the telephone survey. A total of 1,253 people who do survey. A total of 2,834 people who not have access to a vehicle, requiring do not have access to a vehicle, 42 buses to evacuate. Included are 153 requiring 95 buses to evacuate. An TransitDependent homebound special needs persons additional 334 homebound special Population needed special transportation to needs persons needed special evacuate (100 required a bus, 40 transportation to evacuate (219 required a wheelchairaccessible required a bus, 103 required a vehicle, and 13 required an wheelchairaccessible vehicle, and 12 ambulance). required an ambulance).

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

Transients = 13,458 Transients = 13,537 Special facility population based on Special facility population based on information provided by each county information provided by each county within the EPZ. within the EPZ.

Medical Facility Census = 950 Medical Facility Census = 950 Special Facilities Buses Required = 9 Buses Required = 31 Population Wheelchair Buses Required = 27 Wheelchair Vans Required = 34 Ambulances Required = 31 Ambulances Required = 21 Correctional Facility Census = 343 Correctional Facility Census = 343 Buses Required = 12 Buses Required = 12 School population based on School population based on information provided by each county information provided by each county School Population within the EPZ. within the EPZ.

School enrollment = 20,398 School enrollment = 19,173 Buses Required = 383 Buses required = 361 Voluntary 50 percent of population within the evacuation from 20 percent of the population within circular portion of the region; 35 within EPZ in areas the EPZ, but not within the Evacuation percent, in annular ring between the outside region to be Region (see Figure 21) circle and the EPZ boundary.

evacuated 20% of people outside of the EPZ 30% of people outside of the EPZ within the Shadow Region Shadow Evacuation within the Shadow Region (see Figure 72)

Network Size 828 links; 615 nodes 1,000 links; 705 nodes Fermi Nuclear Power Plant 110 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 1

Topic Previous ETE Study Current ETE Study Field surveys conducted in February Roadway Geometric Field surveys conducted in 2008. 2012. Roads and intersections were Data Road capacities based on 2000 HCM. video archived.

Road capacities based on 2010 HCM.

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

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

Based on residential telephone survey Based on residential telephone survey of specific pretrip mobilization of specific pretrip mobilization activities: activities:

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

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

Employees and transients leave Employees and transients leave between 15 and 120 minutes. between 15 and 105 minutes.

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

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

Modeling IDYNEV System DYNEV II System - Version 4.0.11.0 Two considered: River Raisin Jazz Festival and Construction of a new unit River Raising Jazz Festival.

Special Events at the Fermi Nuclear Power Plant site Special event population = 6,667 during refueling of the operational unit.

10 Regions (central sector wind 7 Regions and 14 Scenarios producing direction and each adjacent sector Evacuation Cases 98 unique cases. technique used) and 14 Scenarios producing 140 unique cases.

ETE reported for 50th, 90th 95th and ETE reported for 90th and 100th Evacuation Time 100th percentile population. Results percentile population. Results Estimates Reporting presented by Region and Scenario. presented by Region and Scenario.

Fermi Nuclear Power Plant 111 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 1

Topic Previous ETE Study Current ETE Study Winter Weekday Midday, Winter Weekday Midday, Evacuation Time Good Weather: 2:50 Good Weather: 2:05 Estimates for the entire EPZ, 90th percentile Summer Weekend, Midday, Summer Weekend, Midday, Good Weather: 2:45 Good Weather: 2:00 Fermi Nuclear Power Plant 112 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 1

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

2.1 Data Estimates

1. Population estimates are based upon Census 2010 data.

2. Estimates of employees who reside outside the EPZ and commute to work within the EPZ are based upon employment data obtained from county emergency management offices, direct phone calls to major employers, and from the previous ETE report.

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

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

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

6. The relationship between resident population and evacuating vehicles is developed from the telephone survey. Average values of 2.72 persons per household and 1.24 evacuating vehicles per household are used. The relationship between persons and vehicles for transients and employees is as follows:

a. Employees: 1.01 employees per vehicle (telephone survey results) for all major employers.

b. Parks: Vehicle occupancy varies is 2.3 persons per vehicle based on data provided by Sterling State Park.

c. Special Events: Assumed transients attending the River Raisin Jazz Festival show travel as families/households in a single vehicle, and used the average household size of 2.72 persons to estimate the number of vehicles.

Fermi Nuclear Power Plant 21 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 1

2.2 Study Methodological Assumptions

1. ETE are presented for the evacuation of the 90th 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 PAA 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/CR7002.

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

4. Regions are defined by the underlying keyhole or circular configurations as specified in Section 1.4 of NUREG/CR7002. These Regions, as defined, display irregular boundaries reflecting the geography of the PAA included within these underlying configurations.

5. As indicated in Figure 22 of NUREG/CR7002, 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 21 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 21.

7. Scenario 14 considers the closure of a single lane southbound on Interstate75 from the interchange with I275 (Exit 20) to the end of the EPZ at Laplaisance Rd (before Exit 9).

8. The models of the IDYNEV 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; Urbanik1). 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.

1 Urbanik, T., et. al. Benchmark Study of the IDYNEV Evacuation Time Estimate Computer Code, NUREG/CR4873, Nuclear Regulatory Commission, June, 1988.

Fermi Nuclear Power Plant 22 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 1

Table 21. Evacuation Scenario Definitions Day of Time of Scenario Season2 Week Day Weather Special 1 Summer Midweek Midday Good None 2 Summer Midweek Midday Rain None 3 Summer Weekend Midday Good None 4 Summer Weekend Midday Rain None Midweek, 5 Summer Evening Good None Weekend 6 Winter Midweek Midday Good None 7 Winter Midweek Midday Rain None 8 Winter Midweek Midday Snow None 9 Winter Weekend Midday Good None 10 Winter Weekend Midday Rain None 11 Winter Weekend Midday Snow None Midweek, 12 Winter Evening Good None Weekend 13 Summer Weekend Midday Good River Raisin Jazz Festival Roadway Impact - Lane 14 Summer Midweek Midday Good Closure on I75 SB 2

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

Fermi Nuclear Power Plant 23 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 1

Figure 21. Voluntary Evacuation Methodology Fermi Nuclear Power Plant 24 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 1

2.3 Study Assumptions

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

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

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

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

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

3. 62 percent of the households in the EPZ have at least 1 commuter; 55 percent of those households with commuters will await the return of a commuter before beginning their evacuation trip, based on the telephone survey results. Therefore 34 percent (62% x 55% = 34%) 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 (ExternalExternal) trips during the time that such traffic is permitted to enter the evacuated Region. Normal traffic flow is assumed to be present within the EPZ at the start of the emergency.

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

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

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

b. Discourage inadvertent vehicle movements towards the plant.

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

d. Act as local surveillance and communications center.

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

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

Fermi Nuclear Power Plant 25 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 1

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

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

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

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

d. Transitdependent 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 roundtrips (waves) of evacuating transit vehicles is presented.

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

8. Provisions are made for evacuating the transitdependent portion of the general population to reception centers by bus, based on the assumption that some of these people will rideshare with family, neighbors, and friends, thus reducing the demand for buses. We assume that the percentage of people who rideshare is 50 percent. This assumption is based upon reported experience for other emergencies3, and on guidance in Section 2.2 of NUREG/CR7002.

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 weatherrelated 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 operations4; the factors are shown in Table 22.

3 Institute for Environmental Studies, University of Toronto, THE MISSISSAUGA EVACUATION FINAL REPORT, June 1981. The report indicates that 6,600 people of a transitdependent population of 8,600 people shared rides with other residents; a ride share rate of 76% (Page 510).

4 Agarwal, M. et. Al. Impacts of Weather on Urban Freeway Traffic Flow Characteristics and Facility Capacity, Proceedings of the 2005 MidContinent Transportation Research Symposium, August, 2005. The results of this paper are included as Exhibit 1015 in the HCM 2010.

Fermi Nuclear Power Plant 26 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 1

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

Table 22. 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 F12)

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

Fermi Nuclear Power Plant 27 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 1

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Estimates of the population and number of evacuating vehicles for each of the population groups are presented for each PAA and by polar coordinate representation (population rose).

The Fermi EPZ is subdivided into 5 PAAs. The EPZ is shown in Figure 31.

Fermi Nuclear Power Plant 31 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 1

3.1 Permanent Residents The primary source for estimating permanent population is the latest U.S. Census data. The average household size (2.72 persons/household - See Figure F1) and the number of evacuating vehicles per household (1.24 vehicles/household - See Figure F7) were adapted from the telephone survey results.

Population estimates are based upon Census 2010 data. The estimates are created by cutting the census block polygons by the PAA 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 31 provides the permanent resident population within the EPZ, by PAA based on this methodology.

The year 2010 permanent resident population is divided by the average household size and then multiplied by the average number of evacuating vehicles per household in order to estimate number of vehicles. Permanent resident population and vehicle estimates are presented in Table 32. Figure 32 and Figure 33 present the permanent resident population and permanent resident vehicle estimates by sector and distance from Fermi. 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 twoweek 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 twoweek interval.

Assume half of these vacationers leave the area.

On this basis, the permanent resident population would be reduced by 5 percent in the summer and by a lesser amount in the offseason. Given the uncertainty in this estimate, we elected to apply no reductions in permanent resident population for the summer scenarios to account for residents who may be out of the area.

Fermi Nuclear Power Plant 32 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 1

Figure 31. Fermi EPZ Fermi Nuclear Power Plant 33 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 1

Table 31. EPZ Permanent Resident Population PAA 2000 Population 2010 Population 1 3,723 3,429 2 2,576 4,746 3 5,628 5,434 4 33,723 38,810 5 47,049 45,406 TOTAL 92,699 97,825 EPZ Population Growth: 5.53%

Table 32. Permanent Resident Population and Vehicles by PAA 2010 PAA 2010 Population Resident Vehicles 1 3,429 1,561 2 4,746 2,160 3 5,434 2,471 4 38,810 17,679 5 45,406 20,682 TOTAL 97,825 44,553 Fermi Nuclear Power Plant 34 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 1

Figure 32. Permanent Resident Population by Sector Fermi Nuclear Power Plant 35 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 1

Figure 33. Permanent Resident Vehicles by Sector Fermi Nuclear Power Plant 36 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 1

3.2 Shadow Population A portion of the population living outside the evacuation area extending to 15 miles radially from the FNPP (in the Shadow Region) may elect to evacuate without having been instructed to do so. Based upon NUREG/CR7002 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 33, Figure 34, and Figure 35 present estimates of the shadow population and vehicles, by sector.

Table 33. Shadow Population and Vehicles by Sector PAA Population Evacuating Vehicles N 40,181 18,304 NNE 28,933 13,183 NE 0 0 ENE 0 0 E 0 0 ESE 0 0 SE 0 0 SSE 0 0 S 0 0 SSW 0 0 SW 4,736 2,153 WSW 6,354 2,896 W 2,666 1,216 WNW 2,294 1,040 NW 4,632 2,102 NNW 12,117 5,519 TOTAL 101,913 46,413 Fermi Nuclear Power Plant 37 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 1

Figure 34. Shadow Population by Sector Fermi Nuclear Power Plant 38 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 1

Figure 35. Shadow Vehicles by Sector Fermi Nuclear Power Plant 39 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 1

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

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

Lodging Facilities 1,651 transients in 825 vehicles Marinas - 1,784 transients in 912 vehicles Golf Courses - 300 transients in 50 vehicles Parks - 8,602 transients in 3,807 vehicles Retail - 1,200 transients in 600 vehicles The data for these facilities was provided by the counties, obtained by telephone calls placed to the facilities, or estimated based on similar facilities. Golf courses did not provide any information, therefore it is conservatively estimated that at most 50 nonEPZ residents would be golfing during peak times and that the vehicle occupancy rate is one person per vehicle.

Appendix E summarizes the transient data that was estimated for the EPZ. Table E4 presents the number of transients visiting recreational areas, while Table E5 presents the number of transients at lodging facilities within the EPZ.

Table 34 presents transient population and transient vehicle estimates by PAA. Figure 36 and Figure 37 present these data by sector and distance from the plant.

Table 34. Summary of Transients and Transient Vehicles PAA Transients Transient Vehicles 1 44 22 2 2,050 920 3 0 0 4 3,020 1,410 5 8,423 4,092 TOTAL 13,537 6,444 Fermi Nuclear Power Plant 310 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 1

Figure 36. Transient Population by Sector Fermi Nuclear Power Plant 311 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 1

Figure 37. Transient Vehicles by Sector Fermi Nuclear Power Plant 312 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 1

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.

Data provided by Monroe and Wayne counties were used to estimate the number of employees commuting into the EPZ for those employers who did not provide data.

In Table E3, the Employees (Max Shift) is multiplied by the percent NonEPZ factor to determine the number of employees who are not residents of the EPZ. A vehicle occupancy of 1.01 employees per vehicle obtained from the telephone survey (see Figure F6) was used to determine the number of evacuating employee vehicles for all major employers.

Table 35 presents nonEPZ Resident employee and vehicle estimates by PAA. Figure 38 and Figure 39 present these data by sector.

Table 35. Summary of NonEPZ Resident Employees and Employee Vehicles PAA Employees Employee Vehicles 1 477 472 2 176 174 3 133 132 4 2,057 2,038 5 1,954 1,935 TOTAL 4,797 4,751 Fermi Nuclear Power Plant 313 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 1

Figure 38. Employee Population by Sector Fermi Nuclear Power Plant 314 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 1

Figure 39. Employee Vehicles by Sector Fermi Nuclear Power Plant 315 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 1

3.5 Medical Facilities Data were provided by the counties for each of the medical facilities within the EPZ. Table E2 in Appendix E summarizes the data gathered. Section 8 details the evacuation of medical facilities and their patients. The number and type of evacuating vehicles that need to be provided depend on the patients' state of health. It is estimated that buses can transport up to 30 people; wheelchair vans, up to 4 people; and ambulances, up to 2 people.

3.6 Total Demand in Addition to Permanent Population Vehicles will be traveling through the EPZ (externalexternal trips) at the time of an accident.

After the Advisory to Evacuate is announced, these throughtravelers will also evacuate. These through vehicles are assumed to travel on the major routes traversing the EPZ - I75 and I275.

It is assumed that this traffic will continue to enter the EPZ during the first 120 minutes following the Advisory to Evacuate.

Average Annual Daily Traffic (AADT) data was obtained from Federal Highway Administration to estimate the number of vehicles per hour on the aforementioned routes. The AADT was multiplied by the KFactor, which is the proportion of the AADT on a roadway segment or link during the design hour, resulting in the design hour volume (DHV). The design hour is usually the 30th highest hourly traffic volume of the year, measured in vehicles per hour (vph). The DHV is then multiplied by the DFactor, 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 36, for each of the routes considered. The DDHV is then multiplied by 2 hours2.314815e-5 days <br />5.555556e-4 hours <br />3.306878e-6 weeks <br />7.61e-7 months <br /> (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 10,452 vehicles entering the EPZ as externalexternal 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 and

12) as discussed in Section 6.

3.7 Special Event One special event (Scenario 13) is considered for the ETE study - the River Raisin Jazz Festival.

The event occurs on a weekend in midAugust in St. Marys Park in the City of Monroe. Data were obtained from Monroe County indicated that the maximum attendance at a given event is 10,000 and that twothirds of the people would be coming to the event from out of the area. It is assumed that most attendees at this even would travel as a family, so the average household size of 2.72 was used to estimate vehicle occupancy. These estimations result in an additional 6,667 transients traveling in 2,451 vehicles for this scenario.

Public transportation is not provided for this event and was not considered in the special event analysis.

Fermi Nuclear Power Plant 316 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 1

Table 36. FNPP EPZ External Traffic Upstream Downstream HPMS1 Hourly External Road Name Direction KFactor2 DFactor2 Node Node AADT Volume Traffic 8454 454 I75 NB 49,344 0.107 0.33 1,742 3,484 8240 140 I75 SB 49,344 0.107 0.33 1,742 3,484 8030 30 I275 SB 49,344 0.107 0.33 1,742 3,484 TOTAL: 10,452 1

Highway Performance Monitoring System (HPMS), Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), Washington, D.C., 2012 2

HCM 2010 Fermi Nuclear Power Plant 317 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 1

3.8 Summary of Demand A summary of population and vehicle demand is provided in Table 37 and Table 38, respectively. This summary includes all population groups described in this section. Additional population groups - transitdependent, special facility and school population - are described in greater detail in Section 8. A total of 159,842 people and 76,536 vehicles are considered in this study.

Fermi Nuclear Power Plant 318 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 1

Table 37. Summary of Population Demand Transit Special Shadow External PAA Residents Dependent Transients Employees Facilities Schools Population Traffic Total 1 3,429 0 44 477 0 425 0 0 4,375 2 4,746 0 2,050 176 0 500 0 0 7,472 3 5,434 0 0 133 0 1,484 0 0 7,051 4 38,810 1,074 3,020 2,057 11 9,063 0 0 54,035 5 45,406 1,760 8,423 1,954 1,282 7,701 0 0 66,526 Shadow 0 0 0 0 0 0 20,383 0 20,383 Total 97,825 2,834 13,537 4,797 1,293 19,173 20,383 0 159,842 NOTE: Shadow Population has been reduced to 20%. Refer to Figure 21 for additional information.

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

Fermi Nuclear Power Plant 319 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 1

Table 38. Summary of Vehicle Demand Transit Special Shadow External PAA Residents Dependent Transients Employees Facilities Schools Population Traffic Total 1 1,561 0 22 472 0 14 0 0 2,069 2 2,160 0 920 174 0 18 0 0 3,272 3 2,471 0 0 132 0 58 0 0 2,661 4 17,679 72 1,410 2,038 4 338 0 0 21,540 5 20,682 118 4,092 1,935 129 294 0 0 27,259 Shadow 0 0 0 0 0 0 9,283 10,452 19,735 Total 44,553 190 6,444 4,751 141 722 9,283 10,452 76,536 NOTE: Shadow Population has been reduced to 20%. Refer to Figure 21 for additional information.

NOTE: Buses represented as two passenger vehicles. Refer to Section 8 for additional information.

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

Fermi Nuclear Power Plant 320 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 1

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

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

Another concept, closely associated with capacity, is Service Volume (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 1117 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 (BFFS1) according to Exhibit 157 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 vehicles 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 1515)

Fermi Nuclear Power Plant 41 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 1

the 2010 HCM. For example, HCM Exhibit 71(b) shows the sensitivity of Service Volume at the upper bound of LOS D to grade (capacity is the Service Volume at the upper bound of LOS E).

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

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

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

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

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

3600 3600 where:

Qcap,m = Capacity of a single lane of traffic on an approach, which executes Fermi Nuclear Power Plant 42 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 1

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

m = The movement executed by vehicles after they enter the intersection: through, leftturn, rightturn, and diagonal.

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

Formally, we can write, where:

hsat = Saturation discharge headway for through vehicles; seconds per vehicle F1,F2 = The various known factors influencing hm fm( ) = Complex function relating hm to the known (or estimated) values of hsat, F1, F2, The estimation of hm for specified values of hsat, F1, F2, ... is undertaken within the DYNEV II simulation model by a mathematical model2. The resulting values for hm always satisfy the condition:

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 LargeScale Evacuation Planning, presented at the TRB 2012 Annual Meeting, January 2226, 2012 Fermi Nuclear Power Plant 43 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 1

That is, the turnmovementspecific discharge headways are always greater than, or equal to the saturation discharge headway for through vehicles. These headways (or its inverse equivalent, saturation flow rate), may be determined by observation or using the procedures of the HCM 2010.

The above discussion is necessarily brief given the scope of this ETE report and the complexity of the subject of intersection capacity. In fact, Chapters 18, 19 and 20 in the HCM 2010 address this topic. The factors, F1, F2,, influencing saturation flow rate are identified in equation (185) 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 allred time is assigned between signal phases, typically. If a signal is pre timed, the yellow and allred times observed during the road survey are used. A lost time (L) of 2.0 seconds is used for each signal phase in the analysis.

4.2 Capacity Estimation along Sections of Highway The capacity of highway sections as distinct from approaches to intersections is a function of roadway geometrics, traffic composition (e.g. percent heavy trucks and buses in the traffic stream) and, of course, motorist behavior. There is a fundamental relationship which relates 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 41 illustrates this relationship.

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

The value of VF can be expressed as:

where:

R = Reduction factor which is less than unity Fermi Nuclear Power Plant 44 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 1

We have employed a value of R=0.90. The advisability of such a capacity reduction factor is based upon empirical studies that identified a falloff in the service flow rate when congestion occurs at bottlenecks or choke points on a freeway system. Zhang and Levinson3 describe a research program that collected data from a computerbased surveillance system (loop detectors) installed on the Interstate Highway System, at 27 active bottlenecks in the twin cities metro area in Minnesota over a 7week period. When flow breakdown occurs, queues are formed which discharge at lower flow rates than the maximum capacity prior to observed breakdown. These queue discharge flow (QDF) rates vary from one location to the next and 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 freeflow speeds and lane capacity. Exhibit 1530 in the Highway Capacity Manual was referenced to estimate saturation flow rates. The impact of narrow lanes and shoulders on freeflow speed and on capacity is not material, particularly when flow is predominantly in one direction as is the case during an evacuation.

The procedure used here was to estimate "section" capacity, VE, based on observations made traveling over each section of the evacuation network, based on the posted speed limits and travel behavior of other motorists and by reference to the 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 "sectionspecific" service volume, VE, or by the intersectionspecific 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.

Fermi Nuclear Power Plant 45 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 1

4.3 Application to the FNPP Study Area As part of the development of the linknode analysis network for the study area, an estimate of roadway capacity is required. The source material for the capacity estimates presented herein is contained in:

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:

TwoLane roads: Local, State MultiLane Highways (atgrade)

Freeways Each of these classifications will be discussed.

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

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

Most sections of twolane roads within the 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 MultiLane Highway Ref: HCM Chapter 14 Exhibit 142 of the HCM 2010 presents a set of curves that indicate a perlane capacity ranging from approximately 1900 to 2200 pc/h, for freespeeds of 45 to 60 mph, respectively. Based on observation, the multilane highways outside of urban areas within the EPZ service traffic with freespeeds in this range. The actual timevarying speeds computed by the simulation model reflect the demand: capacity relationship and the impact of control at intersections. A Fermi Nuclear Power Plant 46 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 1

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

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

Chapter 11 of the HCM 2010 presents procedures for estimating capacity and LOS for Basic Freeway Segments". Exhibit 1117 of the HCM 2010 presents capacity vs. free speed estimates, which are provided below.

Free Speed (mph): 55 60 65 70+

PerLane Capacity (pc/h): 2250 2300 2350 2400 The inputs to the simulation model are highway geometrics, freespeeds and capacity based on field observations. The simulation logic calculates actual timevarying speeds based on demand:

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

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

Chapter 13 of the HCM 2010 presents procedures for estimating capacities of ramps and of "merge" areas. There are three significant factors to the determination of capacity of a ramp freeway junction: The capacity of the freeway immediately downstream of an onramp or immediately upstream of an offramp; the capacity of the ramp roadway; and the maximum flow rate entering the ramp influence area. In most cases, the freeway capacity is the controlling factor. Values of this merge area capacity are presented in Exhibit 138 of the HCM 2010, and depend on the number of freeway lanes and on the freeway free speed. Ramp capacity is presented in Exhibit 1310 and is a function of the ramp free flow speed. The DYNEV II simulation model logic simulates the merging operations of the ramp and freeway traffic in accord with the procedures in Chapter 13 of the HCM 2010. If congestion results from an excess of demand relative to capacity, then the model allocates service appropriately to the two entering traffic streams and produces LOS F conditions (The HCM does not address LOS F explicitly).

Fermi Nuclear Power Plant 47 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 1

4.3.4 Intersections Ref: HCM Chapters 18, 19, 20, 21 Procedures for estimating capacity and LOS for approaches to intersections are presented in Chapter 18 (signalized intersections), Chapters 19, 20 (unsignalized 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 2way and allway) and traffic signal controlled intersections. Where intersections are controlled by fixed time controllers, traffic signal timings are set to reflect average (non evacuation) traffic conditions. Actuated traffic signal settings respond to the timevarying demands of evacuation traffic to adjust the relative capacities of the competing intersection approaches.

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

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

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

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

All simulation models must be calibrated properly with field observations that quantify the performance parameters applicable to the analysis network. Two of the most important of Fermi Nuclear Power Plant 48 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 1

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

Volume, vph Capacity Drop Qmax R Qmax Qs Density, vpm Flow Regimes Speed, mph Free Forced vf R vc Density, vpm kf kopt kj ks Figure 41. Fundamental Diagrams Fermi Nuclear Power Plant 49 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 1

5 ESTIMATION OF TRIP GENERATION TIME Federal Government guidelines (see NUREG CR7002) 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 activitybased 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 NUREG 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/CR7002, 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/CR6863.

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

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

For example, suppose one hour elapses from the 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 onehour 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 Fermi Nuclear Power Plant 51 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 1

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, tone alerts, 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 157 square miles and is engaged in a wide variety of activities. It must be anticipated that some time will elapse between the transmission and receipt of the information advising the public of an accident.

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

As indicated in Section 2.13 of NUREG/CR6863, the estimated elapsed times for the receipt of notification can be expressed as a distribution reflecting the different notification times for different people within, and outside, the EPZ. By using time distributions, it is also possible to distinguish between different population groups and different dayofweek and timeofday scenarios, so that accurate ETE may be computed.

For example, people at home or at work within the EPZ will be notified by siren, and/or tone alert and/or radio (if available). Those well outside the EPZ will be notified by telephone, radio, TV and wordofmouth, with potentially longer time lags. Furthermore, the spatial distribution of the EPZ population will differ with time of day families will be united in the evenings, but dispersed during the day. In this respect, weekends will differ from weekdays.

As indicated in Section 4.1 of NUREG/CR7002, the information required to compute trip generation times is typically obtained from a telephone survey of EPZ residents. Such a survey was conducted in support of the 2008 ETE study. Appendix F presents the survey sampling plan, survey instrument, and raw survey results. It is important to note that the shape and duration of the evacuation trip mobilization distribution is important at sites where traffic congestion is not expected to cause the 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.

Fermi Nuclear Power Plant 52 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 1

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 51. Event Sequence for Evacuation Activities Event Sequence Activity Distribution 12 Receive Notification 1 23 Prepare to Leave Work 2 2,3 4 Travel Home 3 2,4 5 Prepare to Leave to Evacuate 4 N/A Snow Clearance 5 These relationships are shown graphically in Figure 51.

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

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

As such, a completed Activity changes the state of an individual (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 51. A household Fermi Nuclear Power Plant 53 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 1

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

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

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

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

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

Fermi Nuclear Power Plant 54 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 1

1 2 3 4 5 Residents Households wait 1

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

5. Depart on evacuation trip Activities Consume Time 1

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

2 Applies throughout the year for transients.

Figure 51. Events and Activities Preceding the Evacuation Trip Fermi Nuclear Power Plant 55 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 1

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 In accordance with the 2012 Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) Radiological Emergency Preparedness Program Manual, 100% of the population is notified within 45 minutes. It is assumed (based on the presence of sirens within the EPZ) that 87 percent of those within the EPZ will be aware of the accident within 30 minutes with the remainder notified within the following 15 minutes. The notification distribution is given below:

Table 52. Time Distribution for Notifying the Public Elapsed Time Percent of (Minutes) Population Notified 0 0%

5 7%

10 13%

15 27%

20 47%

25 66%

30 87%

35 92%

40 97%

45 100%

Fermi Nuclear Power Plant 56 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 1

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

Table 53. Time Distribution for Employees to Prepare to Leave Work Cumulative Cumulative Percent Percent Elapsed Time Employees Elapsed Time Employees (Minutes) Leaving Work (Minutes) Leaving Work 0 0% 40 86%

5 12% 45 94%

10 29% 50 96%

15 45% 55 96%

20 58% 60 99%

25 66% 75 99%

30 77% 90 100%

35 82%

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

Fermi Nuclear Power Plant 57 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 1

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 52 and listed in Table 54.

Table 54. Time Distribution for Commuters to Travel Home Cumulative Cumulative Elapsed Time Percent Elapsed Time Percent (Minutes) Returning Home (Minutes) Returning Home 0 0 40 86%

5 11% 45 94%

10 29% 50 95%

15 41% 55 95%

20 54% 60 99%

25 62% 75 99%

30 74% 90 100%

35 80%

NOTE: The survey data was normalized to distribute the "Don't know" response Fermi Nuclear Power Plant 58 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 1

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 52 and listed in Table 55.

Table 55. Time Distribution for Population to Prepare to Evacuate Cumulative Elapsed Time Percent Ready to (Minutes) Evacuate 0 0%

15 33%

30 71%

45 77%

60 89%

75 96%

90 97%

105 97%

120 98%

135 100%

NOTE: The survey data was normalized to distribute the "Don't know" response Fermi Nuclear Power Plant 59 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 1

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

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

These clearance activities take time; this time must be incorporated into the trip generation time distributions. These data are provided by those households which responded to the telephone survey. This distribution is plotted in Figure 52 and listed in Table 56.

Table 56. Time Distribution for Population to Clear 6"8" of Snow Cumulative Percent Elapsed Time Completing (Minutes) Snow Removal 0 0%

15 49%

30 82%

45 86%

60 93%

75 97%

90 98%

105 98%

120 99%

135 100%

NOTE: The survey data was normalized to distribute the "Don't know" response Fermi Nuclear Power Plant 510 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 1

Mobilization Activities 100%

80%

60%

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

Percent of Population Completing Mobilization Activity 0%

0 15 30 45 60 75 90 105 120 135 Elapsed Time from Start of Mobilization Activity (min)

Figure 52. Evacuation Mobilization Activities Fermi Nuclear Power Plant 511 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 1

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

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

Table 57. Mapping Distributions to Events Apply Summing Algorithm To: Distribution Obtained Event Defined Distributions 1 and 2 Distribution A Event 3 Distributions A and 3 Distribution B Event 4 Distributions B and 4 Distribution C Event 5 Distributions 1 and 4 Distribution D Event 5 Distributions C and 5 Distribution E Event 5 Distributions D and 5 Distribution F Event 5 Table 58 presents a description of each of the final trip generation distributions achieved after the summing process is completed.

Fermi Nuclear Power Plant 512 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 1

Table 58. Description of the Distributions Distribution Description Time distribution of commuters departing place of work (Event 3). Also applies A to employees who work within the EPZ who live outside, and to Transients within the EPZ.

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

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

to begin the evacuation trip (Event 5).

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

to begin the evacuation trip (Event 5).

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

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

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

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

5.4.1 Statistical Outliers As already mentioned, some portion of the survey respondents answer dont 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 outliers must be considered: are they valid responses, or so atypical that they should be dropped from the sample?

In assessing outliers, there are three 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 Fermi Nuclear Power Plant 513 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 1

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

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

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

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

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

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.

Fermi Nuclear Power Plant 514 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 1

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

100.0%

90.0%

80.0%

Cumulative Percentage (%)

70.0%

60.0%

50.0%

40.0%

30.0%

20.0%

10.0%

0.0%

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

Cumulative Data Cumulative Normal Figure 53. Comparison of Data Distribution and Normal Distribution

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

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

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

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

This is done by using the data sets and distributions under different scenarios (e.g. commuter returning, no commuter returning, no snow or snow in each). In general, these are additive, using Fermi Nuclear Power Plant 515 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 1

weighting based upon the probability distributions of each element; Figure 54 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 59 (Distribution B, Arrive Home, omitted for clarity).

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

Fermi Nuclear Power Plant 516 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 1

5.4.2 Staged Evacuation Trip Generation As defined in NUREG/CR7002, staged evacuation consists of the following:

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

2. PAA comprising regions extending from 2 to 5 miles downwind are advised to shelter in place while the 2mile 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. Noncompliance with the shelter recommendation is the same as the shadow evacuation percentage of 20%

Assumptions

1. The EPZ population in PAA beyond 5 miles will react as does the population in the 2 to 5 mile region; that is they will first shelter, then evacuate after the 90th percentile ETE for the 2 mile region

2. The population in the shadow region beyond the EPZ boundary, extending to 15 miles radially from the plant, will react as they do for all nonstaged evacuation scenarios.

That is 20% of these households will elect to evacuate with no shelter delay.

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 90th percentile evacuation time for the PAA comprising the 2mile 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 nonshelter trip generation curve is followed until a maximum of 20%

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

ii. No additional trips are generated until time TScen*

Fermi Nuclear Power Plant 517 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 1

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

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

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

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

The value of TScen* is 1:45 for nonsnow scenarios and 2:15 for snow scenarios.

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

a. Residents with returning commuters

b. Residents without returning commuters

c. Residents with returning commuters and snow conditions

d. Residents without returning commuters and snow conditions Figure 55 presents the staged trip generation distributions for both residents with and without returning commuters; the 90th percentile twomile evacuation time is 105 minutes for good weather and 135 minutes for snow scenarios. At the 90th 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 90th percentile evacuation time occurs before the end of the trip generation time, after the sheltered region is advised to evacuate, the shelter trip generation distribution rises to meet the balance of the nonstaged trip generation distribution. Following time TScen*, the balance of staged evacuation trips that are ready to depart are released within 15 minutes. After TScen*+15, the remainder of evacuation trips are generated in accordance with the unstaged trip generation distribution.

Table 510 provides the trip generation histograms for staged evacuation.

5.4.3 Trip Generation for Waterways and Recreational Areas Annex G of the Monroe County Emergency Management Plan states that the Monroe County Health Department, Environmental Health Division and the Director of Environmental Health are responsible to perform search and rescue including Lake Erie support with the Marine Patrol. It is assumed that this alerting and the time it takes for boaters to return to marinas are within the mobilization time of the transients within the EPZ (90 minutes).

Fermi Nuclear Power Plant 518 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 1

Table 59. Trip Generation Histograms for the EPZ Population for Unstaged 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 3% 3% 0% 2% 0% 0%

2 15 20% 20% 0% 16% 0% 3%

3 15 34% 34% 2% 30% 0% 13%

4 15 25% 25% 8% 23% 2% 22%

5 15 12% 12% 16% 12% 7% 19%

6 15 5% 5% 18% 8% 12% 15%

7 15 1% 1% 18% 5% 15% 10%

8 15 0% 0% 14% 1% 16% 7%

9 15 0% 0% 10% 1% 14% 4%

10 15 0% 0% 6% 1% 11% 2%

11 30 0% 0% 5% 1% 13% 4%

12 30 0% 0% 2% 0% 6% 1%

13 30 0% 0% 1% 0% 3% 0%

14 30 0% 0% 0% 0% 1% 0%

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

NOTE:

Shadow vehicles are loaded onto the analysis network (Figure 12) using Distributions C and E for good weather and snow, respectively.

Special event vehicles are loaded using Distribution A.

Fermi Nuclear Power Plant 519 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 1

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

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

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

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 1

Table 510. 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 15 0% 4% 0% 1%

3 15 0% 6% 0% 2%

4 15 2% 4% 0% 5%

5 15 3% 3% 2% 3%

6 15 4% 1% 2% 3%

7 15 3% 1% 3% 2%

8 15 64% 78% 3% 2%

9 15 10% 1% 3% 1%

10 15 6% 1% 64% 76%

11 30 5% 1% 13% 4%

12 30 2% 0% 6% 1%

13 30 1% 0% 3% 0%

14 30 0% 0% 1% 0%

15 600 0% 0% 0% 0%

• Trip Generation for Employees and Transients (see Table 59) is the same for Unstaged and Staged Evacuation.

Fermi Nuclear Power Plant 521 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 1

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 Residents with no Commuters Staged Residents with Commuters (Snow)

Staged Residents with no Commuters (Snow) 100 80 60

% of Population Evacuating 40 20 0

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

Figure 55. Comparison of Staged and Unstaged Trip Generation Distributions in the 2 to 5 Mile Region - Winter Midweek and Winter Weekend Fermi Nuclear Power Plant 522 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 1

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

A total of 10 Regions were defined which encompass all the groupings of PAA considered.

These Regions are defined in Table 61. The PAA configurations are identified in Figure 61.

Each keyhole sectorbased area consists of a central circle centered at the power plant, and three adjoining sectors, each with a central angle of 22.5 degrees, as per NUREG/CR7002 guidance. The central sector coincides with the wind direction. These sectors extend to 5 miles from the plant (Regions R04 and R05) or to the EPZ boundary (Regions R06 and R07). Regions R01, R02 and R03 represent evacuations of circular areas with radii of 2, 5 and 10 miles, respectively. Regions R08 through R10 are identical to Regions R02, R04 and R05, respectively; however, those PAA between 2 miles and 5 miles are staged until 90% of the 2mile region (Region R01) has evacuated.

A total of 14 Scenarios were evaluated for all Regions. Thus, there are a total of 10 x 14 = 140 evacuation cases. Table 62 is a description of all Scenarios.

Each combination of region and scenario implies a specific population to be evacuated. Table 63 presents the percentage of each population group estimated to evacuate for each scenario.

Table 64 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 scenario percentages are presented in Table 63, while the regional percentages are provided in Table H1. The percentages presented in Table 63 were determined as follows:

The number of residents with commuters during the week (when workforce is at its peak) is equal to the product of 62% (the number of households with at least one commuter) and 55%

(the number of households with a commuter that would await the return of the commuter prior to evacuating). See assumption 3 in Section 2.3. It is estimated for weekend and evening scenarios that 10% of households with returning commuters will have a commuter at work during those times.

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

Fermi Nuclear Power Plant 61 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 1

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 during summer weekends and less (40%) during the week. As shown in Appendix E, there are a number of lodging facilities offering overnight accommodations in the EPZ; thus, transient activity during evening hours is 25% for summer and 10% for winter. Transient activity on winter weekends is estimated to be 25%.

As noted in the shadow footnote to Table 63, 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 employees to permanent residents in the shadow region. For example, using the values provided in Table 64 for Scenario 1, the shadow percentage is computed as follows:

4,561 20% 1 22%

15,215 29,38 One special event - River Raisin Jazz Festival - was considered as Scenario 13. Thus, the special event traffic is 100% evacuated for Scenario 13, and 0% for all other scenarios.

It is estimated that summer school enrollment is approximately 10% of enrollment during the regular school year for summer, midweek, midday scenarios. School is not in session during weekends and evenings, thus no buses for school children are needed under those circumstances. 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. Transit buses for the transitdependent population are set to 100% for all scenarios as it is assumed that the transitdependent population is present in the EPZ for all scenarios.

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

Fermi Nuclear Power Plant 62 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 1

Table 61. Description of Evacuation Regions Basic Regions PAA Region Description 1 2 3 4 5 R01 2Mile Region x R02 5Mile Region x x x R03 Full EPZ x x x x x Evacuate 2Mile Region and Downwind to 5 Miles PAA Region Wind Direction From: 1 2 3 4 5 W,WNW,NW,NNW,N,NNE Refer to Region R01 R04 NE,ENE,E x x ESE,SE Refer to Region R02 R05 SSE,S,SSW,SW,WSW x x Evacuate 5Mile Region and Downwind to the EPZ Boundary PAA Region Wind Direction From: 1 2 3 4 5 WSW,W,WNW,NW,NNW,N Refer to Region R02 R06 NNE,NE,ENE x x x x E,ESE,SE Refer to Region R03 R07 SSE,S,SSW,SW x x x x Staged Evacuation 2Mile Region Evacuates, then Evacuate Downwind to 5 Miles PAA Region Wind Direction From: 1 2 3 4 5 R08 No Wind x x x W,WNW,NW,NNW,N,NNE Refer to Region R01 R09 NE,ENE,E x x ESE,SE Refer to Region R02 R10 SSE,S,SSW,SW,WSW x x Key PAA(s) Evacuate PAA(s) ShelterinPlace ShelterinPlace until 90% ETE for R01, then Evacuate Fermi Nuclear Power Plant 63 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 1

Figure 61. Fermi EPZ PAAs Fermi Nuclear Power Plant 64 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 1

Table 62. Evacuation Scenario Definitions Day of Time of Scenario Season1 Week Day Weather Special 1 Summer Midweek Midday Good None 2 Summer Midweek Midday Rain None 3 Summer Weekend Midday Good None 4 Summer Weekend Midday Rain None Midweek, 5 Summer Evening Good None Weekend 6 Winter Midweek Midday Good None 7 Winter Midweek Midday Rain None 8 Winter Midweek Midday Snow None 9 Winter Weekend Midday Good None 10 Winter Weekend Midday Rain None 11 Winter Weekend Midday Snow None Midweek, 12 Winter Evening Good None Weekend 13 Summer Weekend Midday Good River Raisin Jazz Festival Roadway Impact - Lane 14 Summer Midweek Midday Good Closure on I75 SB 1

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

Fermi Nuclear Power Plant 65 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 1

Table 63. Percent of Population Groups Evacuating for Various Scenarios Households Households With Without External Returning Returning Special School Transit Through Scenario Commuters Commuters Employees Transients Shadow Events Buses Buses Traffic 1 34% 66% 96% 40% 22% 0% 10% 100% 100%

2 34% 66% 96% 40% 22% 0% 10% 100% 100%

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

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

5 3% 97% 10% 25% 20% 0% 0% 100% 40%

6 34% 66% 100% 15% 22% 0% 100% 100% 100%

7 34% 66% 100% 15% 22% 0% 100% 100% 100%

8 34% 66% 100% 15% 22% 0% 100% 100% 100%

9 3% 97% 10% 25% 20% 0% 0% 100% 100%

10 3% 97% 10% 25% 20% 0% 0% 100% 100%

11 3% 97% 10% 25% 20% 0% 0% 100% 100%

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

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

14 34% 66% 96% 40% 22% 0% 10% 100% 100%

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

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

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

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

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

School and Transit Buses ............................Vehicleequivalents present on the road during evacuation servicing schools and transitdependent people (1 bus is equivalent to 2 passenger vehicles).

External Through Traffic .............................Traffic on interstates/freeways and major arterial roads at the start of the evacuation. This traffic is stopped by access control approximately 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.

Fermi Nuclear Power Plant 66 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 1

Table 64. Vehicle Estimates by Scenario Households Households With Without Total Returning Returning Special School Transit External Scenario Scenario Commuters Commuters Employees Transients Shadow Events Buses Buses Through Traffic Vehicles 1 15,215 29,338 4,561 2,578 10,233 72 190 10,452 72,639 2 15,215 29,338 4,561 2,578 10,233 72 190 10,452 72,639 3 1,522 43,031 475 6,444 9,382 190 10,452 71,496 4 1,522 43,031 475 6,444 9,382 190 10,452 71,496 5 1,522 43,031 475 1,611 9,382 190 4,181 60,392 6 15,215 29,338 4,751 967 10,272 722 190 10,452 71,907 7 15,215 29,338 4,751 967 10,272 722 190 10,452 71,907 8 15,215 29,338 4,751 967 10,272 722 190 10,452 71,907 9 1,522 43,031 475 1,611 9,382 190 10,452 66,663 10 1,522 43,031 475 1,611 9,382 190 10,452 66,663 11 1,522 43,031 475 1,611 9,382 190 10,452 66,663 12 1,522 43,031 475 644 9,382 190 4,181 59,425 13 1,522 43,031 475 6,444 9,382 2,451 190 10,452 73,947 14 15,215 29,338 4,561 2,578 10,233 72 190 10,452 72,639 Note: Vehicle estimates are for an evacuation of the entire EPZ (Region R03)

Fermi Nuclear Power Plant 67 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 1

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 10 regions within the FNPP EPZ and the 14 Evacuation Scenarios discussed in Section 6.

The ETE for all Evacuation Cases are presented in Table 71 and Table 72. These tables present the estimated times to clear the indicated population percentages from the Evacuation Regions for all Evacuation Scenarios. The ETE of the 2mile region in both staged and unstaged regions are presented in Table 73 and Table 74. Table 75 defines the evacuation regions considered.

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

7.1 Voluntary Evacuation and Shadow Evacuation Voluntary evacuees are people within the EPZ in PAA 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 FNPP EPZ addresses the issue of voluntary evacuees in the manner shown in Figure 71. Within the EPZ, 20 percent of people located in PAA 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 72 presents the area identified as the Shadow Region. This region extends radially from the plant to cover a region between the EPZ boundary and approximately 15 miles. The population and number of evacuating vehicles in the Shadow Region were estimated using the same methodology that was used for permanent residents within the EPZ (see Section 3.1). As discussed in Section 3.2, it is estimated that a total of 101,913 people reside in the Shadow Region; 20 percent of them would evacuate. See Table 64 for the number of evacuating vehicles from the Shadow Region.

Traffic generated within this Shadow Region, traveling away from the FNPP location, 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/CR7002, staged evacuation consists of the following:

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

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

Fermi Nuclear Power Plant 71 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 1

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 evacuate when approximately 90% of the 2 mile region evacuating traffic crosses the 2 mile region boundary.

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

See Section 5.4.2 for additional information on staged evacuation.

7.3 Patterns of Traffic Congestion during Evacuation Figure 73 through Figure 78 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 55):

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:

• Demandtocapacity 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 73 displays the developing congestion within the population center of the City of Monroe to the southwest of FNPP, just 30 minutes after the Advisory to Evacuate (ATE). Throughout the entirety of the evacuation, congestion never develops within the 2mile region.

At one hour after the ATE, Figure 74 displays fullydeveloped congestion within Monroe. I75 SB south of Monroe is also now experiencing congestion (LOS F). I75 is servicing both Fermi Nuclear Power Plant 72 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 1

evacuees as well as through traffic, as ACPs have yet to be established. Congestion is now beginning to develop in Wayne County along Fort St and Jefferson Ave in Gibraltar.

At one hour and thirty minutes, as shown in Figure 75, congestion begins to subside in Monroe and in Wayne County. Congestion (LOS F) persists along the main evacuation routes out of the city of Monroe - Custer Rd, SR50, US24/S Telegraph Rd, S Dixie Hwy, and Laplaisance Rd.

Congestion has been slowly building along Oakville Waltz Rd westbound at the intersection with Sumpter Rd. This intersection is controlled by an allway stop sign which is creating a queue of evacuating vehicles.

At two hours, as shown in Figure 76, congestion has almost completely subsided within the city of Monroe and in Wayne County. Congestion still persists in the shadow along those evacuation routes exiting the city of Monroe.

At two hours and thirty minutes, as shown in Figure 77, the EPZ is clear of congestion. Note that congestion within the EPZ clears well in advance of the completion of trip generation time for permanent residents, which is four hours. Congestion still persists within the shadow along SR50. The congestion along Oakville Waltz Rd persists, however this congestion has never developed to the point where it penetrates the EPZ boundary.

Over the next thirty minutes, at three hours after the ATE, all remnants of congestion within the shadow area have dissipated, as shown in Figure 78.

7.4 Evacuation Rates Evacuation is a continuous process, as implied by Figure 79 through Figure 722. 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 Figure 79, there is typically a long "tail" to these distributions. 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.

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.

Fermi Nuclear Power Plant 73 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 1

7.5 Evacuation Time Estimate (ETE) Results Table 71 and Table 72 present the ETE values for all 10 Evacuation Regions and all 14 Evacuation Scenarios. Table 73 and Table 74 present the ETE values for the 2Mile region for both staged and unstaged 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 71 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 72 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 73 population within the 2mile Region, to evacuate from that Region with both Concurrent and Staged Evacuations.

ETE represents the elapsed time required for 100 percent of the 74 population within the 2mile Region, to evacuate from that Region with both Concurrent and Staged Evacuations.

The animation snapshots described above reflect the ETE statistics for the concurrent (un staged) evacuation scenarios and regions, which are displayed in Figure 73 through Figure 78.

While congestion exists within the EPZ, it clears prior to when 90% of the general population has mobilized to evacuate; this is reflected in the ETE statistics:

The 90th percentile ETE for Region R01 (2mile area) ranges from 1:35 to 1:55 (higher during snow scenarios). As shown in Figure 54, 90 percent of residents without commuters mobilize in about 1 hour1.157407e-5 days <br />2.777778e-4 hours <br />1.653439e-6 weeks <br />3.805e-7 months <br /> and 30 minutes and 90 percent of residents with commuters mobilize in about 2 hours2.314815e-5 days <br />5.555556e-4 hours <br />3.306878e-6 weeks <br />7.61e-7 months <br /> and 25 minutes. The 90th percentile ETE is slightly less than the mobilization time for Region R01 during weekday scenarios, primarily because approximately 25% of evacuees from Region R01 are employees at FNPP, who mobilize quickly. Figure 54 indicates that 90 percent of employees mobilize in about 70 minutes.

The 90th percentile ETE for all other regions are approximately 10 minutes longer, on average (higher during snow scenarios).

The 100th percentile ETE for all regions and for all scenarios are the same values as the mobilization times. This fact implies that the congestion within the EPZ dissipates prior to the end of mobilization, as is displayed in Figure 77.

Comparison of Scenarios 3 and 13 in Table 71 indicates that the Special Event - River Raisin Jazz Festival - has little impact on the ETE for the 90th percentile, with increases of only up to 5 Fermi Nuclear Power Plant 74 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 1

minutes for the evacuation of the entire EPZ (Region R03). As discussed in Section 7.3, congestion within the downtown area of the city of Monroe clears by two hours after the ATE, and as discussed above, the 90th percentile ETE is dictated by the mobilization activities of the general population and not congestion. Therefore, there exists ample reserve capacity along evacuation routes out of Monroe to evacuate the 2,451 additional vehicles present for the special event, without materially impacting the ETE at the 90th percentile. The special event also has no impact on ETE at the 100th percentile, as indicated in Table 72.

Comparison of Scenarios 1 and 14 in Table 71 indicates that the roadway closure - a single lane southbound on Interstate75 from the interchange with I275 (Exit 20) to the end of the EPZ at Laplaisance Rd (before Exit 9) - does not have a material impact on 90th percentile ETE, with increases of only up to 5 minutes for an evacuation of the entire EPZ (Region R03). As discussed in Section 7.3, congestion (LOS F) never fully develops along I75 SB within the EPZ. While I75 SB is reduced from three lanes to two lanes, capacity is only reduced by a third, leaving ample capacity to evacuate the population without materially impacting the ETE at the 90th percentile.

The roadway closure also has no impact on ETE at the 100th percentile, as indicated in Table 72.

7.6 Staged Evacuation Results Table 73 and Table 74 present a comparison of the ETE compiled for the concurrent (un staged) and staged evacuation studies. Note that Regions R08 through R10 are the same geographic areas as Regions R02, R04 and R05, respectively.

To determine whether the staged evacuation strategy is worthy of consideration, one must show that the ETE for the 2mile region can be reduced without significantly affecting the region between 2 miles and 5 miles. In all cases, as shown in these tables, the ETE for the 2mile region increases when a staged evacuation is implemented. The reason for this is that some evacuees from within the 5mile area need to travel into the 2mile region to evacuate, primarily those neighborhoods along N Dixie Hwy. Consequently, since these residents are staged, their delay in evacuation directly increases the 90th percentile ETE for the 2mile region.

Comparing Regions R02, R04, and R05 with Region R01 in Table 73 indicates that those evacuees from within the 2mile region are never impacted by those evacuees beyond 2miles.

Therefore, staging the evacuation to sharply reduce congestion within the 5mile area provides no benefits to evacuees from within the 2mile region and unnecessarily delays the evacuation of those beyond 2 miles.

While failing to provide assistance to evacuees from within 2 miles of the FNPP, staging produces a negative impact on the ETE for those evacuating from within the 5mile area. A comparison of ETE between Regions, R08 and R02; R09 and R04; and R10 and R06; reveals that staging retards the 90th percentile ETE for those in the 2 to 5mile area by up to 30 minutes (see Table 71) and has no impact on the 100th percentile ETE (see Table 72). This extending of ETE is due to the delay in beginning the evacuation trip experienced by those who shelter before evacuating.

Fermi Nuclear Power Plant 75 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 1

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

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

1. Identify the applicable Scenario:

• 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 River Raisin Jazz Festival Road Closure (one lane on I75 SB is closed)

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

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

• The conditions of a winter evening (either midweek or weekend) and rain 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.

Fermi Nuclear Power Plant 76 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 1

• 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). This direction is expressed in terms of compass orientation: from N, NNE, NE,

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

2 Miles (Region R01)

To 5 Miles (Region R02, R04 and R05)

To EPZ Boundary (Regions R06 and R07)

• Enter Table 75 and identify the applicable group of candidate Regions based on the distance that the selected Region extends from the FNPP. 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 71 are labeled with the Scenario numbers. Identify the proper column in the selected Table using the Scenario number defined in Step 1.

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

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

Fermi Nuclear Power Plant 77 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 1

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

• Sunday, August 10th at 4:00 AM.

• It is raining.

• Wind direction is from the northeast (NE).

• Wind speed is such that the distance to be evacuated is judged to be a 5mile radius and downwind to 10 miles (to EPZ boundary).

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

• A staged evacuation is not desired.

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

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

2. Enter Table 75 and locate the Region described as Evacuate 5Mile Radius and Downwind to the EPZ Boundary for wind direction from the NE (toward the SW) and read Region R06 in the first column of that row.

3. Enter Table 71 to locate the data cell containing the value of ETE for Scenario 4 and Region R06. This data cell is in column (4) and in the row for Region R06; it contains the ETE value of 1:55.

Fermi Nuclear Power Plant 78 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 1

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

Midday Midday Evening Midday Midday Evening Midday Midday Region Good Good Good Good Good Good Special Roadway Rain Rain Rain Snow Rain Snow Weather Weather Weather Weather Weather Weather Event Impact Entire 2Mile Region, 5Mile Region, and EPZ R01 1:55 1:55 1:35 1:35 1:35 1:55 1:55 2:30 1:35 1:35 2:10 1:35 1:35 1:55 R02 2:00 2:00 1:55 1:55 1:50 2:00 2:00 2:10 1:55 2:00 2:05 1:50 1:55 2:00 R03 2:10 2:15 2:00 2:05 1:50 2:05 2:10 2:35 1:55 2:00 2:20 1:50 2:05 2:15 2Mile Region and Keyhole to 5 Miles R04 2:00 2:00 1:55 2:00 1:55 2:00 2:00 2:10 2:00 2:00 2:05 1:55 1:55 2:00 R05 2:00 2:00 2:00 2:00 1:55 2:00 2:00 2:05 2:00 2:00 2:05 1:55 2:00 2:00 5Mile Region and Keyhole to EPZ Boundary R06 2:00 2:05 1:55 1:55 1:50 2:00 2:05 2:15 1:55 1:55 2:10 1:50 1:55 2:00 R07 2:05 2:05 1:55 2:00 1:50 2:05 2:05 2:20 2:00 2:00 2:10 1:50 1:55 2:05 Staged Evacuation 2Mile Region and Keyhole to 5 Miles R08 2:10 2:10 2:10 2:10 2:10 2:10 2:10 2:40 2:10 2:10 2:35 2:10 2:10 2:10 R09 2:10 2:10 2:10 2:10 2:10 2:10 2:10 2:40 2:10 2:10 2:35 2:10 2:10 2:10 R10 2:05 2:05 2:05 2:05 2:05 2:05 2:05 2:25 2:05 2:05 2:25 2:05 2:05 2:05 Fermi Nuclear Power Plant 79 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 1

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

Midday Midday Evening Midday Midday Evening Midday Midday Region Good Good Good Good Good Good Special Roadway Rain Rain Rain Snow Rain Snow Weather Weather Weather Weather Weather Weather Event Impact Entire 2Mile Region, 5Mile Region, and EPZ R01 4:00 4:00 4:00 4:00 4:00 4:00 4:00 4:30 4:00 4:00 4:30 4:00 4:00 4:00 R02 4:05 4:05 4:05 4:05 4:05 4:05 4:05 4:35 4:05 4:05 4:35 4:05 4:05 4:05 R03 4:10 4:10 4:10 4:10 4:10 4:10 4:10 4:40 4:10 4:10 4:40 4:10 4:10 4:10 2Mile Region and Keyhole to 5 Miles R04 4:05 4:05 4:05 4:05 4:05 4:05 4:05 4:35 4:05 4:05 4:35 4:05 4:05 4:05 R05 4:05 4:05 4:05 4:05 4:05 4:05 4:05 4:35 4:05 4:05 4:35 4:05 4:05 4:05 5Mile Region and Keyhole to EPZ Boundary R06 4:10 4:10 4:10 4:10 4:10 4:10 4:10 4:40 4:10 4:10 4:40 4:10 4:10 4:10 R07 4:10 4:10 4:10 4:10 4:10 4:10 4:10 4:40 4:10 4:10 4:40 4:10 4:10 4:10 Staged Evacuation 2Mile Region and Keyhole to 5 Miles R08 4:05 4:05 4:05 4:05 4:05 4:05 4:05 4:35 4:05 4:05 4:35 4:05 4:05 4:05 R09 4:05 4:05 4:05 4:05 4:05 4:05 4:05 4:35 4:05 4:05 4:35 4:05 4:05 4:05 R10 4:05 4:05 4:05 4:05 4:05 4:05 4:05 4:35 4:05 4:05 4:35 4:05 4:05 4:05 Fermi Nuclear Power Plant 710 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 1

Table 73. Time to Clear 90 Percent of the 2Mile 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) (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 Unstaged Evacuation 2Mile Region and Keyhole to 5Miles R01 1:55 1:55 1:35 1:35 1:35 1:55 1:55 2:30 1:35 1:35 2:10 1:35 1:35 1:55 R02 1:55 2:00 1:35 1:35 1:35 1:55 1:55 2:30 1:35 1:35 2:10 1:35 1:35 1:55 R04 1:55 1:55 1:35 1:35 1:35 1:55 1:55 2:30 1:35 1:35 2:10 1:35 1:35 1:55 R05 1:55 1:55 1:35 1:35 1:35 1:55 1:55 2:30 1:35 1:35 2:10 1:35 1:35 1:55 Staged Evacuation 2Mile Region and Keyhole to 5Miles R08 2:00 2:05 2:00 2:00 2:00 2:00 2:05 2:35 2:00 2:00 2:30 2:00 2:00 2:00 R09 2:00 2:00 1:55 1:55 1:55 2:00 2:00 2:30 1:55 1:55 2:30 1:55 1:55 2:00 R10 2:00 2:05 2:00 2:00 2:00 2:00 2:00 2:35 2:00 2:00 2:30 2:00 2:00 2:00 Fermi Nuclear Power Plant 711 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 1

Table 74. Time to Clear 100 Percent of the 2Mile 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) (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 Unstaged Evacuation 2Mile Region and Keyhole to 5Miles R01 4:00 4:00 4:00 4:00 4:00 4:00 4:00 4:30 4:00 4:00 4:30 4:00 4:00 4:00 R02 4:00 4:00 4:00 4:00 4:00 4:00 4:00 4:30 4:00 4:00 4:30 4:00 4:00 4:00 R04 4:00 4:00 4:00 4:00 4:00 4:00 4:00 4:30 4:00 4:00 4:30 4:00 4:00 4:00 R05 4:00 4:00 4:00 4:00 4:00 4:00 4:00 4:30 4:00 4:00 4:30 4:00 4:00 4:00 Staged Evacuation 2Mile Region and Keyhole to 5Miles R08 4:00 4:00 4:00 4:00 4:00 4:00 4:00 4:30 4:00 4:00 4:30 4:00 4:00 4:00 R09 4:00 4:00 4:00 4:00 4:00 4:00 4:00 4:30 4:00 4:00 4:30 4:00 4:00 4:00 R10 4:00 4:00 4:00 4:00 4:00 4:00 4:00 4:30 4:00 4:00 4:30 4:00 4:00 4:00 Fermi Nuclear Power Plant 712 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 1

Table 75. Description of Evacuation Regions Basic Regions PAA Region Description 1 2 3 4 5 R01 2Mile Region x R02 5Mile Region x x x R03 Full EPZ x x x x x Evacuate 2Mile Region and Downwind to 5 Miles PAA Region Wind Direction From: 1 2 3 4 5 W,WNW,NW,NNW,N,NNE Refer to Region R01 R04 NE,ENE,E x x ESE,SE Refer to Region R02 R05 SSE,S,SSW,SW,WSW x x Evacuate 5Mile Region and Downwind to the EPZ Boundary PAA Region Wind Direction From: 1 2 3 4 5 WSW,W,WNW,NW,NNW,N Refer to Region R02 R06 NNE,NE,ENE x x x x E,ESE,SE Refer to Region R03 R07 SSE,S,SSW,SW x x x x Staged Evacuation 2Mile Region Evacuates, then Evacuate Downwind to 5 Miles PAA Region Wind Direction From: 1 2 3 4 5 R08 No Wind x x x W,WNW,NW,NNW,N,NNE Refer to Region R01 R09 NE,ENE,E x x ESE,SE Refer to Region R02 R10 SSE,S,SSW,SW,WSW x x Key ShelterinPlace until 90% ETE for R01, PAA(s) Evacuate PAA(s) ShelterinPlace then Evacuate Fermi Nuclear Power Plant 713 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 1

Figure 71. Voluntary Evacuation Methodology Fermi Nuclear Power Plant 714 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 1

Figure 72. FNPP Shadow Region Fermi Nuclear Power Plant 715 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 1

Figure 73. Congestion Patterns at 30 Minutes after the Advisory to Evacuate Fermi Nuclear Power Plant 716 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 1

Figure 74. Congestion Patterns at 1 Hour after the Advisory to Evacuate Fermi Nuclear Power Plant 717 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 1

Figure 75. Congestion Patterns at 1 Hour, 30 Minutes after the Advisory to Evacuate Fermi Nuclear Power Plant 718 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 1

Figure 76. Congestion Patterns at 2 Hours after the Advisory to Evacuate Fermi Nuclear Power Plant 719 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 1

Figure 77. Congestion Patterns at 2 Hours, 30 Minutes after the Advisory to Evacuate Fermi Nuclear Power Plant 720 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 1

Figure 78. Congestion Patterns at 3 Hours after the Advisory to Evacuate Fermi Nuclear Power Plant 721 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 1

Evacuation Time Estimates Summer, Midweek, Midday, Good (Scenario 1) 2Mile Region 5Mile Region Entire EPZ 90% 100%

70 60 Vehicles Evacuating 50 40 (Thousands) 30 20 10 0

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

Figure 79. Evacuation Time Estimates Scenario 1 for Region R03 Evacuation Time Estimates Summer, Midweek, Midday, Rain (Scenario 2) 2Mile Region 5Mile Region Entire EPZ 90% 100%

70 60 Vehicles Evacuating 50 40 (Thousands) 30 20 10 0

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

Figure 710. Evacuation Time Estimates Scenario 2 for Region R03 Fermi Nuclear Power Plant 722 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 1

Evacuation Time Estimates Summer, Weekend, Midday, Good (Scenario 3) 2Mile Region 5Mile Region Entire EPZ 90% 100%

70 60 Vehicles Evacuating 50 40 (Thousands) 30 20 10 0

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

Figure 711. Evacuation Time Estimates Scenario 3 for Region R03 Evacuation Time Estimates Summer, Weekend, Midday, Rain (Scenario 4) 2Mile Region 5Mile Region Entire EPZ 90% 100%

70 60 Vehicles Evacuating 50 40 (Thousands) 30 20 10 0

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

Figure 712. Evacuation Time Estimates Scenario 4 for Region R03 Fermi Nuclear Power Plant 723 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 1

Evacuation Time Estimates Summer, Midweek, Weekend, Evening, Good (Scenario 5) 2Mile Region 5Mile Region Entire EPZ 90% 100%

70 60 Vehicles Evacuating 50 40 (Thousands) 30 20 10 0

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

Figure 713. Evacuation Time Estimates Scenario 5 for Region R03 Evacuation Time Estimates Winter, Midweek, Midday, Good (Scenario 6) 2Mile Region 5Mile Region Entire EPZ 90% 100%

70 60 Vehicles Evacuating 50 40 (Thousands) 30 20 10 0

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

Figure 714. Evacuation Time Estimates Scenario 6 for Region R03 Fermi Nuclear Power Plant 724 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 1

Evacuation Time Estimates Winter, Midweek, Midday, Rain (Scenario 7) 2Mile Region 5Mile Region Entire EPZ 90% 100%

70 60 Vehicles Evacuating 50 40 (Thousands) 30 20 10 0

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

Figure 715. Evacuation Time Estimates Scenario 7 for Region R03 Evacuation Time Estimates Winter, Midweek, Midday, Snow (Scenario 8) 2Mile Region 5Mile Region Entire EPZ 90% 100%

70 60 Vehicles Evacuating 50 40 (Thousands) 30 20 10 0

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

Figure 716. Evacuation Time Estimates Scenario 8 for Region R03 Fermi Nuclear Power Plant 725 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 1

Evacuation Time Estimates Winter, Weekend, Midday, Good (Scenario 9) 2Mile Region 5Mile Region Entire EPZ 90% 100%

70 60 Vehicles Evacuating 50 40 (Thousands) 30 20 10 0

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

Figure 717. Evacuation Time Estimates Scenario 9 for Region R03 Evacuation Time Estimates Winter, Weekend, Midday, Rain (Scenario 10) 2Mile Region 5Mile Region Entire EPZ 90% 100%

70 60 Vehicles Evacuating 50 40 (Thousands) 30 20 10 0

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

Figure 718. Evacuation Time Estimates Scenario 10 for Region R03 Fermi Nuclear Power Plant 726 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 1

Evacuation Time Estimates Winter, Weekend, Midday, Snow (Scenario 11) 2Mile Region 5Mile Region Entire EPZ 90% 100%

70 60 50 Vehicles Evacuating 40 30 (Thousands) 20 10 0

0 30 60 90 120 150 180 210 240 270 300 10 Elapsed Time After Evacuation Recommendation (min)

Figure 719. Evacuation Time Estimates Scenario 11 for Region R03 Evacuation Time Estimates Winter, Midweek, Weekend, Evening, Good (Scenario 12) 2Mile Region 5Mile Region Entire EPZ 90% 100%

70 60 Vehicles Evacuating 50 40 (Thousands) 30 20 10 0

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

Figure 720. Evacuation Time Estimates Scenario 12 for Region R03 Fermi Nuclear Power Plant 727 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 1

Evacuation Time Estimates Summer, Weekend, Midday, Good, Special Event (Scenario 13) 2Mile Region 5Mile Region Entire EPZ 90% 100%

70 60 Vehicles Evacuating 50 40 (Thousands) 30 20 10 0

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

Figure 721. Evacuation Time Estimates Scenario 13 for Region R03 Evacuation Time Estimates Summer, Midweek, Midday, Good, Roadway Impact (Scenario 14) 2Mile Region 5Mile Region Entire EPZ 90% 100%

70 60 Vehicles Evacuating 50 40 (Thousands) 30 20 10 0

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

Figure 722. Evacuation Time Estimates Scenario 14 for Region R03 Fermi Nuclear Power Plant 728 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 1

8 TRANSITDEPENDENT AND SPECIAL FACILITY EVACUATION TIME ESTIMATES This section details the analyses applied and the results obtained in the form of evacuation time estimates 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, 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 (pcs). 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 pcs.

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, unless specific facility data is provided.

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 Fermi EPZ indicates that schoolchildren will be evacuated to host schools where they can be picked up by parents. As discussed in Section 2, this study assumes a fast breaking general emergency. Therefore, children are evacuated to host schools. 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 transitdependent population. This report provides estimates of buses under the assumption that no children will be picked up by their parents (in accordance with NUREG/CR7002), to present an upper bound estimate of buses required. It is assumed that children at daycare centers 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.

The procedure for computing transitdependent ETE is to:

• Estimate demand for transit service Fermi Nuclear Power Plant 81 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 1

• Estimate time to perform all transit functions

• Estimate route travel times to the EPZ boundary and to the reception centers 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:

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

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

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

Table 81 presents estimates of transitdependent people. Note:

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

• It is reasonable and appropriate to consider that many transitdependent persons will evacuate by ridesharing with neighbors, friends or family. For example, nearly 80 percent of those who evacuated from Mississauga, Ontario who did not use their own cars, shared a ride with neighbors or friends. Other documents report that approximately 70 percent of transit dependent persons were evacuated via ride sharing. We will adopt a conservative estimate that 50 percent of transit dependent persons will ride share, in accordance with NUREG/CR7002.

The estimated number of bus trips needed to service transitdependent 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 x10) = 27. On this basis, the average load factor anticipated is (27/40) x 100 = 68 percent. Thus, if the actual demand for service exceeds the estimates of Table 81 by 50 percent, the demand for service can still be accommodated by the available bus seating capacity.

2 20 10 40 1.5 1.00 3

Table 81 indicates that transportation must be provided for 2,834 people. Therefore, a total of 95 bus runs are required to transport this population to reception centers.

Fermi Nuclear Power Plant 82 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 1

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

Where, A = Percent of households with commuters C = Percent of households who will not await the return of a commuter 35,965 0.042 1.57 0.246 1.87 1 0.62 0.45 0.494 2.83 2 0.62 0.45 5,667 0.5 30 95 These calculations are explained as follows:

• All members (1.57 avg.) of households (HH) with no vehicles (4.2%) will evacuate by public transit or rideshare. The term 35,965 (number of households) x 0.042 x 1.57, accounts for these people.

• The members of HH with 1 vehicle away (24.6%), who are at home, equal (1.871).

The number of HH where the commuter will not return home is equal to (35,965 x 0.246 x 0.62 x 0.45), as 62% of EPZ households have a commuter, 45% of which would not return home in the event of an emergency. The number of persons who will evacuate by public transit or rideshare is equal to the product of these two terms.

• The members of HH with 2 vehicles that are away (49.4%), who are at home, equal (2.83 - 2). The number of HH where neither commuter will return home is equal to 35,965 x 0.494 x (0.62 x 0.45)2. The number of persons who will evacuate by public transit or rideshare is equal to the product of these two terms (the last term is squared to represent the probability that neither commuter will return).

• 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 transitdependent population in Table 81 far exceeds the number of registered transitdependent persons in the EPZ as provided by the counties (discussed below in Section 8.5). This is consistent with the findings of NUREG/CR6953, Volume 2, in that a large majority of the transitdependent population within the EPZs of U.S. nuclear plants does not register with their local emergency response agency.

Fermi Nuclear Power Plant 83 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 1

8.2 School Population - Transit Demand Table 82 presents the school population and transportation requirements for the direct evacuation of all schools within the EPZ for the 20112012 school year. This information was provided by the local county emergency management agencies. The column in Table 82 entitled Buses Required specifies the number of buses required for each school 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/CR7002), 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.

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

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

It is recommended that the counties in the EPZ introduce procedures whereby the schools are contacted prior to the dispatch of buses from the depot, to ascertain the current estimate of students to be evacuated. In this way, the number of buses dispatched to the schools will reflect the actual number needed. The need for buses would be reduced by any high school students who have evacuated using private automobiles (if permitted by school authorities).

Those buses originally allocated to evacuate schoolchildren that are not needed due to children being picked up by their parents, can be gainfully assigned to service other facilities or those persons who do not have access to private vehicles or to ridesharing.

Table 83 presents a list of the host schools for each school district in the EPZ. Students will be transported to these host schools where they will be subsequently retrieved by their respective families.

8.3 Medical Facility Demand Table 84 presents the census of medical facilities in the EPZ. 950 people have been identified as living in, or being treated in, these facilities. The capacity and current census for each facility were provided by the county emergency management agencies. This data includes the number of ambulatory, wheelchairbound and bedridden patients at each facility.

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

84. The number of ambulance runs is determined by assuming that 2 patients can be accommodated per ambulance trip; the number of wheelchair van runs assumes 4 wheelchair bound patients per trip and the number of bus runs estimated assumes 30 ambulatory patients per trip.

Fermi Nuclear Power Plant 84 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 1

8.4 Evacuation Time Estimates for Transit Dependent People EPZ bus resources are assigned to evacuating schoolchildren (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 transitdependent 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 transitdependent should be sensitive to their mobilization time. Clearly, the buses should be dispatched after people have completed their mobilization activities and are in a position to board the buses when they arrive at the pickup points.

Evacuation Time Estimates for transit trips were developed using both good weather and adverse weather conditions. Figure 81 presents the chronology of events relevant to transit operations. The elapsed time for each activity will now be discussed with reference to Figure 81.

Activity: Mobilize Drivers (ABC)

Mobilization is the elapsed time from the Advisory to Evacuate until the time the buses arrive at the facility to be evacuated. For many schools, the mobilization time for buses was provided by the county. For those schools which did not provide information, 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 transitdependent facilities. Mobilization time is slightly longer in adverse weather - 100 minutes when raining, 110 minutes when snowing.

Activity: Board Passengers (CD)

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 pickup route (transitdependent bus routes) estimation of travel time must allow for the delay associated with stopping and starting at each pickup point. The time, t, required for a bus to decelerate at a rate, a, expressed in ft/sec/sec, from a speed, v, expressed in ft/sec, to a stop, is t = v/a. Assuming the same acceleration rate and final speed following the stop yields a total time, T, to service boarding passengers:

2 ,

Where B = Dwell time to service passengers. The total distance, s in feet, travelled during the deceleration and acceleration activities is: s = v2/a. If the bus had not stopped to service Fermi Nuclear Power Plant 85 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 1

passengers, but had continued to travel at speed, v, then its travel time over the distance, s, would be: s/v = v/a. Then the total delay (i.e. pickup time, P) to service passengers is:

Assigning reasonable estimates:

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

• v = 25 mph = 37 ft/sec

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

Activity: Travel to EPZ Boundary (DE)

School Evacuation Transportation resources available were provided by the EPZ county emergency management agencies and are summarized in Table 85. Also included in the table are the number of buses needed to evacuate schools, medical facilities, transitdependent population, homebound special needs (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 the transit dependent population in a single wave.

The buses servicing the schools are ready to begin their evacuation trips at 15 minutes (loading time) after mobilization time. 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 host school. 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 86 (refer to the maps of the linknode analysis network in Appendix K for node locations). Data provided by DYNEV during the appropriate timeframe depending on the mobilization and loading times (i.e., 100 to 105 minutes after the advisory to evacuate for good weather) were used to compute the average speed for each route, as follows:

Fermi Nuclear Power Plant 86 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 1

60 .

1 .

. 60 .

. . 1 .

The average speed computed (using this methodology) for the buses servicing each of the schools in the EPZ is shown in Table 87 through Table 89 for school evacuation, and in Table 811 through Table 813 for the transit vehicles evacuating transitdependent persons, which are discussed later. The travel time to the EPZ boundary was computed for each bus using the computed average speed and the distance to the EPZ boundary along the most likely route out of the EPZ. The travel time from the EPZ boundary to the host school was computed assuming an average speed of 40 mph, 35 mph, and 30 mph for good weather, rain and snow, respectively. Speeds were reduced in Table 87 through Table 89 and in Table 811 through Table 813 to 55 mph (50 mph for rain - 10% decrease - and 45 mph for snow - 20% decrease) for those calculated bus speeds which exceed 55 mph, as the school bus speed limit for state routes in Michigan is 55 mph.

Table 87 (good weather), Table 88 (rain) and Table 89 (snow) present the following evacuation time estimates (rounded up to the nearest 5 minutes) for schools 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 host school. The evacuation time out of the EPZ can be computed as the sum of times associated with Activities ABC, CD, and DE (For example: 15 min. + 15 + 3 = 0:35 for Airport Senior High School, with good weather rounded up to the nearest 5 minutes). The evacuation time to the host school is determined by adding the time associated with Activity EF (discussed below), to this EPZ evacua on me.

Evacuation of TransitDependent Population The buses dispatched from the depots to service the transitdependent evacuees will be scheduled so that they arrive at their respective routes after their passengers have completed their mobilization. As shown in Figure 54 (Residents with no Commuters), 90 percent of the evacuees will complete their mobilization when the buses will begin their routes, approximately 90 minutes after the Advisory to Evacuate. The routes were designed to cover the more urban areas where the transitdependent population is likely to reside (see Table 810). The start of service on these routes is separated by 5 minute headways, as shown in Table 811 through Table 813. The use of bus headways ensures that those people who take longer to mobilize will be picked up. Mobilization time is 10 minutes longer in rain to account for slower travel speeds and reduced roadway capacity.

Fermi Nuclear Power Plant 87 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 1

Those buses servicing the transitdependent evacuees will first travel along their pickup routes, then proceed out of the EPZ. The county emergency plans do not define bus routes to service these pickup locations. The 7 bus routes shown graphically in Figure 82 and described in Table 810 were designed as part of this study to service the major routes through each population center. It is assumed that residents will walk to and congregate at these predesignated pickup locations, and that they can arrive at the stops within the 90 minute bus mobilization time (good weather).

As previously discussed, a pickup time of 30 minutes (good weather) is estimated for 30 individual stops to pick up passengers, with an average of one minute of delay associated with each stop. A longer pickup time of 40 minutes and 50 minutes are used for rain and snow, respectively.

The travel distance along the respective pickup routes within the EPZ is estimated using the UNITES software. Bus travel times within the EPZ are computed using average speeds computed by DYNEV, using the aforementioned methodology that was used for school evacuation.

Table 811 through Table 813 present the transitdependent 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 numbers 1 & 2 servicing Route 1 is computed as 90 + 24 + 30 =

2:25 for good weather (rounded up to nearest 5 minutes). Here, 24 minutes is the time to travel 12.5 miles at 30.7 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 drivers, as previously discussed.

Activity: Travel to Reception Centers (EF)

The distances from the EPZ boundary to the reception centers are measured using GIS software along the most likely route from the EPZ exit point to the reception center. The reception centers are mapped in Figure 101. For a onewave evacuation, this travel time outside the EPZ does not contribute to the ETE. For a twowave evacuation, the ETE for buses must be considered separately, since it could exceed the ETE for the general population. Assumed bus speeds of 40 mph, 35 mph, and 30 mph for good weather, rain, and snow, respectively, will be applied for this activity for buses servicing the transitdependent population.

Activity: Passengers Leave Bus (FG)

A bus can empty within 5 minutes. The driver takes a 10 minute break.

Activity: Bus Returns to Route for Second Wave Evacuation (GC)

The buses assigned to return to the EPZ to perform a second wave evacuation of transit dependent evacuees will be those that have already evacuated transitdependent people who mobilized more quickly. The first wave of transitdependent people depart the bus, and the bus then returns to the EPZ, travels to its route and proceeds to pick up more transit Fermi Nuclear Power Plant 88 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 1

dependent evacuees along the route. The travel time back to the EPZ is equal to the travel time to the reception center.

The secondwave ETE for the bus numbers 1 & 2 route servicing Route 1 is computed as follows for good weather:

• Bus arrives at reception center at 2:34 in good weather (2:25 to exit EPZ + 9 minute travel time to reception center).

• Bus discharges passengers (5 minutes) and driver takes a 10minute rest: 15 minutes.

• Bus returns to EPZ and completes second route: 9 minutes (equal to travel time to reception center) + 19 minutes (12.5 miles @ 40 mph) + 20 minutes (12.5 miles @ 37 mph)= 48 minutes

• Bus completes pickups along route: 30 minutes.

• Bus exits EPZ at time 2:25 + 0:09 + 0:15 + 0:48 + 0:30 = 4:10 (rounded to nearest 5 minutes) after the Advisory to Evacuate.

The ETE for the completion of the second wave for all transitdependent bus routes are provided in Table 811 through Table 813. The average ETE for a twowave evacuation of transitdependent people exceeds the ETE for the general population at the 90th percentile.

The relocation of transitdependent evacuees from the reception centers to congregate care centers, if the counties decide to do so, is not considered in this study.

Evacuation of Medical Facilities The evacuation of these facilities is similar to school evacuation except:

• Buses are assigned on the basis of 30 patients to allow for staff to accompany the patients. Wheelchair buses can accommodate 15 patients, and ambulances can accommodate 2 patients.

• Loading times of 1 minute, 5 minutes, and 15 minutes per patient are assumed for ambulatory patients, wheelchair bound patients, and bedridden patients, respectively.

Table 84 indicates that 31 bus runs, 34 wheelchair van runs and 21 ambulance runs are needed to service all of the medical facilities in the EPZ. According to Table 85, the counties can collectively provide 1,812 buses, 14 short buses, 119 wheelchair vans and 129 ambulances.

Thus, there are sufficient resources to evacuate the ambulatory and wheelchair bound persons from the medical facilities in a single wave As is done for the schools, it is estimated that mobilization time averages 90 minutes. 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 814 through Table 816 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 Fermi Nuclear Power Plant 89 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 1

snow), are used to compute travel time to EPZ boundary. The travel time to the EPZ boundary is computed by dividing the distance to the EPZ boundary by the average travel speed. The ETE is the sum of the mobilization time, total passenger loading time, and travel time out of the EPZ. Concurrent loading on multiple buses, wheelchair buses/vans, and ambulances at capacity is assumed such that the maximum loading times for buses, wheelchair buses and ambulances are 30, 75 and 30 minutes, respectively. All ETE are rounded to the nearest 5 minutes. For example, the calculation of ETE for the ALCC with 6 ambulatory residents during good weather is:

ETE: 90 + 6 x 1 + 9 = 105 min. or 1:45 It is assumed that medical facility population is directly evacuated to appropriate host medical facilities. Relocation of this population to permanent facilities and/or passing through the reception center before arriving at the host facility are not considered in this analysis.

8.5 Special Needs Population The county emergency management agencies have separate registrations for homebound special needs persons. Based on data provided by Wayne County, the special needs population within the EPZ resides in Marybrook Residence, which is accounted for under medical facilities.

Based on data provided by the Monroe County, there are an estimated 334 homebound special needs people, 219 that require a bus, 103 that require a wheelchair accessible vehicle, and 12 that require an ambulance to evacuate.

ETE for Homebound Special Needs Persons Table 817 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. Van and bus speeds approximate 20 mph between households and ambulance speeds approximate 30 mph in good weather (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 networkwide average speed, capped at 55 mph (50 mph for rain and 40 mph for snow), after the last pickup is used to compute travel time. ETE is computed by summing mobilization time, loading time at first 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.

For example, assuming no more than one special needs person per HH implies that 219 ambulatory households need to be serviced. While only 8 buses are needed from a capacity perspective, if 32 buses are deployed to service these special needs HH, then each would require about 7 stops. The following outlines the ETE calculations:

1. Assume 32 buses are deployed, each with about 7 stops, to service a total of 219 HH.

2. The ETE is calculated as follows:

Fermi Nuclear Power Plant 810 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 1

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: 6 @ 9 minutes = 54 minutes

d. Load HH members at subsequent pickup locations: 6 @ 5 minutes = 30 minutes

e. Travel to EPZ boundary: 9 minutes (5 miles @ 34.4 mph).

ETE: 90 + 5 + 54 + 30 + 9 = 3:10 rounded to the nearest 5 minutes 8.6 Correctional Facilities There are two correctional facilities within the Fermi 2 EPZ - Monroe City Jail Facility #1 and Facility #2 - as indicated in Table E7. Based on discussions with the Monroe County Sheriff Department, school buses provided by the Monroe County School System would be used to transport prisoners from these facilities. As indicated in Table E7, there are 343 inmates at these facilities. Assuming a bus capacity of 30 inmates, 12 buses would be needed. Mobilization time of buses would be 30 minutes to 1 hour1.157407e-5 days <br />2.777778e-4 hours <br />1.653439e-6 weeks <br />3.805e-7 months <br />, according to the sheriffs department. Monroe County has verbal agreements with Lucas County, Washtenaw County, Lenawee County and Wayne County to house these displaced inmates in the event of an evacuation. The following jails are located within these counties:

• Mound Correctional Facility in Wayne County, Michigan

• Ryan Correctional Facility in Wayne County, Michigan

• Gus Harrison Correctional Facility in Lenawee County, Michigan

• Huron Valley Complex in Washtenaw County, Michigan

• Toledo Correctional Institution in Lucas County, Ohio It is assumed that loading time is 1 minute per passenger to account for additional security measures that will be taken, for a total loading time of 30 minutes per bus.

The ETE for the inmates at the Monroe City Jail is computed as follows:

• Mobilization time is 60 minutes.

• Loading time is 30 minutes.

• Lucas County is located to the south of the City of Monroe; Lenawee County is located to the west; Washtenaw is located to the northwest; and Wayne County is located to the north. Therefore, evacuation to any of these counties would require leaving the EPZ southbound to avoid traveling closer to the plant.

• Facility #1 would evacuate southbound on State Highway 125 to depart the EPZ - a 2.5 mile route.

• Facility #2 would evacuate southbound on Laplaisance Rd. to access Interstate75 southbound and depart the EPZ - a 2.5 mile route. The average network speed output by DYNEV of 30.3 mph is used for buses evacuating these facilities to account for congestion within the City of Monroe.

• Travel time to the EPZ boundary is 5 minutes (2.5 miles @ 30.3 mph).

• ETE = 60 + 30 + 5 = 95 minutes or 1:35 Fermi Nuclear Power Plant 811 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 1

(Subsequent Wave)

A B C D E F G Time Event A Advisory to Evacuate B Bus Dispatched from Depot C Bus Arrives at Facility/Pickup Route D Bus Departs for Reception Center E Bus Exits Region F Bus Arrives at Reception Center/Host Facility G Bus Available for Second Wave Evacuation Service Activity AB Driver Mobilization BC Travel to Facility or to Pickup Route CD Passengers Board the Bus DE Bus Travels Towards Region Boundary EF Bus Travels Towards Reception Center Outside the EPZ FG Passengers Leave Bus; Driver Takes a Break Figure 81. Chronology of Transit Evacuation Operations Fermi Nuclear Power Plant 812 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 1

Figure 82. TransitDependent Bus Routes Fermi Nuclear Power Plant 813 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 1

Table 81. TransitDependent Population Estimates Survey Percent Survey Average HH 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 2010 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 97,825 1.57 1.87 2.83 35,965 4.2% 24.6% 49.4% 62% 45% 5,667 50% 2,834 2.9%

Fermi Nuclear Power Plant 814 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 1

Table 82. School Population Demand Estimates Buses PAA School Name District Enrollment Required 1 North Elementary School Jefferson 425 7 2 Neidermeier Elementary School Airport 306 5 2 St. Charles School Private 194 4 3 Jefferson High School Jefferson 775 16 3 Jefferson Middle School Jefferson 365 8 3 Sodt Elementary School Jefferson 344 5 4 Airport Senior High School Airport 1,050 21 4 Carleton Country Day* Airport 114 3 4 Chapman Elementary School Gibraltar 503 8 4 David Oren Hunter Elementary School Gibraltar 422 7 4 Downriver High School Gibraltar 62 2 4 Ethel C. Bobcean Elementary School Flat Rock 483 7 4 Eyler Elementary School Airport 300 5 4 Flat Rock / Gibraltar Head Start* Gibraltar 175 3 4 Flat Rock Community High School Flat Rock 568 12 4 Hellen C. Shumate Junior High School Gibraltar 895 18 4 John M. Barnes Elementary Flat Rock 429 7 4 Oscar A. Carlson High School Gibraltar 1,074 22 4 Parsons Elementary School Gibraltar 447 7 4 Ritter Elementary School Airport 300 5 4 Simpson Middle School Flat Rock 431 9 4 St. Mary's Rockwood Elementary School* Gibraltar 220 4 4 St. Patrick School* Airport 134 3 4 Sterling Elementary School Airport 313 5 4 Summit Academy/Summit Early Childhood Center Flat Rock 403 6 4 Wager Junior High School Airport 740 15 5 Custer Elementary School #1 Monroe 650 10 5 Custer Elementary School #2 Monroe 294 5 5 Hollywood Elementary School Monroe 237 4 5 Holy Ghost Lutheran School* Monroe 100 2 5 Hurd Elementary School Jefferson 420 6 5 Lutheran High School South* Airport 36 1 5 Manor Elementary School Monroe 406 6 5 Monroe Middle School Monroe 941 19 5 Monroe Senior High School Monroe 2,130 43 5 Orchard Center High School Monroe 175 4 5 Pathway Christian Academy/ Daycare Monroe 138 3 Fermi Nuclear Power Plant 815 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 1

Buses PAA School Name District Enrollment Required 5 Raisinville Elementary School Monroe 425 7 5 Riverside Elementary School Monroe 162 3 5 St. John's School* Monroe 211 5 5 St. Mary's Catholic Center High School* Monroe 411 9 5 St. Mary's Parish School* Monroe 248 5 5 St. Michael's School* Monroe 185 4 5 Trinity Lutheran School* Monroe 220 5 5 Waterloo Elementary School Monroe 250 4 5 Zion Lutheran School Monroe 62 2 TOTAL: 19,173 361

• Denotes Private School which will evacuate with the schools of the public school district listed Table 83. Host Schools School District Host School MONROE COUNTY Jefferson (Monroe) Mason Senior High, Erie, MI St. Charles (Newport) St. Stephen School, New Boston, MI Airport (Carleton) Milan Senior High, Milan, MI Monroe (Monroe) Bedford Senior High, Temperance, MI WAYNE COUNTY Gibraltar Harry. S. Truman High School, Taylor, MI Flat Rock Fermi Nuclear Power Plant 816 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 1

Table 84. Medical Facility Transit Demand Wheel Wheel chair Cap Current Ambu chair Bed Bus Van PAA Facility Name Municipality acity Census latory Bound ridden Runs Runs Ambulance MONROE COUNTY MEDICAL FACILITIES 5 ALCC Monroe 21 12 6 6 0 1 2 0 5 Alterra Monroe 20 15 15 0 0 1 0 0 5 IHM Motherhouse Monroe 210 192 177 13 2 6 4 1 5 Lutheran Home Monroe 115 115 106 8 1 4 2 1 5 Maplewood Manor Monroe 120 110 101 8 1 4 2 1 5 Medilodge II Monroe 103 92 85 6 1 3 2 1 5 Mercy Memorial Hospital Monroe 168 168 69 69 30 3 18 15 5 Mercy Memorial Nursing Center Monroe 70 60 59 0 1 2 0 1 5 Tendercare of Monroe Monroe 192 175 161 12 2 6 3 1 Monroe County Subtotal: 1,019 939 779 122 38 30 33 21 WAYNE COUNTY MEDICAL FACILITIES 4 Marybrook Residence Flat Rock 12 11 10 1 0 1 1 0 Wayne County Subtotal: 12 11 10 1 0 1 1 0 TOTAL: 1,031 950 789 123 38 31 34 21 Fermi Nuclear Power Plant 817 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 1

Table 85. Summary of Transportation Resources Transportation Short Wheelchair Resource Buses Bus Vans Ambulances Resources Available Airport School District 36 4 Jefferson School District 21 4 Monroe School District 315 14 Gibraltar School District 30 Flat Rock School District 14 Bedford Schools 5 Manson Schools 2 Dundee Schools 2 Summerfield Schools 3 Whiteford Schools 10 Ida Schools 2 East Side Med Star 6 Community 13 Concord 16 HealthLink 5 HVA 6 Rapid Response 8 Medic one 9 Superior 6 Universal (Macomb) 10 Star EMS 3 ProMedica 5 Monroe County 69 Wayne County 1,396 60 TOTAL: 1,812 14 119 129 Resources Needed Schools (Table 82): 361 Medical Facilities (Table 84): 31 34 21 TransitDependent Population (Table 810): 95 Homebound Special Needs (Section 8.5): 32 26 6 Correctional Facilities (Section 8.6): 12 TOTAL TRANSPORTATION NEEDS: 531 0 60 27 Fermi Nuclear Power Plant 818 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 1

Table 86. Bus Route Descriptions Bus Route Number Description Nodes Traversed from Route Start to EPZ Boundary 58, 107, 319, 106, 105, 7, 104, 79, 78, 732, 101, 785, 1 Transit route 1 100, 99, 98, 97, 133 525, 660, 60, 61, 62, 258, 775, 64, 75, 74, 135, 73, 840, 2 Transit route 2 832, 498 3 Transit route 3 528, 526, 618, 617, 616, 632, 508 4 Transit route 4 211, 184, 181, 325, 78, 324, 76, 215, 64, 65, 66, 841, 67 535, 583, 582, 237, 580, 234, 584, 232, 231, 271, 457, 5 Transit Route 5 829, 270 6 Transit route 6 545, 40, 641, 547, 42, 171, 656 7 Transit route 7 47, 649, 49, 50, 51, 347, 350, 115, 116, 659, 117 444, 441, 278, 280, 279, 23, 24, 296, 297, 451, 452, 8 North Elementary School 298, 453, 300, 209, 302, 305, 761, 307 9 Neidermeier Elementary School 226, 109, 534 36, 462, 35, 800, 760, 34, 33, 737, 32, 162, 85, 736, 84, 10 St. Charles School 298, 453, 300, 209, 302, 305, 761, 307 35, 800, 760, 34, 33, 737, 32, 162, 85, 736, 84, 298, 453, 11 Jefferson High School 300, 209, 302, 305, 761, 307 34, 33, 737, 32, 162, 85, 736, 84, 298, 453, 300, 209, 12 Sodt Elementary School 302, 305, 761, 307 13 Airport Senior High School 109, 534 15 Eyler Elementary School 341, 830, 243 16 Ritter Elementary School 342, 56, 231 22 Custer Elementary School #1 514, 734, 513, 700, 701, 217, 304, 305, 761, 307 25 Holy Ghost Lutheran School 508, 67, 841, 66, 65, 64, 75, 74, 135, 73 33, 737, 32, 162, 85, 736, 84, 298, 453, 300, 209, 302, 26 Hurd Elementary School 305, 761, 307 28 Lutheran High School South 332, 108, 335, 222, 223, 226, 109, 534 29 Manor Elementary School 204, 527, 258, 775, 64, 75, 74, 135, 73 30 Monroe Middle School 101, 519, 177, 182, 520, 217, 304, 305, 761, 307 31 Monroe Senior High 505, 500, 74, 135, 73 32 Orchard Center High School 210, 175, 569, 301, 303, 302, 305, 761, 307 Pathway Christian Academy/ 60, 531, 105, 7, 104, 79, 80, 190, 81, 63, 299, 759, 300, 33 Daycare 209, 302, 305, 761, 307 34 Raisinville Elementary School 508, 67, 841, 66, 65, 64, 75, 74, 135, 73 79, 80, 190, 81, 63, 299, 759, 300, 209, 302, 305, 761, 35 Riverside Elementary School 307 78, 732, 101, 519, 177, 182, 520, 217, 304, 305, 761, 37 St. John's School 307 Fermi Nuclear Power Plant 819 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 1

Bus Route Number Description Nodes Traversed from Route Start to EPZ Boundary St. Mary's Catholic Center High 79, 80, 190, 81, 63, 299, 759, 300, 209, 302, 305, 761, 38 School 307 104, 79, 80, 190, 81, 63, 299, 759, 300, 209, 302, 305, 39 St. Mary's Parish School 761, 307 40 St. Michael's School 211, 569, 301, 303, 302, 305, 761, 307 325, 796, 730, 731, 519, 177, 182, 520, 217, 304, 305, 41 Trinity Lutheran School 761, 307 42 Waterloo Elementary School 66, 65, 64, 75, 74, 135, 73 113, 105, 7, 104, 79, 80, 190, 81, 63, 299, 759, 300, 209, 43 Zion Lutheran School 302, 305, 761, 307 44 Chapman Elementary School 169, 817, 292, 447, 293, 448, 604, 290, 288, 842, 287 David Oren Hunter Elementary 45 602, 552, 208 School 549, 40, 545, 546, 170, 292, 447, 293, 448, 604, 290, 46 Downriver High School 288, 842, 287 Ethel C. Bobcean Elementary 47 49, 649, 47, 683, 289, 291, 290, 288, 842, 287 School Hellen C. Shumate Junior High 50 547, 42, 43, 160, 159, 252, 288, 842, 287 School 51 John M. Barnes Elementary 374, 49, 649, 47, 683, 289, 291, 290, 288, 842, 287 53 Parsons Elementary School 387, 42, 43, 160, 159, 252, 288, 842, 287 St. mary's rockwood elementary 55 170, 292, 447, 293, 448, 604, 290, 288, 842, 287 school Summit Academy/Summit Early 56 649, 47, 683, 289, 291, 290, 288, 842, 287 Childhood Center 57 ALCC 319, 106, 105, 531, 60, 660, 525, 68, 69, 630, 70 58 Alterra 529, 62, 258, 775, 64, 65, 66, 841, 67 59 IHM Motherhouse 322, 323, 618, 617, 616, 632, 508, 67 60 Lutheran Home 105, 7, 104, 79, 322, 323, 618, 617, 616, 632, 508, 67 61 Maplewood Manor 319, 107, 58, 108, 335, 222, 223, 226, 109, 534 62 Medilodge II 527, 258, 775, 64, 65, 66, 841, 67 63 Mercy Memorial Hospital 113, 320, 80, 79, 322, 323, 618, 617, 616, 632, 508, 67 64 Mercy Memorial Nursing Center 105, 531, 60, 660, 525, 68, 69, 630, 70 65 Tendercare of Monroe 61, 62, 258, 775, 64, 65, 66, 841, 67 66 Marybrook Residence 649, 47, 683, 289, 252, 288, 842, 287 Fermi Nuclear Power Plant 820 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 1

Table 87. School Evacuation Time Estimates Good Weather Travel Time Travel Dist. from Dist. Time EPZ EPZ Driver Loading To EPZ Average to EPZ Bdry Bdry to ETE to Mobilization Time Bdry Speed Bdry ETE to H.S. H.S. H.S.

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

MONROE COUNTY SCHOOLS Airport Senior High School 15 15 2.4 50.0 3 0:35 17.0 26 1:00 Carleton Country Day 30 15 1.3 50.0 2 0:50 17.0 26 1:15 Custer Elementary School #1 45 15 4.0 15.2 16 1:20 13.9 21 1:40 Custer Elementary School #2 45 15 4.0 15.2 16 1:20 13.9 21 1:40 Eyler Elementary School 45 15 2.3 45.0 3 1:05 17.2 26 1:30 Hollywood Elementary School 45 15 5.9 42.6 8 1:10 14.3 21 1:30 Holy Ghost Lutheran School 45 15 5.0 33.1 9 1:10 13.5 20 1:30 Hurd Elementary School 90 15 5.8 54.2 6 1:55 7.4 11 2:05 Jefferson High School 15 15 7.9 49.8 10 0:40 7.4 11 0:55 Jefferson Middle School 15 15 7.6 49.8 9 0:40 7.4 11 0:50 Lutheran High School South 30 15 6.3 48.4 8 0:55 6.0 9 1:05 Manor Elementary School 45 15 3.7 27.3 8 1:10 15.1 23 1:35 Monroe Middle School 45 15 2.7 5.4 30 1:30 14.3 21 1:55 Monroe Senior High School 45 15 3.1 26.7 7 1:10 18.4 28 1:35 Neidermeier Elementary School 45 15 7.7 43.7 11 1:15 16.8 25 1:40 North Elementary School 45 15 12.6 55.0 14 1:15 7.4 11 1:25 Orchard Center High School 45 15 4.7 32.9 9 1:10 7.3 11 1:20 Pathway Christian Academy/ Daycare 90 15 7.4 46.8 9 1:55 8.0 12 2:10 Raisinville Elementary School 45 15 2.9 33.1 5 1:05 18.4 28 1:35 Ritter Elementary School 45 15 6.9 41.1 10 1:10 17.3 26 1:40 Riverside Elementary School 45 15 6.1 43.1 8 1:10 14.9 22 1:30 Sodt Elementary School 45 15 9.2 35.6 16 1:20 7.4 11 1:30 St. Charles School 45 15 11.1 36.4 18 1:20 5.9 9 1:30 St. John's School 45 15 2.8 5.7 29 1:30 6.4 10 1:40 St. Mary's Catholic Center High School 45 15 5.5 43.1 8 1:10 6.3 9 1:20 Fermi Nuclear Power Plant 821 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 1

Travel Time Travel Dist. from Dist. Time EPZ EPZ Driver Loading To EPZ Average to EPZ Bdry Bdry to ETE to Mobilization Time Bdry Speed Bdry ETE to H.S. H.S. H.S.

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

St. Mary's Parish School 45 15 5.5 42.5 8 1:10 6.3 9 1:20 St. Michael's School 45 15 5.6 30.4 11 1:15 6.8 10 1:25 St. Patrick School 45 15 1.5 50.0 2 1:05 16.5 25 1:30 Sterling Elementary School 30 15 2.6 50.0 3 0:50 16.8 25 1:15 Trinity Lutheran School 45 15 2.7 5.6 29 1:30 6.3 9 1:40 Wager Junior High School 15 15 2.3 50.0 3 0:35 17.6 26 1:00 Waterloo Elementary School 45 15 3.0 28.4 6 1:10 18.7 28 1:35 Zion Lutheran School 45 15 4.0 40.4 6 1:10 19.7 30 1:40 WAYNE COUNTY SCHOOLS Chapman Elementary School 90 15 3.5 55.0 4 1:50 10.7 16 2:05 David Oren Hunter Elementary School 90 15 1.7 33.4 3 1:50 10.7 16 2:05 Downriver High School 90 15 5.4 50.5 6 1:55 13.6 20 2:15 Ethel C. Bobcean Elementary School 90 15 3.5 53.0 4 1:50 8.7 13 2:05 Flat Rock / Gibraltar Head Start 90 15 3.7 53.0 4 1:50 8.7 13 2:05 Flat Rock Community High School 90 15 3.6 53.0 4 1:50 11.3 17 2:10 Hellen C. Shumate Junior High School 90 15 3.5 50.0 4 1:50 13.5 20 2:10 John M. Barnes Elementary 90 15 4.9 47.9 6 1:55 8.7 13 2:05 Oscar A. Carlson High School 90 15 3.5 50.0 4 1:50 13.5 20 2:10 Parsons Elementary School 90 15 3.2 47.6 4 1:50 13.5 20 2:10 Simpson Middle School 90 15 4.9 47.9 6 1:55 8.7 13 2:05 St. Mary's Rockwood Elementary School 90 15 3.2 44.6 4 1:50 10.7 16 2:05 Summit Academy/Summit Early Childhood 90 15 2.4 54.3 3 1:50 10.7 16 2:05 Center Maximum for EPZ: 1:55 Maximum: 2:15 Average for EPZ: 1:25 Average: 1:40 Fermi Nuclear Power Plant 822 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 1

Table 88. School Evacuation Time Estimates Rain Travel Time Travel Dist. from Dist. Time EPZ EPZ Driver Loading To EPZ Average to EPZ Bdry Bdry to ETE to Mobilization Time Bdry Speed Bdry ETE to H.S. H.S. H.S.

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

A COUNTY SCHOOLS Airport Senior High School 25 20 2.4 45.0 3 0:50 17.0 29 1:20 Carleton Country Day 40 20 1.3 45.0 2 1:05 17.0 29 1:35 Custer Elementary School #1 55 20 4.0 12.9 19 1:35 13.9 24 2:00 Custer Elementary School #2 55 20 4.0 12.9 19 1:35 13.9 24 2:00 Eyler Elementary School 55 20 2.3 40.8 3 1:20 17.2 29 1:50 Hollywood Elementary School 55 20 5.9 30.7 12 1:30 14.3 25 1:55 Holy Ghost Lutheran School 55 20 5.0 20.5 15 1:30 13.5 23 1:55 Hurd Elementary School 100 20 5.8 36.2 10 2:10 7.4 13 2:25 Jefferson High School 25 20 7.9 26.8 18 1:05 7.4 13 1:20 Jefferson Middle School 25 20 7.6 26.8 17 1:05 7.4 13 1:15 Lutheran High School South 40 20 6.3 43.1 9 1:10 6.0 10 1:20 Manor Elementary School 55 20 3.7 15.6 14 1:30 15.1 26 1:55 Monroe Middle School 55 20 2.7 4.1 40 1:55 14.3 25 2:20 Monroe Senior High School 55 20 3.1 13.3 14 1:30 18.4 32 2:05 Neidermeier Elementary School 55 20 7.7 39.5 12 1:30 16.8 29 2:00 North Elementary School 55 20 12.6 50.0 15 1:30 7.4 13 1:45 Orchard Center High School 55 20 4.7 22.7 12 1:30 7.3 13 1:40 Pathway Christian Academy/ Daycare 100 20 7.4 33.2 13 2:15 8.0 14 2:30 Raisinville Elementary School 55 20 2.9 19.8 9 1:25 18.4 32 2:00 Ritter Elementary School 55 20 6.9 37.4 11 1:30 17.3 30 2:00 Riverside Elementary School 55 20 6.1 29.6 12 1:30 14.9 26 1:55 Sodt Elementary School 55 20 9.2 32.4 17 1:35 7.4 13 1:45 St. Charles School 55 20 11.1 34.5 19 1:35 5.9 10 1:45 St. John's School 55 20 2.8 4.3 39 1:55 6.4 11 2:05 St. Mary's Catholic Center High School 55 20 5.5 29.6 11 1:30 6.3 11 1:40 Fermi Nuclear Power Plant 823 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 1

Travel Time Travel Dist. from Dist. Time EPZ EPZ Driver Loading To EPZ Average to EPZ Bdry Bdry to ETE to Mobilization Time Bdry Speed Bdry ETE to H.S. H.S. H.S.

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

St. Mary's Parish School 55 20 5.5 29.5 11 1:30 6.3 11 1:40 St. Michael's School 55 20 5.6 20.4 16 1:35 6.8 12 1:45 St. Patrick School 55 20 1.5 45.0 2 1:20 16.5 28 1:45 Sterling Elementary School 40 20 2.6 45.0 3 1:05 16.8 29 1:35 Trinity Lutheran School 55 20 2.7 4.3 38 1:55 6.3 11 2:05 Wager Junior High School 25 20 2.3 45.0 3 0:50 17.6 30 1:20 Waterloo Elementary School 55 20 3.0 16.3 11 1:30 18.7 32 2:00 Zion Lutheran School 55 20 4.0 29.6 8 1:25 19.7 34 2:00 WAYNE COUNTY SCHOOLS Average for EPZ: 100 20 3.5 33.9 6 2:10 10.7 18 2:25 David Oren Hunter Elementary School 100 20 1.7 46.7 2 2:05 10.7 18 2:20 Downriver High School 100 20 5.4 47.1 7 2:10 13.6 23 2:30 Ethel C. Bobcean Elementary School 100 20 3.5 47.3 4 2:05 8.7 15 2:20 Flat Rock / Gibraltar Head Start 100 20 3.7 47.3 5 2:05 8.7 15 2:20 Flat Rock Community High School 100 20 3.6 46.9 5 2:05 11.3 19 2:25 Hellen C. Shumate Junior High School 100 20 3.5 44.0 5 2:05 13.5 23 2:30 John M. Barnes Elementary 100 20 4.9 46.3 6 2:10 8.7 15 2:25 Oscar A. Carlson High School 100 20 3.5 43.9 5 2:05 13.5 23 2:30 Parsons Elementary School 100 20 3.2 44.0 4 2:05 13.5 23 2:30 Simpson Middle School 100 20 4.9 39.5 7 2:10 8.7 15 2:25 St. Mary's Rockwood Elementary School 100 20 3.2 48.3 4 2:05 10.7 18 2:25 Summit Academy/Summit Early Childhood 100 20 2.4 50.0 3 2:05 10.7 18 2:25 Center Maximum for EPZ: 2:15 Maximum: 2:30 Average for EPZ: 1:40 Average: 2:00 Fermi Nuclear Power Plant 824 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 1

Table 89. School Evacuation Time Estimates Snow Travel Time Travel Dist. from Dist. Time EPZ EPZ Driver Loading To EPZ Average to EPZ Bdry Bdry to ETE to Mobilization Time Bdry Speed Bdry ETE to H.S. H.S. H.S.

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

A COUNTY SCHOOLS Airport Senior High School 35 25 2.4 40.0 4 1:05 17.0 34 1:40 Carleton Country Day 50 25 1.3 40.0 2 1:20 17.0 34 1:55 Custer Elementary School #1 65 25 4.0 12.4 19 1:50 13.9 28 2:20 Custer Elementary School #2 65 25 4.0 12.4 19 1:50 13.9 28 2:20 Eyler Elementary School 65 25 2.3 36.0 4 1:35 17.2 34 2:10 Hollywood Elementary School 65 25 5.9 35.1 10 1:40 14.3 29 2:10 Holy Ghost Lutheran School 65 25 5.0 24.7 12 1:45 13.5 27 2:10 Hurd Elementary School 110 25 5.8 45.0 8 2:25 7.4 15 2:40 Jefferson High School 35 25 7.9 26.5 18 1:20 7.4 15 1:35 Jefferson Middle School 35 25 7.6 26.5 17 1:20 7.4 15 1:35 Lutheran High School South 50 25 6.3 38.9 10 1:25 6.0 12 1:40 Manor Elementary School 65 25 3.7 20.2 11 1:45 15.1 30 2:15 Monroe Middle School 65 25 2.7 4.2 38 2:10 14.3 29 2:40 Monroe Senior High School 65 25 3.1 19.5 10 1:40 18.4 37 2:20 Neidermeier Elementary School 65 25 7.7 35.3 13 1:45 16.8 34 2:20 North Elementary School 65 25 12.6 45.0 17 1:50 7.4 15 2:05 Orchard Center High School 65 25 4.7 39.3 7 1:40 7.3 15 1:55 Pathway Christian Academy/ Daycare 110 25 7.4 37.4 12 2:30 8.0 16 2:45 Raisinville Elementary School 65 25 2.9 24.6 7 1:40 18.4 37 2:15 Ritter Elementary School 65 25 6.9 32.4 13 1:45 17.3 35 2:20 Riverside Elementary School 65 25 6.1 35.2 10 1:40 14.9 30 2:10 Sodt Elementary School 65 25 9.2 29.0 19 1:50 7.4 15 2:05 St. Charles School 65 25 11.1 30.4 22 1:55 5.9 12 2:05 St. John's School 65 25 2.8 4.5 37 2:10 6.4 13 2:20 St. Mary's Catholic Center High School 65 25 5.5 35.0 9 1:40 6.3 13 1:55 Fermi Nuclear Power Plant 825 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 1

Travel Time Travel Dist. from Dist. Time EPZ EPZ Driver Loading To EPZ Average to EPZ Bdry Bdry to ETE to Mobilization Time Bdry Speed Bdry ETE to H.S. H.S. H.S.

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

St. Mary's Parish School 65 25 5.5 34.6 10 1:40 6.3 13 1:55 St. Michael's School 65 25 5.6 35.9 9 1:40 6.8 14 1:55 St. Patrick School 65 25 1.5 40.0 2 1:35 16.5 33 2:05 Sterling Elementary School 50 25 2.6 40.0 4 1:20 16.8 34 1:55 Trinity Lutheran School 65 25 2.7 4.1 39 2:10 6.3 13 2:25 Wager Junior High School 35 25 2.3 40.0 3 1:05 17.6 35 1:40 Waterloo Elementary School 65 25 3.0 20.7 9 1:40 18.7 37 2:20 WAYNE COUNTY SCHOOLS Chapman Elementary School 110 25 3.5 30.3 7 2:25 10.7 21 2:45 David Oren Hunter Elementary School 110 25 1.7 40.8 3 2:20 10.7 21 2:40 Downriver High School 110 25 5.4 41.7 8 2:25 13.6 27 2:50 Ethel C. Bobcean Elementary School 110 25 3.5 42.2 5 2:20 8.7 17 2:40 Flat Rock / Gibraltar Head Start 110 25 3.7 41.7 5 2:20 8.7 17 2:40 Flat Rock Community High School 110 25 3.6 40.7 5 2:20 11.3 23 2:45 Hellen C. Shumate Junior High School 110 25 3.5 38.6 5 2:20 13.5 27 2:50 John M. Barnes Elementary 110 25 4.9 40.7 7 2:25 8.7 17 2:40 Oscar A. Carlson High School 110 25 3.5 38.5 5 2:20 13.5 27 2:50 Parsons Elementary School 110 25 3.2 39.0 5 2:20 13.5 27 2:50 Simpson Middle School 110 25 4.9 34.9 8 2:25 8.7 17 2:40 St. Mary's Rockwood Elementary School 110 25 3.2 43.2 4 2:20 10.7 21 2:40 Summit Academy/Summit Early Childhood 110 25 2.4 45.0 3 2:20 10.7 21 2:40 Center Maximum for EPZ: 2:30 Maximum: 2:50 Average for EPZ: 1:55 Average: 2:20 Fermi Nuclear Power Plant 826 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 1

Table 810. Summary of TransitDependent Bus Routes No. of Length Route Buses Route Description (mi.)

Eastbound on Stoney Creek Rd to Michigan Highway 125. South on Michigan 1 16 12.5 Highway 125 through Monroe and out of the EPZ.

Eastbound on Bluebush Rd to US Highway 24. South on US Highway 24 2 14 8.9 through Monroe and out of the EPZ.

Eastbound on Bluebush Rd to US Highway 24. South on US Highway 24 to 3 15 North Custer Rd. West on North Custer Rd through Monroe and out of the 9.1 EPZ.

Northbound on Interstate 75. Exit for Front Street. West on Front Street 4 14 9.4 through Monroe and out of the EPZ.

5 12 Westbound through Carleton on Ash Street to I275 northbound. 7.3 Southbound on US Highway 24 to East Huron River Dr. East on East Huron 6 12 10.2 River Dr to Jefferson Ave. North on Jefferson Ave out of the EPZ.

Southbound on Allen Road to Gibraltar Rd. West on Gibraltar Rd to US 7 12 5.9 Highway 24. North on US Highway 24 out of the EPZ.

Total: 95 Fermi Nuclear Power Plant 827 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 1

Table 811. TransitDependent Evacuation Time Estimates Good Weather OneWave TwoWave Route Route Route Route Travel Pickup Distance Travel Driver Travel Pickup Route Bus Mobilization Length Speed Time Time ETE to R. C. Time to R. Unload Rest Time Time ETE Number Number (min) (miles) (mph) (min) (min) (hr:min) (miles) C. (min) (min) (min) (min) (min) (hr:min) 1&2 90 12.5 30.7 24 30 2:25 6.2 9 5 10 48 30 4:10 3&4 95 12.5 31.4 24 30 2:30 6.2 9 5 10 48 30 4:15 5&6 100 12.5 31.8 24 30 2:35 6.2 9 5 10 48 30 4:20 7&8 105 12.5 32.0 23 30 2:40 6.2 9 5 10 48 30 4:25 1

9 & 10 110 12.5 32.8 23 30 2:45 6.2 9 5 10 48 30 4:30 11 & 12 115 12.5 34.2 22 30 2:50 6.2 9 5 10 48 30 4:35 13 & 14 120 12.5 35.3 21 30 2:55 6.2 9 5 10 48 30 4:40 15 & 16 125 12.5 36.4 21 30 3:00 6.2 9 5 10 47 30 4:45 1&2 90 8.9 31.1 17 30 2:20 6.1 9 5 10 36 30 3:55 3&4 95 8.9 29.3 18 30 2:25 6.1 9 5 10 36 30 4:00 5&6 100 8.9 28.5 19 30 2:30 6.1 9 5 10 36 30 4:05 2 7&8 105 8.9 28.0 19 30 2:35 6.1 9 5 10 36 30 4:10 9 & 10 110 8.9 27.9 19 30 2:40 6.1 9 5 10 36 30 4:15 11 & 12 115 8.9 29.8 18 30 2:45 6.1 9 5 10 36 30 4:20 13 & 14 120 8.9 32.4 16 30 2:50 6.1 9 5 10 36 30 4:25 1&2 90 9.1 10.9 50 30 2:50 12.4 19 5 10 47 30 4:45 3&4 95 9.1 11.4 48 30 2:55 12.4 19 5 10 47 30 4:50 5&6 100 9.1 12.2 45 30 2:55 12.4 19 5 10 47 30 4:50 7&8 105 9.1 13.2 41 30 3:00 12.4 19 5 10 47 30 4:55 3

9 & 10 110 9.1 14.4 38 30 3:00 12.4 19 5 10 47 30 4:55 11 & 12 115 9.1 15.8 35 30 3:00 12.4 19 5 10 47 30 4:55 13 & 14 120 9.1 20.4 27 30 3:00 12.4 19 5 10 47 30 4:55 15 125 9.1 22.9 24 30 3:00 12.4 19 5 10 47 30 4:55 1&2 90 9.4 13.6 42 30 2:45 12.2 18 5 10 47 30 4:40 3&4 95 9.4 13.9 41 30 2:50 12.2 18 5 10 47 30 4:45 5&6 100 9.4 14.4 39 30 2:50 12.2 18 5 10 47 30 4:45 4 7&8 105 9.4 16.2 35 30 2:50 12.2 18 5 10 47 30 4:45 9 & 10 110 9.4 17.1 33 30 2:55 12.2 18 5 10 47 30 4:50 11 & 12 115 9.4 19.3 29 30 2:55 12.2 18 5 10 47 30 4:50 13 & 14 120 9.4 20.8 27 30 3:00 12.2 18 5 10 46 30 4:50 Fermi Nuclear Power Plant 828 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 1

OneWave TwoWave Route Route Route Route Travel Pickup Distance Travel Driver Travel Pickup Route Bus Mobilization Length Speed Time Time ETE to R. C. Time to R. Unload Rest Time Time ETE Number Number (min) (miles) (mph) (min) (min) (hr:min) (miles) C. (min) (min) (min) (min) (min) (hr:min) 1&2 90 7.3 41.4 11 30 2:15 18.2 27 5 10 48 30 4:20 3&4 95 7.3 41.2 11 30 2:20 18.2 27 5 10 48 30 4:25 5&6 100 7.3 41.7 10 30 2:20 18.2 27 5 10 48 30 4:25 5 7&8 105 7.3 41.7 11 30 2:30 18.2 27 5 10 48 30 4:35 9 & 10 110 7.3 41.9 10 30 2:30 18.2 27 5 10 48 30 4:35 11 115 7.3 40.7 11 30 2:40 18.2 27 5 10 48 30 4:45 12 120 7.3 41.2 11 30 2:45 18.2 27 5 10 48 30 4:50 1&2 90 10.2 42.8 14 30 2:15 12.2 18 5 10 47 30 4:10 3&4 95 10.2 42.4 14 30 2:20 12.2 18 5 10 47 30 4:15 5&6 100 10.2 42.3 14 30 2:25 12.2 18 5 10 47 30 4:20 6 7&8 105 10.2 42.8 14 30 2:30 12.2 18 5 10 47 30 4:25 9 & 10 110 10.2 43.2 14 30 2:35 12.2 18 5 10 47 30 4:30 11 115 10.2 43.6 14 30 2:40 12.2 18 5 10 47 30 4:35 12 120 10.2 44.0 14 30 2:45 12.2 18 5 10 47 30 4:40 1&2 90 5.9 23.3 15 30 2:15 8.7 13 5 10 31 30 3:45 3&4 95 5.9 24.5 14 30 2:20 8.7 13 5 10 31 30 3:50 5&6 100 5.9 25.2 14 30 2:25 8.7 13 5 10 31 30 3:55 7 7&8 105 5.9 28.1 13 30 2:30 8.7 13 5 10 31 30 4:00 9 & 10 110 5.9 31.6 11 30 2:35 8.7 13 5 10 31 30 4:05 11 115 5.9 33.8 10 30 2:35 8.7 13 5 10 31 30 4:05 12 120 5.9 34.4 10 30 2:40 8.7 13 5 10 31 30 4:10 Maximum ETE: 3:00 Maximum ETE: 4:55 Average ETE: 2:40 Average ETE: 4:30 Fermi Nuclear Power Plant 829 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 1

Table 812. TransitDependent Evacuation Time Estimates Rain OneWave TwoWave Route Route Route Route Travel Pickup Distance Travel Driver Travel Pickup Route Bus Mobilization Length Speed Time Time ETE to R. C. Time to R. Unload Rest Time Time ETE Number Number (min) (miles) (mph) (min) (min) (hr:min) (miles) C. (min) (min) (min) (min) (min) (hr:min) 1&2 100 12.5 50.0 15 40 2:35 6.2 11 5 10 44 40 4:25 3&4 105 12.5 50.0 15 40 2:40 6.2 11 5 10 44 40 4:30 5&6 110 12.5 50.0 15 40 2:45 6.2 11 5 10 44 40 4:35 7&8 115 12.5 50.0 15 40 2:50 6.2 11 5 10 44 40 4:40 1

9 & 10 120 12.5 50.0 15 40 2:55 6.2 11 5 10 44 40 4:45 11 & 12 125 12.5 50.0 15 40 3:00 6.2 11 5 10 44 40 4:50 13 & 14 130 12.5 50.0 15 40 3:05 6.2 11 5 10 44 40 4:55 15 & 16 135 12.5 50.0 15 40 3:10 6.2 11 5 10 44 40 5:00 1&2 100 8.9 50.0 11 40 2:35 6.1 10 5 10 34 40 4:15 3&4 105 8.9 50.0 11 40 2:40 6.1 10 5 10 34 40 4:20 5&6 110 8.9 50.0 11 40 2:45 6.1 10 5 10 34 40 4:25 2 7&8 115 8.9 50.0 11 40 2:50 6.1 10 5 10 34 40 4:30 9 & 10 120 8.9 50.0 11 40 2:55 6.1 10 5 10 34 40 4:35 11 & 12 125 8.9 50.0 11 40 3:00 6.1 10 5 10 34 40 4:40 13 & 14 130 8.9 50.0 11 40 3:05 6.1 10 5 10 34 40 4:45 1&2 100 9.1 50.0 11 40 2:35 12.4 21 5 10 46 40 4:40 3&4 105 9.1 50.0 11 40 2:40 12.4 21 5 10 46 40 4:45 5&6 110 9.1 50.0 11 40 2:45 12.4 21 5 10 46 40 4:50 7&8 115 9.1 50.0 11 40 2:50 12.4 21 5 10 46 40 4:55 3

9 & 10 120 9.1 50.0 11 40 2:55 12.4 21 5 10 46 40 5:00 11 & 12 125 9.1 50.0 11 40 3:00 12.4 21 5 10 46 40 5:05 13 & 14 130 9.1 50.0 11 40 3:05 12.4 21 5 10 46 40 5:10 15 135 9.1 50.0 11 40 3:10 12.4 21 5 10 46 40 5:15 1&2 100 9.4 50.0 11 40 2:35 12.2 21 5 10 46 40 4:40 3&4 105 9.4 50.0 11 40 2:40 12.2 21 5 10 46 40 4:45 5&6 110 9.4 50.0 11 40 2:45 12.2 21 5 10 46 40 4:50 4 7&8 115 9.4 50.0 11 40 2:50 12.2 21 5 10 46 40 4:55 9 & 10 120 9.4 50.0 11 40 2:55 12.2 21 5 10 46 40 5:00 11 & 12 125 9.4 50.0 11 40 3:00 12.2 21 5 10 46 40 5:05 13 & 14 130 9.4 50.0 11 40 3:05 12.2 21 5 10 46 40 5:10 Fermi Nuclear Power Plant 830 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 1

OneWave TwoWave Route Route Route Route Travel Pickup Distance Travel Driver Travel Pickup Route Bus Mobilization Length Speed Time Time ETE to R. C. Time to R. Unload Rest Time Time ETE Number Number (min) (miles) (mph) (min) (min) (hr:min) (miles) C. (min) (min) (min) (min) (min) (hr:min) 1&2 100 7.3 50.0 9 40 2:30 18.2 31 5 10 51 40 4:50 3&4 105 7.3 50.0 9 40 2:35 18.2 31 5 10 51 40 4:55 5&6 110 7.3 50.0 9 40 2:40 18.2 31 5 10 51 40 5:00 5 7&8 115 7.3 50.0 9 40 2:45 18.2 31 5 10 51 40 5:05 9 & 10 120 7.3 50.0 9 40 2:50 18.2 31 5 10 51 40 5:10 11 125 7.3 50.0 9 40 2:55 18.2 31 5 10 51 40 5:15 12 130 7.3 50.0 9 40 3:00 18.2 31 5 10 51 40 5:20 1&2 100 10.2 50.0 12 40 2:35 12.2 21 5 10 48 40 4:40 3&4 105 10.2 50.0 12 40 2:40 12.2 21 5 10 48 40 4:45 5&6 110 10.2 50.0 12 40 2:45 12.2 21 5 10 48 40 4:50 6 7&8 115 10.2 50.0 12 40 2:50 12.2 21 5 10 48 40 4:55 9 & 10 120 10.2 50.0 12 40 2:55 12.2 21 5 10 48 40 5:00 11 125 10.2 50.0 12 40 3:00 12.2 21 5 10 48 40 5:05 12 130 10.2 50.0 12 40 3:05 12.2 21 5 10 48 40 5:10 1&2 100 5.9 50.0 7 40 2:30 8.7 15 5 10 31 40 4:15 3&4 105 5.9 50.0 7 40 2:35 8.7 15 5 10 31 40 4:20 5&6 110 5.9 50.0 7 40 2:40 8.7 15 5 10 31 40 4:25 7 7&8 115 5.9 50.0 7 40 2:45 8.7 15 5 10 31 40 4:30 9 & 10 120 5.9 50.0 7 40 2:50 8.7 15 5 10 31 40 4:35 11 125 5.9 50.0 7 40 2:55 8.7 15 5 10 31 40 4:40 12 130 5.9 50.0 7 40 3:00 8.7 15 5 10 31 40 4:45 Maximum ETE: 3:10 Maximum ETE: 5:20 Average ETE: 2:50 Average ETE: 4:50 Fermi Nuclear Power Plant 831 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 1

Table 813. Transit Dependent Evacuation Time Estimates Snow OneWave TwoWave Route Route Route Route Travel Pickup Distance Travel Driver Travel Pickup Route Bus Mobilization Length Speed Time Time ETE to R. C. Time to R. Unload Rest Time Time ETE Number Number (min) (miles) (mph) (min) (min) (hr:min) (miles) C. (min) (min) (min) (min) (min) (hr:min) 1&2 110 12.5 45.0 17 50 3:00 6.2 12 5 10 48 50 5:10 3&4 115 12.5 45.0 17 50 3:05 6.2 12 5 10 48 50 5:15 5&6 120 12.5 45.0 17 50 3:10 6.2 12 5 10 48 50 5:20 7&8 125 12.5 45.0 17 50 3:15 6.2 12 5 10 48 50 5:25 1

9 & 10 130 12.5 45.0 17 50 3:20 6.2 12 5 10 48 50 5:30 11 & 12 135 12.5 45.0 17 50 3:25 6.2 12 5 10 48 50 5:35 13 & 14 140 12.5 45.0 17 50 3:30 6.2 12 5 10 48 50 5:40 15 & 16 145 12.5 45.0 17 50 3:35 6.2 12 5 10 48 50 5:45 1&2 110 8.9 45.0 12 50 2:55 6.1 12 5 10 37 50 4:50 3&4 115 8.9 45.0 12 50 3:00 6.1 12 5 10 37 50 4:55 5&6 120 8.9 45.0 12 50 3:05 6.1 12 5 10 37 50 5:00 2 7&8 125 8.9 45.0 12 50 3:10 6.1 12 5 10 37 50 5:05 9 & 10 130 8.9 45.0 12 50 3:15 6.1 12 5 10 37 50 5:10 11 & 12 135 8.9 45.0 12 50 3:20 6.1 12 5 10 37 50 5:15 13 & 14 140 8.9 45.0 12 50 3:25 6.1 12 5 10 37 50 5:20 1&2 110 9.1 45.0 12 50 2:55 12.4 25 5 10 51 50 5:20 3&4 115 9.1 45.0 12 50 3:00 12.4 25 5 10 51 50 5:25 5&6 120 9.1 45.0 12 50 3:05 12.4 25 5 10 51 50 5:30 7&8 125 9.1 45.0 12 50 3:10 12.4 25 5 10 51 50 5:35 3

9 & 10 130 9.1 45.0 12 50 3:15 12.4 25 5 10 51 50 5:40 11 & 12 135 9.1 45.0 12 50 3:20 12.4 25 5 10 51 50 5:45 13 & 14 140 9.1 45.0 12 50 3:25 12.4 25 5 10 51 50 5:50 15 145 9.1 45.0 12 50 3:30 12.4 25 5 10 51 50 5:55 1&2 110 9.4 45.0 13 50 2:55 12.2 24 5 10 51 50 5:20 3&4 115 9.4 45.0 13 50 3:00 12.2 24 5 10 51 50 5:25 5&6 120 9.4 45.0 13 50 3:05 12.2 24 5 10 51 50 5:30 4 7&8 125 9.4 45.0 13 50 3:10 12.2 24 5 10 51 50 5:35 9 & 10 130 9.4 45.0 13 50 3:15 12.2 24 5 10 51 50 5:40 11 & 12 135 9.4 45.0 13 50 3:20 12.2 24 5 10 51 50 5:45 13 & 14 140 9.4 45.0 13 50 3:25 12.2 24 5 10 51 50 5:50 Fermi Nuclear Power Plant 832 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 1

OneWave TwoWave Route Route Route Route Travel Pickup Distance Travel Driver Travel Pickup Route Bus Mobilization Length Speed Time Time ETE to R. C. Time to R. Unload Rest Time Time ETE Number Number (min) (miles) (mph) (min) (min) (hr:min) (miles) C. (min) (min) (min) (min) (min) (hr:min) 1&2 110 7.3 45.0 10 50 2:50 18.2 36 5 10 57 50 5:30 3&4 115 7.3 45.0 10 50 2:55 18.2 36 5 10 57 50 5:35 5&6 120 7.3 45.0 10 50 3:00 18.2 36 5 10 57 50 5:40 5 7&8 125 7.3 45.0 10 50 3:05 18.2 36 5 10 57 50 5:45 9 & 10 130 7.3 45.0 10 50 3:10 18.2 36 5 10 57 50 5:50 11 135 7.3 45.0 10 50 3:15 18.2 36 5 10 57 50 5:55 12 140 7.3 45.0 10 50 3:20 18.2 36 5 10 57 50 6:00 1&2 110 10.2 45.0 14 50 2:55 12.2 24 5 10 53 50 5:20 3&4 115 10.2 45.0 14 50 3:00 12.2 24 5 10 53 50 5:25 5&6 120 10.2 45.0 14 50 3:05 12.2 24 5 10 53 50 5:30 6 7&8 125 10.2 45.0 14 50 3:10 12.2 24 5 10 53 50 5:35 9 & 10 130 10.2 45.0 14 50 3:15 12.2 24 5 10 53 50 5:40 11 135 10.2 45.0 14 50 3:20 12.2 24 5 10 53 50 5:45 12 140 10.2 45.0 14 50 3:25 12.2 24 5 10 53 50 5:50 1&2 110 5.9 45.0 8 50 2:50 8.7 17 5 10 34 50 4:50 3&4 115 5.9 45.0 8 50 2:55 8.7 17 5 10 34 50 4:55 5&6 120 5.9 45.0 8 50 3:00 8.7 17 5 10 34 50 5:00 7 7&8 125 5.9 45.0 8 50 3:05 8.7 17 5 10 34 50 5:05 9 & 10 130 5.9 45.0 8 50 3:10 8.7 17 5 10 34 50 5:10 11 135 5.9 45.0 8 50 3:15 8.7 17 5 10 34 50 5:15 12 140 5.9 45.0 8 50 3:20 8.7 17 5 10 34 50 5:20 Maximum ETE: 3:35 Maximum ETE: 6:00 Average ETE: 3:10 Average ETE: 5:30 Fermi Nuclear Power Plant 833 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 1

Table 814. Special 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 6 6 7.2 9 1:45 ALCC Wheelchair bound 90 5 6 30 7.2 9 2:10 Alterra Ambulatory 90 1 15 15 11.2 40 2:25 Ambulatory 90 1 177 30 8.2 33 2:35 IHM Wheelchair bound 90 5 13 65 8.2 14 2:50 Motherhouse Bedridden 90 15 2 30 8.2 33 2:35 Ambulatory 90 1 106 30 5.3 24 2:25 Lutheran Home Wheelchair bound 90 5 8 40 5.3 18 2:30 Bedridden 90 15 1 15 5.3 32 2:20 Ambulatory 90 1 101 30 7.0 9 2:10 Maplewood Wheelchair bound 90 5 8 40 7.0 9 2:20 Manor Bedridden 90 15 1 15 7.0 9 1:55 Marybrook Ambulatory 90 1 10 10 4.6 6 1:50 Residence Wheelchair bound 90 5 1 5 4.6 6 1:45 Ambulatory 90 1 85 30 3.4 14 2:15 Medilodge II Wheelchair bound 90 5 6 30 3.4 14 2:15 Bedridden 90 15 1 15 3.4 22 2:10 Ambulatory 90 1 69 30 5.4 24 2:25 Mercy Memorial Wheelchair bound 90 5 69 75 5.4 9 2:55 Hospital Bedridden 90 15 30 30 5.4 24 2:25 Mercy Memorial Ambulatory 90 1 59 30 5.4 7 2:10 Nursing Center Bedridden 90 15 1 15 5.4 7 1:55 Ambulatory 90 1 161 30 4.1 12 2:15 Tendercare of Wheelchair bound 90 5 12 60 4.1 6 2:40 Monroe Bedridden 90 15 2 30 4.1 12 2:15 Maximum ETE: 2:55 Average ETE: 2:20 Fermi Nuclear Power Plant 834 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 1

Table 815. 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 6 6 7.2 10 2:00 ALCC Wheelchair bound 100 5 6 30 7.2 10 2:20 Alterra Ambulatory 100 1 15 15 11.2 43 2:40 Ambulatory 100 1 177 30 8.2 12 2:25 ALCC Wheelchair bound 100 5 13 65 8.2 11 3:00 Bedridden 100 15 2 30 8.2 12 2:25 Ambulatory 100 1 106 30 5.3 24 2:35 Lutheran Home Wheelchair bound 100 5 8 40 5.3 19 2:40 Bedridden 100 15 1 15 5.3 37 2:35 Ambulatory 100 1 101 30 7.0 10 2:20 Maplewood Wheelchair bound 100 5 8 40 7.0 10 2:30 Manor Bedridden 100 15 1 15 7.0 10 2:05 Marybrook Ambulatory 100 1 10 10 4.6 6 2:00 Residence Wheelchair bound 100 5 1 5 4.6 6 1:55 Ambulatory 100 1 85 30 3.4 16 2:30 Medilodge II Wheelchair bound 100 5 6 30 3.4 16 2:30 Bedridden 100 15 1 15 3.4 25 2:20 Ambulatory 100 1 69 30 5.4 24 2:35 Mercy Memorial Wheelchair bound 100 5 69 75 5.4 10 3:05 Hospital Bedridden 100 15 30 30 5.4 24 2:35 Mercy Memorial Ambulatory 100 1 59 30 5.4 8 2:20 Nursing Center Bedridden 100 15 1 15 5.4 8 2:05 Ambulatory 100 1 161 30 4.1 17 2:30 Tendercare of Wheelchair bound 100 5 12 60 4.1 7 2:50 Monroe Bedridden 100 15 2 30 4.1 17 2:30 Maximum ETE: 3:05 Average ETE: 2:30 Fermi Nuclear Power Plant 835 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 1

Table 816. Medical Facility Evacuation Time Estimates Snow 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 110 1 6 6 7.2 12 2:10 ALCC Wheelchair bound 110 5 6 30 7.2 12 2:35 Alterra Ambulatory 110 1 15 15 11.2 48 2:55 Ambulatory 110 1 177 30 8.2 13 2:35 ALCC Wheelchair bound 110 5 13 65 8.2 13 3:10 Bedridden 110 15 2 30 8.2 13 2:35 Ambulatory 110 1 106 30 5.3 25 2:45 Lutheran Home Wheelchair bound 110 5 8 40 5.3 19 2:50 Bedridden 110 15 1 15 5.3 34 2:40 Ambulatory 110 1 101 30 7.0 11 2:35 Maplewood Wheelchair bound 110 5 8 40 7.0 11 2:45 Manor Bedridden 110 15 1 15 7.0 11 2:20 Marybrook Ambulatory 110 1 10 10 4.6 7 2:10 Residence Wheelchair bound 110 5 1 5 4.6 7 2:05 Ambulatory 110 1 85 30 3.4 20 2:40 Medilodge II Wheelchair bound 110 5 6 30 3.4 20 2:40 Bedridden 110 15 1 15 3.4 26 2:35 Ambulatory 110 1 69 30 5.4 25 2:45 Mercy Memorial Wheelchair bound 110 5 69 75 5.4 12 3:20 Hospital Bedridden 110 15 30 30 5.4 25 2:45 Mercy Memorial Ambulatory 110 1 59 30 5.4 9 2:30 Nursing Center Bedridden 110 15 1 15 5.4 9 2:15 Ambulatory 110 1 161 30 4.1 19 2:40 Tendercare of Wheelchair bound 110 5 12 60 4.1 10 3:00 Monroe Bedridden 110 15 2 30 4.1 19 2:40 Maximum ETE: 3:20 Average ETE: 2:40 Fermi Nuclear Power Plant 836 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 1

Table 817. Homebound Special Needs Population Evacuation Time Estimates Total Travel Mobiliza Loading Loading Time to People tion Time at Travel to Time at EPZ Requiring Vehicles Weather Time 1st Stop Subsequent Subsequent Boundary ETE Vehicle Type Vehicle deployed Stops Conditions (min) (min) Stops (min) Stops (min) (min) (hr:min)

Good 90 0 9 3:10 Buses 219 32 7 Rain 100 5 0 30 11 3:30 Snow 110 0 11 3:45 Good 90 27 9 2:30 Wheelchair 103 26 4 Rain 100 5 30 15 11 2:45 Vans Snow 110 33 11 2:55 Good 90 10 9 2:20 Ambulances 12 6 2 Rain 100 15 11 15 11 2:35 Snow 110 13 11 2:45 Maximum ETE: 3:45 Average ETE: 2:55 Fermi Nuclear Power Plant 837 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 1

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 online: 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.

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.

Fermi Nuclear Power Plant 91 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 1

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/CR7002.

2. Computer analysis of the evacuation traffic flow environment.

This analysis identifies the best routing and those critical intersections that experience pronounced congestion. Any critical intersections that are not identified in the existing offsite plans are suggested as additional TCPs and ACPs

3. Computer analysis of the evacuation traffic flow environment (see Figures 73 through 78). As discussed in Section 7.3, congestion within the EPZ is clear by 2 hours2.314815e-5 days <br />5.555556e-4 hours <br />3.306878e-6 weeks <br />7.61e-7 months <br /> after the ATE. Based on the limited traffic congestion within the EPZ, no additional TCPs are identified as a result of this study. The existing traffic management plans are adequate.

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 plant. 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. Consideration should be given that ITS technologies be used to facilitate the evacuation process, and any additional signage placed should consider evacuation needs.

The ETE analysis treated all controlled intersections that are existing TCP locations in the offsite agency plans as being controlled by actuated signals.

Chapters 2N and 5G, 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 externalexternal 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.

Fermi Nuclear Power Plant 92 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 1

10 EVACUATION ROUTES Evacuation routes are comprised of two distinct components:

• Routing from a PAA being evacuated to the boundary of the Evacuation Region and thence out of the EPZ.

• Routing of transitdependent evacuees from the EPZ boundary to reception centers.

Evacuees will select routes within the EPZ in such a way as to minimize their exposure to risk.

This expectation is met by the DYNEV II model routing traffic away from the location of the plant, to the extent practicable. The DTRAD model satisfies this behavior by routing traffic so as to balance traffic demand relative to the available highway capacity to the extent possible.

See Appendices B through D for further discussion.

The routing of transitdependent evacuees from the EPZ boundary to reception centers is designed to minimize the amount of travel outside the EPZ, from the points where these routes cross the EPZ boundary.

Figure 101 presents a map showing the general population reception centers and host schools for evacuees. The major evacuation routes for the EPZ are presented in Figure 102.

It is assumed that all school evacuees will be taken to the appropriate host school and subsequently picked up by parents or guardians. Transitdependent evacuees are transported to the nearest reception center for each county. This study does not consider the transport of evacuees from reception centers to congregate care centers, if the counties do make the decision to relocate evacuees.

Fermi Nuclear Power Plant 101 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 1

Figure 101. General Population Reception Centers and Host Schools Fermi Nuclear Power Plant 102 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 1

Figure 102. Evacuation Route Map Fermi Nuclear Power Plant 103 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 1

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 Control and Access Control points, provide fixedpoint surveillance.

2. Ground patrols may be undertaken along welldefined 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 fixedwing 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 counties 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 lowspeed traffic environment, any vehicle disablement is likely to arise due to a lowspeed 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 counterflow 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.

Fermi Nuclear Power Plant 111 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 1

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. Numerous options are available in an emergency to confirm that all persons in a designated evacuation area that desire to evacuate have done so.

These options range from surveying a statistically random sample of 0.8% of the landline phones in the area to a full doortodoor validation. Each method has its unique advantages combined with its shortcomings.

To provide a bounding time estimate a complete doortodoor confirmation is assumed. The following parameters are used in order to estimate the confirmation time:

According to the telephone survey (Figure F1), the average household size in the EPZ is 2.63 people. Based on an EPZ population of 97,825 (Table 31), there are approximately 37,200 households in the EPZ.

10 emergency vehicles patrol the EPZ after the estimated time to evacuate 100% of the EPZ population (about 4 hours4.62963e-5 days <br />0.00111 hours <br />6.613757e-6 weeks <br />1.522e-6 months <br />, See Table 72) to confirm evacuation.

Emergency vehicles will make announcements using the vehicles public address system informing residents to call 911 if they are still at home and have not yet evacuated.

Door to door distance within the EPZ is approximately 150 feet.

Average speed of police car during patrol is 5 mph.

Based on the number of households in the EPZ and the parameters above, the time to complete doortodoor confirmation is computed as follows:

37,200 households x 150 ft ÷ 5,280 ft/mile ÷ 5 mi/hr ÷ 10 vehicles = 21.1 hr If additional patrol vehicles are available or if only a portion of the EPZ is in the evacuation region, this time would be reduced.

It is necessary to confirm that the evacuation process is effective in the sense that the public is complying with the Advisory to Evacuate. In accordance with the county plans and procedures, evacuation confirmation activities to assure that all of the population has been notified will be conducted on the basis of either the monitoring of traffic flow from the EPZ or interviews of evacuees at established reception centers. In accordance with established procedures for Monroe County, additional doortodoor confirmation may be performed as a backup.

Not all evacuees will go to reception centers, as many evacuees will elect to evacuate to a lodging facility or the home of a friend/family member outside of the EPZ. In fact, page III92 of the FEMA Radiological Emergency Planning (REP) manual indicates that reception centers should have the capacity to monitor 20% of the EPZ population within 12 hours1.388889e-4 days <br />0.00333 hours <br />1.984127e-5 weeks <br />4.566e-6 months <br />. Thus, confirmation of evacuation based on data compiled at reception centers/congregate care facilities is not feasible as approximately 80% of evacuees will not go to a congregate care facility.

Based on the amount of time and effort needed to complete doortodoor confirmation, an alternative or complementary approach is suggested. The suggested procedure employs a Fermi Nuclear Power Plant 121 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 1

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 121) to yield an estimated sample size of approximately 300.

The confirmation process should start at about 21/2 hours after the Advisory to Evacuate, which is when 90 percent of evacuees have completed their mobilization activities. 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 121, approximately 71/2 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 Protective Action Areas), then the confirmation process will extend over a time frame 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 can significantly reduce the manpower requirements and the time required to undertake this type of confirmation survey.

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.

If this method is indeed used by Monroe and Wayne Counties, it is recommended that a list of telephone numbers within the EPZ be available in their EOC at all times. Such a list could be purchased from vendors and could be periodically updated. As indicated above, the confirmation process should not begin until 2 1/2 hours after the Advisory to Evacuate, to ensure that most households have had enough time to mobilize and to start their evacuation travel.

This timeframe will enable telephone operators to arrive at their workplace, access the call list and prepare to make the necessary phone calls.

Fermi Nuclear Power Plant 122 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 1

Table 121. 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 Given:

No. of households plus other facilities, N, within the EPZ (est.) = 37,500 Est. proportion, F, of households that will not evacuate = 0.20 Allowable error margin, e: 0.05 Confidence level, : 0.95 (implies A = 1.96)

Applying Table 10 of cited reference, 0.25; 1 0.75 308 Finite population correction:

305 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 = 216.

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:

300 30 0.8 36 0.2 60 20 7.6 3600 Fermi Nuclear Power Plant 123 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 1

13 RECOMMENDATIONS The following recommendations are offered:

1. Examination of the general population ETE in Section 7 shows that the ETE for 100 percent of the population is generally 1 to 2 1/2 hours longer than for 90 percent of the population. Specifically, the additional time needed for the last 10 percent of the population to evacuate can be as much as double the time needed to evacuate 90 percent of the population. This nonlinearity reflects the fact that these relatively few stragglers require significantly more time to mobilize (i.e. prepare for the evacuation trip) than their neighbors. This leads to two recommendations:

a. The public outreach (information) program should emphasize the need for evacuees to minimize the time needed to prepare to evacuate (secure the home, assemble needed clothes, medicines, etc.).

b. The decision makers should reference Table 71 which list the time needed to evacuate 90 percent of the population, when preparing recommended protective actions, as per NUREG/CR7002 guidance.

2. Staged evacuation is not beneficial due to the low population within the 2 and 5mile regions of the plant and the limited traffic congestion within these regions.

3. A lane closure on I75 SB from the interchange with I275 (Exit 20) to the end of the EPZ at Laplaisance Rd (before Exit 9) does not have a material impact on the 90th or 100th percentile ETE. Sufficient reserve highway capacity mitigates the impacts of the capacity reduction considered.

4. Counties should implement procedures whereby schools are contacted prior to dispatch of buses from the depots to get an accurate count of students needing transportation and the number of buses required (See Section 8).

5. Intelligent Transportation Systems (ITS) such as Dynamic Message Signs (DMS), Highway Advisory Radio (HAR), Automated Traveler Information Systems (ATIS), etc. should be used to facilitate the evacuation process (See Section 9). The placement of additional signage should consider evacuation needs.

6. Counties/State should establish strategic locations to position tow trucks provided with gasoline containers in the event of a disabled vehicle during the evacuation process (see Section 11) and should encourage gas stations to remain open during the evacuation.

Fermi Nuclear Power Plant 131 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 1

APPENDIX A Glossary of Traffic Engineering Terms

A. GLOSSARY OF TRAFFIC ENGINEERING TERMS Table A1. Glossary of Traffic Engineering Terms Term Definition Analysis Network A graphical representation of the geometric topology of a physical roadway system, which is comprised of directional links and nodes.

Link A network link represents a specific, onedirectional section of roadway. A link has both physical (length, number of lanes, topology, etc.) and operational (turn movement percentages, service rate, freeflow speed) characteristics.

Measures of Effectiveness Statistics describing traffic operations on a roadway network.

Node A network node generally represents an intersection of network links. A node has control characteristics, i.e., the allocation of service time to each approach link.

Origin A location attached to a network link, within the EPZ or Shadow Region, where trips are generated at a specified rate in vehicles per hour (vph). These trips enter the roadway system to travel to their respective destinations.

Prevailing Roadway and Relates to the physical features of the roadway, the nature (e.g.,

Traffic Conditions composition) of traffic on the roadway and the ambient conditions (weather, visibility, pavement conditions, etc.).

Service Rate Maximum rate at which vehicles, executing a specific turn maneuver, can be discharged from a section of roadway at the prevailing conditions, expressed in vehicles per second (vps) or 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.

Fermi Nuclear Power Plant A1 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 1

Term Definition Signal Phase A set of signal indications (and intervals) which services a particular combination of traffic movements on selected approaches to the intersection. The phase duration is expressed in seconds.

Traffic (Trip) Assignment A process of assigning traffic to paths of travel in such a way as to satisfy all trip objectives (i.e., the desire of each vehicle to travel from a specified origin in the network to a specified destination) and to optimize some stated objective or combination of objectives. In general, the objective is stated in terms of minimizing a generalized "cost". For example, "cost" may be expressed in terms of travel time.

Traffic Density The number of vehicles that occupy one lane of a roadway section of specified length at a point in time, expressed as vehicles per mile (vpm).

Traffic (Trip) Distribution A process for determining the destinations of all traffic generated at the origins. The result often takes the form of a Trip Table, which is a matrix of origindestination traffic volumes.

Traffic Simulation A computer model designed to replicate the realworld operation of vehicles on a roadway network, so as to provide statistics describing traffic performance. These statistics are called Measures of Effectiveness.

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.

Fermi Nuclear Power Plant A2 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 1

APPENDIX B DTRAD: Dynamic Traffic Assignment and Distribution Model

B. DYNAMIC TRAFFIC ASSIGNMENT AND DISTRIBUTION MODEL This section describes the integrated dynamic trip assignment and distribution model named DTRAD (Dynamic Traffic Assignment and Distribution) that is expressly designed for use in analyzing evacuation scenarios. DTRAD employs logitbased pathchoice principles and is one of the models of the DYNEVII System. The DTRAD module implements pathbased Dynamic Traffic Assignment (DTA) so that time dependent OriginDestination (OD) trips are assigned to routes over the network based on prevailing traffic conditions.

To apply the DYNEV II System, the analyst must specify the highway network, link capacity information, the timevarying volume of traffic generated at all origin centroids and, optionally, a set of accessible candidate destination nodes on the periphery of the 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 logitbased path choice model in DTRAD, so as to minimize the trip cost, as discussed later.

The traffic loading on the network and the consequent operational traffic environment of the network (density, speed, throughput on each link) vary over time as the evacuation takes place.

The DTRAD model, which is interfaced with the DYNEV simulation model, executes a succession of sessions wherein it computes the optimal routing and selection of destination nodes for the conditions that exist at that time.

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 (OD matrix) over time from one DTRAD session to the next. Another algorithm executes a mapping from the specified geometric network (linknode analysis network) that represents the physical highway system, to a path network that represents the vehicle [turn] movements. DTRAD computations are performed on the path network: DYNEV simulation model, on the geometric network.

Fermi Nuclear Power Plant B1 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 1

DTRAD Description DTRAD is the DTA module for the DYNEV II System.

When the road network under study is large, multiple routing options are usually available between trip origins and destinations. The problem of loading traffic demands and propagating them over the network links is called Network Loading and is addressed by DYNEVII using macroscopic traffic simulation modeling. Traffic assignment deals with computing the distribution of the traffic over the road network for given OD demands and is a model of the route choice of the drivers. Travel demand changes significantly over time, and the road network may have time dependent characteristics, e.g., timevarying signal timing or reduced road capacity because of lane closure, or traffic congestion. To consider these time dependencies, DTA procedures are required.

The DTRAD DTA module represents the dynamic route choice behavior of drivers, using the specification of dynamic origindestination matrices as flow input. Drivers choose their routes through the network based on the travel cost they experience (as determined by the simulation model). This allows traffic to be distributed over the network according to the timedependent conditions. The modeling principles of DTRAD include:

It is assumed that drivers not only select the best route (i.e., lowest cost path) but some also select less attractive routes. The algorithm implemented by DTRAD archives several efficient routes for each OD pair from which the drivers choose.

The choice of one route out of a set of possible routes is an outcome of discrete choice modeling. Given a set of routes and their generalized costs, the percentages of drivers that choose each route is computed. The most prevalent model for discrete choice modeling is the logit model. DTRAD uses a variant of PathSizeLogit model (PSL). PSL overcomes the drawback of the traditional multinomial logit model by incorporating an additional deterministic path size correction term to address path overlapping in the random utility expression.

DTRAD executes the TA algorithm on an abstract network representation called "the path network" which is built from the actual physical linknode 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 ca ta la sa ,

where ca is the generalized cost for link a, and , , and are cost coefficients for link travel time, distance, and supplemental cost, respectively. Distance and supplemental costs are defined as invariant properties of the network model, while travel time is a dynamic property dictated by prevailing traffic conditions. The DYNEV simulation model Fermi Nuclear Power Plant B2 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 1

computes travel times on all edges in the network and DTRAD uses that information to constantly update the costs of paths. The route choice decision model in the next simulation iteration uses these updated values to adjust the route choice behavior. This way, traffic demands are dynamically reassigned based on time dependent conditions.

The interaction between the DTRAD traffic assignment and DYNEV II simulation models is depicted in Figure B1. Each round of interaction is called a Traffic Assignment Session (TA session). A TA session is composed of multiple iterations, marked as loop B in the figure.

The supplemental cost is based on the survival distribution (a variation of the exponential distribution).The Inverse Survival Function is a cost term in DTRAD to represent the potential risk of travel toward the plant:

sa = ln (p), 0 p l ; 0 p=

dn = Distance of node, n, from the plant d0 =Distance from the plant where there is zero risk

= Scaling factor The value of do = 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.

Fermi Nuclear Power Plant B3 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 1

Network Equilibrium In 1952, John Wardrop wrote:

Under equilibrium conditions traffic arranges itself in congested networks in such a way that no individual tripmaker can reduce his path costs by switching routes.

The above statement describes the User Equilibrium definition, also called the Selfish Driver Equilibrium. It is a hypothesis that represents a [hopeful] condition that evolves over time as drivers search out alternative routes to identify those routes that minimize their respective costs. It has been found that this equilibrium objective to minimize costs is largely realized by most drivers who routinely take the same trip over the same network at the same time (i.e.,

commuters). Effectively, such drivers learn which routes are best for them over time. Thus, the traffic environment settles down to a nearequilibrium state.

Clearly, since an emergency evacuation is a sudden, unique event, it does not constitute a long term learning experience which can achieve an equilibrium state. Consequently, DTRAD was not designed as an equilibrium solution, but to represent drivers in a new and unfamiliar situation, who respond in a flexible manner to realtime information (either broadcast or observed) in such a way as to minimize their respective costs of travel.

Fermi Nuclear Power Plant B4 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 1

Start of next DTRAD Session A

Set T0 Clock time.

Archive System State at T0 Define latest Link Turn Percentages Execute Simulation Model from B time, T0 to T1 (burn time)

Provide DTRAD with link MOE at time, T1 Execute DTRAD iteration; Get new Turn Percentages Retrieve System State at T0 ;

Apply new Link Turn Percents DTRAD iteration converges?

No Yes Next iteration Simulate from T0 to T2 (DTA session duration)

Set Clock to T2 B A Figure B1. Flow Diagram of SimulationDTRAD Interface Fermi Nuclear Power Plant B5 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 1

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 link, for each turn movement, during each Time Interval (simulation time step). The model generates trips from sources and from Entry Links and introduces them onto the analysis network at rates specified by the analyst based on the mobilization time distributions. The model simulates the movements of all vehicles on all network links over time until the network is empty. At intervals, the model outputs Measures of Effectiveness (MOE) such as those listed in Table C1.

Model Features Include:

Explicit consideration is taken of the variation in density over the time step; an iterative procedure is employed to calculate an average density over the simulation time step for the purpose of computing a mean speed for moving vehicles.

Multiple turn movements can be serviced on one link; a separate algorithm is used to estimate the number of (fractional) lanes assigned to the vehicles performing each turn movement, based, in part, on the turn percentages provided by the DTRAD model.

At any point in time, traffic flow on a link is subdivided into two classifications: queued and moving vehicles. The number of vehicles in each classification is computed. Vehicle spillback, stratified by turn movement for each network link, is explicitly considered and quantified. The propagation of stopping waves from link to link is computed within each time step of the simulation. There is no vertical stacking of queues on a link.

Any link can accommodate source flow from zones via side streets and parking facilities that are not explicitly represented. This flow represents the evacuating trips that are generated at the source.

The relation between the number of vehicles occupying the link and its storage capacity is monitored every time step for every link and for every turn movement. If the available storage capacity on a link is exceeded by the demand for service, then the simulator applies a metering rate to the entering traffic from both the upstream feeders and source node to ensure that the available storage capacity is not exceeded.

A path network that represents the specified traffic movements from each network link is constructed by the model; this path network is utilized by the DTRAD model.

A twoway interface with DTRAD: (1) provides link travel times; (2) receives data that translates into link turn percentages.

Provides MOE to animation software, EVAN Calculates ETE statistics Fermi Nuclear Power Plant C1 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 1

All traffic simulation models are dataintensive. Table C2 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, multilane, urban streets or freeways. The nodes of the network generally represent intersections or points along a section where a geometric property changes (e.g. a lane drop, change in grade or free flow speed).

Figure C1 is an example of a small network representation. The freeway is defined by the sequence of links, (20,21), (21,22), and (22,23). Links (8001, 19) and (3, 8011) are Entry and Exit links, respectively. An arterial extends from node 3 to node 19 and is partially subsumed within a grid network. Note that links (21,22) and (17,19) are gradeseparated.

Table C1. Selected Measures of Effectiveness Output by DYNEV II Measure Units Applies To Vehicles Discharged Vehicles Link, Network, Exit Link Speed Miles/Hours (mph) Link, Network Density Vehicles/Mile/Lane Link Level of Service LOS Link Content Vehicles Network Travel Time Vehiclehours Network Evacuated Vehicles Vehicles Network, Exit Link Trip Travel Time Vehicleminutes/trip Network Capacity Utilization Percent Exit Link Attraction Percent of total evacuating vehicles Exit Link Max Queue Vehicles Node, Approach Time of Max Queue Hours:minutes Node, Approach Length (mi); Mean Speed (mph); Travel Route Statistics Route Time (min)

Mean Travel Time Minutes Evacuation Trips; Network Fermi Nuclear Power Plant C2 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 1

Table C2. Input Requirements for the DYNEV II Model HIGHWAY NETWORK Links defined by upstream and downstream node numbers Link lengths Number of lanes (up to 9) and channelization Turn bays (1 to 3 lanes)

Destination (exit) nodes Network topology defined in terms of downstream nodes for each receiving link Node Coordinates (X,Y)

Nuclear Power Plant Coordinates (X,Y)

GENERATED TRAFFIC VOLUMES On all entry links and source nodes (origins), by Time Period TRAFFIC CONTROL SPECIFICATIONS Traffic signals: linkspecific, turn movement specific Signal control treated as fixed time or actuated Location of traffic control points (these are represented as actuated signals)

Stop and Yield signs Rightturnonred (RTOR)

Route diversion specifications Turn restrictions Lane control (e.g. lane closure, movementspecific)

DRIVERS AND OPERATIONAL CHARACTERISTICS Drivers (vehiclespecific) response mechanisms: freeflow speed, discharge headway Bus route designation.

DYNAMIC TRAFFIC ASSIGNMENT Candidate destination nodes for each origin (optional)

Duration of DTA sessions Duration of simulation burn time Desired number of destination nodes per origin INCIDENTS Identify and Schedule of closed lanes Identify and Schedule of closed links Fermi Nuclear Power Plant C3 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 1

8011 8009 2 3 8104 8107 6 5 8008 8010 8 9 10 8007 8012 12 11 8006 8005 13 14 8014 15 25 8004 16 24 8024 17 8003 23 22 21 20 8002 Entry, Exit Nodes are 19 numbered 8xxx 8001 Figure C1. Representative Analysis Network Fermi Nuclear Power Plant C4 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 1

C.1 Methodology C.1.1 The Fundamental Diagram It is necessary to define the fundamental diagram describing flowdensity and speeddensity relationships. Rather than settling for a triangular representation, a more realistic representation that includes a capacity drop, (IR)Qmax, at the critical density when flow conditions enter the forced flow regime, is developed and calibrated for each link. This representation, shown in Figure C2, asserts a constant free speed up to a density, k , and then a linear reduction in speed in the range, k k k 45 vpm, the density at capacity. In the flowdensity plane, a quadratic relationship is prescribed in the range, k k 95 vpm which roughly represents the stopandgo condition of severe congestion. The value of flow rate, Q , corresponding to k , is approximated at 0.7 RQ . A linear relationship between k and k completes the diagram shown in Figure C2. Table C3 is a glossary of terms.

The fundamental diagram is applied to moving traffic on every link. The specified calibration values for each link are: (1) Free speed, v ; (2) Capacity, Q  ; (3) Critical density, k 45 vpm ; (4) Capacity Drop Factor, R = 0.9 ; (5) Jam density, k . Then, v , k k

. Setting k k k , then Q RQ k for 0 k k 50 . It can be shown that Q 0.98 0.0056 k RQ for k k k , where k 50 and k 175.

C.1.2 The Simulation Model The simulation model solves a sequence of unit problems. Each unit problem computes the movement of traffic on a link, for each specified turn movement, over a specified time interval (TI) which serves as the simulation time step for all links. Figure C3 is a representation of the unit problem in the timedistance plane. Table C3 is a glossary of terms that are referenced in the following description of the unit problem procedure.

Fermi Nuclear Power Plant C5 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 1

Volume, vph Capacity Drop Qmax R Qmax Qs Density, vpm Flow Regimes Speed, mph Free Forced vf R vc Density, vpm kf kc kj ks Figure C2. Fundamental Diagrams Fermi Nuclear Power Plant C6 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 1

Distance OQ OM OE Down Qb vQ Qe v

v L

Mb Me Up t1 t2 Time E1 E2 TI Figure C3. A UNIT Problem Configuration with t1 > 0 Fermi Nuclear Power Plant C7 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 1

Table C3. Glossary The maximum number of vehicles, of a particular movement, that can discharge Cap from a link within a time interval.

The number of vehicles, of a particular movement, that enter the link over the E

time interval. The portion, ETI, can reach the stopbar within the TI.

The green time: cycle time ratio that services the vehicles of a particular turn G/C movement on a link.

h The mean queue discharge headway, seconds.

k Density in vehicles per lane per mile.

The average density of moving vehicles of a particular movement over a TI, on a k

link.

L The length of the link in feet.

The queue length in feet of a particular movement, at the [beginning, end] of a L ,L time interval.

The number of lanes, expressed as a floating point number, allocated to service a LN particular movement on a link.

L The mean effective length of a queued vehicle including the vehicle spacing, feet.

M Metering factor (Multiplier): 1.

The number of moving vehicles on the link, of a particular movement, that are M ,M moving at the [beginning, end] of the time interval. These vehicles are assumed to be of equal spacing, over the length of link upstream of the queue.

The total number of vehicles of a particular movement that are discharged from a O

link over a time interval.

The components of the vehicles of a particular movement that are discharged from a link within a time interval: vehicles that were Queued at the beginning of O ,O ,O the TI; vehicles that were Moving within the link at the beginning of the TI; vehicles that Entered the link during the TI.

The percentage, expressed as a fraction, of the total flow on the link that P

executes a particular turn movement, x.

Fermi Nuclear Power Plant C8 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 1

The number of queued vehicles on the link, of a particular turn movement, at the Q ,Q

[beginning, end] of the time interval.

The maximum flow rate that can be serviced by a link for a particular movement Q 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 RQ .

RCap The remaining capacity available to service vehicles of a particular movement after that queue has been completely serviced, within a time interval, expressed as vehicles.

S Service rate for movement x, vehicles per hour (vph).

t Vehicles of a particular turn movement that enter a link over the first t seconds of a time interval, can reach the stopbar (in the absence of a queue down stream) within the same time interval.

TI The time interval, in seconds, which is used as the simulation time step.

v The mean speed of travel, in feet per second (fps) or miles per hour (mph), of moving vehicles on the link.

v The mean speed of the last vehicle in a queue that discharges from the link within the TI. This speed differs from the mean speed of moving vehicles, v.

W The width of the intersection in feet. This is the difference between the link length which extends from stopbar to stopbar and the block length.

Fermi Nuclear Power Plant C9 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 1

The formulation and the associated logic presented below are designed to solve the unit problem for each sweep over the network (discussed below), for each turn movement serviced on each link that comprises the evacuation network, and for each TI over the duration of the evacuation.

Given Q , M , L , TI , E , LN , G C , h , L , R , L , E , M Compute O , Q , M Define O O O O ; E E E

1. For the first sweep, s = 1, of this TI, get initial estimates of mean density, k , the R - factor, R and entering traffic, E , using the values computed for the final sweep of the prior TI.

For each subsequent sweep, s 1 , calculate E P O S where P , O are the relevant turn percentages from feeder link, i , and its total outflow (possibly metered) over this TI; S is the total source flow (possibly metered) during the current TI.

Set iteration counter, n = 0, k k , and E E .

2. Calculate v k such that k 130 using the analytical representations of the fundamental diagram.

Q TI G Calculate Cap 3600 C LN , in vehicles, this value may be reduced due to metering Set R 1.0 if G C 1 or if k k ; Set R 0.9 only if G C 1 and k k L

Calculate queue length, L Q LN

3. Calculate t TI . If t 0 , set t E O 0 ; Else, E E .

4. Then E E E ; t TI t

5. If Q Cap , then O Cap , O O 0 If t 0 , then Q Q M E Cap Else Q Q Cap End if Calculate Q and M using Algorithm A below

6. Else Q Cap O Q , RCap Cap O

7. If M RCap , then Fermi Nuclear Power Plant C10 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 1

t Cap

8. If t 0, O M ,O min RCap M , 0 TI Q E O If Q 0 , then Calculate Q , M with Algorithm A Else Q 0, M E End if Else t 0 O M and O 0 M M O E; Q 0 End if

9. Else M O 0 If t 0 , then O RCap , Q M O E Calculate Q and M using Algorithm A

10. Else t 0 M M If M ,

O RCap Q M O Apply Algorithm A to calculate Q and M Else O M M M O E and Q 0 End if End if End if End if

11. Calculate a new estimate of average density, k k 2k k ,

where k = density at the beginning of the TI k = density at the end of the TI k = density at the midpoint of the TI All values of density apply only to the moving vehicles.

If k k and n N where N max number of iterations, and is a convergence criterion, then Fermi Nuclear Power Plant C11 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 1

12. set n n 1 , and return to step 2 to perform iteration, n, using k k .

End if Computation of unit problem is now complete. Check for excessive inflow causing spillback.

13. If Q M , then The number of excess vehicles that cause spillback is: SB Q M ,

where W is the width of the upstream intersection. To prevent spillback, meter the outflow from the feeder approaches and from the source flow, S, during this TI by the amount, SB. That is, set SB M 1 0 , where M is the metering factor over all movements .

E S This metering factor is assigned appropriately to all feeder links and to the source flow, to be applied during the next network sweep, discussed later.

Algorithm A This analysis addresses the flow environment over a TI during which moving vehicles can join a standing or discharging queue. For the case Qb vQ shown, Q Cap, with t 0 and a queue of Qe Qe length, Q , formed by that portion of M and E that reaches the stopbar within the TI, but could v not discharge due to inadequate capacity. That is, Mb Q M E . This queue length, v Q Q M E Cap can be extended to Q L3 by traffic entering the approach during the current TI, traveling at speed, v, and reaching the rear of the t1 t3 queue within the TI. A portion of the entering TI vehicles, E E , will likely join the queue. This analysis calculates t , Q and M for the input values of L, TI, v, E, t, L , LN, Q .

When t 0 and Q Cap:

L L Define: L Q . From the sketch, L v TI t t L Q E .

LN LN Substituting E E yields: vt E L v TI t L . Recognizing that the first two terms on the right hand side cancel, solve for t to obtain:

Fermi Nuclear Power Plant C12 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 1

L t such that 0 t TI t E L v

TI LN If the denominator, v 0, set t TI t .

t t t Then, Q Q E , M E 1 TI TI The complete Algorithm A considers all flow scenarios; space limitation precludes its inclusion, here.

C.1.3 Lane Assignment The unit problem is solved for each turn movement on each link. Therefore it is necessary to calculate a value, LN , of allocated lanes for each movement, x. If in fact all lanes are specified by, say, arrows painted on the pavement, either as full lanes or as lanes within a turn bay, then the problem is fully defined. If however there remain unchannelized lanes on a link, then an analysis is undertaken to subdivide the number of these physical lanes into turn movement specific virtual lanes, LNx.

C.2 Implementation C.2.1 Computational Procedure The computational procedure for this model is shown in the form of a flow diagram as Figure C4. As discussed earlier, the simulation model processes traffic flow for each link independently over TI that the analyst specifies; it is usually 60 seconds or longer. The first step is to execute an algorithm to define the sequence in which the network links are processed so that as many links as possible are processed after their feeder links are processed, within the same network sweep. Since a general network will have many closed loops, it is not possible to guarantee that every link processed will have all of its feeder links processed earlier.

The processing then continues as a succession of time steps of duration, TI, until the simulation is completed. Within each time step, the processing performs a series of sweeps over all network links; this is necessary to ensure that the traffic flow is synchronous over the entire network. Specifically, the sweep ensures continuity of flow among all the network links; in the context of this model, this means that the values of E, M, and S are all defined for each link such that they represent the synchronous movement of traffic from each link to all of its outbound links. These sweeps also serve to compute the metering rates that control spillback.

Within each sweep, processing solves the unit problem for each turn movement on each link.

With the turn movement percentages for each link provided by the DTRAD model, an algorithm Fermi Nuclear Power Plant C13 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 1

allocates the number of lanes to each movement serviced on each link. The timing at a signal, if any, applied at the downstream end of the link, is expressed as a G/C ratio, the signal timing needed to define this ratio is an input requirement for the model. The model also has the capability of representing, with macroscopic fidelity, the actions of actuated signals responding to the timevarying competing demands on the approaches to the intersection.

The solution of the unit problem yields the values of the number of vehicles, O, that discharge from the link over the time interval and the number of vehicles that remain on the link at the end of the time interval as stratified by queued and moving vehicles: Q and M . The procedure considers each movement separately (multipiping). After all network links are processed for a given network sweep, the updated consistent values of entering flows, E; metering rates, M; and source flows, S are defined so as to satisfy the no spillback condition.

The procedure then performs the unit problem solutions for all network links during the following sweep.

Experience has shown that the system converges (i.e. the values of E, M and S settle down for all network links) in just two sweeps if the network is entirely undersaturated or in four sweeps in the presence of extensive congestion with link spillback. (The initial sweep over each link uses the final values of E and M, of the prior TI). At the completion of the final sweep for a TI, the procedure computes and stores all 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 Q and M for the start of the next TI as being those values of Q and M at the end of the prior TI. In this manner, the simulation model processes the traffic flow over time until the end of the run. Note that there is no spacediscretization other than the specification of network links.

Fermi Nuclear Power Plant C14 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 1

Sequence Network Links Next Timestep, of duration, TI A

Next sweep; Define E, M, S for all B

Links C Next Link D Next Turn Movement, x Get lanes, LNx Service Rate, Sx ; G/Cx Get inputs to Unit Problem:

Q b , Mb , E Solve Unit Problem: Q e , Me , O No D Last Movement ?

Yes No Last Link ? C Yes No B Last Sweep ?

Yes Calc., store all Link MOE Set up next TI :

No A Last Time - step ?

Yes DONE Figure C4. Flow of Simulation Processing (See Glossary: Table C3)

Fermi Nuclear Power Plant C15 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 1

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 (OD matrix) over time from one DTRAD session to the next.

Figure B1 depicts the interaction of the simulation model with the DTRAD model in the DYNEV II system. As indicated, DYNEV II performs a succession of DTRAD sessions; each such session computes the turn link percentages for each link that remain constant for the session duration, T , T , specified by the analyst. The end product is the assignment of traffic volumes from each origin to paths connecting it with its destinations in such a way as to minimize the networkwide cost function. The output of the DTRAD model is a set of updated link turn percentages which represent this assignment of traffic.

As indicated in Figure B1, the simulation model supports the DTRAD session by providing it with operational link MOE that are needed by the path choice model and included in the DTRAD cost function. These MOE represent the operational state of the network at a time, T T , which lies within the session duration, T , T . This burn time, T T , is selected by the analyst. For each DTRAD iteration, the simulation model computes the change in network operations over this burn time using the latest set of link turn percentages computed by the DTRAD model. Upon convergence of the DTRAD iterative procedure, the simulation model accepts the latest turn percentages provided by the DTA model, returns to the origin time, T , and executes until it arrives at the end of the DTRAD session duration at time, T . At this time the next DTA session is launched and the whole process repeats until the end of the DYNEV II run.

Additional details are presented in Appendix B.

Fermi Nuclear Power Plant C16 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 1

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 D1.

Each numbered step in the description that follows corresponds to the numbered element in the flow diagram.

Step 1 The first activity was to obtain EPZ boundary information and create a GIS base map. The base map extends beyond the Shadow Region which extends approximately 15 miles (radially) from the power plant location. The base map incorporates the local roadway topology, a suitable topographic background and the EPZ boundary.

Step 2 2010 Census block information was obtained in GIS format. This information was used to estimate the resident population within the EPZ and Shadow Region and to define the spatial distribution and demographic characteristics of the population within the study area. Employee data were estimated from county emergency managers, internet searches and from phone calls to major employers. Transient data were obtained from county emergency management agencies, from phone calls to transient attractions and estimations based on similar facilities.

Information concerning schools, medical and other types of special facilities within the EPZ was obtained from county and municipal sources.

Step 3 A kickoff meeting was conducted with major stakeholders (state and county emergency managers, onsite and offsite utility emergency managers). 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 county 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 Next, 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 pretimed traffic signals, and to make the necessary observations needed to estimate realistic values of roadway capacity.

Step 5 A telephone survey of households within the EPZ was conducted to identify household dynamics, trip generation characteristics, and evacuationrelated demographic information of the EPZ population. This information was used to determine important study factors including Fermi Nuclear Power Plant D1 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 1

the average number of evacuating vehicles used by each household, and the time required to perform preevacuation mobilization activities.

Step 6 A computerized representation of the physical roadway system, called a linknode analysis network, was developed using the UNITES software developed by KLD. Once the geometry of the network was completed, the network was calibrated using the information gathered during the road survey (Step 4). Estimates of highway capacity for each link and other linkspecific characteristics were introduced to the network description. Traffic signal timings were input accordingly. The linknode analysis network was imported into a GIS map. 2010 Census data 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 5 PAAs. Based on wind direction and speed, Regions (groupings of PAA) that may be advised to evacuate, were developed.

The need for evacuation can occur over a range of timeofday, dayofweek, seasonal and weatherrelated conditions. Scenarios were developed to capture the variation in evacuation demand, highway capacity and mobilization time, for different time of day, day of the week, time of year, and weather conditions.

Step 8 The input stream for the DYNEV II 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 modelassigned destinations, based on professional judgment, after studying the topology of the analysis highway network. The model produces link and networkwide measures of effectiveness as well as estimates of evacuation time.

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 Fermi Nuclear Power Plant D2 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 1

is a laborintensive 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 transitdependent evacuees and special facilities are included in the evacuation analysis. Fixed routing for transit buses and for school buses, ambulances, and other transit vehicles are introduced into the final prototype evacuation case data set. DYNEV II generates routespecific speeds over time for use in the estimation of evacuation times for the transit dependent and special facility population groups.

Step 14 The prototype evacuation case was used as the basis for generating all region and scenario specific evacuation cases to be simulated. This process was automated through the UNITES user Fermi Nuclear Power Plant D3 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 1

interface. For each specific case, the population to be evacuated, the trip generation distributions, the highway capacity and speeds, and other factors are adjusted to produce a customized casespecific data set.

Step 15 All evacuation cases are executed using the DYNEV II System to compute ETE. Once results were available, quality control procedures were used to assure the results were consistent, dynamic routing was reasonable, and traffic congestion/bottlenecks were addressed properly.

Step 16 Once vehicular evacuation results are accepted, average travel speeds for transit and special facility routes were used to compute evacuation time estimates for transitdependent permanent residents, schools, hospitals, and other special facilities.

Step 17 The simulation results are analyzed, tabulated and graphed. The results were then documented, as required by NUREG/CR7002.

Step 18 Following the completion of documentation activities, the ETE criteria checklist (see Appendix N) was completed. An appropriate report reference is provided for each criterion provided in the checklist.

Fermi Nuclear Power Plant D4 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 1

A Step 1 Step 10 Create GIS Base Map Examine Results of Prototype Evacuation Case using EVAN and DYNEV II Output Step 2 Gather Census Block and Demographic Data for Results Satisfactory Study Area Step 11 Step 3 Modify Evacuation Destinations and/or Develop Conduct Kickoff Meeting with Stakeholders Traffic Control Treatments Step 4 Step 12 Field Survey of Roadways within Study Area Modify Database to Reflect Changes to Prototype Evacuation Case Step 5 Conduct Telephone Survey and Develop Trip Generation Characteristics B

Step 13 Step 6 Establish Transit and Special Facility Evacuation Create and Calibrate LinkNode 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 B Execute DYNEV II for Prototype Evacuation Case Step 17 Documentation A Step 18 Complete ETE Criteria Checklist Figure D1. Flow Diagram of Activities Fermi Nuclear Power Plant D5 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 1

APPENDIX E Special Facility Data

E. SPECIAL FACILITY DATA The following tables list population information, as of September 2012, for special facilities, transient attractions and major employers that are located within the Fermi EPZ. Special facilities are defined as schools, hospitals and 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. Each table is grouped by county. The location of the facility is defined by its straightline distance (miles) and direction (magnetic bearing) from the center point of the plant. Maps of each school, medical facility, recreational area, lodging facility, and major employer are also provided.

Fermi Nuclear Power Plant E1 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 1

Table E1. Schools within the EPZ Distance Dire Enroll PAA (miles) ction School Name Street Address Municipality Phone ment Staff MONROE COUNTY 1 2.3 NNW North Elementary School 8271 North Dixie Highway Newport (734) 5866784 425 23 2 3.5 NW Neidermeier Elementary School 8400 S. Newport Rd. S. Rockwood (734) 6542121 306 16 2 2.6 NW St. Charles School 8125 Swan Creek Monroe (734) 5862531 194 10 3 2.9 WSW Jefferson High School 5707 Williams Rd. Monroe (734) 2895555 775 45 3 3.0 WSW Jefferson Middle School 5201 N. Stony Creek Rd. Monroe (734) 2895565 365 21 3 3.6 WSW Sodt Elementary School 2888 Nadeau Rd. Monroe (734) 5866784 344 20 4 8.1 NW Airport Senior High School 11330 Grafton Rd. Carleton (734) 6546208 1,050 55 4 9.7 NW Carleton Country Day School 12707 Maxwell Rd Carleton (734) 6548424 114 11 1335 CarletonS.

4 8.4 NW Eyler Elementary School Carleton (734) 6542121 300 19 Rockwood Rd.

5650 CarletonS.

4 6.6 N Ritter Elementary School S. Rockwood (734) 3795335 300 18 Rockwood Rd.

4 9.1 WNW St. Patrick School 2970 West Labo Rd. Carleton (734) 6542522 134 13 4 8.1 NW Sterling Elementary School 160 Fessner Rd. Carleton (734) 6546846 313 17 4 8.0 NW Wager Junior High School 11200 Grafton Rd. Carleton (734) 6542522 740 44 5 10.6 WSW Custer Elementary School #1 5003 West Albain Rd. Monroe (734) 2654300 650 48 5 10.7 WSW Custer Elementary School #2 5001 West Albain Rd. Monroe (734) 2654300 294 10 5 7.0 WSW Hollywood Elementary School 1135 Riverview Avenue Monroe (734) 2654500 237 21 5 8.9 W Holy Ghost Lutheran School 3563 Heiss Rd. Monroe (734) 2420509 100 10 5 5.1 WSW Hurd Elementary School 1960 E. Hurd Rd Monroe (734) 2895580 420 50 5 5.7 WNW Lutheran High School South 8210 North Telegraph Rd. Monroe (734) 5868832 36 6 5 8.6 WSW Manor Elementary School 1731 West Lorain St. Monroe (734) 2654700 406 36 5 8.3 WSW Monroe Middle School 503 Washington St. Monroe (734) 2654000 941 59 5 9.9 WSW Monroe Senior High School 901 Herr Rd. Monroe (734) 2653400 2,130 118 5 7.7 SW Orchard Center High School 1750 Oak St. Monroe (734) 2653700 175 15 5 7.6 WSW Pathway Christian Academy/ Daycare 1199 Stewart Rd. Monroe (734) 2411002 138 22 5 9.7 W Raisinville Elementary School 2300 North Raisinville Rd. Monroe (734) 2654800 425 25 5 8.4 WSW Riverside Elementary School 77 North Roessler St. Monroe (734) 2654900 162 9 5 8.3 WSW St. John's School 521 South Monroe St. Monroe (734) 4211670 211 16 Fermi Nuclear Power Plant E2 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 1

Distance Dire Enroll PAA (miles) ction School Name Street Address Municipality Phone ment Staff St. Mary's Catholic Center High 5 8.0 WSW 108 West Elm Avenue Monroe (734) 2410663 411 33 School 5 7.9 WSW St. Mary's Parish School 151 North Monroe St. Monroe (734) 4213377 248 14 5 8.3 WSW St. Michael's School 510 West Front St. Monroe (734) 2413923 185 14 5 8.1 WSW Trinity Lutheran School 315 Scott St. Monroe (734) 2411160 220 12 5 9.3 WSW Waterloo Elementary School 1933 South Custer Rd. Monroe (734) 2655100 250 14 5 6.9 WSW Zion Lutheran School 186 Cole Rd. Monroe (734) 2421378 62 5 Monroe County Subtotals: 13,061 849 WAYNE COUNTY 4 7.6 N Chapman Elementary School 31500 Olmstead Rd Rockwood (734) 3793766 503 53 David Oren Hunter Elementary 4 9.4 N 21320 Roche Rd Brownstown (734) 6769550 422 68 School 4 7.3 NNE Downriver High School 33211 McCann Rd Rockwood (734) 3794704 62 12 4 9.2 N Ethel C. Bobcean Elementary School 28300 Evergreen St Flat Rock (734) 7823005 483 60 4 9.0 N Flat Rock / Gibraltar Head Start 28639 Division St Flat Rock (734) 3796810 175 0 4 9.3 N Flat Rock Community High School 28100 Aspen Dr Flat Rock (734) 7821270 568 49 4 8.6 NNE Hellen C. Shumate Junior High School 30550 W Jefferson Ave Gibraltar (734) 3797600 895 56 4 8.3 N John M. Barnes Elementary School 24925 Meadows Dr Flat Rock (734) 7822113 429 35 4 8.5 NNE Oscar A. Carlson High School 30550 W Jefferson Ave Gibraltar (734) 3797100 1,074 67 4 9.3 NNE Parsons Elementary School 14473 Middle Gibraltar Rd Gibraltar (734) 6769550 447 53 4 8.4 N Simpson Middle School 24900 Meadows Dr Flat Rock (734) 7822453 431 33 St. Mary's Rockwood Elementary 4 7.1 N 32447 Church St Rockwood (734) 3799285 220 15 School Summit Academy/Summit Early 4 8.4 N 30100 Omstead Rd Flat Rock (734) 3796810 403 60 Childhood Center Wayne County Subtotals: 6,112 561 TOTAL: 19,173 1,410 Fermi Nuclear Power Plant E3 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 1

Table E2. Medical Facilities within the EPZ Ambul Wheel Bed Distance Dire Current atory chair ridden PAA (miles) ction Facility Name Street Address Municipality Phone Capacity Census Patients Patients Patients MONROE COUNTY 5 7.5 W ALCC 2590 N Monroe St Monroe (734) 2434000 21 12 6 6 0 5 8.8 WSW Alterra 1605 Fredericks Dr Monroe (734) 2415700 20 15 15 0 0 5 8.5 WSW IHM Motherhouse 610 W Elm Ave Monroe (734) 7773482 210 192 177 13 2 5 8.2 WSW Lutheran Home 1236 S Monroe St Monroe (734) 2419533 115 115 106 8 1 5 8.3 W Maplewood Manor 3250 N Monroe St Monroe (734) 2435100 120 110 101 8 1 5 8.0 WSW Medilodge II 481 Village Green Ln Monroe (734) 2426282 103 92 85 6 1 Mercy Memorial 5 6.5 WSW 718 N Macomb St Monroe (734) 2408400 168 168 69 69 30 Hospital Mercy Memorial 5 7.2 WSW 700 Stewart Rd Monroe (734) 2401888 70 60 59 0 1 Nursing Center 1215 N Telegraph 5 6.1 WSW Tendercare of Monroe Monroe (734) 2424848 192 175 161 12 2 Rd Monroe County Subtotals: 1,019 939 779 122 38 WAYNE COUNTY 4 2.6 N Marybrook Residence 23201 Gibraltar Rd Flat Rock (734) 7820015 12 11 10 1 0 Wayne County Subtotals: 12 11 10 1 0 TOTAL: 1,031 950 789 123 38 Fermi Nuclear Power Plant E4 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 1

Table E3. Major Employers within the EPZ Distance Dire Employees  % Non Employees PAA (miles) ction Facility Name Street Address Municipality Phone (max shift) EPZ (Non EPZ)

MONROE COUNTY 1 7.0 SSW Fermi II NuclearPower Plant 6400 N Dixie Hwy Newport (734) 5865300 867 55% 477 2 4.5 NW Meijer Distribution Center 8857 Swan Creek Rd Newport (734) 5867100 450 39% 176 3 8.2 WSW Jefferson Public Schools 2400 N Dixie Hwy Monroe (734) 2895550 300 39% 117 3 9.3 W TWB Company LLC 1600 Nadeau Rd Monroe (734) 2896400 40 40% 16 4 8.0 NW Airport Community Schools 11270 Grafton Rd Carleton (734) 6542414 80 51% 41 4 7.2 NW Detroit Auto Action 600 Will Carleton Rd Carleton (734) 6547100 400 70% 280 4 7.5 NW Four Star Greenhouse 1015 Indian Trail Rd Carleton (734) 6546420 320 39% 125 4 6.7 NW Four Star Greenhouse 1199 E Sigler Rd Carleton (734) 6546420 125 39% 49 4 8.0 NNW Guardian Industries 14600 Romine Rd Carleton (734) 6546264 185 80% 148 Guardian Science &

4 9.4 NNW 14511 Romine Rd Carleton (734) 6541111 130 90% 117 Technology Center 4 9.6 NNW KC Transportation 888 Will Carleton Rd Carleton (734) 6544600 100 70% 70 5 7.5 WSW Bay Corrugated 1655 W 7th St Monroe (734) 2435400 250 39% 98 5 7.9 WSW County of Monroe 125 E. 2nd St Monroe (734) 2407046 200 50% 100 5 6.6 SW Detroit Stoker 1510 E 1st St Monroe (734) 2419500 160 39% 62 5 10.3 WSW Frenchtown Square Mall 2121 N Monroe St Monroe (734) 2429150 455 25% 114 5 3.7 WSW LaZBoy Incorporated 1284 N Telegraph Rd Monroe (734) 2421444 480 40% 192 5 10.4 SW MACSTEEL 3000 E Front St Monroe (734) 2432446 148 60% 89 5 7.2 WSW Meijer (Frenchtown Store) 1700 N Telegraph Rd Monroe (734) 3848001 156 39% 61 Mercy Memorial Hospital 5 8.1 WSW 725 N Monroe St Monroe (734) 2408940 1,200 39% 468 System 5 10.3 WSW Monroe Backyard Products 1000 Ternes Dr. Monroe (734) 2426900 70 39% 27 5 4.5 WSW Monroe Bank & Trust 10 Washington St Monroe (734) 2413431 100 80% 80 14500 Laplaisance 5 7.0 SW Monroe Factory Shops Monroe (734) 7350894 113 39% 44 Road 5 6.9 SW Monroe Power Plant 3500 E Front St Monroe (734) 3842201 687 55% 378 Fermi Nuclear Power Plant E5 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 1

Distance Dire Employees  % Non Employees PAA (miles) ction Facility Name Street Address Municipality Phone (max shift) EPZ (Non EPZ) 5 7.6 WSW Monroe Public Schools 1275 N Macomb St Monroe (734) 2653000 40 25% 10 5 9.2 WSW Monroe Publishing Company 20 W 1st St Monroe (734) 2421100 125 39% 49 5 7.2 WSW National Galvanizing 1500 Telb St Monroe (734) 2431882 100 39% 39 5 10.3 WSW Pioneer Metal Finishing 525 Ternes Dr Monroe (734) 3841323 130 39% 51 Sisters, Servants of the 5 8.1 WSW 610 W Elm Ave Monroe (734) 2413660 186 15% 28 Immaculate Heart of Mary 5 6.4 WSW SYGMA Network 660 Detroit Ave Monroe (734) 2412890 70 50% 35 5 6.7 W WalMart 2155 N Telegraph Rd Monroe (734) 2422280 75 39% 29 Monroe County Subtotals: 7,742 3,570 WAYNE COUNTY 4 3.3 N Auto Alliance International 1 International Drive Flat Rock (734) 7827800 3,145 39% 1,227 Wayne County Subtotals: 3,145 1,227 TOTAL: 10,887 4,797 Fermi Nuclear Power Plant E6 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 1

Table E4. Parks/Recreational Attractions within the EPZ Distance Dire PAA (miles) ction Facility Name Street Address Municipality Phone Transients Vehicles MONROE COUNTY 1 10.4 SW Brest Bay Marina 4088 Brest Rd Newport (734) 2891234 30 15 1 9.5 NNW Swan Yacht Basin 5898 Trombley Rd Newport (734) 5862762 14 7 2 8.7 NNW Lilac Brothers Golf Course 9090 Armstrong Rd New Port (734) 5867555 50 50 2 7.9 NNE Point Mouillee State Game Area 2,000 870 37205 Point Mouille Rd Brownstown (734) 3799692 4 6.4 NW Carleton Glen Golf Club 13470 Grafton Road Carlton (734) 6546201 50 50 4 6.1 N Wesburn Golf & Country Club 5617 S Huron River Dr S Rockwood (734) 3793555 50 50 5 9.5 SW Charlie's Boat & Bait 13468 Laplaisance Rd Monroe (734) 2411545 40 40 5 10.4 SW Erie Party Shoppe & Docks 6838 Laplaisance Rd Monroe (734) 2422833 1,000 500 5 6.2 WSW Frenchtown Square Mall 2121 N Monroe St Monroe (734) 2429150 400 200 5 9.6 SW Harbor Marina 13950 Bridge St Monroe (734) 2412833 50 25 5 9.3 SW Miller Boat Marina 6838 Laplaisance Rd Monroe (734) 2427734 50 25 5 5.5 SW Monroe Factory Shops 14500 Laplaisance Rd Monroe (734) 7350894 800 400 5 6.7 WSW Monroe Golf & Country Club 611 Cole Rd Monroe (734) 2416531 50 50 5 8.7 WSW Raisin River Country Club 1500 N Dixie Hwy Monroe (734) 2893700 50 50 5 6.8 SW Riverfront Marina 1560 E Elm Ave Monroe (734) 2420737 150 75 5 8.1 W Sandy Creek Golf Course 3177 Heiss Rd Monroe (734) 2427200 50 50 5 4.6 SW Sterling State Park 2800 State Park Rd Monroe (734) 2892715 4,302 1,937 5 7.3 SW Trout's Yacht Basin 7970 Bolles Harbor Dr Monroe (734) 2425545 50 25 Monroe County Subtotals: 9,186 4,419 WAYNE COUNTY 13400 Middle Gibraltar 4 6.9 NNE Humbug Marina, Inc. Rockwood (734) 6766633 400 200 Rd 4 7.4 NNE Lake Erie Metro Park 32481 W Jefferson Brownstown (734) 3795020 2,300 1,000 4 5.5 NNE Lake Erie Metropark Golf Course 14786 Lee Rd Brownstown (734) 3790048 Included with the park Lake Erie Metropark Harbor of 4 9.1 NNE 14786 Lee Road Brownstown (734) 3790048 Included with the park Refuge Wayne County Subtotals: 2,700 1,200 TOTAL: 11,886 5,619 Fermi Nuclear Power Plant E7 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 1

Table E5. Lodging Facilities within the EPZ Distance Dire PAA (miles) ction Facility Name Street Address Municipality Phone Transients Vehicles MONROE COUNTY 4 9.2 NNW Eva's Motel 11920 Telegraph Rd Carleton (734) 6549143 20 10 4 9.6 NW Carlton Hotel 927 Monroe St Carleton (734) 6546910 16 8 4 7.8 NW Glee Motel 10195 Telegraph Rd Carleton (734) 5868100 16 8 5 6.6 SW Baymont Inn & Suites Monroe 14774 Laplaisance Rd Monroe (248) 9317694 100 50 5 5.7 WSW Best Value Inn 1885 Welcome Way Monroe (734) 2891080 178 89 5 9.6 WSW Best Western 1900 Welcome Way Monroe (734) 2892330 192 96 5 9.1 SW Comfort Inn 6500 East Albain Rd Monroe (734) 3841500 104 52 5 8.1 WSW Del Rio Suites & Hotel 215 E Elm St Monroe (734) 2429400 40 20 5 6.2 WSW Hampton Inn Monroe 1565 North Dixie Hwy Monroe (734) 2895700 118 59 5 8.4 WSW Hollywood Motel 1028 N Telegraph Rd Monroe (734) 2417333 20 10 5 8.1 WSW Hotel Sterling 109 W Front St Monroe (734) 2426212 79 39 5 5.8 WSW Knights Inn 1250 N Dixie Hwy Monroe (734) 2430597 176 88 5 9.6 WSW Monroe Motel 15339 S Telegraph Rd Monroe (734) 2416443 20 10 5 9.3 WSW Motel Seven 15390 S Dixie Hwy Monroe (734) 3841100 54 27 5 5.7 WSW Quality Inn & Suites 1225 N Dixie Hwy Monroe (734) 2420555 258 129 5 10.2 WSW Sunset Motel 450 N Telegraph Rd Monroe (734) 2423448 12 6 5 5.9 WSW Travel Inn Suites & Spas 1440 N Dixie Hwy Monroe (734) 2892000 80 40 Monroe County Subtotals: 1,483 741 WAYNE COUNTY 4 10.0 N Best Motel 27527 Telegraph Rd Flat Rock (734) 7829399 38 19 4 0.4 N Poplar Motel 26831 Telegraph Rd Flat Rock (734) 7823716 14 7 4 8.8 N Ram's Motel 27541 Telegraph Rd Flat Rock (734) 7832933 16 8 4 7.1 N Sleep Inn 29101 Commerce Dr Flat Rock (734) 7829898 100 50 Wayne County Subtotals: 168 84 TOTAL: 1,651 825 Fermi Nuclear Power Plant E8 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 1

Table E6. Correctional Facilities within the EPZ Distance Dire PAA (miles) ction Facility Name Street Address Municipality Phone Staff Census MONROE COUNTY 5 7.9 WSW Monroe County Jail Facility #1 100 E 2nd St Monroe (743) 2407400 37 183 5 8.5 SW Monroe County Jail Facility #2 7000 E Dunbar Rd Monroe (743) 2407400 37 160 Monroe County Subtotal: 74 343 TOTAL: 74 343 Fermi Nuclear Power Plant E9 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 1

Figure E1. Schools within the EPZ (1 of 3)

Fermi Nuclear Power Plant E10 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 1

Figure E2. Schools within the EPZ (2 of 3)

Fermi Nuclear Power Plant E11 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 1

Figure E3. Schools within the EPZ (3 of 3)

Fermi Nuclear Power Plant E12 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 1

Figure E4. Medical Faciities within the EPZ Fermi Nuclear Power Plant E13 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 1

Figure E5. Major Employers within the EPZ (1 of 2)

Fermi Nuclear Power Plant E14 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 1

Figure E6. Major Employers within the EPZ (2 of 2)

Fermi Nuclear Power Plant E15 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 1

Figure E7. Recreational Areas within the EPZ Fermi Nuclear Power Plant E16 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 1

Figure E8. Lodging Facilities within the EPZ Fermi Nuclear Power Plant E17 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 1

Figure E9. Correctional Facilities within the EPZ Fermi Nuclear Power Plant E18 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 1

APPENDIX F Telephone Survey

F. TELEPHONE SURVEY F.1 Introduction The development of evacuation time estimates for the Fermi EPZ requires the identification of travel patterns, car ownership and household size of the population within the EPZ.

Demographic information can be obtained from Census data. The use of this data has several limitations when applied to emergency planning. First, the Census data do not encompass the range of information needed to identify the time required for preliminary activities (mobilization) that must be undertaken prior to evacuating the area. Secondly, Census data do not contain attitudinal responses needed from the population of the EPZ and consequently may not accurately represent the anticipated behavioral characteristics of the evacuating populace.

These concerns are addressed by conducting a telephone survey of a representative sample of the EPZ population. The survey is designed to elicit information from the public concerning family demographics and estimates of response times to well defined events. The design of the survey includes a limited number of questions of the form What would you do if ? and other questions regarding activities with which the respondent is familiar (How long does it take you to ?)

Fermi Nuclear Power Plant F1 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 1

F.2 Survey Instrument and Sampling Plan Attachment A presents the final survey instrument used in this study. A draft of the instrument was submitted to stakeholders for comment. Comments were received and the survey instrument was modified accordingly, prior to conducting the survey.

Following the completion of the instrument, a sampling plan was developed. A sample size of approximately 550 completed survey forms yields results with a sampling error of +/-4.17% at the 95% confidence level. The sample must be drawn from the EPZ population. Consequently, a list of zip codes in the EPZ was developed using GIS software. This list is shown in Table F1.

Along with each zip code, an estimate of the population and number of households in each area was determined by overlaying Census data and the EPZ boundary, again using GIS software. The proportional number of desired completed survey interviews for each area was identified, as shown in Table F1. Note that the average household size computed in Table F1 was an estimate for sampling purposes and was not used in the ETE study.

The completed survey adhered to the sampling plan.

Table F1. Fermi Telephone Survey Sampling Plan Population within Required Zip Code EPZ (2000) Households Sample 48117 7,333 2,683 42 48134 8,958 3,430 54 48145 112 35 0 48161 20,502 8,042 126 48162 27,406 10,634 166 48166 10,468 3,677 57 48173 10,247 3,968 62 48179 3,067 1,100 17 48183 4,606 1,661 26 Total 92,699 35,230 550 Average Household Size: 2.63 The survey discussed herein was performed in 2007 for the preparation of a COLA licensing effort. The EPZ population has increased by about 5.5 percent (5,126 people) between the 2000 and 2010 Census (see Section 3.1). In the intervening period, the nature of the EPZ has not changed. Consequently, the use of 2007 telephone survey results can be justified on this basis.

Fermi Nuclear Power Plant F2 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 1

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 dont 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 F1 presents the distribution of household size within the EPZ. The average household contains 2.72 people. The estimated household size (2.63 persons) used to determine the survey sample (Table F1) was drawn from 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.

Fermi Household Size 40%

30%

% of Households 20%

10%

0%

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Household Size Figure F1. Household Size in the EPZ Fermi Nuclear Power Plant F3 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 1

Automobile Ownership The average number of automobiles available per household in the EPZ is 1.99. It should be noted that approximately 4.2 percent of households do not have access to an automobile. The distribution of automobile ownership is presented in Figure F2. Figure F3 and Figure F4 present the automobile availability by household size. 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.

Fermi Vehicle Availability 60%

50%

% of Households 40%

30%

20%

10%

0%

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9+

Number of Vehicles Figure F2. Household Vehicle Availability Fermi Nuclear Power Plant F4 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 1

Distribution of Vehicles by HH Size 14 Person Households 1 Person 2 People 3 People 4 People 100%

80%

% of Households 60%

40%

20%

0%

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Vehicles Figure F3. Vehicle Availability 1 to 5 Person Households Distribution of Vehicles by HH Size 57 Person Households 5 People 6 People 7 People 100%

80%

% of Households 60%

40%

20%

0%

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Vehicles Figure F4. Vehicle Availability 6 to 9+ Person Households Fermi Nuclear Power Plant F5 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 1

Commuters Figure F5 presents the distribution of the number of commuters in each household.

Commuters are defined as household members who travel to work or college on a daily basis.

The data shows an average of 1.05 commuters in each household in the EPZ, and 62% of households have at least one commuter.

Fermi Commuters 50%

40%

% of Households 30%

20%

10%

0%

0 1 2 3 4+

Number of Commuters Figure F5. Commuters in Households in the EPZ Fermi Nuclear Power Plant F6 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 1

Commuter Travel Modes Figure F6 presents the mode of travel that commuters use on a daily basis. The vast majority of commuters use their private automobiles to travel to work. The data shows an average of 1.01 employees per vehicle, assuming 2 people per vehicle - on average - for carpools.

Fermi Travel Mode to Work 120%

97.9%

100%

80%

% of Commuters 60%

40%

20%

0.0% 0.3% 1.2% 0.6%

0%

Rail Bus Walk/Bike Drive Alone Carpool (2+)

Mode of Travel Figure F6. Modes of Travel in the EPZ F.3.2 Evacuation Response Several questions were asked to gauge the populations response to an emergency. These are now discussed:

How many of the vehicles would your household use during an evacuation? The response is shown in Figure F7. 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 the survey participants who responded, 55 percent said they would await the return of other family members before evacuating and 45 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 to the survey, 70 percent of households have a family pet.

Of the households with pets, 79 percent of them indicated that they would take their pets with them, as shown in Figure F8.

Fermi Nuclear Power Plant F7 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 1

Vehicles Used for Evacuation 100%

80%

60%

% of Households 40%

20%

0%

0 1 2 3 4 Number of Vehicles Figure F7. Number of Vehicles Used for Evacuation Households Evacuating with Pets 100%

80%

% of Households 60%

40%

20%

0%

Yes No Figure F8. Households Evacuating with Pets Fermi Nuclear Power Plant F8 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 1

F.3.3 Time Distribution Results The survey asked several questions about the amount of time it takes to perform certain pre evacuation activities. These activities involve actions taken by residents during the course of their daytoday lives. Thus, the answers fall within the realm of the responders experience.

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.

Fermi Nuclear Power Plant F9 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 1

How long does it take the commuter to complete preparation for leaving work? Figure F9 presents the cumulative distribution; in all cases, the activity is completed by about 90 minutes.

Ninetyfour percent can leave within 45 minutes.

Time to Prepare to Leave Work 100%

80%

% of Commuters 60%

40%

20%

0%

0 15 30 45 60 75 90 Preparation Time (min)

Figure F9. Time Required to Prepare to Leave Work/School How long would it take the commuter to travel home? Figure F10 presents the work to home travel time for the EPZ. Ninetyfour percent of commuters can arrive home within 45 minutes of leaving work; all within 90 minutes.

Work to Home Travel 100%

80%

% of Commuters 60%

40%

20%

0%

0 15 30 45 60 75 90 Travel Time (min)

Figure F10. Work to Home Travel Time Fermi Nuclear Power Plant F10 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 1

How long would it take the family to pack clothing, secure the house, and load the car?

Figure F11 presents the time required to prepare for leaving on an evacuation trip. In many ways this activity mimics a familys preparation for a short holiday or weekend away from home. Hence, the responses represent the experience of the responder in performing similar activities.

The distribution shown in Figure F11 has a long tail. About 96 percent of households can be ready to leave home within 75 minutes; the remaining households require up to an additional hour.

Time to Prepare to Leave Home 100%

80%

% of Households 60%

40%

20%

0%

0 15 30 45 60 75 90 105 120 135 Preparation Time (min)

Figure F11. Time to Prepare Home for Evacuation Fermi Nuclear Power Plant F11 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 1

How long would it take you to clear 6 to 8 inches of snow from your driveway? During adverse, snowy weather conditions, an additional activity must be performed before residents can depart on the evacuation trip. Although snow scenarios assume that the roads and highways have been plowed and are passable (albeit at lower speeds and capacities), it may be necessary to clear a private driveway prior to leaving the home so that the vehicle can access the street. Figure F12 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 93 percent of driveways are passable within 60 minutes. The last driveway is cleared 135 minutes after the start of this activity.

Time to Remove Snow from Driveway 100%

80%

% of Households 60%

40%

20%

0%

0 15 30 45 60 75 90 105 120 135 Time (min)

Figure F12. Time to Clear Driveway of 6"8" of Snow F.4 Conclusions The telephone survey provides valuable, relevant data associated with the EPZ population, which have been used to quantify demographics specific to the EPZ, and mobilization time which can influence evacuation time estimates.

Fermi Nuclear Power Plant F12 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 1

ATTACHMENT A Telephone Survey Instrument Fermi Nuclear Power Plant F13 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 1

Survey Instrument Hello, my name is _______________ and I'm working COL.1 Unused on a survey being made for [insert marketing firm COL.2 Unused name] designed to identify local travel patterns COL.3 Unused in your area. The survey will be used for emergency plans in response to hazards that are not weather-related. The information obtained will be used in a traffic engineering study and in COL.4 Unused connection with an update of the countys COL.5 Unused emergency response plans. Your participation in this survey will greatly enhance the countys emergency preparedness program. Sex COL. 8 1 Male 2 Female INTERVIEWER: ASK TO SPEAK TO THE HEAD OF HOUSEHOLD OR THE SPOUSE OF THE HEAD OF HOUSEHOLD.

(Terminate call if not a residence)

DO NOT ASK:

1A. Record area code. To Be Determined COL. 9-11 1B. Record exchange number. To Be Determined COL. 12-14

2. What is your home Zip Code Col. 15-19

3. In total, how many cars, or other vehicles COL.20 are usually available to the household? 1 ONE (DO NOT READ ANSWERS.) 2 TWO 3 THREE Fermi Nuclear Power Plant F14 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 1

4 FOUR 5 FIVE 6 SIX 7 SEVEN 8 EIGHT 9 NINE OR MORE 0 ZERO (NONE)

X REFUSED

4. How many people usually live in this COL.21 COL.22 household? (DO NOT READ ANSWERS.) 1 ONE 0 TEN 2 TWO 1 ELEVEN 3 THREE 2 TWELVE 4 FOUR 3 THIRTEEN 5 FIVE 4 FOURTEEN 6 SIX 5 FIFTEEN 7 SEVEN 6 SIXTEEN 8 EIGHT 7 SEVENTEEN 9 NINE 8 EIGHTEEN 9 NINETEEN OR MORE X REFUSED

5. How many children living in this COL.23 household go to local public, 0 ZERO private, or parochial schools? 1 ONE (DO NOT READ ANSWERS.) 2 TWO 3 THREE 4 FOUR 5 FIVE 6 SIX 7 SEVEN 8 EIGHT 9 NINE OR MORE X REFUSED

6. How many people in the household COL.24 SKIP TO commute to a job, or to college, 0 ZERO Q. 12 at least 4 times a week? 1 ONE Q. 7 2 TWO Q. 7 3 THREE Q. 7 Fermi Nuclear Power Plant F15 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 1

4 FOUR OR MORE Q. 7 5 DON'T KNOW/REFUSED Q. 12 INTERVIEWER: For each person identified in Question 6, ask Questions 7, 8, 9, and 10.

7. Thinking about commuter #1, how does that person usually travel to work or college?

(REPEAT QUESTION FOR EACH COMMUTER.)

Commuter #1 Commuter #2 Commuter #3 Commuter #4 COL.25 COL.26 COL.27 COL.28 Rail 1 1 1 1 Bus 2 2 2 2 Walk/Bicycle 3 3 3 3 Driver Car/Van 4 4 4 4 Park & Ride (Car/Rail, Xpress_bus) 5 5 5 5 Driver Carpool-2 or more people 6 6 6 6 Passenger Carpool-2 or more people 7 7 7 7 Taxi 8 8 8 8 Refused 9 9 9 9

8. What is the name of the city, town or community in which Commuter #1 works or attends school? (REPEAT QUESTION FOR EACH COMMUTER.) (FILL IN ANSWER.)

COMMUTER #1 COMMUTER #2 COMMUTER #3 COMMUTER #4 City/Town State City/Town State City/Town State City/Town State COL.29 COL.30 COL.31 COL.32 COL.33 COL.34 COL.35 COL.36 COL.37 COL.38 COL.39 COL.40 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 Fermi Nuclear Power Plant F16 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 1

6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9

9. How long 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.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 4 16-20 MINUTES 4 OVER 1 HOUR, BUT 4 16-20 MINUTES 4 OVER 1 HOUR, BUT 5 21-25 MINUTES LESS THAN 1 HOUR 5 21-25 MINUTES LESS THAN 1 HOUR 6 26-30 MINUTES 15 MINUTES 6 26-30 MINUTES 15 MINUTES 7 31-35 MINUTES 5 BETWEEN 1 HOUR 7 31-35 MINUTES 5 BETWEEN 1 HOUR 8 36-40 MINUTES 16 MINUTES AND 1 8 36-40 MINUTES 16 MINUTES AND 1 9 41-45 MINUTES HOUR 30 MINUTES 9 41-45 MINUTES HOUR 30 MINUTES 6 BETWEEN 1 HOUR 6 BETWEEN 1 HOUR 31 MINUTES AND 1 31 MINUTES AND 1 HOUR 45 MINUTES HOUR 45 MINUTES 7 BETWEEN 1 HOUR 7 BETWEEN 1 HOUR 46 MINUTES AND 46 MINUTES AND 2 HOURS 2 HOURS 8 OVER 2 HOURS 8 OVER 2 HOURS (SPECIFY _____) (SPECIFY _____)

9 9 0 0 X DON'T KNOW/REFUSED X DON'T KNOW/REFUSED COMMUTER #3 COMMUTER #4 COL.45 COL.46 COL.47 COL.48 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 4 16-20 MINUTES 4 OVER 1 HOUR, BUT 4 16-20 MINUTES 4 OVER 1 HOUR, BUT 5 21-25 MINUTES LESS THAN 1 HOUR 5 21-25 MINUTES LESS THAN 1 HOUR 6 26-30 MINUTES 15 MINUTES 6 26-30 MINUTES 15 MINUTES 7 31-35 MINUTES 5 BETWEEN 1 HOUR 7 31-35 MINUTES 5 BETWEEN 1 HOUR 8 36-40 MINUTES 16 MINUTES AND 1 8 36-40 MINUTES 16 MINUTES AND 1 9 41-45 MINUTES HOUR 30 MINUTES 9 41-45 MINUTES HOUR 30 MINUTES 6 BETWEEN 1 HOUR 6 BETWEEN 1 HOUR Fermi Nuclear Power Plant F17 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 1

31 MINUTES AND 1 31 MINUTES AND 1 HOUR 45 MINUTES HOUR 45 MINUTES 7 BETWEEN 1 HOUR 7 BETWEEN 1 HOUR 46 MINUTES AND 46 MINUTES AND 2 HOURS 2 HOURS 8 OVER 2 HOURS 8 OVER 2 HOURS (SPECIFY _____) (SPECIFY _____)

9 9 0 0 X DON'T KNOW/REFUSED X DON'T KNOW/REFUSED

10. Approximately how long 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. 49 COL.50 COL.51 COL. 52 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 4 16-20 MINUTES 4 OVER 1 HOUR, BUT 4 16-20 MINUTES 4 OVER 1 HOUR, BUT 5 21-25 MINUTES LESS THAN 1 HOUR 5 21-25 MINUTES LESS THAN 1 HOUR 6 26-30 MINUTES 15 MINUTES 6 26-30 MINUTES 15 MINUTES 7 31-35 MINUTES 5 BETWEEN 1 HOUR 7 31-35 MINUTES 5 BETWEEN 1 HOUR 8 36-40 MINUTES 16 MINUTES AND 1 8 36-40 MINUTES 16 MINUTES AND 1 9 41-45 MINUTES HOUR 30 MINUTES 9 41-45 MINUTES HOUR 30 MINUTES 6 BETWEEN 1 HOUR 6 BETWEEN 1 HOUR 31 MINUTES AND 1 31 MINUTES AND 1 HOUR 45 MINUTES HOUR 45 MINUTES 7 BETWEEN 1 HOUR 7 BETWEEN 1 HOUR 46 MINUTES AND 46 MINUTES AND 2 HOURS 2 HOURS 8 OVER 2 HOURS 8 OVER 2 HOURS (SPECIFY _____) (SPECIFY _____)

9 9 0 0 X DON'T KNOW/REFUSED X DON'T KNOW/REFUSED COMMUTER #3 COMMUTER #4 COL. 53 COL. 54 COL. 55 COL. 56 1 5 MINUTES OR LESS 1 46-50 MINUTES 1 5 MINUTES OR LESS 1 46-50 MINUTES Fermi Nuclear Power Plant F18 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 1

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 4 16-20 MINUTES 4 OVER 1 HOUR, BUT 4 16-20 MINUTES 4 OVER 1 HOUR, BUT 5 21-25 MINUTES LESS THAN 1 HOUR 5 21-25 MINUTES LESS THAN 1 HOUR 6 26-30 MINUTES 15 MINUTES 6 26-30 MINUTES 15 MINUTES 7 31-35 MINUTES 5 BETWEEN 1 HOUR 7 31-35 MINUTES 5 BETWEEN 1 HOUR 8 36-40 MINUTES 16 MINUTES AND 1 8 36-40 MINUTES 16 MINUTES AND 1 9 41-45 MINUTES HOUR 30 MINUTES 9 41-45 MINUTES HOUR 30 MINUTES 6 BETWEEN 1 HOUR 6 BETWEEN 1 HOUR 31 MINUTES AND 1 31 MINUTES AND 1 HOUR 45 MINUTES HOUR 45 MINUTES 7 BETWEEN 1 HOUR 7 BETWEEN 1 HOUR 46 MINUTES AND 46 MINUTES AND 2 HOURS 2 HOURS 8 OVER 2 HOURS 8 OVER 2 HOURS (SPECIFY _____) (SPECIFY _____)

9 9 0 0 X DON'T KNOW/REFUSED X DON'T KNOW/REFUSED

11. When the commuters are away from home, is there a vehicle at home that is available for evacuation during any emergency? Col. 57 1 Yes 2 No 3 Dont Know/Refused

12. Would you await the return of family members prior to evacuating the area? Col. 58 1 Yes 2 No 3 Dont Know/Refused

13. How many of the vehicles that are usually available to the household would your family use during an evacuation? COL.59 (DO NOT READ ANSWERS.) 1 ONE 2 TWO Fermi Nuclear Power Plant F19 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 1

3 THREE 4 FOUR 5 FIVE 6 SIX 7 SEVEN 8 EIGHT 9 NINE OR MORE 0 ZERO (NONE)

X REFUSED

14. How long would it take the family to pack clothing, secure the house, load the car, and complete preparations prior to evacuating the area? (DO NOT READ ANSWERS.)

COL.60 COL.61 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 15 MINUTES 0 2 HOURS 16 MINUTES TO 2 HOURS 30 MINUTES 0 5 HOURS 16 MINUTES TO 5 HOURS 30 MINUTES X 2 HOURS 31 MINUTES TO 2 HOURS 45 MINUTES X 5 HOURS 31 MINUTES TO 5 HOURS 45 MINUTES Y 2 HOURS 46 MINUTES TO 3 HOURS Y 5 HOURS 46 MINUTES TO 6 HOURS COL.62 1 DON'T KNOW

15. How long would it take you to clear 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.63 COL.64 1 LESS THAN 15 MINUTES 1 MORE THAN 3 HOURS 2 15-30 MINUTES 2 DON'T KNOW 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 Fermi Nuclear Power Plant F20 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 1

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 MINUTES Y 2 HOURS 46 MINUTES TO 3 HOURS

16. Would you take household pets with you if you were asked to evacuate the area?

Col. 65 1 Yes 2 No 3 Dont Know/Refused County EMA Phone Monroe (734)240-3135 Wayne (734)942-5289 Thank you very much. __________________________

(TELEPHONE NUMBER CALLED)

If requested:

For Additional information Contact your County Emergency Management Office Fermi Nuclear Power Plant F21 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 1

APPENDIX G Traffic Management Plan

G. TRAFFIC MANAGEMENT PLAN NUREG/CR7002 indicates that the existing TCPs and ACPs identified by the offsite agencies should be used in the evacuation simulation modeling. The traffic and access control plans for the EPZ were provided by each county.

These plans were reviewed and the TCP and ACPs were modeled accordingly.

G.1 Traffic and Access Control Points As discussed in Section 9, traffic and access control points at intersections (which are controlled) are modeled as actuated signals. Figure G1 displays TCPs and ACPs that were included in the county emergency plans. If an intersection has a pretimed signal, stop, or yield control, and the intersection is identified as a traffic or access control point, the control type was changed to an actuated signal in the DYNEV II system. Table K2 provides the control type and node number for those nodes which are controlled. If the existing control was changed due to the point being a TCP or ACP, the control type is indicated as Traffic Control Point in Table K2.

It is assumed that ACPs will be established within 2 hours2.314815e-5 days <br />5.555556e-4 hours <br />3.306878e-6 weeks <br />7.61e-7 months <br /> of the advisory to evacuate to discourage through travelers from using major through routes which traverse the EPZ. As discussed in Section 3.7, external traffic was considered on the interstates which traverse the EPZ - I75 and I275 - in this analysis. The generation of these external trips ceased at 2 hours2.314815e-5 days <br />5.555556e-4 hours <br />3.306878e-6 weeks <br />7.61e-7 months <br /> after the advisory to evacuate in the simulation.

It is recommended that ACPs on these interstates be given top priority in assigning manpower and equipment as they are the major routes traversing the EPZ, which will typically carry the highest volume of through traffic.

Fermi Nuclear Power Plant G1 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 1

Figure G1. Access Control Points for the FNPP EPZ Fermi Nuclear Power Plant G2 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 1

APPENDIX H Evacuation Regions

H. EVACUATION REGIONS This appendix presents the evacuation percentages for each Evacuation Region (Table H1) and maps of all Evacuation Regions. The percentages presented in Table H1 are based on the methodology discussed in assumption 5 of Section 2.2 and shown in Figure 21.

Note the baseline ETE study assumes 20 percent of households will not comply with the shelter advisory, as per Section 2.5.2 of NUREG/CR7002.

Fermi Nuclear Power Plant H1 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 1

Table H1. Percent of PAA Population Evacuating for Each Region Basic Regions PAA Region Description 1 2 3 4 5 R01 2Mile Region 100% 20% 20% 20% 20%

R02 5Mile Region 100% 100% 100% 20% 20%

R03 Full EPZ 100% 100% 100% 100% 100%

Evacuate 2Mile Region and Downwind to 5 Miles PAA Region Wind Direction From: 1 2 3 4 5 N/A W,WNW,NW,NNW,N,NNE Refer to Region R01 R04 NE,ENE,E 100% 20% 100% 20% 20%

N/A ESE,SE Refer to Region R02 R05 SSE,S,SSW,SW,WSW 100% 100% 20% 20% 20%

Evacuate 5Mile Region and Downwind to the EPZ Boundary PAA Region Wind Direction From: 1 2 3 4 5 N/A WSW,W,WNW,NW,NNW,N Refer to Region R02 R06 NNE,NE,ENE 100% 100% 100% 20% 100%

N/A E,ESE,SE Refer to Region R03 R07 SSE,S,SSW,SW 100% 100% 100% 100% 20%

Staged Evacuation 2Mile Region Evacuates, then Evacuate Downwind to 5 Miles PAA Region Wind Direction From: 1 2 3 4 5 R08 No Wind 100% 100% 100% 20% 20%

N/A W,WNW,NW,NNW,N,NNE Refer to Region R01 R09 NE,ENE,E 100% 20% 100% 20% 20%

N/A ESE,SE Refer to Region R02 R10 SSE,S,SSW,SW,WSW 100% 100% 20% 20% 20%

Key ShelterinPlace until 90% ETE for R01, then PAA(s) Evacuate PAA(s) ShelterinPlace Evacuate Fermi Nuclear Power Plant H2 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 1

Figure H1. Region R01 Fermi Nuclear Power Plant H3 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 1

Figure H2. Region R02 Fermi Nuclear Power Plant H4 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 1

Figure H3. Region R03 Fermi Nuclear Power Plant H5 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 1

Figure H4. Region R04 Fermi Nuclear Power Plant H6 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 1

Figure H5. Region R05 Fermi Nuclear Power Plant H7 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 1

Figure H6. Region R06 Fermi Nuclear Power Plant H8 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 1

Figure H7. Region R07 Fermi Nuclear Power Plant H9 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 1

Figure H8. Region R08 Fermi Nuclear Power Plant H10 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 1

Figure H9. Region R09 Fermi Nuclear Power Plant H11 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 1

Figure H10. Region R10 Fermi Nuclear Power Plant H12 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 1

APPENDIX J Representative Inputs to and Outputs from the DYNEV II System

J. REPRESENTATIVE INPUTS TO AND OUTPUTS FROM THE DYNEV II SYSTEM This appendix presents data input to and output from the DYNEV II System. Table J1 provides the volume and queues for the ten highest volume signalized intersections in the study area.

Refer to Table K2 and the figures in Appendix K for a map showing the geographic location of each intersection.

Table J2 provides source (vehicle loading) and destination information for several roadway segments (links) in the analysis network. Refer to Table K1 and the figures in Appendix K for a map showing the geographic location of each link.

Table J3 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 (Special Event) has a slower networkwide average travel speed and higher networkwide average travel time than Scenario 3 (Summer, Weekend, Midday, Good Weather). Scenario 14 (Roadway Impact) has a slower networkwide average travel speed and higher networkwide average travel time than Scenario 1 (Summer, Midweek, Midday, Good Weather).

Table J4 provides statistics (average speed and travel time) for the major evacuation routes - I 275, I75, N Dixie Hwy, and US24 - for an evacuation of the entire EPZ (Region R03) under Scenario 1 conditions. As discussed in Section 7.3 and shown in Figures 73 through 78, congestion persists for the first two hours of the evacuation. As such, the average speeds are comparably slower (and travel times longer) during these first two hours compared with the last two hours of the evacuation.

Table J5 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 K1 and the figures in Appendix K for a map showing the geographic location of each link.

Figure J1 through Figure J14 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 J1 through Figure J14, the curves are spatially separated as a result of the traffic congestion in the EPZ, which was discussed in detail in Section 7.3.

Fermi Nuclear Power Plant J1 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 1

Table J1. Characteristics of the Ten Highest Volume Signalized Intersections Max.

Approach Total Turn Intersection (Up Volume Queue Node Location Control Node) (Veh) (Veh) 395 3,725 0 392 SR85 & Van horn Rd A 172 2,606 0 TOTAL 6,331 424 5,916 144 87 21 0 152 SR85 & Sibley Rd A 199 249 3 TOTAL 6,186 151 6,147 0 SR85 & Left Turns 793 A 794 0 0 from Williamsbur Dr TOTAL 6,147 419 5,493 96 421 161 0 154 SR85 & King Rd A 202 450 5 TOTAL 6,104 610 249 1 SR85 & Left Turns 424 A 154 5,665 82 from Sibley Rd TOTAL 5,914 73 754 29 514 663 36 97 SR125 & W Albain Rd A 98 4,327 222 TOTAL 5,744 135 4,328 136 73 US24 & W Albain Rd A 97 1,333 172 TOTAL 5,661 155 5,040 93 SR85 & Left Turns 419 A 611 450 11 from King Rd TOTAL 5,490 398 4,841 6 179 163 0 156 SR85 & West Rd A 714 72 0 TOTAL 5,076 364 4,231 0 168 43 0 118 US24 & West Rd A 166 778 0 TOTAL 5,052 Fermi Nuclear Power Plant J2 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 1

Table J2. Sample Simulation Model Input Vehicles Entering Link Network Directional Destination Destination Number on this Link Preference Nodes Capacity 8089 3,810 2 541 S 8437 5,715 8240 6,750 8454 6,750 901 143 W 8773 1,698 8631 1,698 8240 6,750 504 130 N 8055 3,810 8629 3,810 8240 6,750 781 1,168 N 8055 3,810 8629 3,810 8454 6,750 163 67 W 8773 1,698 8631 1,698 8030 6,750 467 204 W 8678 1,698 8216 1,698 944 99 W 8541 1,698 8773 1,698 8089 3,810 261 21 N 8437 5,715 8497 1,698 586 57 SW 8510 1,698 8454 6,750 773 45 NW 8678 1,698 Fermi Nuclear Power Plant J3 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 1

Table J3. Selected Model Outputs for the Evacuation of the Entire EPZ (Region R03)

Scenario 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 NetworkWide Average 1.8 2.2 2.2 2.6 2.1 1.7 2.1 Travel Time (Min/VehMi)

NetworkWide Average 32.9 27.2 27.6 22.7 28.9 34.5 28.2 Speed (mph)

Total Vehicles 76,019 76,149 75,015 75,544 62,367 75,103 75,531 Exiting Network Scenario 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 NetworkWide Average 2.1 1.9 2.3 2.3 2.0 2.4 2.0 Travel Time (Min/VehMi)

NetworkWide Average 28.5 31.7 26.3 26.5 29.4 25.1 30.6 Speed (mph)

Total Vehicles 75,169 69,989 70,474 69,730 61,363 77,668 75,801 Exiting Network Fermi Nuclear Power Plant J4 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 1

Table J4. Average Speed (mph) and Travel Time (min) for Major Evacuation Routes (Region R03, Scenario 1)

Elapsed Time (hours) 1 2 3 4 Travel Length Speed Time Travel Travel Travel Route (miles) (mph) (min) Speed Time Speed Time Speed Time I275 NB 7.5 66.9 6.7 71.5 6.3 74.5 6.0 74.5 6.0 I75 NB 9.2 72.1 7.6 73.6 7.5 73.7 7.5 73.7 7.5 I75 SB 9.7 60.6 9.6 67.6 8.6 67.9 8.5 67.9 8.5 N Dixie Hwy NB 11.9 30.3 23.6 47.8 15.0 48.5 14.8 50.0 14.3 N Dixie Hwy SB 6.5 25.9 15.1 40.2 9.7 38.9 10.0 41.7 9.3 US24 NB 10.4 46.1 13.6 44.9 14.0 45.5 13.8 46.9 13.3 US24 SB 7.4 36.0 12.3 36.1 12.3 40.8 10.9 41.4 10.7 Fermi Nuclear Power Plant J5 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 1

Table J5. 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 Interval Cumulative Percent of Vehicles Discharged During by the Indicated Time Interval 0 0 0 0 0

0% 0% 0% 0%

363 1,122 1,524 1,568 106 2% 2% 2% 2%

192 926 1,182 1,218 137 1% 2% 2% 2%

417 1,734 2,954 3,038 214 2% 3% 4% 4%

350 1,300 2,298 2,605 215 2% 2% 3% 3%

479 1,240 1,762 1,795 222 2% 2% 2% 2%

558 1,689 2,487 2,579 337 3% 3% 3% 3%

4,335 10,866 12,971 13,088 360 21% 19% 17% 17%

4,245 10,897 12,933 13,183 390 20% 19% 17% 17%

4,795 11,067 15,577 15,768 441 23% 19% 21% 21%

220 571 655 669 639 1% 1% 1% 1%

354 992 1,173 1,198 770 2% 2% 2% 2%

542 1,831 2,174 2,208 849 3% 3% 3% 3%

113 536 682 695 850 1% 1% 1% 1%

372 1,221 1,527 1,564 854 2% 2% 2% 2%

314 1,176 1,459 1,485 856 2% 2% 2% 2%

491 1,785 2,208 2,253 858 2% 3% 3% 3%

Fermi Nuclear Power Plant J6 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 1

Elapsed Time (hours)

Network 1 2 3 4 Exit Link Cumulative Vehicles Discharged by the Indicated Time Interval Cumulative Percent of Vehicles Discharged During by the Indicated Time Interval 4 38 51 53 860 0% 0% 0% 0%

485 1,331 1,949 1,992 879 2% 2% 3% 3%

657 2,233 2,866 2,888 890 3% 4% 4% 4%

1,526 4,742 6,018 6,150 914 7% 8% 8% 8%

Fermi Nuclear Power Plant J7 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 1

ETE and Trip Generation Summer, Midweek, Midday, Good (Scenario 1)

Trip Generation ETE 100%

Percent of Total Vehicles 80%

60%

40%

20%

0%

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

Figure J1. ETE and Trip Generation: Summer, Midweek, Midday, Good Weather (Scenario 1)

ETE and Trip Generation Summer, Midweek, Midday, Rain (Scenario 2)

Trip Generation ETE 100%

Percent of Total Vehicles 80%

60%

40%

20%

0%

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

Figure J2. ETE and Trip Generation: Summer, Midweek, Midday, Rain (Scenario 2)

Fermi Nuclear Power Plant J8 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 1

ETE and Trip Generation Summer, Weekend, Midday, Good (Scenario 3)

Trip Generation ETE 100%

Percent of Total Vehicles 80%

60%

40%

20%

0%

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

Figure J3. ETE and Trip Generation: Summer, Weekend, Midday, Good Weather (Scenario 3)

ETE and Trip Generation Summer, Weekend, Midday, Rain (Scenario 4)

Trip Generation ETE 100%

Percent of Total Vehicles 80%

60%

40%

20%

0%

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

Figure J4. ETE and Trip Generation: Summer, Weekend, Midday, Rain (Scenario 4)

Fermi Nuclear Power Plant J9 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 1

ETE and Trip Generation Summer, Midweek, Weekend, Evening, Good (Scenario 5)

Trip Generation ETE 100%

Percent of Total Vehicles 80%

60%

40%

20%

0%

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

Figure J5. ETE and Trip Generation: Summer, Midweek, Weekend, Evening, Good Weather (Scenario 5)

ETE and Trip Generation Winter, Midweek, Midday, Good (Scenario 6)

Trip Generation ETE 100%

Percent of Total Vehicles 80%

60%

40%

20%

0%

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

Figure J6. ETE and Trip Generation: Winter, Midweek, Midday, Good Weather (Scenario 6)

Fermi Nuclear Power Plant J10 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 1

ETE and Trip Generation Winter, Midweek, Midday, Rain (Scenario 7)

Trip Generation ETE 100%

Percent of Total Vehicles 80%

60%

40%

20%

0%

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

Figure J7. ETE and Trip Generation: Winter, Midweek, Midday, Rain (Scenario 7)

ETE and Trip Generation Winter, Midweek, Midday, Snow (Scenario 8)

Trip Generation ETE 100%

Percent of Total Vehicles 80%

60%

40%

20%

0%

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

Figure J8. ETE and Trip Generation: Winter, Midweek, Midday, Snow (Scenario 8)

Fermi Nuclear Power Plant J11 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 1

ETE and Trip Generation Winter, Weekend, Midday, Good (Scenario 9)

Trip Generation ETE 100%

Percent of Total Vehicles 80%

60%

40%

20%

0%

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

Figure J9. 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%

Percent of Total Vehicles 80%

60%

40%

20%

0%

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

Figure J10. ETE and Trip Generation: Winter, Weekend, Midday, Rain (Scenario 10)

Fermi Nuclear Power Plant J12 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 1

ETE and Trip Generation Winter, Weekend, Midday, Snow (Scenario 11)

Trip Generation ETE 100%

Percent of Total Vehicles 80%

60%

40%

20%

0%

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

Figure J11. 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%

Percent of Total Vehicles 80%

60%

40%

20%

0%

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

Figure J12. ETE and Trip Generation: Winter, Midweek, Weekend, Evening, Good Weather (Scenario 12)

Fermi Nuclear Power Plant J13 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 1

ETE and Trip Generation Summer, Weekend, Midday, Good, Special Event (Scenario 13)

Trip Generation ETE 100%

Percent of Total Vehicles 80%

60%

40%

20%

0%

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

Figure J13. ETE and Trip Generation: Summer, Weekend, Midday, Good Weather, Special Event (Scenario 13)

ETE and Trip Generation Summer, Midweek, Midday, Good, Roadway Impact (Scenario 14)

Trip Generation ETE 100%

Percent of Total Vehicles 80%

60%

40%

20%

0%

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

Figure J14. ETE and Trip Generation: Summer, Midweek, Midday, Good Weather, Roadway Impact (Scenario 14)

Fermi Nuclear Power Plant J14 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 1

APPENDIX K Evacuation Roadway Network

K. EVACUATION ROADWAY NETWORK As discussed in Section 1.3, a linknode analysis network was constructed to model the roadway network within the study area. Figure K1 provides an overview of the linknode analysis network. The figure has been divided up into 46 more detailed figures (Figure K2 through Figure K23) 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 January 2012. Table K1 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 K1. The roadway type identified in Table K1 is based on the following criteria:

Freeway: limited access highway, 2 or more lanes in each direction, high free flow speeds Freeway ramp: ramp on to or off of a limited access highway Major arterial: 3 or more lanes in each direction Minor arterial: 2 or more lanes in each direction Collector: single lane in each direction Local roadways: single lane in each direction, local roads with low free flow speeds The term, No. of Lanes in Table K1 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 K2 identifies each node in the network that is controlled and the type of control (stop sign, yield sign, pretimed signal, actuated signal, traffic control point) at that node.

Uncontrolled nodes are not included in Table K2. The location of each node can be observed by referencing the grid map number provided.

Fermi Nuclear Generating Plant K1 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 1

Figure K1. FNPP LinkNode Analysis Network Fermi Nuclear Generating Plant K2 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 1

Figure K2. LinkNode Analysis Network - Grid 1 Fermi Nuclear Generating Plant K3 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 1

Figure K3. LinkNode Analysis Network - Grid 2 Fermi Nuclear Generating Plant K4 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 1

Figure K4. LinkNode Analysis Network - Grid 3 Fermi Nuclear Generating Plant K5 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 1

Figure K5. LinkNode Analysis Network - Grid 4 Fermi Nuclear Generating Plant K6 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 1

Figure K6. LinkNode Analysis Network - Grid 5 Fermi Nuclear Generating Plant K7 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 1

Figure K7. LinkNode Analysis Network - Grid 6 Fermi Nuclear Generating Plant K8 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 1

Figure K8. LinkNode Analysis Network - Grid 7 Fermi Nuclear Generating Plant K9 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 1

Figure K9. LinkNode Analysis Network - Grid 8 Fermi Nuclear Generating Plant K10 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 1

Figure K10. LinkNode Analysis Network - Grid 9 Fermi Nuclear Generating Plant K11 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 1

Figure K11. LinkNode Analysis Network - Grid 10 Fermi Nuclear Generating Plant K12 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 1

Figure K12. LinkNode Analysis Network - Grid 11 Fermi Nuclear Generating Plant K13 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 1

Figure K13. LinkNode Analysis Network - Grid 12 Fermi Nuclear Generating Plant K14 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 1

Figure K14. LinkNode Analysis Network - Grid 13 Fermi Nuclear Generating Plant K15 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 1

Figure K15. LinkNode Analysis Network - Grid 14 Fermi Nuclear Generating Plant K16 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 1

Figure K16. LinkNode Analysis Network - Grid 15 Fermi Nuclear Generating Plant K17 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 1

Figure K17. LinkNode Analysis Network - Grid 16 Fermi Nuclear Generating Plant K18 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 1

Figure K18. LinkNode Analysis Network - Grid 17 Fermi Nuclear Generating Plant K19 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 1

Figure K19. LinkNode Analysis Network - Grid 18 Fermi Nuclear Generating Plant K20 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 1

Figure K20. LinkNode Analysis Network - Grid 19 Fermi Nuclear Generating Plant K21 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 1

Figure K21. LinkNode Analysis Network - Grid 20 Fermi Nuclear Generating Plant K22 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 1

Figure K22. LinkNode Analysis Network - Grid 21 Fermi Nuclear Generating Plant K23 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 1

Figure K23. LinkNode Analysis Network - Grid 22 Fermi Nuclear Generating Plant K24 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 1

Table K1. Evacuation Roadway Network Characteristics Saturation Free Up Down No. Lane Shoulder Flow Flow Stream Stream Length of Width Width Rate Speed Grid Link # Node Node Roadway Name Roadway Type (ft.) Lanes (ft.) (ft.) (pcphpl) (mph) Number 1 1 493 FERMI DR COLLECTOR 1618 1 12 4 1700 40 22 2 2 3 DEWEY RD COLLECTOR 1983 1 12 4 1700 40 23 3 3 463 POINTE AUX PEAUX RD COLLECTOR 4832 1 12 4 1700 40 22 4 4 163 NADEAU RD MINOR ARTERIAL 1559 2 12 4 1750 50 22 5 5 60 US24 MAJOR ARTERIAL 1111 2 12 4 1750 45 21 6 6 106 MALL RD COLLECTOR 1256 1 12 4 1750 40 21 7 6 533 MALL RD COLLECTOR 1853 1 12 4 1700 40 21 8 7 104 SR 125 MAJOR ARTERIAL 3908 2 12 4 1750 40 21 9 8 667 BLUE BUSH RD MINOR ARTERIAL 3713 1 15 0 1350 30 15 LOCAL 10 9 113 BEECHWOOD ST ROADWAY 763 1 12 4 1750 40 21 LOCAL 11 10 11 N LAKESHORE DR ROADWAY 3689 1 12 4 1350 30 22 LOCAL 12 11 12 STATE PARK RD ROADWAY 2323 1 12 4 1350 30 22 LOCAL 13 12 13 STATE PARK RD ROADWAY 655 1 12 4 1350 30 22 14 12 314 SANDY CREEK RD COLLECTOR 2616 1 12 4 1350 30 22 LOCAL 15 13 14 STATE PARK RD ROADWAY 1064 1 12 4 1350 30 22 LOCAL 16 14 315 STATE PARK RD ROADWAY 917 1 12 4 1350 30 22 17 15 19 SANDY CREEK RD COLLECTOR 1664 1 12 4 1700 40 21 18 16 17 SANDY CREEK RD COLLECTOR 791 1 12 4 1575 35 21 19 17 18 COLE RD COLLECTOR 1914 1 12 4 1575 35 21 Fermi Nuclear Generating Plant K25 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 1

Saturation Free Up Down No. Lane Shoulder Flow Flow Stream Stream Length of Width Width Rate Speed Grid Link # Node Node Roadway Name Roadway Type (ft.) Lanes (ft.) (ft.) (pcphpl) (mph) Number 20 18 201 COLE RD COLLECTOR 1600 1 12 4 1700 40 21 21 19 16 SANDY CREEK RD COLLECTOR 1185 1 12 4 1575 35 21 22 20 149 SR 50 MAJOR ARTERIAL 6706 1 12 4 1700 60 19 23 21 277 I75 FREEWAY 3138 2 12 4 2250 65 17 24 22 275 I275 FREEWAY 6998 2 12 4 2250 75 17 25 22 277 I275 FREEWAY 1771 3 12 4 2250 65 17 26 23 24 I75 FREEWAY 2315 3 12 4 2250 65 17 27 23 279 I75 FREEWAY 2395 5 12 4 2250 65 17 28 24 23 I75 FREEWAY 2315 5 12 4 2250 65 17 29 24 296 I75 FREEWAY 2370 3 12 4 2250 65 22 30 25 26 FRONT ST COLLECTOR 5194 2 12 4 1900 45 26 31 26 301 FRONT ST COLLECTOR 1782 2 12 4 1900 40 26 32 27 299 E ELM AVE COLLECTOR 1824 2 12 4 1900 40 26 33 28 27 E ELM AVE COLLECTOR 2783 2 12 4 1900 40 26 34 29 28 E ELM AVE COLLECTOR 548 2 12 4 1900 40 26 35 30 267 I275 FREEWAY 3909 3 12 4 2250 75 1 36 31 268 I275 FREEWAY 4976 3 12 4 2250 75 5 37 31 458 I275 FREEWAY 3087 3 12 4 2250 75 5 38 32 162 N DIXIE HWY MAJOR ARTERIAL 836 1 12 4 1750 50 22 39 32 572 SANDY CREEK RD COLLECTOR 1230 1 12 4 1700 40 22 40 33 34 N DIXIE HWY MAJOR ARTERIAL 4484 1 12 4 1750 40 22 41 33 737 N DIXIE HWY MAJOR ARTERIAL 3425 1 12 4 1750 50 22 42 34 33 N DIXIE HWY MAJOR ARTERIAL 4484 1 12 4 1750 45 22 43 34 309 NADEAU RD MINOR ARTERIAL 3177 1 12 4 1700 50 22 44 35 462 N DIXIE HWY MAJOR ARTERIAL 2884 1 12 4 1700 50 22 Fermi Nuclear Generating Plant K26 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 1

Saturation Free Up Down No. Lane Shoulder Flow Flow Stream Stream Length of Width Width Rate Speed Grid Link # Node Node Roadway Name Roadway Type (ft.) Lanes (ft.) (ft.) (pcphpl) (mph) Number 45 35 800 N DIXIE HWY MAJOR ARTERIAL 2342 1 12 4 1750 45 22 46 36 462 N DIXIE HWY MAJOR ARTERIAL 3458 1 12 4 1700 50 22 47 36 780 N DIXIE HWY MAJOR ARTERIAL 3120 1 12 4 1750 50 17 48 37 467 SWAN CREEK RD MINOR ARTERIAL 252 1 12 4 1350 30 17 FRENCHTOWN SQUARE LOCAL 49 38 6 MALL ROADWAY 952 1 12 4 1350 30 21 50 39 180 EDSEL ST COLLECTOR 2641 1 12 4 1750 35 7 51 39 183 HARRISON AVE COLLECTOR 1287 1 12 4 1350 30 7 52 40 545 HURON RIVER DR MAJOR ARTERIAL 3971 1 12 4 1700 50 13 53 40 641 W JEFFERSON AVE MAJOR ARTERIAL 5090 1 12 4 1700 50 13 54 41 254 US24 MAJOR ARTERIAL 3159 1 12 4 1700 60 21 55 41 819 HEISS RD COLLECTOR 13211 1 12 2 1700 40 16 56 42 43 GIBRALTAR RD MAJOR ARTERIAL 5958 1 12 4 1750 50 13 57 42 171 W JEFFERSON AVE MAJOR ARTERIAL 6925 1 12 4 1700 50 7 58 43 158 FORT ST MINOR ARTERIAL 1342 1 12 4 1700 40 13 59 43 160 GIBRALTAR RD MAJOR ARTERIAL 822 2 12 4 1750 50 13 60 44 608 RANCHO COLLECTOR 2226 1 12 4 1750 40 3 61 44 744 RANCHO COLLECTOR 2849 2 12 4 1750 40 3 62 45 196 SIBLEY RD MINOR ARTERIAL 840 2 12 4 1750 45 3 63 47 649 GIBRALTAR RD MAJOR ARTERIAL 3985 2 12 4 1900 50 13 64 47 683 GIBRALTAR RD MAJOR ARTERIAL 1682 2 12 4 1750 45 13 65 48 117 VAN HORN RD MINOR ARTERIAL 2773 1 12 4 1750 40 6 66 49 50 GIBRALTAR RD MAJOR ARTERIAL 1243 1 12 4 1750 40 12 67 49 649 GIBRALTAR RD MAJOR ARTERIAL 3392 1 12 4 1700 45 12 68 50 51 GIBRALTAR RD MAJOR ARTERIAL 1756 1 12 4 1575 35 12 Fermi Nuclear Generating Plant K27 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 1

Saturation Free Up Down No. Lane Shoulder Flow Flow Stream Stream Length of Width Width Rate Speed Grid Link # Node Node Roadway Name Roadway Type (ft.) Lanes (ft.) (ft.) (pcphpl) (mph) Number 69 51 52 W GARDEN BLVD COLLECTOR 426 1 12 4 1125 25 12 70 51 347 GIBRALTAR RD MAJOR ARTERIAL 1586 1 12 4 1575 35 12 71 52 51 GARDEN BLVD COLLECTOR 426 1 12 4 1125 25 12 72 52 114 E HURON RIVER DR COLLECTOR 1458 1 12 4 1750 35 12 LOCAL 73 53 63 DETROIT AVE ROADWAY 3037 1 12 4 1700 40 21 LOCAL 74 53 265 DETROIT AVE ROADWAY 2977 1 12 4 1700 40 21 75 54 679 US24 MAJOR ARTERIAL 166 2 12 4 1750 35 12 76 56 231 CARLETON ROCKWOOD RD COLLECTOR 11739 1 12 4 1700 50 12 77 56 338 US24 MAJOR ARTERIAL 10983 2 12 4 1900 55 12 78 56 345 US24 MAJOR ARTERIAL 5445 2 12 4 1900 55 12 79 57 810 US24 MAJOR ARTERIAL 3881 2 12 4 1900 50 16 80 58 107 SR 125 MAJOR ARTERIAL 5624 2 12 4 1750 50 21 81 58 108 US24 MAJOR ARTERIAL 489 2 12 4 1900 55 16 82 58 331 US24 MAJOR ARTERIAL 1308 2 12 4 1900 50 16 83 59 5 US24 MAJOR ARTERIAL 1879 1 12 4 1700 45 21 84 60 61 US24 MAJOR ARTERIAL 1626 2 12 4 1750 45 21 85 60 531 STEWART RD COLLECTOR 2571 2 12 4 1750 45 21 86 60 660 STEWART RD COLLECTOR 744 1 12 4 1700 50 21 87 61 62 US24 MAJOR ARTERIAL 2575 2 12 4 1750 45 21 88 62 258 US24 MAJOR ARTERIAL 1476 2 12 4 1750 45 21 89 63 299 E ELM AVE COLLECTOR 1429 2 12 4 1900 40 26 90 64 65 SR 50 MAJOR ARTERIAL 911 2 12 4 1750 35 21 91 64 75 US24 MAJOR ARTERIAL 1580 2 12 4 1750 35 21 Fermi Nuclear Generating Plant K28 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 1

Saturation Free Up Down No. Lane Shoulder Flow Flow Stream Stream Length of Width Width Rate Speed Grid Link # Node Node Roadway Name Roadway Type (ft.) Lanes (ft.) (ft.) (pcphpl) (mph) Number 92 64 215 W FRONT ST COLLECTOR 670 1 12 4 1700 40 21 93 65 64 SR 50 MAJOR ARTERIAL 911 1 12 4 1750 35 21 94 65 66 SR 50 MAJOR ARTERIAL 4838 2 12 4 1750 45 21 95 66 65 SR 50 MAJOR ARTERIAL 4838 2 12 4 1750 35 21 96 66 505 HERR RD COLLECTOR 5530 1 12 4 1700 45 20 97 66 841 SR 50 MAJOR ARTERIAL 1624 2 12 4 1750 65 20 98 67 633 SR 50 MAJOR ARTERIAL 2618 2 12 4 1900 65 20 99 67 841 SR 50 MAJOR ARTERIAL 6411 2 12 4 1750 45 20 100 68 69 BLUE BUSH RD MINOR ARTERIAL 7248 1 12 4 1700 55 20 101 69 630 BLUE BUSH RD MINOR ARTERIAL 2820 1 12 4 1700 55 15 102 69 726 N RAISINVILLE RD COLLECTOR 6622 1 12 2 1750 40 20 103 70 666 BLUE BUSH RD MINOR ARTERIAL 3309 1 12 4 1700 50 15 104 71 8 BLUE BUSH RD MINOR ARTERIAL 3263 1 12 4 1700 50 15 105 72 230 SR 151 MINOR ARTERIAL 3003 1 12 4 1750 45 29 106 72 497 US 24 MAJOR ARTERIAL 4273 1 12 4 1700 60 29 107 73 97 W ALBAIN RD COLLECTOR 3179 1 12 4 1750 40 26 108 73 833 W ALBAIN RD COLLECTOR 5828 1 12 4 1700 40 25 109 73 840 US 24 MAJOR ARTERIAL 1396 1 12 4 1700 50 25 110 74 99 E DUNBAR RD COLLECTOR 4215 1 12 4 1750 40 26 111 74 135 US 24 MAJOR ARTERIAL 2014 2 12 4 1900 45 26 112 75 74 US 24 MAJOR ARTERIAL 5173 2 12 4 1750 45 26 113 76 215 SR 50 MAJOR ARTERIAL 1304 1 12 4 1350 30 21 114 76 324 W FRONT ST COLLECTOR 2557 1 12 4 1700 35 21 115 76 502 S ROESSLER ST COLLECTOR 1344 1 12 4 1575 35 21 116 78 324 SR 50 MAJOR ARTERIAL 798 1 12 4 1575 35 21 Fermi Nuclear Generating Plant K29 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 1

Saturation Free Up Down No. Lane Shoulder Flow Flow Stream Stream Length of Width Width Rate Speed Grid Link # Node Node Roadway Name Roadway Type (ft.) Lanes (ft.) (ft.) (pcphpl) (mph) Number 117 78 732 SR 125 MINOR ARTERIAL 317 2 12 4 1750 30 21 118 79 78 SR 125 MAJOR ARTERIAL 729 2 12 4 1750 35 21 119 79 80 E ELM AVE COLLECTOR 864 1 12 4 1750 35 21 120 79 322 W ELM AVE MINOR ARTERIAL 1943 1 12 4 1575 35 21 121 80 79 E ELM AVE COLLECTOR 864 1 12 4 1750 35 21 122 80 190 E ELM AVE COLLECTOR 1127 1 12 4 1750 35 21 123 80 325 S MACOMB ST COLLECTOR 560 1 12 4 1750 35 21 124 81 63 E ELM AVE COLLECTOR 2016 1 12 4 1700 40 21 125 81 190 E ELM AVE COLLECTOR 2729 1 12 4 1750 35 21 126 81 211 N DIXIE HWY MAJOR ARTERIAL 1265 1 12 4 1700 40 21 127 82 81 N DIXIE HWY MAJOR ARTERIAL 1316 2 12 4 1750 40 21 128 83 84 N DIXIE HWY MAJOR ARTERIAL 398 2 12 4 1750 45 21 129 83 265 N DIXIE HWY MAJOR ARTERIAL 1114 2 12 4 1900 45 21 130 84 83 N DIXIE HWY MAJOR ARTERIAL 398 1 12 4 1750 45 21 131 84 298 I75 ON RAMP FREEWAY RAMP 1029 1 12 4 1700 50 21 132 85 736 N DIXIE HWY MAJOR ARTERIAL 537 2 12 4 1750 45 21 133 86 267 I275 ON RAMP FREEWAY RAMP 1442 1 12 4 1700 50 1 134 87 152 SIBLEY RD MINOR ARTERIAL 801 2 12 4 1750 35 3 135 88 747 MIDDLEBELT RD COLLECTOR 5369 1 12 4 1750 45 2 136 88 752 SIBLEY RD MINOR ARTERIAL 10551 1 12 4 1700 50 1 137 90 89 W JEFFERSON AVE MAJOR ARTERIAL 1200 2 12 4 1900 40 4 138 91 608 SIBLEY RD MINOR ARTERIAL 5450 1 12 4 1750 50 3 139 91 745 US 24 MAJOR ARTERIAL 5885 2 12 4 1750 55 2 140 91 749 SIBLEY RD MINOR ARTERIAL 5264 1 12 4 1700 50 2 141 92 90 BRIDGE RD COLLECTOR 793 1 10 0 1750 35 4 Fermi Nuclear Generating Plant K30 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 1

Saturation Free Up Down No. Lane Shoulder Flow Flow Stream Stream Length of Width Width Rate Speed Grid Link # Node Node Roadway Name Roadway Type (ft.) Lanes (ft.) (ft.) (pcphpl) (mph) Number 142 93 92 BRIDGE RD COLLECTOR 3126 1 10 0 1700 40 4 143 94 283 SIBLEY RD MINOR ARTERIAL 358 2 12 4 1900 40 3 144 94 742 DIX TOLEDO HWY MAJOR ARTERIAL 4465 2 12 4 1900 55 3 145 95 93 MERIDIAN RD COLLECTOR 16524 1 12 4 1700 40 8 146 95 173 GROSSE ILE PKWY COLLECTOR 7111 1 12 4 1750 40 8 147 96 221 S OTTER CREEK RD COLLECTOR 8851 1 12 4 1700 50 25 148 96 509 SR 125 MINOR ARTERIAL 9688 1 12 4 1700 60 25 149 97 73 W ALBAIN RD COLLECTOR 3179 1 12 4 1750 45 26 150 97 133 SR 125 MINOR ARTERIAL 1641 2 12 4 1900 45 26 151 97 514 W ALBAIN RD COLLECTOR 3804 1 12 4 1700 40 26 152 98 97 SR 125 MINOR ARTERIAL 5355 2 12 4 1750 40 26 153 99 74 E DUNBAR RD COLLECTOR 4215 1 12 4 1750 40 26 154 99 98 SR 125 MINOR ARTERIAL 1759 2 12 4 1750 45 26 155 99 518 E DUNBAR RD COLLECTOR 1975 1 12 4 1700 40 26 156 100 99 SR 125 MINOR ARTERIAL 3655 2 12 4 1750 35 26 157 100 523 JONES AVE COLLECTOR 1597 1 12 4 1575 35 26 158 101 519 E 6TH ST COLLECTOR 1106 1 12 4 1750 35 21 159 101 785 SR 125 MINOR ARTERIAL 797 2 12 4 1900 35 21 160 104 79 SR 125 MAJOR ARTERIAL 1256 2 12 4 1750 35 21 161 105 7 SR 125 MAJOR ARTERIAL 1350 2 12 4 1900 45 21 162 105 531 STEWART RD COLLECTOR 2385 2 12 4 1750 45 21 163 106 105 SR 125 MAJOR ARTERIAL 5276 2 12 4 1750 50 21 164 107 58 SR 125 MAJOR ARTERIAL 5623 2 12 4 1750 50 21 165 107 319 SR 125 MAJOR ARTERIAL 2233 2 12 4 1900 50 21 166 108 58 US24 MAJOR ARTERIAL 489 3 12 4 1750 50 16 Fermi Nuclear Generating Plant K31 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 1

Saturation Free Up Down No. Lane Shoulder Flow Flow Stream Stream Length of Width Width Rate Speed Grid Link # Node Node Roadway Name Roadway Type (ft.) Lanes (ft.) (ft.) (pcphpl) (mph) Number 167 108 332 US24 MAJOR ARTERIAL 4606 2 12 4 1900 55 16 168 108 335 S STONY CREEK RD MINOR ARTERIAL 1544 1 12 2 1700 50 16 169 109 534 S STONY CREEK RD MINOR ARTERIAL 5963 1 12 2 1700 50 16 170 109 825 EXETER RD COLLECTOR 2677 1 12 2 1700 40 16 171 110 539 S STONY CREEK RD MINOR ARTERIAL 3496 1 12 0 1700 55 15 172 111 541 PALMER RD COLLECTOR 2919 1 12 4 1700 40 14 173 112 207 ALLEN RD COLLECTOR 1248 2 12 4 1750 50 7 174 113 105 COLE RD COLLECTOR 1995 2 12 4 1750 35 21 175 113 320 N MACOMB ST COLLECTOR 6233 1 12 4 1750 35 21 176 114 347 US24 MAJOR ARTERIAL 356 2 12 4 1900 35 12 177 114 679 US24 MAJOR ARTERIAL 967 2 12 4 1750 35 12 178 115 116 US24 MAJOR ARTERIAL 1230 2 12 4 1750 45 6 179 116 659 US24 MAJOR ARTERIAL 3066 2 12 4 1900 45 6 180 117 364 US 24 MAJOR ARTERIAL 4616 2 12 4 1900 50 6 181 118 166 WEST RD MINOR ARTERIAL 2534 1 12 4 1700 40 6 182 118 593 US 24 MAJOR ARTERIAL 1877 2 12 4 1750 40 6 183 120 91 US 24 MAJOR ARTERIAL 5435 2 12 4 1750 55 6 184 121 304 LAPLAISANCE RD COLLECTOR 1977 1 12 4 1700 40 26 185 122 121 LAPLAISANCE RD COLLECTOR 1703 1 12 4 1575 35 26 186 123 122 LAPLAISANCE RD COLLECTOR 2794 1 12 4 1575 35 26 187 123 124 LAPLAISANCE RD COLLECTOR 1890 1 12 4 1575 35 26 188 124 831 LAPLAISANCE RD COLLECTOR 2590 1 12 4 1575 35 26 189 125 126 LAPLAISANCE RD COLLECTOR 2768 1 12 4 1575 35 26 190 126 511 LAPLAISANCE RD COLLECTOR 5254 1 12 4 1575 35 26 191 127 512 S OTTER CREEK RD COLLECTOR 1141 1 12 4 1700 40 30 Fermi Nuclear Generating Plant K32 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 1

Saturation Free Up Down No. Lane Shoulder Flow Flow Stream Stream Length of Width Width Rate Speed Grid Link # Node Node Roadway Name Roadway Type (ft.) Lanes (ft.) (ft.) (pcphpl) (mph) Number 192 128 127 S OTTER CREEK RD COLLECTOR 2197 1 12 4 1700 40 30 193 129 128 N SHORE BLVD COLLECTOR 2144 1 12 4 1700 40 30 194 130 131 I75 FREEWAY 6696 3 12 4 2250 70 29 195 130 307 I75 FREEWAY 4788 3 12 4 2250 70 30 196 131 130 I75 FREEWAY 6696 3 12 4 2250 70 29 197 131 308 I75 FREEWAY 3420 3 12 4 2250 70 29 198 132 225 LAKEWOOD AVE COLLECTOR 2275 1 12 4 1575 35 29 199 133 134 SR 125 MINOR ARTERIAL 7881 1 12 4 1700 60 25 200 134 96 SR 125 MINOR ARTERIAL 986 1 12 4 1700 60 25 201 134 498 S OTTER CREEK RD COLLECTOR 1294 1 12 4 1350 30 25 202 135 73 US 24 MAJOR ARTERIAL 4774 1 12 4 1750 45 26 203 136 507 E DUNBAR RD COLLECTOR 5363 1 12 4 1700 55 25 204 137 138 W DUNBAR RD COLLECTOR 12413 1 12 4 1700 55 19 205 137 506 STRASBURG RD COLLECTOR 8868 1 12 0 1700 50 20 206 137 767 STRASBURG RD COLLECTOR 6750 1 12 4 1700 40 25 LOCAL 207 138 20 GEIGER RD ROADWAY 8457 1 12 4 1700 40 19 208 138 139 DUNBAR RD COLLECTOR 6459 1 12 4 1700 40 19 209 139 147 LEWIS AVE COLLECTOR 2507 1 12 4 1700 45 19 210 139 149 LEWIS AVE COLLECTOR 7746 1 12 4 1700 45 19 211 140 282 I75 FREEWAY 4619 3 12 4 2250 75 3 212 143 146 LEWIS AVE COLLECTOR 5771 1 12 4 1700 40 24 213 144 148 LEWIS AVE COLLECTOR 3468 1 12 4 1700 55 24 214 145 144 YARGERVILLE RD COLLECTOR 15958 1 12 4 1700 45 24 215 145 498 YARGERVILLE RD COLLECTOR 15115 1 12 4 1700 55 25 Fermi Nuclear Generating Plant K33 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 1

Saturation Free Up Down No. Lane Shoulder Flow Flow Stream Stream Length of Width Width Rate Speed Grid Link # Node Node Roadway Name Roadway Type (ft.) Lanes (ft.) (ft.) (pcphpl) (mph) Number 216 146 144 LEWIS AVE COLLECTOR 10548 1 12 4 1700 55 24 218 147 143 LEWIS AVE COLLECTOR 3015 1 12 4 1700 40 19 219 149 631 SR 50 MAJOR ARTERIAL 5082 1 12 4 1700 60 19 220 151 793 SR 85 MAJOR ARTERIAL 1018 3 12 4 1750 45 3 221 152 151 SR 85 MAJOR ARTERIAL 1283 3 12 4 1750 45 3 222 152 610 SR 85 MAJOR ARTERIAL 777 2 12 4 1900 40 3 223 153 168 SYIVAN AVE COLLECTOR 2186 1 12 4 1350 30 6 224 153 623 SYIVAN AVE COLLECTOR 3125 1 12 4 1350 30 6 225 154 424 SR 85 MAJOR ARTERIAL 4576 2 12 4 1750 55 7 226 154 611 SR 85 MAJOR ARTERIAL 632 2 12 4 1900 40 7 227 155 419 SR 85 MAJOR ARTERIAL 2070 2 12 4 1750 55 7 228 156 409 SR 85 MAJOR ARTERIAL 909 2 12 4 1900 55 7 229 156 612 SR 85 MAJOR ARTERIAL 685 2 12 4 1900 40 7 230 158 390 SR 85 MAJOR ARTERIAL 5365 2 12 4 1750 55 7 231 159 160 GIBRALTAR RD MAJOR ARTERIAL 370 2 12 4 1750 50 13 232 159 252 GIBRALTAR RD MAJOR ARTERIAL 2580 2 12 4 1750 45 13 233 160 158 SR 85 MAJOR ARTERIAL 1574 2 12 4 1900 55 13 234 160 159 GIBRALTAR RD MAJOR ARTERIAL 370 2 12 4 1750 50 13 235 161 166 WESTWOOD DR COLLECTOR 2339 1 12 4 1700 40 7 236 162 85 N DIXIE HWY MAJOR ARTERIAL 3328 1 12 4 1700 45 21 237 163 164 NADEAU RD MINOR ARTERIAL 456 2 12 4 1900 40 22 238 164 165 NADEAU RD MINOR ARTERIAL 1176 1 12 4 1750 40 21 239 164 296 I75 ON RAMP FREEWAY RAMP 1037 1 12 4 1700 50 21 240 165 297 I75 ON RAMP FREEWAY RAMP 801 1 12 4 1700 50 21 241 165 815 NADEAU RD MINOR ARTERIAL 284 1 12 4 1700 50 21 Fermi Nuclear Generating Plant K34 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 1

Saturation Free Up Down No. Lane Shoulder Flow Flow Stream Stream Length of Width Width Rate Speed Grid Link # Node Node Roadway Name Roadway Type (ft.) Lanes (ft.) (ft.) (pcphpl) (mph) Number 242 166 118 WEST RD MINOR ARTERIAL 2534 1 12 4 1750 40 6 243 166 192 WEST RD MINOR ARTERIAL 1507 2 12 4 1750 40 7 244 167 544 S HURON RIVER DR MAJOR ARTERIAL 3315 1 12 4 1700 50 13 245 167 636 W JEFFERSON AVE MAJOR ARTERIAL 2485 1 12 4 1700 50 13 246 168 118 WEST RD MINOR ARTERIAL 2429 1 12 4 1750 40 6 247 168 366 WEST RD MINOR ARTERIAL 8105 1 12 4 1750 40 6 248 169 648 HURON RIVER DR MAJOR ARTERIAL 3521 1 12 4 1350 30 12 249 169 817 HURON RIVER DR MAJOR ARTERIAL 786 2 12 4 1750 30 13 250 170 292 HURON RIVER DR MAJOR ARTERIAL 743 2 12 4 1900 30 13 251 170 550 FORT ST MINOR ARTERIAL 5623 1 12 4 1575 35 13 252 171 390 VREELAND RD MINOR ARTERIAL 5779 1 12 4 1750 45 7 253 171 656 W JEFFERSON AVE MAJOR ARTERIAL 4767 1 12 4 1700 50 7 254 172 173 W JEFFERSON AVE MAJOR ARTERIAL 426 2 12 4 1750 55 7 255 172 392 VAN HORN RD MINOR ARTERIAL 4375 2 12 4 1750 40 7 256 173 172 W JEFFERSON AVE MAJOR ARTERIAL 426 2 12 4 1750 40 7 257 173 653 W JEFFERSON AVE MAJOR ARTERIAL 1289 2 12 4 1900 40 7 258 174 711 W JEFFERSON AVE MAJOR ARTERIAL 514 1 12 4 1350 30 7 LOCAL 259 175 569 CONANT AVE ROADWAY 511 1 12 4 1575 35 26 260 176 101 W 6TH ST COLLECTOR 1887 1 12 4 1750 30 21 261 177 182 LAPLAISANCE RD COLLECTOR 2516 1 12 4 1575 35 26 262 178 714 WEST RD MINOR ARTERIAL 391 2 12 4 1750 35 7 263 178 788 W JEFFERSON AVE MAJOR ARTERIAL 497 1 12 4 1700 45 7 264 179 156 WEST RD MINOR ARTERIAL 1100 2 12 4 1750 35 7 265 180 179 WEST RD MINOR ARTERIAL 933 2 12 4 1750 35 7 Fermi Nuclear Generating Plant K35 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 1

Saturation Free Up Down No. Lane Shoulder Flow Flow Stream Stream Length of Width Width Rate Speed Grid Link # Node Node Roadway Name Roadway Type (ft.) Lanes (ft.) (ft.) (pcphpl) (mph) Number 266 180 716 WEST RD MINOR ARTERIAL 716 2 12 4 1750 35 7 267 181 325 FRONT ST COLLECTOR 1354 1 12 4 1750 35 21 LOCAL 268 181 797 NAVARRE ST ROADWAY 780 1 12 4 1575 35 21 269 182 520 LAPLAISANCE RD COLLECTOR 1227 1 12 4 1700 40 26 270 183 155 HARRISON AVE COLLECTOR 1342 1 12 4 1750 40 7 LOCAL 271 183 179 CHELSEA ST ROADWAY 2653 1 12 4 1750 30 7 LOCAL 272 183 202 VERNON ST ROADWAY 2709 1 12 4 1750 30 7 273 184 181 FRONT ST COLLECTOR 1561 1 12 4 1575 35 21 LOCAL 274 184 798 KENTUCKY AVE ROADWAY 741 1 12 4 1350 30 21 275 185 684 GRANGE RD COLLECTOR 2675 1 12 4 1350 30 7 276 185 720 WEST RD MINOR ARTERIAL 920 2 12 4 1750 35 7 277 185 722 WEST RD MINOR ARTERIAL 1114 2 12 4 1750 35 7 278 187 188 WEST RD MINOR ARTERIAL 1317 2 12 4 1750 35 7 279 188 205 ALLEN RD COLLECTOR 2621 2 12 4 1750 50 7 280 188 286 WEST RD MINOR ARTERIAL 3464 2 12 4 1900 40 7 281 190 80 E ELM AVE COLLECTOR 1126 1 12 4 1750 35 21 282 190 81 E ELM AVE COLLECTOR 2729 1 12 4 1750 30 21 283 191 192 WEST RD MINOR ARTERIAL 1358 2 12 4 1750 40 7 284 191 286 WEST RD MINOR ARTERIAL 2021 2 12 4 1900 40 7 285 192 166 WEST RD MINOR ARTERIAL 1507 2 12 4 1900 40 7 286 192 191 WEST RD MINOR ARTERIAL 1358 2 12 4 1750 40 7 287 194 120 KING RD MINOR ARTERIAL 3617 1 12 4 1750 40 6 Fermi Nuclear Generating Plant K36 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 1

Saturation Free Up Down No. Lane Shoulder Flow Flow Stream Stream Length of Width Width Rate Speed Grid Link # Node Node Roadway Name Roadway Type (ft.) Lanes (ft.) (ft.) (pcphpl) (mph) Number 288 194 284 DIX TOLEDO HWY MAJOR ARTERIAL 4186 2 12 4 1900 60 7 289 195 94 SIBLEY RD MINOR ARTERIAL 646 2 12 4 1750 45 3 290 196 195 SIBLEY RD MINOR ARTERIAL 2922 2 12 4 1750 45 3 291 196 743 ALLEN RD COLLECTOR 5363 2 12 4 1750 50 3 292 197 45 SIBLEY RD MINOR ARTERIAL 3147 1 12 4 1700 45 3 293 197 198 SIBLEY RD MINOR ARTERIAL 1688 1 12 4 1750 35 3 294 198 197 SIBLEY RD MINOR ARTERIAL 1688 1 12 4 1750 35 3 295 198 199 SIBLEY RD MINOR ARTERIAL 3225 1 12 4 1750 35 3 296 199 152 SIBLEY RD MINOR ARTERIAL 1432 2 12 4 1750 35 3 297 200 87 SIBLEY RD MINOR ARTERIAL 1936 1 12 4 1575 35 3 298 200 558 SIBLEY RD MINOR ARTERIAL 2502 1 12 4 1750 35 3 299 201 113 COLE RD COLLECTOR 1625 1 12 4 1750 40 21 300 201 570 RIVERVIEW AVE COLLECTOR 7546 1 12 4 1575 35 21 301 202 154 KING RD MINOR ARTERIAL 1364 2 12 4 1750 40 7 302 203 559 KING RD MINOR ARTERIAL 4032 1 12 4 1750 45 7 303 203 652 KING RD MINOR ARTERIAL 3755 1 12 4 1700 45 7 LOCAL 304 204 527 W LORAIN ST ROADWAY 811 1 12 4 1350 30 21 305 205 559 ALLEN RD COLLECTOR 2629 2 12 4 1750 50 7 306 207 188 ALLEN RD COLLECTOR 5356 2 12 4 1750 50 7 307 208 112 ALLEN RD COLLECTOR 4076 1 12 4 1700 50 7 308 209 300 I75 FREEWAY 1157 4 12 4 2250 70 26 309 209 302 I75 FREEWAY 793 3 12 4 2250 70 26 LOCAL 310 210 175 CONANT AVE ROADWAY 1311 1 12 4 1575 35 26 Fermi Nuclear Generating Plant K37 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 1

Saturation Free Up Down No. Lane Shoulder Flow Flow Stream Stream Length of Width Width Rate Speed Grid Link # Node Node Roadway Name Roadway Type (ft.) Lanes (ft.) (ft.) (pcphpl) (mph) Number 311 211 184 FRONT ST COLLECTOR 496 1 12 4 1575 35 21 312 211 569 FRONT ST COLLECTOR 1943 1 12 4 1575 35 26 313 211 799 WINCHESTER ST COLLECTOR 700 1 12 4 1750 35 26 314 213 323 N ROESSLER ST COLLECTOR 3099 1 12 4 1750 35 21 315 215 64 SR 50 MAJOR ARTERIAL 670 2 12 4 1750 35 21 316 215 76 W FRONT ST COLLECTOR 1303 1 12 4 1750 35 21 317 216 670 S STONY CREEK RD MINOR ARTERIAL 3138 1 12 0 1700 45 9 318 217 304 LAPLAISANCE RD COLLECTOR 249 1 12 4 1700 40 26 319 218 216 S STONY CREEK RD MINOR ARTERIAL 3555 1 12 2 1700 55 9 320 219 220 S STONY CREEK RD MINOR ARTERIAL 2569 1 12 2 1700 55 10 321 220 218 S STONY CREEK RD MINOR ARTERIAL 2530 1 12 2 1700 55 10 322 221 306 S OTTER CREEK RD COLLECTOR 2843 1 12 4 1700 40 26 323 222 223 S STONY CREEK RD MINOR ARTERIAL 2477 1 12 2 1700 50 16 324 223 226 S STONY CREEK RD MINOR ARTERIAL 9482 1 12 2 1700 50 16 325 224 230 SR 151 MINOR ARTERIAL 9583 1 12 4 1750 50 29 326 224 308 I75 ON RAMP FREEWAY RAMP 1038 1 12 4 1700 50 29 327 225 816 SR 151 MINOR ARTERIAL 1233 1 12 4 1700 40 29 328 226 109 S STONY CREEK RD MINOR ARTERIAL 3923 1 12 2 1750 40 16 329 227 228 S STONY CREEK RD MINOR ARTERIAL 3900 1 12 2 1700 40 15 330 228 110 S STONY CREEK RD MINOR ARTERIAL 2001 1 12 2 1700 50 15 331 229 225 HAROLD DR COLLECTOR 4213 1 12 4 1575 35 29 332 230 72 SR 151 MINOR ARTERIAL 3003 1 12 4 1750 45 29 333 230 224 SR 151 MINOR ARTERIAL 9582 1 12 4 1700 40 29 334 230 510 SR 125 MINOR ARTERIAL 4319 1 12 4 1700 60 29 335 231 271 I275 ON RAMP FREEWAY RAMP 2237 1 12 4 1700 50 11 Fermi Nuclear Generating Plant K38 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 1

Saturation Free Up Down No. Lane Shoulder Flow Flow Stream Stream Length of Width Width Rate Speed Grid Link # Node Node Roadway Name Roadway Type (ft.) Lanes (ft.) (ft.) (pcphpl) (mph) Number 336 232 231 CARLETON ROCKWOOD RD COLLECTOR 1997 1 12 4 1700 50 11 337 234 239 GRAFTON RD COLLECTOR 11293 1 12 2 1750 45 11 338 234 584 CARLETON ROCKWOOD RD COLLECTOR 1188 1 12 4 1575 35 11 339 237 580 ASH ST COLLECTOR 5266 1 12 4 1350 30 11 340 239 577 OAKVILLE WALTZ RD COLLECTOR 3017 1 12 2 1700 45 11 341 243 239 OAKVILLE WALTZ RD COLLECTOR 1917 1 12 2 1750 45 11 342 243 270 I275 ON RAMP FREEWAY RAMP 1323 1 12 4 1700 50 11 343 244 803 NADEAU RD MINOR ARTERIAL 2327 1 12 4 1700 50 21 344 248 468 N DIXIE HWY MAJOR ARTERIAL 1914 1 12 4 1750 50 17 345 249 37 SWAN CREEK RD MINOR ARTERIAL 2154 1 12 4 1700 50 17 346 250 805 N DIXIE HWY MAJOR ARTERIAL 5543 1 12 4 1750 50 17 347 250 807 U.S. TURNPIKE RD MAJOR ARTERIAL 2976 1 12 4 1700 55 18 348 250 839 DIXIE HWY MINOR ARTERIAL 2444 1 12 4 1700 50 17 349 252 159 GIBRALTAR RD MAJOR ARTERIAL 2580 2 12 4 1750 50 13 350 252 288 I75 ON RAMP FREEWAY RAMP 1362 1 12 4 1700 50 13 351 254 59 US24 MAJOR ARTERIAL 4862 1 12 4 1750 45 21 352 258 775 US24 MAJOR ARTERIAL 1567 2 12 4 1900 35 21 353 262 776 US 24 MAJOR ARTERIAL 7155 2 12 4 1900 60 29 354 263 82 N DIXIE HWY MAJOR ARTERIAL 2820 2 12 4 1750 45 21 355 265 83 N DIXIE HWY MAJOR ARTERIAL 1114 2 12 4 1750 45 21 356 265 263 N DIXIE HWY MAJOR ARTERIAL 1764 2 12 4 1900 45 21 357 267 30 I275 FREEWAY 3909 3 12 4 2250 75 1 358 267 460 I275 FREEWAY 3103 3 12 4 2250 75 5 359 268 31 I275 FREEWAY 4976 3 12 4 2250 75 5 360 268 459 I275 FREEWAY 3315 3 12 4 2250 75 5 Fermi Nuclear Generating Plant K39 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 1

Saturation Free Up Down No. Lane Shoulder Flow Flow Stream Stream Length of Width Width Rate Speed Grid Link # Node Node Roadway Name Roadway Type (ft.) Lanes (ft.) (ft.) (pcphpl) (mph) Number 361 269 268 I275 ON RAMP FREEWAY RAMP 1710 1 12 4 1700 50 5 362 270 458 I275 FREEWAY 8299 3 12 4 2250 75 5 363 270 829 I275 FREEWAY 1999 3 12 4 2250 75 11 364 271 456 I275 FREEWAY 6002 3 12 4 2250 75 11 365 271 457 I275 FREEWAY 6849 3 12 4 2250 75 11 366 272 275 I275 FREEWAY 1496 3 12 4 2250 75 16 367 272 455 I275 FREEWAY 2333 3 12 4 2250 75 16 368 273 272 I275 ON RAMP FREEWAY RAMP 1030 1 12 4 1700 50 16 369 273 812 US24 MAJOR ARTERIAL 813 2 12 4 1900 55 17 370 274 273 US24 MAJOR ARTERIAL 327 2 12 4 1900 50 17 371 274 276 I275 ON RAMP FREEWAY RAMP 660 1 12 4 1350 30 17 372 275 22 I275 FREEWAY 6998 2 12 4 2250 75 17 373 275 272 I275 FREEWAY 1496 3 12 4 2250 75 16 374 276 275 I275 ON RAMP FREEWAY RAMP 632 1 12 4 1700 50 17 375 277 22 I275 FREEWAY 1771 3 12 4 2250 65 17 376 277 280 I75 ON RAMP FREEWAY RAMP 2511 2 12 4 1900 50 17 377 277 449 I275 Ramp to I75 SB FREEWAY RAMP 3448 1 12 4 1700 50 17 378 278 277 I75 OFF RAMP FREEWAY RAMP 1977 1 12 4 1700 50 17 379 278 280 I75 FREEWAY 2569 3 12 4 2250 65 17 380 278 441 I75 FREEWAY 2892 3 12 4 2250 75 17 381 279 21 I75 NB Ramp to I275 FREEWAY Ramp 2751 2 12 4 1900 60 17 382 279 23 I75 FREEWAY 2395 4 12 4 2250 65 17 383 279 280 I75 FREEWAY 2844 3 12 4 2250 65 17 384 280 278 I75 FREEWAY 2569 3 12 4 2250 75 17 385 280 279 I75 FREEWAY 2844 4 12 4 2250 65 17 Fermi Nuclear Generating Plant K40 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 1

Saturation Free Up Down No. Lane Shoulder Flow Flow Stream Stream Length of Width Width Rate Speed Grid Link # Node Node Roadway Name Roadway Type (ft.) Lanes (ft.) (ft.) (pcphpl) (mph) Number 386 281 450 I75 ON RAMP FREEWAY RAMP 744 1 12 4 1700 40 17 387 282 140 I75 FREEWAY 4619 3 12 4 2250 75 3 388 282 285 I75 FREEWAY 1967 3 12 4 2250 70 3 389 282 692 I95 OFF RAMP FREEWAY RAMP 1375 1 12 4 1750 50 3 390 283 94 SIBLEY RD MINOR ARTERIAL 359 1 12 4 1750 40 3 391 283 282 I95 ON RAMP FREEWAY RAMP 1333 1 12 4 1700 50 3 392 283 692 SIBLEY RD MINOR ARTERIAL 1197 2 12 4 1750 40 3 393 284 594 DIX TOLEDO HWY MAJOR ARTERIAL 1392 3 12 4 1900 60 3 394 285 282 I75 FREEWAY 1967 3 12 4 2250 75 3 395 285 287 I75 FREEWAY 9665 3 12 4 2250 75 7 396 286 191 WEST RD MINOR ARTERIAL 2021 2 12 4 1750 40 7 397 286 287 I75 ON RAMP FREEWAY RAMP 1264 1 12 4 1700 50 7 398 287 285 I75 FREEWAY 9665 3 12 4 2250 75 7 399 287 842 I75 FREEWAY 11814 3 12 4 2250 70 7 400 288 290 I75 FREEWAY 1532 3 12 4 2250 70 13 401 288 683 I75 OFF RAMP FREEWAY RAMP 1390 1 12 4 1750 40 13 402 288 842 I75 FREEWAY 4012 3 12 4 2250 75 7 403 289 252 GIBRALTAR RD MAJOR ARTERIAL 206 2 12 4 1750 45 13 404 289 291 I95 ON RAMP FREEWAY RAMP 478 1 12 4 1575 30 13 405 290 288 I75 FREEWAY 1532 3 12 4 2250 70 13 406 290 604 I75 FREEWAY 2307 3 12 4 2250 70 13 407 291 290 I95 ON RAMP FREEWAY RAMP 713 1 12 4 1700 50 13 408 292 170 HURON RIVER DR MAJOR ARTERIAL 743 2 12 4 1750 30 13 409 292 447 I75 ON RAMP FREEWAY RAMP 1184 1 12 4 1700 40 13 410 292 817 HURON RIVER DR MAJOR ARTERIAL 751 2 12 4 1750 30 13 Fermi Nuclear Generating Plant K41 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 1

Saturation Free Up Down No. Lane Shoulder Flow Flow Stream Stream Length of Width Width Rate Speed Grid Link # Node Node Roadway Name Roadway Type (ft.) Lanes (ft.) (ft.) (pcphpl) (mph) Number 411 293 295 I75 FREEWAY 3538 3 12 4 2250 75 13 412 293 448 I75 FREEWAY 2396 4 12 4 2250 65 13 413 294 295 I75 ON RAMP FREEWAY RAMP 1116 1 12 4 1700 50 13 414 294 814 S HURON RIVER DR MAJOR ARTERIAL 942 1 12 4 1700 40 13 415 295 293 I75 FREEWAY 3538 3 12 4 2250 75 13 416 295 446 I75 FREEWAY 3029 3 12 4 2250 75 13 417 296 24 I75 FREEWAY 2370 4 12 4 2250 65 22 418 296 297 I75 FREEWAY 2118 3 12 4 2250 65 21 419 297 296 I75 FREEWAY 2118 3 12 4 2250 65 21 420 297 451 I75 FREEWAY 6540 3 12 4 2250 65 21 421 298 452 I75 FREEWAY 3644 3 12 4 2250 70 21 422 298 453 I75 FREEWAY 4533 3 12 4 2250 70 21 423 298 736 I75 OFF RAMP FREEWAY RAMP 1573 1 12 4 1750 50 21 424 299 759 I75 ON RAMP FREEWAY RAMP 620 1 12 4 1700 40 26 425 300 209 I75 FREEWAY 1157 4 12 4 2250 70 26 426 300 453 I75 FREEWAY 2730 3 12 4 2250 70 26 427 301 303 I75 ON RAMP FREEWAY RAMP 816 1 12 4 1700 40 26 428 302 209 I75 FREEWAY 793 3 12 4 2250 70 26 429 302 305 I75 FREEWAY 10825 3 12 4 2250 70 26 430 303 302 I75 ON RAMP FREEWAY RAMP 641 1 12 4 1700 50 26 431 304 305 I75 ON RAMP FREEWAY RAMP 1645 1 12 4 1700 50 26 432 305 302 I75 FREEWAY 10825 3 12 4 2250 70 26 433 305 761 I75 FREEWAY 6700 3 12 4 2250 70 26 434 306 307 I75 ON RAMP FREEWAY RAMP 1635 1 12 4 1700 50 30 435 307 130 I75 FREEWAY 4788 3 12 4 2250 70 30 Fermi Nuclear Generating Plant K42 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 1

Saturation Free Up Down No. Lane Shoulder Flow Flow Stream Stream Length of Width Width Rate Speed Grid Link # Node Node Roadway Name Roadway Type (ft.) Lanes (ft.) (ft.) (pcphpl) (mph) Number 436 307 761 I75 FREEWAY 8210 3 12 4 2250 70 26 437 308 131 I75 FREEWAY 3420 3 12 4 2250 70 29 438 308 454 I75 FREEWAY 3516 3 12 4 2250 70 29 439 309 310 NADEAU RD MINOR ARTERIAL 3503 1 12 4 1700 50 22 440 310 4 NADEAU RD MINOR ARTERIAL 3294 1 12 4 1700 50 22 LOCAL 441 311 34 CLOVERDALE ST ROADWAY 1402 1 12 4 1750 30 22 442 312 33 GRAND BLVD COLLECTOR 2605 1 12 4 1750 30 22 LOCAL 443 313 163 WOLVERINE DR ROADWAY 1010 1 12 4 1750 30 22 444 314 32 SANDY CREEK RD COLLECTOR 1296 1 12 4 1750 30 22 LOCAL 445 315 162 STATE PARK RD ROADWAY 976 1 12 4 1750 30 22 446 317 244 VIVIAN RD COLLECTOR 5941 1 12 4 1575 35 21 447 317 318 E HURD RD COLLECTOR 3973 1 12 4 1700 45 21 LOCAL 448 318 319 E HURD RD ROADWAY 959 1 12 4 1575 35 21 449 319 106 SR 125 MAJOR ARTERIAL 4331 2 12 4 1750 50 21 450 319 107 SR 125 MAJOR ARTERIAL 2233 2 12 4 1750 50 21 451 320 80 N MACOMB ST COLLECTOR 1361 1 12 4 1750 35 21 452 320 104 E NOBLE ST COLLECTOR 932 1 12 4 1750 35 21 453 321 104 W NOBLE ST COLLECTOR 779 1 12 4 1750 35 21 454 322 79 W ELM AVE MINOR ARTERIAL 1944 1 12 4 1750 35 21 455 322 323 W ELM AVE MINOR ARTERIAL 1608 1 12 4 1750 35 21 456 323 76 S MACOMB ST COLLECTOR 1510 1 12 4 1575 35 21 457 323 322 W ELM AVE MINOR ARTERIAL 1608 1 12 4 1575 35 21 Fermi Nuclear Generating Plant K43 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 1

Saturation Free Up Down No. Lane Shoulder Flow Flow Stream Stream Length of Width Width Rate Speed Grid Link # Node Node Roadway Name Roadway Type (ft.) Lanes (ft.) (ft.) (pcphpl) (mph) Number 458 323 618 W ELM AVE MINOR ARTERIAL 1270 1 12 4 1700 40 21 459 324 76 SR 50 MAJOR ARTERIAL 2557 1 12 4 1575 35 21 460 324 733 E 1ST ST COLLECTOR 360 1 12 4 1700 35 21 461 325 78 FRONT ST COLLECTOR 905 1 12 4 1750 35 21 462 325 796 S MACOMB ST COLLECTOR 602 1 12 4 1575 35 21 463 331 41 US24 MAJOR ARTERIAL 3902 1 12 4 1700 60 21 464 332 57 US24 MAJOR ARTERIAL 5851 2 12 4 1750 55 16 465 332 108 US24 MAJOR ARTERIAL 4606 2 12 4 1900 55 16 LOCAL 466 333 332 BUHL RD ROADWAY 1310 1 12 4 1700 35 16 467 335 222 S STONY CREEK RD MINOR ARTERIAL 2469 1 12 2 1700 50 16 468 336 57 NEWPORT RD MINOR ARTERIAL 2472 1 12 4 1750 50 16 469 337 57 NEWPORT RD COLLECTOR 6741 1 12 4 1750 50 16 470 338 56 US24 MAJOR ARTERIAL 10983 2 12 4 1750 55 12 471 338 812 US24 MAJOR ARTERIAL 6746 2 12 4 1900 50 17 LOCAL 472 339 338 1ST ST ROADWAY 1201 1 12 4 1700 30 12 473 340 54 S HURON RIVER DR MAJOR ARTERIAL 2145 1 12 0 1750 35 12 474 341 830 WILL CARLETON RD MINOR ARTERIAL 3936 1 12 4 1700 45 11 475 342 56 CARLETON ROCKWOOD RD COLLECTOR 8025 1 12 4 1750 40 12 476 345 54 US24 MAJOR ARTERIAL 6029 2 12 4 1750 45 12 477 345 56 US24 MAJOR ARTERIAL 5446 2 12 4 1750 55 12 478 347 114 US24 MAJOR ARTERIAL 356 2 12 4 1750 35 12 479 347 350 US24 MAJOR ARTERIAL 506 2 12 4 1750 35 12 480 349 363 INKSTER RD COLLECTOR 5886 1 12 4 1750 40 6 Fermi Nuclear Generating Plant K44 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 1

Saturation Free Up Down No. Lane Shoulder Flow Flow Stream Stream Length of Width Width Rate Speed Grid Link # Node Node Roadway Name Roadway Type (ft.) Lanes (ft.) (ft.) (pcphpl) (mph) Number 481 349 651 W HURON RIVER DR MINOR ARTERIAL 6580 1 12 4 1700 40 6 482 350 115 US24 MAJOR ARTERIAL 3075 2 12 4 1750 45 6 483 350 347 US24 MAJOR ARTERIAL 506 2 12 4 1900 35 12 484 350 349 W HURON RIVER DR MINOR ARTERIAL 4393 1 12 4 1700 40 6 LOCAL 485 351 350 YPSILANTI ST ROADWAY 1260 1 12 4 1750 35 12 LOCAL 486 352 115 LEONARD ST ROADWAY 864 1 12 4 1750 30 6 487 354 116 VREELAND RD MAJOR ARTERIAL 2452 1 12 4 1750 35 6 488 362 48 VAN HORN RD MINOR ARTERIAL 5321 1 12 4 1700 45 7 489 362 191 HALL RD COLLECTOR 5297 2 12 4 1750 30 7 490 362 207 VAN HORN RD MINOR ARTERIAL 5531 1 12 4 1750 40 7 491 363 117 VAN HORN RD MINOR ARTERIAL 7773 1 12 4 1750 40 6 492 363 366 INKSTER RD COLLECTOR 5226 1 12 4 1750 40 6 493 364 118 US 24 MAJOR ARTERIAL 1284 3 12 4 1750 50 6 494 366 627 INKSTER RD COLLECTOR 5353 1 12 4 1750 40 6 495 367 194 DIX TOLEDO HWY MAJOR ARTERIAL 3597 2 12 4 1750 60 7 496 370 192 GUDITH RD COLLECTOR 2670 1 12 4 1750 30 7 497 370 367 CARTER RD COLLECTOR 2352 1 12 4 1750 40 7 LOCAL 498 371 50 EVERGREEN ST ROADWAY 1081 1 12 4 1750 30 12 499 372 373 E HURON RIVER DR COLLECTOR 1563 1 12 4 1575 35 12 LOCAL 500 372 374 ASPEN DR ROADWAY 573 1 12 4 1350 30 12 LOCAL 501 373 50 EVERGREEN ST ROADWAY 1840 1 12 4 1750 30 12 Fermi Nuclear Generating Plant K45 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 1

Saturation Free Up Down No. Lane Shoulder Flow Flow Stream Stream Length of Width Width Rate Speed Grid Link # Node Node Roadway Name Roadway Type (ft.) Lanes (ft.) (ft.) (pcphpl) (mph) Number 502 373 52 E HURON RIVER DR COLLECTOR 2552 1 12 4 1575 35 12 LOCAL 503 374 49 ASPEN DR ROADWAY 2544 1 12 4 1750 30 12 LOCAL 504 376 354 PETERS RD ROADWAY 3395 1 12 4 1350 30 6 LOCAL 505 376 784 PETERS RD ROADWAY 1123 1 12 4 1575 35 6 506 379 47 GATEWAY DR COLLECTOR 1198 2 12 4 1750 35 13 LOCAL 507 380 47 GATEWAY DR ROADWAY 601 1 12 4 1750 35 13 508 387 42 GIBRALTAR RD MAJOR ARTERIAL 3254 1 12 4 1750 30 13 LOCAL 509 387 553 S GIBRALTAR RD ROADWAY 1834 1 12 4 1350 30 13 510 388 159 ALLEN RD COLLECTOR 2060 1 12 4 1750 40 13 511 389 160 SR 85 MAJOR ARTERIAL 1988 2 12 4 1750 55 13 512 390 208 VREELAND RD MINOR ARTERIAL 2876 1 12 4 1750 40 7 513 390 395 SR 85 MAJOR ARTERIAL 3204 2 12 4 1900 55 7 514 391 645 OSTREICH RD COLLECTOR 2403 1 12 4 1700 45 13 515 392 172 VAN HORN RD MINOR ARTERIAL 4375 2 12 4 1750 40 7 516 392 398 SR 85 MAJOR ARTERIAL 5622 2 12 4 1750 55 7 517 392 657 VAN HORN RD MINOR ARTERIAL 1896 2 12 4 1750 40 7 518 395 392 SR 85 MAJOR ARTERIAL 3280 2 12 4 1750 55 7 519 398 156 SR 85 MAJOR ARTERIAL 633 2 12 4 1750 55 7 520 409 155 SR 85 MAJOR ARTERIAL 1871 2 12 4 1750 55 7 521 419 154 SR 85 MAJOR ARTERIAL 606 2 12 4 1750 55 7 522 421 154 KING RD MINOR ARTERIAL 3508 2 12 4 1750 40 7 Fermi Nuclear Generating Plant K46 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 1

Saturation Free Up Down No. Lane Shoulder Flow Flow Stream Stream Length of Width Width Rate Speed Grid Link # Node Node Roadway Name Roadway Type (ft.) Lanes (ft.) (ft.) (pcphpl) (mph) Number 523 421 558 W JEFFERSON AVE MAJOR ARTERIAL 5565 2 12 4 1750 45 8 524 424 152 SR 85 MAJOR ARTERIAL 754 2 12 4 1750 55 3 525 440 441 I75 ON RAMP FREEWAY RAMP 1966 1 12 4 1700 50 17 526 440 442 SWAN CREEK RD MINOR ARTERIAL 1295 1 12 4 1575 35 17 527 440 574 SWAN CREEK RD COLLECTOR 2451 1 12 2 1700 50 17 528 440 811 SWAN CREEK RD COLLECTOR 5526 1 12 2 1700 40 17 529 441 278 I75 FREEWAY 2892 4 12 4 2250 75 17 530 441 444 I75 FREEWAY 1158 3 12 4 2250 75 17 531 442 440 SWAN CREEK RD MINOR ARTERIAL 1295 1 12 4 1575 35 17 532 442 443 I75 ON RAMP FREEWAY RAMP 548 1 12 4 1350 30 17 533 443 444 I75 ON RAMP FREEWAY RAMP 521 1 12 4 1700 40 17 534 444 441 I75 FREEWAY 1158 3 12 4 2250 75 17 535 444 445 I75 FREEWAY 14884 3 12 4 2250 75 17 536 445 444 I75 FREEWAY 14884 3 12 4 2250 75 17 537 445 446 I75 FREEWAY 9364 3 12 4 2250 75 12 538 446 295 I75 FREEWAY 3029 3 12 4 2250 75 13 539 446 445 I75 FREEWAY 9364 3 12 4 2250 75 12 540 447 293 I7 ON RAMP FREEWAY RAMP 621 1 12 4 1700 50 13 541 448 293 I75 FREEWAY 2396 3 12 4 2250 75 13 542 448 603 SR 85 MAJOR ARTERIAL 2748 1 12 4 1700 50 13 543 448 604 I75 FREEWAY 3319 3 12 4 2250 70 13 544 449 281 I75 ON RAMP FREEWAY RAMP 1139 1 12 4 1700 40 17 545 450 280 I75 ON RAMP FREEWAY RAMP 678 1 12 4 1700 50 17 546 451 297 I75 FREEWAY 6536 3 12 4 2250 65 21 547 451 452 I75 FREEWAY 4947 3 12 4 2250 65 21 Fermi Nuclear Generating Plant K47 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 1

Saturation Free Up Down No. Lane Shoulder Flow Flow Stream Stream Length of Width Width Rate Speed Grid Link # Node Node Roadway Name Roadway Type (ft.) Lanes (ft.) (ft.) (pcphpl) (mph) Number 548 452 298 I75 FREEWAY 3637 3 12 4 2250 70 21 549 452 451 I75 FREEWAY 4946 3 12 4 2250 65 21 550 453 298 I75 FREEWAY 4533 3 12 4 2250 70 21 551 453 300 I75 FREEWAY 2730 3 12 4 2250 70 26 552 454 308 I75 FREEWAY 3516 3 12 4 2250 70 29 553 455 272 I275 FREEWAY 2333 3 12 4 2250 75 16 554 455 456 I275 FREEWAY 9877 3 12 4 2250 75 11 555 456 271 I275 FREEWAY 6002 3 12 4 2250 75 11 556 456 455 I275 FREEWAY 9877 3 12 4 2250 75 11 557 457 271 I275 FREEWAY 6849 3 12 4 2250 75 11 558 457 829 I275 FREEWAY 2324 3 12 4 2250 75 11 559 458 31 I275 FREEWAY 3087 3 12 4 2250 75 5 560 458 270 I275 FREEWAY 8299 3 12 4 2250 75 5 561 459 268 I275 FREEWAY 3311 3 12 4 2250 75 5 562 459 460 I275 FREEWAY 3705 3 12 4 2250 75 5 563 460 267 I275 FREEWAY 3103 3 12 4 2250 75 5 564 460 459 I275 FREEWAY 3705 3 12 4 2250 75 5 565 462 35 N DIXIE HWY MAJOR ARTERIAL 2875 1 12 4 1750 50 22 566 462 36 N DIXIE HWY MAJOR ARTERIAL 3458 1 12 4 1750 40 22 567 463 35 POINTE AUX PEAUX RD COLLECTOR 5940 1 12 4 1750 40 22 568 464 36 FERMI DR COLLECTOR 1590 1 12 4 1750 50 22 569 467 695 SWAN CREEK RD MINOR ARTERIAL 747 1 12 4 1750 30 17 570 468 805 N DIXIE HWY MAJOR ARTERIAL 1343 1 12 4 1750 50 17 571 468 838 SWAN CREEK RD MINOR ARTERIAL 1186 1 12 4 1700 50 17 572 469 470 DIXIE HWY MINOR ARTERIAL 4351 1 12 4 1750 35 13 Fermi Nuclear Generating Plant K48 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 1

Saturation Free Up Down No. Lane Shoulder Flow Flow Stream Stream Length of Width Width Rate Speed Grid Link # Node Node Roadway Name Roadway Type (ft.) Lanes (ft.) (ft.) (pcphpl) (mph) Number 573 470 170 FORT ST MINOR ARTERIAL 2832 1 12 4 1750 35 13 574 470 294 S HURON RIVER DR MAJOR ARTERIAL 349 1 12 4 1350 30 13 575 472 477 U.S. TURNPIKE RD MAJOR ARTERIAL 7270 1 12 4 1700 55 18 576 473 472 PORT SUNLIGHT RD COLLECTOR 5384 1 12 4 1750 50 18 577 474 473 PORT SUNLIGHT RD COLLECTOR 2578 1 12 4 1700 50 18 578 475 474 PORT SUNLIGHT RD COLLECTOR 2233 1 12 4 1350 30 18 579 477 634 U.S. TURNPIKE RD MAJOR ARTERIAL 1633 1 12 4 1700 55 18 580 493 464 FERMI DR COLLECTOR 5835 1 12 4 1700 40 22 581 498 134 S OTTER CREEK RD COLLECTOR 1294 1 12 4 1350 30 25 582 498 145 YARGERVILLE RD COLLECTOR 15114 1 12 4 1700 55 25 583 498 262 US 24 MAJOR ARTERIAL 11863 1 12 4 1700 50 25 584 500 74 E DUNBAR RD COLLECTOR 2705 1 12 4 1750 50 26 LOCAL 585 501 65 PATTERSON DR ROADWAY 1805 1 12 4 1750 35 21 LOCAL 586 501 75 W 7TH ST ROADWAY 1250 2 12 4 1750 35 21 LOCAL 587 502 75 W 7TH ST ROADWAY 1677 2 12 4 1750 35 21 LOCAL 588 503 65 BELLESTRI DR ROADWAY 764 1 12 4 1750 35 21 589 505 66 HERR RD COLLECTOR 5530 1 12 4 1750 45 20 590 505 136 E DUNBAR RD COLLECTOR 3045 1 12 4 1700 45 25 591 505 500 E DUNBAR RD COLLECTOR 2868 1 12 4 1700 50 25 592 506 20 SR 50 MAJOR ARTERIAL 12434 1 12 4 1700 65 20 593 507 67 S RAISINVILLE RD COLLECTOR 9137 1 12 4 1750 50 20 594 507 137 W DUNBAR RD COLLECTOR 7313 1 12 4 1700 55 20 Fermi Nuclear Generating Plant K49 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 1

Saturation Free Up Down No. Lane Shoulder Flow Flow Stream Stream Length of Width Width Rate Speed Grid Link # Node Node Roadway Name Roadway Type (ft.) Lanes (ft.) (ft.) (pcphpl) (mph) Number 595 508 67 S RAISINVILLE RD COLLECTOR 1018 1 12 4 1750 45 20 596 508 774 N CUSTER RD MINOR ARTERIAL 1360 1 12 4 1750 45 20 597 509 230 SR 125 MINOR ARTERIAL 12218 1 12 4 1750 60 29 LOCAL 598 511 221 KNAB RD ROADWAY 947 1 12 4 1575 35 26 599 512 306 S OTTER CREEK RD COLLECTOR 1288 1 12 4 1700 40 30 600 513 700 E ALBAIN RD COLLECTOR 997 1 12 4 1700 40 26 601 514 97 W ALBAIN RD COLLECTOR 3812 1 12 4 1750 40 26 602 514 734 E ALBAIN RD COLLECTOR 2305 1 12 4 1350 30 26 LOCAL 603 515 514 HULL RD ROADWAY 1853 1 12 4 1700 40 26 LOCAL 604 516 518 PINE CONE TRAIL ROADWAY 1322 1 12 4 1575 35 26 LOCAL 605 517 98 SHOPPING PLAZA ROADWAY 783 1 12 4 1750 25 26 606 518 99 E DUNBAR RD COLLECTOR 1975 1 12 4 1750 40 26 607 518 520 E DUNBAR RD COLLECTOR 2631 1 12 4 1700 40 26 608 519 177 LAPLAISANCE RD COLLECTOR 1892 1 12 4 1575 35 26 609 520 217 LAPLAISANCE RD COLLECTOR 5022 1 12 4 1700 40 26 610 523 100 JONES AVE COLLECTOR 1597 1 12 4 1750 35 26 611 523 177 JONES AVE COLLECTOR 674 1 12 4 1575 35 26 LOCAL 612 524 100 KROGER SHOPPING PLAZA ROADWAY 373 1 12 4 1750 35 26 613 525 68 BLUE BUSH RD MINOR ARTERIAL 4370 1 12 4 1700 55 21 614 525 660 STEWART RD COLLECTOR 4323 1 12 4 1700 50 21 615 525 726 STEWART RD COLLECTOR 10747 1 12 2 1750 40 20 Fermi Nuclear Generating Plant K50 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 1

Saturation Free Up Down No. Lane Shoulder Flow Flow Stream Stream Length of Width Width Rate Speed Grid Link # Node Node Roadway Name Roadway Type (ft.) Lanes (ft.) (ft.) (pcphpl) (mph) Number LOCAL 616 526 258 W LORAIN ST ROADWAY 631 1 12 4 1750 30 21 LOCAL 617 526 618 HUBAR DR ROADWAY 2007 1 12 4 1350 30 21 LOCAL 618 527 258 W LORAIN ST ROADWAY 596 1 12 4 1750 30 21 LOCAL 619 528 62 FREDERICKS DR ROADWAY 646 1 12 4 1750 30 21 LOCAL 620 528 526 HUBAR DR ROADWAY 1406 1 12 4 1350 30 21 LOCAL 621 529 62 FREDERICKS DR ROADWAY 1970 1 12 4 1750 30 21 LOCAL 622 530 61 HOLIDAY BLVD ROADWAY 937 1 12 4 1750 30 21 623 531 60 STEWART RD COLLECTOR 2571 2 12 4 1750 45 21 624 531 105 STEWART RD COLLECTOR 2385 2 12 4 1750 45 21 625 532 59 MALL RD COLLECTOR 1351 1 12 4 1750 30 21 626 533 59 MALL RD COLLECTOR 1624 1 12 4 1750 35 21 627 534 227 S STONY CREEK RD MINOR ARTERIAL 4118 1 12 2 1700 40 15 628 535 583 CARLETON WEST RD COLLECTOR 2742 1 12 4 1700 40 11 629 535 674 CARLETON WEST RD COLLECTOR 552 1 12 0 1700 40 11 630 536 823 EXETER RD COLLECTOR 1636 1 12 4 1700 40 16 LOCAL 631 537 110 SUMPTER RD ROADWAY 1096 1 12 4 1700 40 15 632 538 110 SUMPTER RD COLLECTOR 3148 1 12 4 1700 40 10 633 539 219 S STONY CREEK RD MINOR ARTERIAL 4095 1 12 2 1700 55 10 634 541 669 PALMER RD COLLECTOR 2306 1 12 4 1700 40 14 Fermi Nuclear Generating Plant K51 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 1

Saturation Free Up Down No. Lane Shoulder Flow Flow Stream Stream Length of Width Width Rate Speed Grid Link # Node Node Roadway Name Roadway Type (ft.) Lanes (ft.) (ft.) (pcphpl) (mph) Number 635 541 739 OSTRANDER RD COLLECTOR 3665 1 12 4 1700 40 14 636 543 470 S HURON RIVER DR MAJOR ARTERIAL 2934 1 12 4 1750 30 13 637 544 638 S HURON RIVER DR MAJOR ARTERIAL 1669 1 12 4 1700 50 13 638 545 40 HURON RIVER DR MAJOR ARTERIAL 3971 1 12 4 1700 40 13 639 545 546 HURON RIVER DR MAJOR ARTERIAL 5539 1 12 4 1350 30 13 640 546 170 HURON RIVER DR MAJOR ARTERIAL 1165 1 12 4 1750 30 13 641 547 42 W JEFFERSON AVE MAJOR ARTERIAL 4071 1 12 4 1750 50 13 642 549 40 HURON RIVER DR MAJOR ARTERIAL 970 1 12 4 1350 30 13 643 550 640 WOODRUFF RD COLLECTOR 2215 1 12 4 1350 30 13 644 550 644 WOODRUFF RD COLLECTOR 3225 1 12 4 1350 30 13 645 550 645 FORT ST MINOR ARTERIAL 5628 1 12 4 1700 45 13 646 552 208 ALLEN RD COLLECTOR 2951 1 12 4 1750 50 7 647 552 388 ALLEN RD COLLECTOR 1255 1 12 4 1700 40 7 LOCAL 648 553 547 S GIBRALTAR RD ROADWAY 4602 1 12 4 1750 30 13 LOCAL 649 554 547 SCHOOL ROADWAY 988 1 12 4 1750 30 13 650 557 178 W JEFFERSON AVE MAJOR ARTERIAL 934 1 12 4 1750 30 7 651 558 200 SIBLEY RD MINOR ARTERIAL 2502 1 12 4 1750 35 3 652 558 707 W JEFFERSON AVE MAJOR ARTERIAL 1993 2 12 4 1900 40 4 653 559 194 KING RD MINOR ARTERIAL 7139 1 12 4 1750 40 7 654 559 196 ALLEN RD COLLECTOR 5262 2 12 4 1750 50 7 655 563 185 GRANGE RD COLLECTOR 792 1 12 4 1750 30 7 656 567 191 HALL RD COLLECTOR 1127 1 12 4 1750 30 7 657 569 301 FRONT ST COLLECTOR 2465 1 12 4 1900 45 26 Fermi Nuclear Generating Plant K52 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 1

Saturation Free Up Down No. Lane Shoulder Flow Flow Stream Stream Length of Width Width Rate Speed Grid Link # Node Node Roadway Name Roadway Type (ft.) Lanes (ft.) (ft.) (pcphpl) (mph) Number 658 570 82 E NOBLE ST COLLECTOR 3044 1 12 2 1750 35 21 659 570 190 RIVERVIEW AVE COLLECTOR 1222 1 12 4 1750 35 21 660 570 320 E NOBLE ST COLLECTOR 1094 1 12 4 1750 35 21 LOCAL 661 571 83 TERNES DR ROADWAY 531 1 12 4 1750 30 21 662 572 15 SANDY CREEK RD COLLECTOR 2976 1 12 4 1700 50 21 663 573 332 BUHL RD COLLECTOR 5245 1 12 2 1700 40 16 664 573 336 WAR RD COLLECTOR 5182 1 12 4 1750 40 17 665 574 336 NEWPORT RD MINOR ARTERIAL 5873 1 12 4 1750 50 17 666 574 440 SWAN CREEK RD MINOR ARTERIAL 2449 1 12 4 1700 50 17 LOCAL 667 575 574 JOANN ST ROADWAY 1835 1 12 4 1350 30 17 668 577 585 MINERAL SPRINGS RD COLLECTOR 2011 1 12 4 1700 50 11 669 577 834 OAKVILLE WALTZ RD COLLECTOR 2187 1 12 2 1700 50 11 LOCAL 670 578 237 MAXWELL RD ROADWAY 3533 1 12 4 1350 30 11 LOCAL 671 579 754 MAXWELL RD ROADWAY 8341 1 12 4 1575 35 11 LOCAL 672 580 234 GRAFTON RD ROADWAY 631 1 12 4 1350 30 11 LOCAL 673 581 755 GRAFTON RD ROADWAY 8751 1 12 4 1750 40 11 674 582 237 CARLETON WEST RD COLLECTOR 2530 1 12 4 1350 30 11 675 583 582 CARLETON WEST RD COLLECTOR 1275 1 12 4 1350 30 11 676 584 232 CARLETON ROCKWOOD RD COLLECTOR 3223 1 12 4 1700 50 11 677 585 620 WALTZ RD COLLECTOR 3886 1 12 4 1700 50 5 Fermi Nuclear Generating Plant K53 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 1

Saturation Free Up Down No. Lane Shoulder Flow Flow Stream Stream Length of Width Width Rate Speed Grid Link # Node Node Roadway Name Roadway Type (ft.) Lanes (ft.) (ft.) (pcphpl) (mph) Number LOCAL 678 587 198 VALLEYVIEW ST ROADWAY 1071 1 12 4 1750 30 3 LOCAL 679 589 197 GRANGE RD ROADWAY 2015 1 12 4 1750 30 3 LOCAL 680 590 199 STONEWOOD RD ROADWAY 848 1 12 4 1750 30 3 LOCAL 681 592 200 QUARRY RD ROADWAY 738 1 12 4 1750 35 3 682 593 691 DIX TOLEDO HWY MAJOR ARTERIAL 905 2 12 4 1900 60 6 683 593 787 US 24 MAJOR ARTERIAL 758 2 12 4 1750 55 6 684 594 94 DIX TOLEDO HWY MAJOR ARTERIAL 1356 2 12 4 1750 55 3 685 594 285 I75 ON RAMP FREEWAY RAMP 763 1 12 4 1700 55 3 LOCAL 686 595 205 CARTER RD ROADWAY 721 1 12 4 1750 30 7 LOCAL 687 596 187 MONTEREY DR ROADWAY 2621 1 12 4 1750 30 7 LOCAL 688 596 205 CARTER RD ROADWAY 1304 1 12 4 1750 30 7 689 601 208 VREELAND RD MINOR ARTERIAL 2457 1 12 4 1750 40 7 LOCAL 690 602 552 ROCHE RD ROADWAY 994 1 12 4 1575 35 7 691 603 389 SR 85 MAJOR ARTERIAL 2778 2 12 4 1900 50 13 692 604 290 I75 FREEWAY 2307 3 12 4 2250 70 13 693 604 448 I75 FREEWAY 3285 3 12 4 2250 65 13 694 605 647 S HURON RIVER DR MAJOR ARTERIAL 3288 1 12 0 1700 40 12 695 605 756 S HURON RIVER DR MAJOR ARTERIAL 1387 1 12 4 1700 40 12 696 606 372 E HURON RIVER DR COLLECTOR 655 1 12 4 1575 35 12 Fermi Nuclear Generating Plant K54 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 1

Saturation Free Up Down No. Lane Shoulder Flow Flow Stream Stream Length of Width Width Rate Speed Grid Link # Node Node Roadway Name Roadway Type (ft.) Lanes (ft.) (ft.) (pcphpl) (mph) Number 697 607 606 WOODRUFF RD COLLECTOR 1127 1 12 4 1350 30 12 698 608 91 SIBLEY RD MAJOR ARTERIAL 5447 1 12 4 1750 50 3 699 608 692 SIBLEY RD MINOR ARTERIAL 475 2 12 4 1750 40 3 700 609 88 SIBLEY RD MINOR ARTERIAL 5180 1 12 4 1750 50 2 701 609 746 INKSTER RD COLLECTOR 5283 1 12 4 1750 45 2 702 610 424 SR 85 MAJOR ARTERIAL 278 2 12 4 1750 20 3 703 611 419 SR 85 MAJOR ARTERIAL 211 2 12 4 1750 20 7 704 612 398 SR 85 MAJOR ARTERIAL 215 2 12 4 1750 25 7 705 613 677 OAKVILLE WALTZ RD COLLECTOR 1362 1 12 2 1700 40 11 706 616 617 N CUSTER RD MINOR ARTERIAL 670 1 12 4 1575 35 21 707 616 632 N CUSTER RD MINOR ARTERIAL 5080 1 12 4 1575 35 21 708 616 775 CUSTER DR COLLECTOR 553 1 12 4 1350 30 21 709 617 616 N CUSTER RD MINOR ARTERIAL 670 1 12 4 1575 35 21 710 617 618 N CUSTER RD MINOR ARTERIAL 213 1 12 4 1700 40 21 711 618 323 W ELM AVE MINOR ARTERIAL 1265 1 12 4 1750 40 21 712 618 617 N CUSTER RD MINOR ARTERIAL 213 1 12 4 1750 40 21 713 620 763 WALTZ RD COLLECTOR 2784 1 12 4 1700 40 5 714 621 269 S HURON RD COLLECTOR 6328 1 12 4 1700 45 5 715 623 120 KING RD MINOR ARTERIAL 3219 1 12 4 1750 40 6 716 623 627 KING RD MINOR ARTERIAL 7460 1 12 4 1750 40 6 LOCAL 717 625 605 GILDERSLEEVE ST ROADWAY 1693 1 12 4 1350 30 12 718 626 628 MIDDLEBELT RD COLLECTOR 5297 1 12 4 1750 40 6 719 627 609 INKSTER RD COLLECTOR 5366 1 12 4 1750 45 6 720 627 628 KING RD COLLECTOR 5195 1 12 4 1700 40 6 Fermi Nuclear Generating Plant K55 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 1

Saturation Free Up Down No. Lane Shoulder Flow Flow Stream Stream Length of Width Width Rate Speed Grid Link # Node Node Roadway Name Roadway Type (ft.) Lanes (ft.) (ft.) (pcphpl) (mph) Number 721 628 88 MIDDLEBELT RD COLLECTOR 5239 1 12 4 1750 45 6 722 628 753 KING RD COLLECTOR 10514 1 12 4 1700 45 6 723 630 70 BLUE BUSH RD MINOR ARTERIAL 3780 1 12 4 1700 45 15 724 632 508 N CUSTER RD MINOR ARTERIAL 8234 1 12 4 1700 45 20 725 633 506 SR 50 MAJOR ARTERIAL 4830 1 12 4 1700 65 20 726 634 635 U.S. TURNPIKE RD MAJOR ARTERIAL 4135 1 12 4 1700 55 18 727 635 167 U.S. TURNPIKE RD MAJOR ARTERIAL 1414 1 12 4 1700 50 13 728 636 637 W JEFFERSON AVE MAJOR ARTERIAL 4659 1 12 4 1700 50 13 729 637 40 W JEFFERSON AVE MAJOR ARTERIAL 2483 1 12 4 1700 50 13 730 638 639 S HURON RIVER DR MAJOR ARTERIAL 3823 1 12 4 1700 40 13 731 639 543 S HURON RIVER DR MAJOR ARTERIAL 1774 1 12 4 1575 35 13 732 640 391 OSTREICH RD COLLECTOR 2229 1 12 4 1700 40 13 733 641 547 W JEFFERSON AVE MAJOR ARTERIAL 978 1 12 4 1750 50 13 734 641 640 WOODRUFF RD COLLECTOR 5232 1 12 4 1700 45 13 735 642 607 WOODRUFF RD COLLECTOR 2262 1 12 4 1350 30 12 736 643 642 WOODRUFF RD COLLECTOR 2468 1 12 4 1350 30 12 737 644 643 WOODRUFF RD COLLECTOR 2002 1 12 4 1350 30 13 738 645 43 FORT ST MINOR ARTERIAL 908 1 12 4 1750 50 13 739 646 340 S HURON RIVER DR MAJOR ARTERIAL 4705 1 12 0 1700 40 12 740 647 646 S HURON RIVER DR MAJOR ARTERIAL 3483 1 12 0 1700 40 12 741 648 606 HURON RIVER DR MAJOR ARTERIAL 4053 1 12 4 1350 30 12 742 649 47 GIBRALTAR RD MAJOR ARTERIAL 3985 2 12 4 1750 35 13 743 649 49 GIBRALTAR RD MAJOR ARTERIAL 3392 1 12 4 1750 45 12 744 650 363 VAN HORN RD MINOR ARTERIAL 5302 1 12 4 1750 40 6 745 650 626 MIDDLEBELT RD COLLECTOR 5144 1 12 4 1700 40 6 Fermi Nuclear Generating Plant K56 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 1

Saturation Free Up Down No. Lane Shoulder Flow Flow Stream Stream Length of Width Width Rate Speed Grid Link # Node Node Roadway Name Roadway Type (ft.) Lanes (ft.) (ft.) (pcphpl) (mph) Number 746 651 650 MIDDLEBELT RD COLLECTOR 2201 1 12 4 1750 45 6 747 652 202 KING RD MINOR ARTERIAL 1437 2 12 4 1750 45 7 748 652 203 KING RD MINOR ARTERIAL 3755 1 12 4 1750 40 7 749 653 655 W JEFFERSON AVE MAJOR ARTERIAL 1779 2 12 4 1900 40 7 750 654 421 W JEFFERSON AVE MAJOR ARTERIAL 2363 2 12 4 1750 45 7 751 655 174 W JEFFERSON AVE MAJOR ARTERIAL 1020 1 12 4 1750 30 7 752 656 172 W JEFFERSON AVE MAJOR ARTERIAL 885 2 12 4 1750 50 7 753 657 207 VAN HORN RD MINOR ARTERIAL 4603 1 12 4 1750 40 7 LOCAL 754 658 657 VALLEY RD ROADWAY 729 1 12 4 1750 30 7 755 659 117 US24 MAJOR ARTERIAL 2867 2 12 4 1750 50 6 756 660 60 STEWART RD COLLECTOR 744 2 12 4 1750 40 21 757 660 525 STEWART RD COLLECTOR 4323 1 12 4 1700 50 21 758 661 469 DIXIE HWY MINOR ARTERIAL 5327 1 12 4 1700 50 12 759 662 780 POST RD COLLECTOR 5156 1 12 4 1750 40 17 LOCAL 760 664 531 LAVENDAR ST ROADWAY 690 1 12 4 1750 30 21 761 665 71 BLUE BUSH RD MINOR ARTERIAL 6690 1 12 4 1700 50 15 762 666 665 BLUE BUSH RD MINOR ARTERIAL 681 1 12 4 1700 40 15 763 667 111 BLUE BUSH RD MINOR ARTERIAL 3247 1 15 0 1575 35 14 LOCAL 764 668 667 RAISIN ST ROADWAY 817 1 12 4 1575 35 15 765 669 670 PALMER RD COLLECTOR 13778 1 12 0 1700 55 14 766 670 740 S STONY CREEK RD MINOR ARTERIAL 805 1 12 2 1700 45 9 767 671 538 SUMPTER RD COLLECTOR 2582 1 12 4 1700 40 10 768 674 675 CARLETON WEST RD COLLECTOR 2738 1 12 0 1700 45 11 Fermi Nuclear Generating Plant K57 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 1

Saturation Free Up Down No. Lane Shoulder Flow Flow Stream Stream Length of Width Width Rate Speed Grid Link # Node Node Roadway Name Roadway Type (ft.) Lanes (ft.) (ft.) (pcphpl) (mph) Number 769 675 676 CARLETON WEST RD COLLECTOR 7861 1 12 0 1700 45 11 770 676 762 OAKVILLE WALTZ RD MINOR ARTERIAL 13340 1 12 4 1700 55 10 771 677 828 OAKVILLE WALTZ RD COLLECTOR 1439 1 12 2 1700 40 11 772 679 114 US24 MAJOR ARTERIAL 967 2 12 4 1750 35 12 773 679 681 WILL CARLETON RD MINOR ARTERIAL 179 1 12 4 1700 40 12 774 680 341 WILL CARLETON RD MINOR ARTERIAL 13000 1 12 4 1700 40 12 775 681 679 WILL CARLETON RD MINOR ARTERIAL 179 1 12 4 1750 40 12 776 681 680 WILL CARLETON RD MINOR ARTERIAL 1041 1 12 4 1700 40 12 777 682 379 GATEWAY DR COLLECTOR 1340 2 12 4 1900 35 13 778 683 289 GIBRALTAR RD MAJOR ARTERIAL 1235 2 12 4 1900 45 13 779 684 203 GRANGE RD COLLECTOR 2589 1 12 4 1750 30 7 LOCAL 780 685 421 KING RD ROADWAY 1067 1 12 4 1750 25 7 LOCAL 781 686 557 ELIZABETH DR ROADWAY 771 1 12 4 1750 30 7 LOCAL 782 687 180 EDSEL ST ROADWAY 476 2 12 4 1750 30 7 LOCAL 783 688 179 ROSEWOOD ST ROADWAY 352 1 12 4 1750 30 7 784 689 362 HALL RD COLLECTOR 789 1 12 4 1700 40 7 785 690 86 SIBLEY RD MINOR ARTERIAL 372 2 12 4 1900 50 5 786 691 367 DIX TOLEDO HWY MAJOR ARTERIAL 1032 2 12 4 1750 60 6 787 691 593 DIX TOLEDO HWY MAJOR ARTERIAL 905 2 12 4 1750 60 6 788 692 283 SIBLEY RD MINOR ARTERIAL 1165 2 12 4 1900 40 3 789 692 608 SIBLEY RD MINOR ARTERIAL 444 2 12 4 1750 40 3 790 693 601 VREELAND RD MINOR ARTERIAL 914 1 12 4 1700 40 7 Fermi Nuclear Generating Plant K58 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 1

Saturation Free Up Down No. Lane Shoulder Flow Flow Stream Stream Length of Width Width Rate Speed Grid Link # Node Node Roadway Name Roadway Type (ft.) Lanes (ft.) (ft.) (pcphpl) (mph) Number LOCAL 791 694 169 OLMSTEAD RD ROADWAY 1519 1 12 4 1700 30 13 792 695 442 SWAN CREEK RD MINOR ARTERIAL 351 1 12 4 1350 30 17 LOCAL 793 696 695 PARKING LOT ROADWAY 385 1 12 4 1750 30 17 LOCAL 794 697 501 W 7TH ST ROADWAY 844 1 12 4 1575 35 21 795 698 505 HERR RD COLLECTOR 1091 1 12 4 1700 40 25 LOCAL 796 699 229 HAROLD DR ROADWAY 1399 1 12 4 1350 30 30 797 700 701 E ALBAIN RD COLLECTOR 1460 1 12 4 1700 40 26 798 701 217 E ALBAIN RD COLLECTOR 556 1 12 4 1700 40 26 LOCAL 799 702 528 HUBAR DR ROADWAY 238 1 12 4 1350 30 21 LOCAL 800 703 204 W LORAIN ST ROADWAY 654 1 12 4 1350 30 21 801 704 84 I75 OFF RAMP FREEWAY RAMP 490 1 12 4 1750 40 21 LOCAL 802 705 53 MILL ST ROADWAY 333 1 12 4 1700 40 21 803 706 95 GROSSE ILE PKWY COLLECTOR 2067 1 12 4 1750 40 8 804 707 90 W JEFFERSON AVE MAJOR ARTERIAL 302 2 12 4 1750 30 4 LOCAL 805 708 545 STEFANO CT ROADWAY 1370 1 12 4 1350 30 13 806 709 650 VAN HORN RD MINOR ARTERIAL 1269 1 12 4 1750 45 6 LOCAL 807 710 153 MAHOGANY DR ROADWAY 464 1 12 4 1350 30 6 808 711 557 W JEFFERSON AVE MAJOR ARTERIAL 505 1 12 4 1750 30 7 Fermi Nuclear Generating Plant K59 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 1

Saturation Free Up Down No. Lane Shoulder Flow Flow Stream Stream Length of Width Width Rate Speed Grid Link # Node Node Roadway Name Roadway Type (ft.) Lanes (ft.) (ft.) (pcphpl) (mph) Number LOCAL 809 712 174 PARKING LOT ROADWAY 300 1 12 4 1750 30 7 LOCAL 810 713 178 WEST RD ROADWAY 367 1 12 4 1750 30 7 811 714 156 WEST RD MINOR ARTERIAL 2845 2 12 4 1750 35 7 LOCAL 812 715 714 3RD ST ROADWAY 496 1 12 0 1750 30 7 813 715 788 ST JOSEPH AVE COLLECTOR 379 1 12 4 1700 30 7 814 716 180 WEST RD MINOR ARTERIAL 716 2 12 4 1750 35 7 815 716 718 WEST RD MINOR ARTERIAL 1367 2 12 4 1750 35 7 LOCAL 816 717 716 BRIDGE ST ROADWAY 368 1 12 0 1750 30 7 817 718 716 WEST RD MINOR ARTERIAL 1367 2 12 4 1750 35 7 818 718 720 WEST RD MINOR ARTERIAL 953 2 12 4 1750 35 7 LOCAL 819 719 718 WESTFIELD RD ROADWAY 948 1 12 0 1750 30 7 820 720 185 WEST RD MINOR ARTERIAL 920 2 12 4 1750 35 7 821 720 718 WEST RD MINOR ARTERIAL 953 2 12 4 1750 35 7 LOCAL 822 721 720 MANNING ST ROADWAY 1070 1 12 0 1750 30 7 823 722 187 WEST RD MINOR ARTERIAL 1528 2 12 4 1750 35 7 LOCAL 824 723 722 LONGMEADOW DR ROADWAY 888 1 12 0 1750 30 7 825 724 95 MERIDIAN RD COLLECTOR 1079 1 12 4 1750 40 8 826 725 621 S HURON RD COLLECTOR 5356 1 12 4 1750 35 5 827 726 774 N RAISINVILLE RD COLLECTOR 8923 1 12 2 1750 40 20 Fermi Nuclear Generating Plant K60 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 1

Saturation Free Up Down No. Lane Shoulder Flow Flow Stream Stream Length of Width Width Rate Speed Grid Link # Node Node Roadway Name Roadway Type (ft.) Lanes (ft.) (ft.) (pcphpl) (mph) Number LOCAL 828 727 123 BONNER RD ROADWAY 455 1 12 4 1700 45 26 829 728 1 FERMI DR COLLECTOR 1143 1 12 4 1700 40 23 LOCAL 830 729 376 PETERS RD ROADWAY 419 1 12 4 1350 30 6 LOCAL 831 730 731 E 5TH ST ROADWAY 342 1 12 4 1350 30 21 LOCAL 832 731 519 SCOTT ST ROADWAY 370 1 12 4 1750 30 26 833 732 101 SR 125 MINOR ARTERIAL 1861 2 12 4 1750 30 21 834 732 796 E 1ST ST COLLECTOR 792 1 12 4 1700 35 21 835 733 732 W 1ST ST COLLECTOR 428 1 12 6 1750 35 21 836 734 513 E ALBAIN RD COLLECTOR 1318 1 12 4 1350 30 26 837 734 795 HULL RD COLLECTOR 5561 1 12 4 1700 40 26 838 735 145 STRASBURG RD COLLECTOR 3881 1 12 4 1700 40 25 839 736 84 N DIXIE HWY MAJOR ARTERIAL 1193 2 12 4 1750 45 21 840 737 32 N DIXIE HWY MAJOR ARTERIAL 523 1 12 4 1750 50 22 841 737 738 E HURD RD COLLECTOR 7917 1 12 4 1700 45 21 842 738 317 E HURD RD COLLECTOR 1668 1 12 4 1700 45 21 843 738 737 E HURD RD COLLECTOR 7912 1 12 4 1700 45 21 844 741 149 IDA MAYBEE RD COLLECTOR 1747 1 12 4 1700 40 19 845 742 55 DIX TOLEDO HWY MAJOR ARTERIAL 3060 2 12 4 1900 55 3 846 743 46 ALLEN RD COLLECTOR 1536 2 12 4 1900 50 3 847 743 744 PENNSYLVANIA RD COLLECTOR 5302 1 12 4 1750 40 3 848 744 743 PENNSYLVANIA RD COLLECTOR 5302 1 12 4 1750 40 3 849 744 745 PENNSYLVANIA RD COLLECTOR 5335 1 12 4 1750 40 3 Fermi Nuclear Generating Plant K61 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 1

Saturation Free Up Down No. Lane Shoulder Flow Flow Stream Stream Length of Width Width Rate Speed Grid Link # Node Node Roadway Name Roadway Type (ft.) Lanes (ft.) (ft.) (pcphpl) (mph) Number 850 745 629 US 24 MAJOR ARTERIAL 903 2 12 4 1900 55 2 851 745 748 PENNSYLVANIA RD COLLECTOR 5286 1 12 4 1750 40 2 852 746 142 INKSTER RD COLLECTOR 1940 1 12 4 1700 45 2 853 746 747 PENNSYLVANIA RD COLLECTOR 5275 1 12 4 1750 40 2 854 747 141 MIDDLEBELT RD COLLECTOR 1672 1 12 4 1700 45 2 855 748 746 PENNSYLVANIA RD COLLECTOR 5264 1 12 4 1750 40 2 856 748 751 S BEECH DALY RD COLLECTOR 1835 1 12 4 1700 40 2 857 749 609 SIBLEY RD MINOR ARTERIAL 5392 1 12 4 1750 50 2 858 749 748 S BEECH DALY RD COLLECTOR 5719 1 12 4 1750 30 2 859 750 151 HALE AVE COLLECTOR 1088 1 12 4 1750 25 3 860 752 690 SIBLEY RD MINOR ARTERIAL 5246 1 12 4 1700 50 5 861 753 752 VINING RD COLLECTOR 5197 1 12 4 1700 45 5 LOCAL 862 754 237 MAXWELL RD ROADWAY 553 1 12 4 1350 30 11 863 754 755 MONROE ST COLLECTOR 5277 1 12 4 1750 30 11 LOCAL 864 755 580 GRAFTON RD ROADWAY 600 1 12 4 1350 30 11 865 756 605 S HURON RIVER DR MAJOR ARTERIAL 1387 1 12 4 1700 40 12 866 756 757 CARLETON ROCKWOOD RD COLLECTOR 4852 1 12 4 1700 40 12 867 756 814 S HURON RIVER DR MAJOR ARTERIAL 174 1 12 4 1700 40 12 868 757 756 CARLETON ROCKWOOD RD COLLECTOR 4852 1 12 4 1700 40 12 869 757 758 CARLETON ROCKWOOD RD COLLECTOR 1273 1 12 4 1575 35 12 870 758 342 CARLETON ROCKWOOD RD COLLECTOR 1009 1 12 4 1700 30 12 871 759 300 I75 ON RAMP FREEWAY RAMP 290 1 12 4 1350 30 26 872 760 34 N DIXIE HWY MAJOR ARTERIAL 3334 1 12 4 1750 45 22 Fermi Nuclear Generating Plant K62 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 1

Saturation Free Up Down No. Lane Shoulder Flow Flow Stream Stream Length of Width Width Rate Speed Grid Link # Node Node Roadway Name Roadway Type (ft.) Lanes (ft.) (ft.) (pcphpl) (mph) Number 873 761 305 I75 FREEWAY 6699 3 12 4 2250 70 26 874 761 307 I75 FREEWAY 8210 3 12 4 2250 70 26 875 762 678 OAKVILLE WALTZ RD MINOR ARTERIAL 5868 1 12 4 1700 55 10 876 763 621 WALTZ RD COLLECTOR 7956 1 12 4 1750 40 5 877 764 467 BRANDON RD COLLECTOR 8569 1 12 4 1700 40 17 878 765 766 NEWPORT SOUTH RD COLLECTOR 5512 1 12 4 1700 40 17 879 765 809 POST RD COLLECTOR 5317 1 12 2 1700 45 17 880 766 37 NEWPORT SOUTH RD COLLECTOR 3708 1 12 4 1700 40 17 881 767 145 STRASBURG RD COLLECTOR 10668 1 12 4 1700 40 25 882 767 146 W ALBAIN RD COLLECTOR 16568 1 12 4 1700 45 24 883 768 767 W ALBAIN RD COLLECTOR 9302 1 12 4 1700 45 25 884 770 771 N CUSTER RD MINOR ARTERIAL 7717 1 12 4 1700 45 20 885 771 772 N CUSTER RD MINOR ARTERIAL 5322 1 12 4 1700 45 19 886 772 773 N CUSTER RD MINOR ARTERIAL 2309 1 12 4 1700 45 19 887 774 770 N CUSTER RD MINOR ARTERIAL 11489 1 12 4 1700 45 20 888 775 64 US24 MAJOR ARTERIAL 2079 2 12 4 1750 35 21 889 775 616 CUSTER DR COLLECTOR 552 1 12 4 1350 30 21 890 775 617 CUSTER DR COLLECTOR 579 1 12 4 1750 30 21 891 776 72 US 24 MAJOR ARTERIAL 5674 1 12 4 1700 60 29 892 777 763 WILLOW RD COLLECTOR 11792 1 12 4 1700 35 5 893 778 763 WILLOW RD COLLECTOR 3061 1 12 4 1700 40 5 894 779 621 WALTZ RD COLLECTOR 5200 1 12 4 1750 40 5 895 780 804 N DIXIE HWY MAJOR ARTERIAL 584 1 12 4 1700 50 17 896 780 837 POST RD COLLECTOR 3322 1 12 2 1700 45 17 897 781 35 MARSHALL FIELD DR COLLECTOR 1661 1 12 4 1750 35 22 Fermi Nuclear Generating Plant K63 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 1

Saturation Free Up Down No. Lane Shoulder Flow Flow Stream Stream Length of Width Width Rate Speed Grid Link # Node Node Roadway Name Roadway Type (ft.) Lanes (ft.) (ft.) (pcphpl) (mph) Number 898 782 760 BREST RD COLLECTOR 2921 1 12 4 1750 40 22 899 783 250 STRONG RD COLLECTOR 6329 1 12 4 1750 35 17 LOCAL 900 784 48 PETERS RD ROADWAY 2454 1 12 4 1575 35 6 901 785 100 SR 125 MINOR ARTERIAL 721 2 12 4 1750 35 26 902 786 785 W 8TH ST COLLECTOR 2053 1 12 4 1350 30 21 903 787 120 US 24 MAJOR ARTERIAL 2548 2 12 4 1750 55 6 904 787 367 CARTER RD COLLECTOR 1608 1 12 4 1750 40 6 905 788 790 W JEFFERSON AVE MAJOR ARTERIAL 458 1 12 4 1750 45 7 906 789 790 ELM ST COLLECTOR 386 1 12 4 1750 30 7 907 790 791 W JEFFERSON AVE MAJOR ARTERIAL 1366 1 12 4 1700 45 7 908 791 654 W JEFFERSON AVE MAJOR ARTERIAL 895 1 12 4 1700 45 7 909 792 791 HARRISON AVE COLLECTOR 940 1 12 4 1700 30 7 910 793 437 SR 85 MAJOR ARTERIAL 842 3 12 4 1900 45 3 911 794 793 DRIVEWAY COLLECTOR 184 1 12 4 1750 25 3 912 795 126 MORTAR CREEK RD COLLECTOR 459 1 12 4 1575 35 26 913 796 730 S MACOMB ST COLLECTOR 1450 1 12 4 1575 35 21 914 796 797 E 1ST ST COLLECTOR 1413 1 12 4 1700 35 21 LOCAL 915 797 177 NAVARRE ST ROADWAY 3357 1 12 4 1575 35 26 916 797 798 E 1ST ST COLLECTOR 1569 1 12 4 1700 35 21 LOCAL 917 798 182 KENTUCKY AVE ROADWAY 5338 1 12 4 1350 30 26 918 798 799 E 1ST ST COLLECTOR 418 1 12 4 1750 35 26 919 799 175 E 1ST ST COLLECTOR 1502 1 12 4 1700 35 26 920 799 798 E 1ST ST COLLECTOR 418 1 12 4 1700 35 26 Fermi Nuclear Generating Plant K64 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 1

Saturation Free Up Down No. Lane Shoulder Flow Flow Stream Stream Length of Width Width Rate Speed Grid Link # Node Node Roadway Name Roadway Type (ft.) Lanes (ft.) (ft.) (pcphpl) (mph) Number 921 800 760 N DIXIE HWY MAJOR ARTERIAL 560 1 12 4 1750 45 22 922 801 800 WILLIAMS RD COLLECTOR 3808 1 12 2 1750 35 22 923 802 803 WAR RD COLLECTOR 6654 1 12 2 1700 45 21 924 803 107 NADEAU RD MINOR ARTERIAL 1848 2 12 4 1750 50 21 925 804 248 N DIXIE HWY MAJOR ARTERIAL 3406 1 12 4 1700 50 17 926 805 250 N DIXIE HWY MAJOR ARTERIAL 5543 1 12 4 1750 50 17 927 805 468 N DIXIE HWY MAJOR ARTERIAL 1343 1 12 4 1750 50 17 928 806 805 TROMBLEY RD COLLECTOR 2306 1 12 2 1750 35 17 929 807 472 U.S. TURNPIKE RD MAJOR ARTERIAL 2967 1 12 4 1750 55 18 930 808 573 BUHL RD COLLECTOR 1319 1 12 2 1700 40 17 931 809 802 POST RD COLLECTOR 3287 1 12 2 1700 45 17 932 809 808 MENTEL RD COLLECTOR 5310 1 12 2 1700 40 17 933 810 274 US24 MAJOR ARTERIAL 1087 2 12 4 1900 50 16 934 811 812 E LABO RD COLLECTOR 8708 1 12 2 1700 40 17 935 812 273 US24 MAJOR ARTERIAL 813 2 12 4 1900 50 17 936 812 338 US24 MAJOR ARTERIAL 6746 2 12 4 1900 55 17 937 813 812 E LABO RD COLLECTOR 9595 1 12 2 1700 40 16 938 814 294 S HURON RIVER DR MAJOR ARTERIAL 907 1 12 4 1700 40 13 939 814 756 S HURON RIVER DR MAJOR ARTERIAL 173 1 12 4 1700 40 12 940 815 244 NADEAU RD MINOR ARTERIAL 1289 1 12 4 1700 50 21 941 816 224 SR 151 MINOR ARTERIAL 1232 1 12 4 1700 40 29 942 817 169 HURON RIVER DR MAJOR ARTERIAL 786 2 12 4 1900 30 13 943 817 292 HURON RIVER DR MAJOR ARTERIAL 750 2 12 4 1900 30 13 944 818 817 I75 OFFRAMP FREEWAY RAMP 404 1 12 2 1750 40 13 945 819 820 HEISS RD COLLECTOR 5669 1 12 2 1700 40 16 Fermi Nuclear Generating Plant K65 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 1

Saturation Free Up Down No. Lane Shoulder Flow Flow Stream Stream Length of Width Width Rate Speed Grid Link # Node Node Roadway Name Roadway Type (ft.) Lanes (ft.) (ft.) (pcphpl) (mph) Number 946 820 821 HEISS RD COLLECTOR 1471 1 12 2 1700 40 15 947 821 822 HEISS RD COLLECTOR 4004 1 12 2 1700 40 15 948 822 70 STEFFAS RD COLLECTOR 2939 1 12 2 1700 40 15 949 822 227 STEFFAS RD COLLECTOR 10641 1 12 2 1700 40 15 950 823 824 EXETER RD COLLECTOR 3963 1 12 4 1700 40 16 951 824 109 EXETER RD COLLECTOR 2542 1 12 4 1750 40 16 952 825 826 EXETER RD COLLECTOR 4110 1 12 2 1700 40 16 953 826 827 EXETER RD COLLECTOR 3300 1 12 2 1700 40 11 954 827 535 EXETER RD COLLECTOR 5209 1 12 2 1700 40 11 955 828 676 OAKVILLE WALTZ RD COLLECTOR 2075 1 12 2 1700 45 11 956 829 270 I275 FREEWAY 1986 3 12 4 2250 75 11 957 829 457 I275 FREEWAY 2325 3 12 4 2250 75 11 958 830 243 WILL CARLETON RD MINOR ARTERIAL 3287 1 12 4 1700 45 11 959 831 125 LAPLAISANCE RD COLLECTOR 377 1 12 4 1575 35 26 960 832 498 US 24 MAJOR ARTERIAL 619 1 12 4 1700 50 25 961 833 768 W ALBAIN RD COLLECTOR 6098 1 12 4 1700 40 25 962 834 613 OAKVILLE WALTZ RD COLLECTOR 4708 1 12 2 1700 50 11 LOCAL 963 835 195 DRIVEWAY ROADWAY 598 1 12 4 1750 30 3 LOCAL 964 836 468 DRIVEWAY ROADWAY 138 2 12 4 1750 30 17 965 837 765 POST RD COLLECTOR 5205 1 12 2 1700 45 17 966 838 249 SWAN CREEK RD MINOR ARTERIAL 3452 1 12 4 1700 50 17 967 839 661 DIXIE HWY MINOR ARTERIAL 10577 1 12 4 1700 50 17 968 840 832 US 24 MAJOR ARTERIAL 6394 1 12 4 1700 50 25 Fermi Nuclear Generating Plant K66 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 1

Saturation Free Up Down No. Lane Shoulder Flow Flow Stream Stream Length of Width Width Rate Speed Grid Link # Node Node Roadway Name Roadway Type (ft.) Lanes (ft.) (ft.) (pcphpl) (mph) Number 969 841 66 SR 50 MAJOR ARTERIAL 1599 2 12 4 1750 45 20 970 841 67 SR 50 MAJOR ARTERIAL 6378 2 12 4 1750 65 20 971 842 287 I75 FREEWAY 11814 3 12 4 2250 75 7 972 842 288 I75 FREEWAY 4011 3 12 4 2250 70 7 973 8030 30 I275 FREEWAY 1631 3 12 4 2250 75 1 974 8240 140 I75 FREEWAY 1031 3 12 4 2250 75 3 975 8454 454 I75 FREEWAY 1417 3 12 4 2250 70 29 995 146 143 LEWIS AVE COLLECTOR 5771 1 12 4 1700 40 24 996 143 769 W ALBAIN RD COLLECTOR 2960 1 12 4 1700 40 24 997 506 137 STRASBURG RD COLLECTOR 8869 1 12 0 1700 50 20 998 149 139 LEWIS AVE COLLECTOR 7746 1 12 4 1700 40 19 999 138 843 GEIGER RD COLLECTOR 4004 1 12 4 1700 50 19 1000 844 143 IDA EAST RD COLLECTOR 5204 1 12 4 1700 50 24 EXIT LINK 46 8046 ALLEN RD COLLECTOR 1097 2 12 4 1900 50 3 EXIT LINK 55 8055 HEISS RD MINOR ARTERIAL 951 2 12 4 1900 30 3 EXIT LINK 30 8030 I275 FREEWAY 1631 3 12 4 2250 75 1 EXIT LINK 140 8240 I75 FREEWAY 1031 3 12 4 2250 75 3 EXIT LINK 141 8141 MIDDLEBELT RD COLLECTOR 1871 1 12 4 1700 30 2 EXIT LINK 142 8142 INKSTER RD COLLECTOR 1242 1 12 4 1700 30 2 EXIT LINK 148 8148 LEWIS AVE COLLECTOR 1834 1 12 4 1700 55 24 Fermi Nuclear Generating Plant K67 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 1

Saturation Free Up Down No. Lane Shoulder Flow Flow Stream Stream Length of Width Width Rate Speed Grid Link # Node Node Roadway Name Roadway Type (ft.) Lanes (ft.) (ft.) (pcphpl) (mph) Number EXIT LINK 89 8089 W JEFFERSON AVE MAJOR ARTERIAL 1049 2 12 4 1900 40 4 EXIT LINK 437 8437 SR 85 MAJOR ARTERIAL 1149 3 12 4 1900 40 3 EXIT LINK 454 8454 I75 FREEWAY 1417 3 12 4 2250 40 29 EXIT LINK 497 8497 US 24 MAJOR ARTERIAL 2019 1 12 4 1700 40 29 EXIT LINK 510 8510 SR 125 MINOR ARTERIAL 1855 1 12 4 1700 40 29 EXIT LINK 629 8629 US 24 MAJOR ARTERIAL 1530 2 12 4 1900 40 2 EXIT LINK 631 8631 SR 50 MAJOR ARTERIAL 1762 1 12 4 1700 55 19 EXIT LINK 678 8678 OAKVILLE WALTZ RD MINOR ARTERIAL 2207 1 12 4 1700 50 10 EXIT LINK 739 8541 OSTRANDER RD COLLECTOR 2757 1 12 4 1700 40 14 EXIT LINK 740 8216 S STONY CREEK RD MINOR ARTERIAL 664 1 12 2 1700 45 9 EXIT LINK 751 8751 S BEECH DALY RD COLLECTOR 1136 1 12 4 1700 40 2 EXIT LINK 769 8769 W ALBAIN RD COLLECTOR 1385 1 12 4 1700 40 24 EXIT LINK 773 8773 N CUSTER RD MINOR ARTERIAL 1535 1 12 4 1700 45 19 Fermi Nuclear Generating Plant K68 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 1

Table K2. Nodes in the LinkNode Analysis Network which are Controlled X Coordinate1 Y Coordinate1 Control Grid Map Node (ft) (ft) Type Number 6 13389814 165512 Stop 21 18 13393958 161732 TCPNo Control 21 20 13349552 162613 Stop 19 32 13402229 158900 Actuated Signal 22 33 13405644 160866 Actuated Signal 22 34 13409067 163763 Actuated Signal 22 35 13413812 167808 Actuated Signal 22 36 13416333 173396 Actuated Signal 22 37 13410915 184755 Stop 17 40 13437216 209104 Stop 13 42 13439153 218935 Actuated Signal 13 43 13433198 219129 Actuated Signal 13 47 13426311 218845 Actuated Signal 13 48 13422085 229229 Stop 6 49 13418940 218522 Pretimed Signal 12 50 13417697 218492 Actuated Signal 12 51 13415941 218492 Stop 12 52 13415630 218201 Stop 12 53 13394252 153607 Stop 21 54 13413989 218181 Pretimed Signal 12 56 13409043 207827 Actuated Signal 12 57 13398457 186471 Actuated Signal 16 58 13393590 176666 TCPActuated 16 59 13386491 165850 Pretimed Signal 21 60 13385323 163097 Pretimed Signal 21 61 13384697 161596 Pretimed Signal 21 62 13383736 159207 Pretimed Signal 21 63 13393170 150769 Stop 26 64 13381884 154431 Actuated Signal 21 65 13380978 154527 Actuated Signal 21 66 13376230 155455 Actuated Signal 20 67 13369123 159109 TCPActuated 20 72 13359842 114038 Actuated Signal 29 73 13376536 142088 TCPActuated 25 74 13379232 148321 Actuated Signal 26 75 13381477 152904 Actuated Signal 21 76 13383802 153968 Actuated Signal 21 78 13387085 153275 Pretimed Signal 21 Fermi Nuclear Generating Plant K69 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 1

X Coordinate1 Y Coordinate1 Control Grid Map Node (ft) (ft) Type Number 79 13387402 153931 Actuated Signal 21 80 13388193 153584 Actuated Signal 21 81 13391793 152205 Actuated Signal 21 82 13392540 153288 Actuated Signal 21 83 13396311 156758 Pretimed Signal 21 84 13396685 156896 Actuated Signal 21 88 13405696 244557 Actuated Signal 2 90 13448715 248874 Actuated Signal 4 91 13421520 245130 Actuated Signal 2 94 13428774 246220 Actuated Signal 3 95 13450881 230706 Actuated Signal 8 96 13371561 134179 Yield 25 97 13379506 140955 Actuated Signal 26 98 13382311 145516 Pretimed Signal 26 99 13383253 147002 Pretimed Signal 26 100 13385181 150107 Pretimed Signal 26 101 13385979 151399 Pretimed Signal 21 104 13387818 155116 Actuated Signal 21 105 13389054 160052 Pretimed Signal 21 106 13390950 164976 Pretimed Signal 21 107 13393433 171051 Actuated Signal 21 109 13380746 191718 Actuated Signal 16 110 13365310 196200 Stop 15 113 13390954 160659 Pretimed Signal 21 114 13414541 219170 Actuated Signal 12 115 13416253 222716 Actuated Signal 6 116 13416777 223829 Actuated Signal 6 117 13419313 229192 Actuated Signal 6 118 13421849 234519 Actuated Signal 6 120 13421692 239698 Actuated Signal 6 121 13388197 138026 TCPNo Control 26 123 13388700 134552 Stop 26 124 13388063 132773 TCPNo Control 26 126 13382523 133621 Stop 26 134 13372097 135006 Stop 25 137 13358516 152084 Stop 20 138 13346396 154767 Stop 19 139 13340076 156098 Stop 19 Fermi Nuclear Generating Plant K70 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 1

X Coordinate1 Y Coordinate1 Control Grid Map Node (ft) (ft) Type Number 143 13339160 150760 Stop 24 144 13339981 134462 Stop 24 145 13355925 135146 Stop 25 146 13339501 144999 Stop 24 149 13342883 163317 Stop 19 151 13442618 247850 Stop 3 152 13442609 246567 Actuated Signal 3 153 13419043 236602 Stop 6 154 13442956 241255 Actuated Signal 7 155 13443066 238582 Actuated Signal 7 156 13442588 235929 Actuated Signal 7 158 13433176 220471 Stop 13 159 13432007 219090 Actuated Signal 13 160 13432376 219116 Actuated Signal 13 162 13401454 158586 Actuated Signal 22 163 13400780 170860 Actuated Signal 22 166 13424382 234576 Stop 7 167 13436105 199541 Yield 13 168 13419420 234449 Stop 6 169 13425007 210687 Stop 13 170 13426650 209106 Actuated Signal 13 171 13441763 225349 Yield 7 172 13443730 230647 Actuated Signal 7 173 13443779 231070 Actuated Signal 7 174 13444606 235020 Actuated Signal 7 175 13391771 149988 Stop 26 177 13387102 148960 Stop 26 178 13445822 235842 Actuated Signal 7 179 13441489 235895 Actuated Signal 7 180 13440557 235856 Pretimed Signal 7 182 13387349 146456 Stop 26 185 13436604 235705 Pretimed Signal 7 187 13433965 235651 Pretimed Signal 7 188 13432648 235618 Actuated Signal 7 190 13389260 153223 Actuated Signal 21 191 13427243 234683 Actuated Signal 7 192 13425889 234591 Actuated Signal 7 194 13425262 240277 Actuated Signal 7 Fermi Nuclear Generating Plant K71 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 1

X Coordinate1 Y Coordinate1 Control Grid Map Node (ft) (ft) Type Number 195 13429369 245982 Actuated Signal 3 196 13432288 246120 Actuated Signal 3 197 13436271 246269 Actuated Signal 3 198 13437958 246333 Actuated Signal 3 199 13441179 246486 Actuated Signal 3 200 13445345 246636 Actuated Signal 3 202 13441593 241244 Actuated Signal 7 203 13436408 240966 Actuated Signal 7 205 13432580 238238 Actuated Signal 7 207 13432865 230266 Actuated Signal 7 208 13433118 224948 Pretimed Signal 7 217 13387975 140240 Stop 26 221 13378649 128877 Stop 26 225 13374879 113967 Stop 29 227 13370995 194197 Stop 15 230 13362844 114102 Actuated Signal 29 237 13385921 205855 Stop 11 239 13390728 217962 TCPActuated 11 250 13423292 184853 TCPActuated 17 252 13429428 219007 Actuated Signal 13 258 13383177 157841 Pretimed Signal 21 265 13395253 156410 Stop 21 307 13380614 125337 TCPNo Control 30 317 13395336 165276 TCPNo Control 21 319 13392552 169000 Stop 21 320 13388709 154844 Actuated Signal 21 323 13384201 155424 Pretimed Signal 21 325 13387967 153072 Actuated Signal 21 332 13395871 181222 Stop 16 336 13400925 186608 TCPActuated 17 338 13404146 197996 Stop 12 341 13399868 218063 TCPNo Control 11 347 13414706 219486 Stop 12 350 13414946 219932 Actuated Signal 12 362 13427404 229389 Stop 7 363 13411545 228899 Actuated Signal 6 366 13411322 234120 Actuated Signal 6 367 13423441 237175 Actuated Signal 6 Fermi Nuclear Generating Plant K72 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 1

X Coordinate1 Y Coordinate1 Control Grid Map Node (ft) (ft) Type Number 390 13435993 225037 Pretimed Signal 7 392 13439356 230580 Actuated Signal 7 398 13442329 235352 Actuated Signal 7 419 13442966 240649 Actuated Signal 7 421 13446462 241383 Actuated Signal 7 424 13442754 245827 Actuated Signal 3 467 13410843 184997 Stop 17 468 13416927 182226 TCPActuated 17 470 13424969 206827 Actuated Signal 13 472 13428586 187554 TCPActuated 18 477 13433363 192998 TCPNo Control 18 498 13371028 135735 Stop 25 502 13383121 152809 Stop 21 505 13374079 150361 Stop 25 506 13361776 160332 Stop 20 507 13365686 150643 TCPNo Control 25 508 13369579 160020 TCPNo Control 20 512 13381848 126370 TCPNo Control 30 514 13382921 139340 Stop 26 519 13386936 150844 Pretimed Signal 26 520 13387508 145240 Stop 26 531 13386893 161062 Actuated Signal 21 535 13380416 207006 TCPNo Control 11 545 13433249 208933 Stop 13 547 13437651 215152 Actuated Signal 13 552 13433224 221999 Stop 7 557 13445620 234930 Actuated Signal 7 558 13447843 246774 Actuated Signal 4 559 13432377 240859 Actuated Signal 7 569 13392282 149993 Stop 26 580 13391184 206047 Stop 11 593 13421847 236396 Actuated Signal 6 605 13422576 208276 Stop 12 606 13419142 215004 Stop 12 608 13426854 246184 Actuated Signal 3 609 13410869 244828 Actuated Signal 2 616 13382178 156083 Stop 21 617 13382826 155914 Stop 21 Fermi Nuclear Generating Plant K73 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 1

X Coordinate1 Y Coordinate1 Control Grid Map Node (ft) (ft) Type Number 618 13383032 155860 Stop 21 620 13385267 222982 TCPNo Control 5 621 13384939 233717 Pretimed Signal 5 623 13418473 239675 Stop 6 627 13411015 239464 Actuated Signal 6 628 13405823 239320 Stop 6 630 13372418 177159 TCPNo Control 15 635 13435322 198363 TCPNo Control 13 645 13433230 218221 Stop 13 650 13406243 228888 Actuated Signal 6 657 13437465 230442 Actuated Signal 7 661 13422799 197865 TCPNo Control 12 667 13354549 184782 Stop 15 670 13348193 203935 Stop 9 677 13380096 216764 TCPNo Control 11 679 13414074 218324 Actuated Signal 12 683 13427988 218963 Actuated Signal 13 684 13436545 238380 Stop 7 692 13427281 246392 Actuated Signal 3 695 13410182 185332 Actuated Signal 17 714 13445437 235906 Actuated Signal 7 716 13439841 235833 Actuated Signal 7 718 13438476 235777 Actuated Signal 7 720 13437524 235742 Actuated Signal 7 722 13435491 235729 Actuated Signal 7 726 13371768 168846 TCPActuated 20 730 13386830 151365 Stop 21 732 13386936 152995 Actuated Signal 21 736 13397811 157296 TCPActuated 21 737 13402674 159175 Stop 22 743 13431938 251472 Actuated Signal 3 744 13426640 251253 Actuated Signal 3 745 13421311 251012 Actuated Signal 2 746 13410800 250110 Actuated Signal 2 747 13405529 249923 Actuated Signal 2 748 13416039 250638 Actuated Signal 2 752 13395149 244243 Actuated Signal 1 753 13395313 239049 Stop 5 Fermi Nuclear Generating Plant K74 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 1

X Coordinate1 Y Coordinate1 Control Grid Map Node (ft) (ft) Type Number 755 13391240 205447 Actuated Signal 11 756 13423593 207333 Stop 12 760 13411623 165904 TCPActuated 22 762 13363971 215196 Stop 10 763 13385190 225765 Stop 5 765 13407881 176294 TCPNo Control 17 767 13356049 145801 Stop 25 774 13368351 160603 TCPActuated 20 775 13382606 156381 Stop 21 780 13416405 176515 TCPActuated 17 785 13385526 150743 Stop 26 788 13445870 236336 Actuated Signal 7 790 13445938 236790 Actuated Signal 7 791 13446110 238145 Actuated Signal 7 793 13442632 248868 Actuated Signal 3 795 13382161 133903 Stop 26 796 13387613 152585 Stop 21 797 13388817 151846 Stop 21 798 13390142 151005 Stop 26 799 13390479 150757 Actuated Signal 26 800 13412029 166290 TCPActuated 22 802 13399281 176042 TCPNo Control 16 805 13418162 182753 TCPActuated 17 807 13425996 186097 TCPNo Control 18 808 13402429 181512 TCPNo Control 17 810 13400206 189935 TCPNo Control 16 811 13409890 192102 TCPNo Control 17 812 13401183 191935 Stop 17 814 13423754 207267 TCPNo Control 12 815 13398864 170854 TCPNo Control 21 816 13373646 113993 TCPNo Control 29 817 13425565 210132 TCPActuated 13 821 13375287 183774 TCPNo Control 15 822 13371288 183561 TCPNo Control 15 824 13380810 189177 TCPNo Control 16 825 13380588 194390 TCPNo Control 16 826 13380436 198497 TCPNo Control 11 827 13380397 201797 TCPNo Control 11 Fermi Nuclear Generating Plant K75 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 1

X Coordinate1 Y Coordinate1 Control Grid Map Node (ft) (ft) Type Number 829 13391811 217083 TCPNo Control 11 830 13395932 218144 TCPNo Control 11 831 13386974 130423 TCPNo Control 26 832 13371430 136205 TCPNo Control 25 834 13385526 217849 TCPNo Control 11 1

Coordinates are in the North American Datum of 1983 Michigan South State Plane Zone Fermi Nuclear Generating Plant K76 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 1

APPENDIX L Protective Action Area Boundaries

L. PROTECTIVE ACTION AREA BOUNDARIES PAA 1 County: Monroe Berlin Township east of North Dixie Highway, and south of U.S.

Turnpike and Reaume Road.

Frenchtown Township east of North Dixie Highway and north of Brest Road.

PAA 2 County: Monroe Berlin Township south of Sigler Road, west of North Dixie Highway, north of U.S. Turnpike and Reaume Road.

PAA 3 County: Monroe Frenchtown Township west of North Dixie Highway, south of Brest Road, east of I75 and north of Hurd Road.

PAA 4 County: Monroe Berlin Township north of Sigler Road.

Ash Township east of Maxwell Road and south of Carleton West Road.

Exeter Township south of OHara Road and east of Finzel Road.

County: Wayne Brownstone Township south of Vreeland Road and the municipalities of Rockwood, Gibraltar, and Flat Rock.

PAA 5 County: Monroe Frenchtown Township west of I75 and south of Hurd Road.

Raisinville Township east of Steffas Road and North Raisinville Road and north of North Custer Road.

Monroe Township east of Herr Road, north of Dunbar Road, east of South Telegraph Road, north of Albain Road, east of I75, and north of Mortar Creek Road.

City of Monroe.

Fermi Nuclear Power Plant L1 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 1

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, good weather evacuation of the entire EPZ. Table M1 presents the results of this study.

Table M1. Evacuation Time Estimates for Trip Generation Sensitivity Study Trip Evacuation Time Estimate for Entire EPZ Generation Period 90th Percentile 100th Percentile 3 Hours 2:05 3:10 3 Hours 30 Minutes 2:05 3:40 4 Hours (Base) 2:05 4:10 As discussed in Section 7.3, traffic congestion persists within the EPZ for about 2 hours2.314815e-5 days <br />5.555556e-4 hours <br />3.306878e-6 weeks <br />7.61e-7 months <br />. As such, the ETE for the 100th percentile mirrors trip generation time. The 90th percentile ETE are not sensitive to truncating the tail of the mobilization time distribution. The results indicate that programs to educate the public and encourage them toward faster responses for a radiological emergency, translates into shorter ETE at the 100th percentile. The results also justify the guidance to employ the [stable] 90th percentile ETE for protective action decision making.

Fermi Nuclear Power Plant M1 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 1

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, good weather evacuation for the entire EPZ. The movement of people in the Shadow Region has the potential to impede vehicles evacuating from an Evacuation Region within the EPZ. Refer to Sections 3.2 and 7.1 for additional information on population within the shadow region.

Table M2 presents the evacuation time estimates for each of the cases considered. The results show that the ETE is not impacted by shadow evacuation from 0% to 20%. Tripling the shadow percentage only increases the ETE by 5 minutes at the 90th percentile - not a material impact.

Table M2. Evacuation Time Estimates for Shadow Sensitivity Study Evacuating Evacuation Time Estimate for Entire EPZ Percent Shadow Shadow Evacuation Vehicles 90th Percentile 100th Percentile 0 0 2:05 4:10 15 7,704 2:05 4:10 20 (Base) 10,272 2:05 4:10 60 30,817 2:10 4:10 Fermi Nuclear Power Plant M2 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 1

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. The sensitivity study was conducted using the following planning assumptions:

1. The percent change in population within the study area was increased by 55%. 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 were not considered.

3. The study was performed for the 2Mile Region (R01), the 5Mile Region (R02) and the entire EPZ (R03).

4. The good weather scenario which yielded the highest ETE values was selected as the case to be considered in this sensitivity study (Scenario 6).

Table M3 presents the results of the sensitivity study.Section IV of Appendix E to 10 CFR Part 50, and NUREG/CR7002, 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 2Mile Region, 5 Mile Region or entire EPZ) to increase by 25 percent or 30 minutes, whichever is less. Note that all of the base ETE values, except the 90th percentile ETE for the 2mile 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 ETE are always greater than 30 minutes. Therefore, 30 minutes is the lesser and is the criterion for updating these regions. Twentyfive percent of the 90th percentile ETE for the 2mile region (1:55) is 29 minutes, which is less than 30 minutes.

Those percent population changes which result in ETE changes greater than 30 minutes, or 29 minutes for the 2mile region at the 90th percentile, are highlighted in red below - a 55%

increase in the EPZ population. DTE Energy will have to estimate the EPZ population on an annual basis. If the EPZ population increases by 55% or more, an updated ETE analysis will be needed.

Fermi Nuclear Power Plant M3 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 1

Table M3. ETE Variation with Population Change Population Change Resident Base 30% 50% 55%

Population 97,825 127,173 146,738 151,629 th ETE for 90 Percentile Population Change Region Base 30% 50% 55%

2MILE 1:55 1:55 2:00 2:00 5MILE 2:00 2:00 2:00 2:00 FULL EPZ 2:05 2:20 2:30 2:35 th ETE for 100 Percentile Population Change Region Base 30% 50% 55%

2MILE 4:00 4:00 4:00 4:00 5MILE 4:05 4:05 4:05 4:05 FULL EPZ 4:10 4:10 4:10 4:10 Fermi Nuclear Power Plant M4 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 1

APPENDIX N ETE Criteria Checklist

N. ETE CRITERIA CHECKLIST Table N1. 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 11, Figure 31 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 13 provided and includes similar information as identified in Table 11, ETE Comparison, of NUREG/CR7002.

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, Section 3, Section 8 large employers, and special events should be identified.

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 13, Appendix B, identified by name and version. Appendix C Fermi Nuclear Power Plant N1 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 1

NRC Review Criteria Criterion Addressed Comments in ETE Analysis

e. Methods used to address data uncertainties should be Yes Section 3 - avoid double counting described. Section 5, Appendix F - 4.17% 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 12, General Yes Sections 2.2, 2.3 Assumptions, of NUREG/CR7002 should be provided and include the basis to support their use.

1.3 Scenario Development

a. The ten scenarios in Table 13, Evacuation Scenarios, Yes Tables 21, 62 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 61 (ERPAs) should be included.

b. A table should be provided identifying the ERPAs Yes Table 61, Table 75, Table H1 considered for each ETE calculation by downwind direction in each sector.

Fermi Nuclear Power Plant N2 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 1

NRC Review Criteria Criterion Addressed Comments in ETE Analysis

c. A table similar to Table 14, Evacuation Areas for a Staged Yes Table 61, Table 75, Table H1 Evacuation Keyhole, of NUREG/CR7002 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 - Section 3 population groups, including permanent residents of the Employees, transients - Section 3, EPZ, transients, special facilities, and schools. Appendix E 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 2010 used as the base year for analysis. No growth to reflect population estimates to the year of the growth of population necessary.

ETE.

c. A sector diagram should be included, similar to Figure 21, Yes Figure 32 Population by Sector, of NUREG/CR7002, showing the population distribution for permanent residents.

Fermi Nuclear Power Plant N3 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 1

NRC Review Criteria Criterion Addressed Comments in ETE Analysis 2.1.1 Permanent Residents with Vehicles

a. The persons per vehicle value should be between 1 and 2 Yes 2.19 persons per vehicle - Table 13 or justification should be provided for other values.

Vehicle occupancy was determined from the results of a telephone survey of EPZ residents.

b. Major employers should be listed. Yes Appendix E - Table E3 2.1.2 Transient Population

a. A list of facilities which attract transient populations Yes Section 3.3, section 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 34, 35 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 63 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 21 Yes Figure 36 - transients of NUREG/CR7002, showing the population distribution Figure 38 - employees for the transient population.

Fermi Nuclear Power Plant N4 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 1

NRC Review Criteria Criterion Addressed Comments in ETE Analysis 2.2 Transit Dependent Permanent Residents

a. The methodology used to determine the number of transit Yes Section 8.1, Table 81 dependent residents should be discussed.

b. Transportation resources needed to evacuate this group Yes Section 8.1, Tables 85, 810 should be quantified.

c. The county/local evacuation plans for transit dependent Yes Sections 8.1, 8.4 residents should be used in the 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 81 - transit dependents information should be provided that the existing Section 8.4 - transitdependents registration programs were used in developing the estimate. Section 8.5 - special needs

g. A summary table of the total number of buses, Yes Section 8.4 - page 86 ambulances, or other transport needed to support Table 85, Section 83 evacuation should be provided and the quantification of resources should be detailed enough to assure double counting has not occurred.

Fermi Nuclear Power Plant N5 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 1

NRC Review Criteria Criterion Addressed Comments in ETE Analysis 2.3 Special Facility Residents

a. A list of special facilities, including the type of facility, Yes Appendix E - Table E2, Table E6 - list location, and average population should be provided. facilities, 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 8.3, Section 3.5 - medical facilities data was obtained. Section 8.6 - correctional facility

c. The number of wheelchair and bedbound individuals Yes Section 8.3, Table 84, Table E2 should be provided.

d. An estimate of the number and capacity of vehicles Yes Section 8.3, Section 8.6 needed to support the evacuation of the facility should be Tables 84, 85 provided.

e. The logistics for mobilizing specially trained staff (e.g., Yes Section 8.4, Section 8.6 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 82, Table E1 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 82 schools should be based on 100% of the school capacity.

Fermi Nuclear Power Plant N6 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 1

NRC Review Criteria Criterion Addressed Comments in ETE Analysis

c. The estimate of high school students who will use their Yes Section 8.2 personal vehicle to evacuate should be provided and a basis for the values used should be discussed.

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 8.3 and Figure 81 discuss the potential for a multiple wave evacuation 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 21, Figure 71 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 34 Table 33 Fermi Nuclear Power Plant N7 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 1

NRC Review Criteria Criterion Addressed Comments in ETE Analysis

c. The loading of the shadow evacuation onto the roadway Yes Section 5 - Table 59 network should be consistent with the trip generation time generated for the permanent resident population.

2.5.3 Background and Pass Through Traffic

a. The volume of background traffic and pass through traffic Yes Section 3.6, Section 6 is based on the average daytime traffic. Values may be Table 36, Table 63 reduced for nighttime scenarios.

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 Table 63 - External through traffic footnote 2.6 Summary of Demand Estimation

a. A summary table should be provided that identifies the Yes Tables 37, 38 total populations and total vehicles used in analysis for permanent residents, transients, transit dependent residents, special facilities, schools, shadow population, and passthrough 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.

Fermi Nuclear Power Plant N8 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 1

NRC Review Criteria Criterion Addressed Comments in ETE Analysis

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.

c. A table similar to that in Appendix A, Roadway Yes Appendix K, Table K1 Characteristics, of NUREG/CR7002 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 K1 through K23 numbers and segments used to develop the ETE should be present the entire linknode analysis provided and should be similar to Figure 31, 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 K2 total number of intersections modeled that are unsignalized, signalized, or manned by response personnel.

Fermi Nuclear Power Plant N9 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 1

NRC Review Criteria Criterion Addressed Comments in ETE Analysis

b. Characteristics for the 10 highest volume intersections Yes Table J1 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.

3.4 Adverse Weather

a. The adverse weather condition should be identified and Yes Table 21, Section 2.3 - Assumption 9 the effects of adverse weather on mobilization time Mobilization time - Table 22, Section 5.3 should be considered. (page 510)

b. The speed and capacity reduction factors identified in Yes Table 22 - based on HCM 2010. The Table 31, Weather Capacity Factors, of NUREG/CR7002 factors provided in Table 31 of should be used or a basis should be provided for other NUREG/CR7002 are from HCM 2000.

values.

c. The study identifies assumptions for snow removal on Yes Section 5.3 - page 510 streets and driveways, when applicable. 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.

Fermi Nuclear Power Plant N10 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 1

NRC Review Criteria Criterion Addressed Comments in ETE Analysis

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.

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 63 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 51 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.

Fermi Nuclear Power Plant N11 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 1

NRC Review Criteria Criterion Addressed Comments in ETE Analysis

e. The trip generation time for the transient population Yes Section 5, Table 59 should be integrated and loaded onto the transportation network with the general public.

4.1.2 Transit Dependent Residents

a. If available, existing plans and bus routes should be used Yes Section 8.3 - page 87. Preestablished bus in the ETE analysis. If new plans should be developed with routes do not exist. Basic bus routes were the ETE, they have been agreed upon by the responsible developed for the ETE analysis - see Figure authorities. 82, Table 810.

b. Discussion should be included on the means of evacuating Yes Section 8.4, Section 8.5 ambulatory and nonambulatory residents.

c. The number, location, and availability of buses, and other Yes Section 8.4, Table 85 resources needed to support the demand estimation should be provided.

d. Logistical details, such as the time to obtain buses, brief Yes Section 8.4, Figure 81 drivers, and initiate the bus route should be provided.

e. Discussion should identify the time estimated for transit Yes Section 8.4, page 87 and page 88 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 be discussed.

g. A map of bus routes should be included. Yes Figure 82 Fermi Nuclear Power Plant N12 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 1

NRC Review Criteria Criterion Addressed Comments in ETE Analysis

h. The trip generation time for nonambulatory 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.

i. Information should be provided to supports analysis of Yes Sections 8.3, 8.4 return trips, if necessary. Figure 81 Tables 811 through 813 4.1.3 Special Facilities

a. Information on evacuation logistics and mobilization times Yes Section 84, page 89 and 810 should be provided. Section 8.6 Tables 814 through 816

b. Discussion should be provided on the inbound and Yes Sections 8.4, Section 8.6 outbound speeds.

c. The number of wheelchair and bedbound individuals Yes Section 8.4 should be provided, and the logistics of evacuating these Table 84, Tables 814 through 816 residents should be discussed.

d. Time for loading of residents should be provided Yes Section 8.4, Section 8.6

e. Information should be provided that indicates whether Yes Section 8.4, page 89 the evacuation can be completed in a single trip or if Table 85 additional trips should be needed.

There are sufficient resources to evacuate special facilities in a single wave.

Fermi Nuclear Power Plant N13 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 1

NRC Review Criteria Criterion Addressed Comments in ETE Analysis

f. If return trips should be needed, the destination of Yes Section 8.4 vehicles should be provided.

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, page 88 time elements for the return trips.

4.1.4 Schools

a. Information on evacuation logistics and mobilization time Yes Section 8.4, Table 87 through 89 should be provided.

b. Discussion should be provided on the inbound and Yes School bus routes are presented in Table outbound speeds. 86.

School bus speeds are presented in Tables 87 (good weather), 88 (rain), and 89 (snow).

Section 8.4 discusses inbound and outbound speeds.

c. Time for loading of students should be provided. Yes Tables 87 through 89, Discussion in Section 8.4

d. Information should be provided that indicates whether Yes Section 8.4 - page 86 the evacuation can be completed in a single trip or if Table 85 additional trips are needed.

There are sufficient resources to evacuate schools in a single wave.

Fermi Nuclear Power Plant N14 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 1

NRC Review Criteria Criterion Addressed Comments in ETE Analysis

e. If return trips are needed, the destination of school buses Yes Return trips are not needed, however host should be provided. schools are listed in Table 83

f. If used, reception centers should be identified. Discussion Yes Table 83. Students are evacuated to host should be provided on whether students are expected to schools where they will be picked up by pass through the reception center prior to being parents or guardians.

evacuated to their final destination.

g. Supporting information should be provided to quantify the Yes Return trips are not needed. Tables 87 time elements for the return trips. and 88 provide time needed to arrive at host school, 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. 4.0.11.0). Section 1.3, Table and demonstrates its use in ETE studies. 13, 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.

Fermi Nuclear Power Plant N15 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 1

NRC Review Criteria Criterion Addressed Comments in ETE Analysis 4.2.1 Traffic Simulation Model Input

a. Traffic simulation model assumptions and a representative Yes Appendices B and C describe the set of model inputs should be provided. simulation model assumptions and algorithms Table J2

b. A glossary of terms should be provided for the key Yes Appendix A performance measures and parameters used in the Tables C1, C2 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 J5.

to support review: 2. Table J3.

1. Total volume and percent by hour at each EPZ exit 3. Table J1.

node. 4. Table J3.

2. Network wide average travel time. 5. Figures J1 through J14 (one plot

3. Longest queue length for the 10 intersections with the for each scenario considered).

highest traffic volume. 6. Table J4. Network wide average

4. Total vehicles exiting the network. speed also provided in Table J3.

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.

Fermi Nuclear Power Plant N16 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 1

NRC Review Criteria Criterion Addressed Comments in ETE Analysis

c. Color coded roadway maps should be provided for various Yes Figures 73 through 78 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 71, 72 100% of the total permanent resident and transient population

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 72 - 100th percentile ETE for general public

c. Tables should be provided for the 90 and 100 percent ETEs Yes Tables 73, 74 similar to Table 43, ETEs for Staged Evacuation Keyhole, of NUREG/CR7002.

d. ETEs should be provided for the 100 percent evacuation of Yes Section 8.4 special facilities, transit dependent, and school Tables 87 through 89 Schools populations.

Tables 811 through 813 - Transit dependents Tables 814 through 816 - Medical facilities Table 817 - homebound special needs Section 8.6 - correctional facilities Fermi Nuclear Power Plant N17 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 1

NRC Review Criteria Criterion Addressed Comments in ETE Analysis 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 Section 13, Appendix M time should be provided.

b. A statement or discussion regarding presentation of Yes Results of the ETE study were formally enhancements to local authorities should be provided. presented to local authorities at the final project meeting. Recommended enhancements were discussed.

5.3 State and Local Review

a. A list of agencies contacted and the extent of interaction Yes Table 11 with these agencies should be discussed.

b. Information should be provided on any unresolved issues Yes No issues were found after review from that may affect the ETE. the offsite agencies.

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.

Fermi Nuclear Power Plant N18 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 1

NRC Review Criteria Criterion Addressed Comments in ETE Analysis 5.5 Reception Centers and Congregate Care Center

a. A map of congregate care centers and reception centers Yes Figure 101 should be provided.

b. If return trips are required, assumptions used to estimate Yes Section 8.3 discusses a multiwave return times for buses should be provided. evacuation procedure. Figure 81

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.

Fermi Nuclear Power Plant N19 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 1