|
|
| Line 16: |
Line 16: |
|
| |
|
| =Text= | | =Text= |
| {{#Wiki_filter:R.E. Ginna Nuclear Power Plant Development of Evacuation Time Estimates Work performed for Constellation Energy Nuclear Group, LLC (CENG), by: | | {{#Wiki_filter:}} |
| KLD Engineering, P.C.
| |
| 43 Corporate Drive Hauppauge, NY 11788 mailto:kweinisch@kldcompanies.com November 2012 Final Report, Rev. 1 KLD TR - 518
| |
| | |
| Table of Contents 1 INTRODUCTION .................................................................................................................................. 11 1.1 Overview of the ETE Process...................................................................................................... 11 1.2 The R.E. Ginna Nuclear Power Plant .......................................................................................... 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 ................................................................................................................................ 313 3.5 Medical Facilities ...................................................................................................................... 317 3.6 Total Demand in Addition to Permanent Population .............................................................. 317 3.7 Special Event ............................................................................................................................ 317 3.8 Summary of Demand ............................................................................................................... 319 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 R.E. Ginna Nuclear Power Plant 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 R.E. Ginna Nuclear Power Plant i KLD Engineering, P.C.
| |
| Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 1
| |
| | |
| 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 ................................................................................................... 75 8 TRANSITDEPENDENT AND SPECIAL FACILITY EVACUATION TIME ESTIMATES ................................. 81 8.1 Transit Dependent People Demand Estimate ............................................................................ 82 8.2 School Population - Transit Demand ......................................................................................... 84 8.3 Special Facility Demand ............................................................................................................. 84 8.4 Evacuation Time Estimates for Transit Dependent People ....................................................... 85 8.5 Special Needs Population......................................................................................................... 810 9 TRAFFIC MANAGEMENT STRATEGY ................................................................................................... 91 10 EVACUATION ROUTES .................................................................................................................. 101 11 SURVEILLANCE OF EVACUATION OPERATIONS ........................................................................... 111 12 CONFIRMATION TIME .................................................................................................................. 121 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 ............................................................................................................. F8 F.3.3 Time Distribution Results ..................................................................................................... F10 F.4 Conclusions .............................................................................................................................. F13 G. TRAFFIC MANAGEMENT PLAN .......................................................................................................... G1 G.1 Traffic Control Points ................................................................................................................ G1 G.2 Access Control Points ................................................................................................................ G1 H EVACUATION REGIONS ..................................................................................................................... H1 J. REPRESENTATIVE INPUTS TO AND OUTPUTS FROM THE DYNEV II SYSTEM ..................................... J1 R.E. Ginna Nuclear Power Plant ii KLD Engineering, P.C.
| |
| Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 1
| |
| | |
| K. EVACUATION ROADWAY NETWORK .................................................................................................. K1 L. ERPA 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 R.E. Ginna Nuclear Power Plant iii KLD Engineering, P.C.
| |
| Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 1
| |
| | |
| List of Figures Figure 11. R.E. Ginna Nuclear Power Plant Location ............................................................................... 14 Figure 12. Ginna LinkNode Analysis Network......................................................................................... 17 Figure 21. Voluntary Evacuation Methodology ....................................................................................... 24 Figure 31. R.E. Ginna Nuclear Power Plant 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............................................................................................. 311 Figure 37. Transient Vehicles by Sector ................................................................................................. 312 Figure 38. Employee Population by Sector ............................................................................................ 315 Figure 39. Employee Vehicles by Sector ................................................................................................ 316 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 ...................................................................................................................................................... 522 Figure 61. Ginna EPZ ERPAs ..................................................................................................................... 64 Figure 71. Voluntary Evacuation Methodology ..................................................................................... 714 Figure 72. R.E. Ginna Nuclear Power Plant 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 2 Hours after the Advisory to Evacuate .......................................... 718 Figure 76. Congestion Patterns at 2 Hours and 30 Minutes after the Advisory to Evacuate ................ 719 Figure 77. Congestion Patterns at 3 Hours and 10 Minutes after the Advisory to Evacuate ................ 720 Figure 78. Evacuation Time Estimates Scenario 1 for Region R03 ...................................................... 721 Figure 79. Evacuation Time Estimates Scenario 2 for Region R03 ...................................................... 721 Figure 710. Evacuation Time Estimates Scenario 3 for Region R03 .................................................... 722 Figure 711. Evacuation Time Estimates Scenario 4 for Region R03 .................................................... 722 Figure 712. Evacuation Time Estimates Scenario 5 for Region R03 .................................................... 723 Figure 713. Evacuation Time Estimates Scenario 6 for Region R03 .................................................... 723 Figure 714. Evacuation Time Estimates Scenario 7 for Region R03 .................................................... 724 Figure 715. Evacuation Time Estimates Scenario 8 for Region R03 .................................................... 724 Figure 716. Evacuation Time Estimates Scenario 9 for Region R03 .................................................... 725 Figure 717. Evacuation Time Estimates Scenario 10 for Region R03 .................................................. 725 Figure 718. Evacuation Time Estimates Scenario 11 for Region R03 .................................................. 726 Figure 719. Evacuation Time Estimates Scenario 12 for Region R03 .................................................. 726 Figure 720. Evacuation Time Estimates Scenario 13 for Region R03 .................................................. 727 Figure 721. Evacuation Time Estimates Scenario 14 for Region R03 .................................................. 727 Figure 81. Chronology of Transit Evacuation Operations ...................................................................... 811 Figure 82. Monroe County Transit Dependent Bus Routes ................................................................... 812 Figure 83. Wayne County Transit Dependent Bus Routes...................................................................... 813 Figure 101. General Population Reception Centers and School Receiving Locations ........................... 102 R.E. Ginna Nuclear Power Plant iv 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. Monroe County Schools within the EPZ.................................................................................. E8 Figure E2. Wayne County Schools within the EPZ .................................................................................... E9 Figure E3. Preschools within the EPZ ..................................................................................................... E10 Figure E4. Medical Facilities within the EPZ .......................................................................................... E11 Figure E5. Major Employers within the EPZ ........................................................................................... E12 Figure E6. Recreational Areas within the EPZ ........................................................................................ E13 Figure E7. Lodging within the EPZ .......................................................................................................... E14 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. Household Ridesharing Preference......................................................................................... F6 Figure F6. Commuters in Households in the EPZ ..................................................................................... F7 Figure F7. Modes of Travel in the EPZ ..................................................................................................... F8 Figure F8. Number of Vehicles Used for Evacuation ............................................................................... F9 Figure F9. Households Evacuating with Pets ........................................................................................... F9 Figure F10. Time Required to Prepare to Leave Work/School .............................................................. F11 Figure F12. Work to Home Travel Time ................................................................................................. F11 Figure F12. Time to Prepare Home for Evacuation................................................................................ F12 Figure F13. Time to Clear Driveway of 6"8" of Snow ........................................................................... F13 Figure G1. Traffic Control Points for the R.E. Ginna Nuclear Power Plant ............................................. G3 Figure G2. Intersection of Shoecraft Road and State Road .................................................................... G4 Figure G3. Intersection of Shoecraft Road and Plank Road..................................................................... G5 Figure H1. Region R01 ............................................................................................................................. H4 Figure H2. Region R02 ............................................................................................................................. H5 Figure H3. Region R03 ............................................................................................................................. H6 Figure H4. Region R04.............................................................................................................................. H7 Figure H5. Region R05.............................................................................................................................. H8 Figure H6. Region R06.............................................................................................................................. H9 Figure H7. Region R07............................................................................................................................ H10 Figure H8. Region R08............................................................................................................................ H11 Figure H9. Region R09............................................................................................................................ H12 Figure H10. Region R10.......................................................................................................................... H13 Figure H11. Region R11.......................................................................................................................... H14 Figure H12. Region R12.......................................................................................................................... H15 Figure H13. Region R13.......................................................................................................................... H16 Figure H14. Region R14.......................................................................................................................... H17 Figure H15. Region R15.......................................................................................................................... H18 Figure H16. Region R16.......................................................................................................................... H19 Figure H17. Region R17.......................................................................................................................... H20 R.E. Ginna Nuclear Power Plant v KLD Engineering, P.C.
| |
| Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 1
| |
| | |
| Figure H18. Region R18.......................................................................................................................... H21 Figure H19. Region R19.......................................................................................................................... H22 Figure H20. Region R20.......................................................................................................................... H23 Figure H21. Region R21.......................................................................................................................... H24 Figure H22. Region R22.......................................................................................................................... H25 Figure H23. Region R23.......................................................................................................................... H26 Figure H24. Region R24.......................................................................................................................... H27 Figure H25. Region 25 ............................................................................................................................ H28 Figure J1. ETE and Trip Generation: Summer, Midweek, Midday, Good Weather (Scenario 1) .............. J7 Figure J2. ETE and Trip Generation: Summer, Midweek, Midday, Rain (Scenario 2) ............................... J7 Figure J3. ETE and Trip Generation: Summer, Weekend, Midday, Good Weather (Scenario 3).............. J8 Figure J4. ETE and Trip Generation: Summer, Weekend, Midday, Rain (Scenario 4) .............................. J8 Figure J5. ETE and Trip Generation: Summer, Midweek, Weekend, Evening, Good Weather (Scenario 5) ................................................................................................................................................ J9 Figure J6. ETE and Trip Generation: Winter, Midweek, Midday, Good Weather (Scenario 6) ................ J9 Figure J7. ETE and Trip Generation: Winter, Midweek, Midday, Rain (Scenario 7) ............................... J10 Figure J8. ETE and Trip Generation: Winter, Midweek, Midday, Snow (Scenario 8) ............................. J10 Figure J9. ETE and Trip Generation: Winter, Weekend, Midday, Good Weather (Scenario 9) .............. J11 Figure J10. ETE and Trip Generation: Winter, Weekend, Midday, Rain (Scenario 10) ........................... J11 Figure J11. ETE and Trip Generation: Winter, Weekend, Midday, Snow (Scenario 11) ......................... J12 Figure J12. ETE and Trip Generation: Winter, Midweek, Weekend, Evening, Good Weather (Scenario 12) ............................................................................................................................................ J12 Figure J13. ETE and Trip Generation: Summer, Weekend, Midday, Good Weather, Special Event (Scenario 13) ............................................................................................................................................ J13 Figure J14. ETE and Trip Generation: Summer, Midweek, Midday, Good Weather, Roadway Impact (Scenario 14) ............................................................................................................................................ J13 Figure K1. Ginna Nuclear Power Plant 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 R.E. Ginna Nuclear Power Plant vi KLD Engineering, P.C.
| |
| Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 1
| |
| | |
| Figure K22. LinkNode Analysis Network - Grid 21 ............................................................................... K23 Figure K23. LinkNode Analysis Network - Grid 22 ............................................................................... K24 Figure K24. LinkNode Analysis Network - Grid 23 ............................................................................... K25 Figure K25. LinkNode Analysis Network - Grid 24 ............................................................................... K26 Figure K26. LinkNode Analysis Network - Grid 25 ............................................................................... K27 Figure K27. LinkNode Analysis Network - Grid 26 ............................................................................... K28 Figure K28. LinkNode Analysis Network - Grid 27 ............................................................................... K29 Figure K29. LinkNode Analysis Network - Grid 28 ............................................................................... K30 Figure K30. LinkNode Analysis Network - Grid 29 ............................................................................... K31 Figure K31. LinkNode Analysis Network - Grid 30 ............................................................................... K32 Figure K32. LinkNode Analysis Network - Grid 31 ............................................................................... K33 Figure K33. LinkNode Analysis Network - Grid 32 ............................................................................... K34 Figure K34. LinkNode Analysis Network - Grid 33 ............................................................................... K35 Figure K35. LinkNode Analysis Network - Grid 34 ............................................................................... K36 Figure K36. LinkNode Analysis Network - Grid 35 ............................................................................... K37 Figure K37. LinkNode Analysis Network - Grid 36 ............................................................................... K38 Figure K38. LinkNode Analysis Network - Grid 37 ............................................................................... K39 Figure K39. LinkNode Analysis Network - Grid 38 ............................................................................... K40 Figure K40. LinkNode Analysis Network - Grid 39 ............................................................................... K41 Figure K41. LinkNode Analysis Network - Grid 40 ............................................................................... K42 Figure K42. LinkNode Analysis Network - Grid 41 ............................................................................... K43 Figure K43. LinkNode Analysis Network - Grid 42 ............................................................................... K44 Figure K44. LinkNode Analysis Network - Grid 43 ............................................................................... K45 Figure K45. LinkNode Analysis Network - Grid 44 ............................................................................... K46 R.E. Ginna Nuclear Power Plant vii 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 ERPA........................................................... 34 Table 33. Shadow Population and Vehicles by Sector ............................................................................. 37 Table 34. Summary of Transients and Transient Vehicles ..................................................................... 310 Table 35. Summary of NonEPZ Resident Employees and Employee Vehicles...................................... 314 Table 36. R.E. Ginna Nuclear Power Plant EPZ External Traffic ............................................................. 318 Table 37. Summary of Population Demand ........................................................................................... 320 Table 38. Summary of Vehicle Demand ................................................................................................. 321 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 and Evacuating Preschool Population Demand Estimates ......................................... 815 Table 83. School and Preschool Receiving Locations............................................................................. 816 Table 84. Special 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 R.E. Ginna Nuclear Power Plant viii KLD Engineering, P.C.
| |
| Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 1
| |
| | |
| Table 814. Special Facility Evacuation Time Estimates Good Weather ............................................... 834 Table 815. Special Facility Evacuation Time Estimates Rain ................................................................ 835 Table 816. Special 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 .............. 122 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 and within the EPZ ...................................................................................................... E2 Table E2. Preschools within the EPZ ........................................................................................................ E3 Table E3. Medical Facilities within the EPZ .............................................................................................. E4 Table E4. Major Employers within the EPZ .............................................................................................. E5 Table E5. Recreational Attractions within the EPZ .................................................................................. E6 Table E6. Lodging Facilities within the EPZ .............................................................................................. E7 Table F1. R.E. Ginna Nuclear Power Plant Telephone Survey Sampling Plan .......................................... F2 Table H1. Percent of Zone 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) ................................................................................................................................................. J4 Table J5. Simulation Model Outputs at Network Exit Links for Region R03, Scenario 1 ......................... J5 Table K1. Evacuation Roadway Network Characteristics ...................................................................... K47 Table K2. Nodes in the LinkNode Analysis Network which are Controlled ......................................... K110 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 R.E. Ginna Nuclear Power Plant ix 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 R.E. Ginna Nuclear Power Plant (Ginna) located in Wayne, New York. ETE are part of the required planning basis and provide Constellation Energy Nuclear Group, LLC (CENG) 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 CENG 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 Ginna Plant, 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 Wayne and Monroe R.E. Ginna Nuclear Power Plant ES1 KLD Engineering, P.C.
| |
| Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 1
| |
| | |
| counties. 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 16 Emergency Response Planning Areas (ERPAs). These ERPAs are then grouped within circular areas or keyhole configurations (circles plus radial sectors) that define a total of 25 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 - the Webster Fathers Day Soccer Tournament
| |
| - was considered. One roadway impact scenario was considered where State Route 104 was closed just below the intersection with Plank Road.
| |
| 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 Ginna 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 280 ETE were computed for the evacuation of the general public. Each ETE quantifies the aggregate evacuation time estimated for the population within one of the 25 Evacuation Regions to evacuate from that Region, under the circumstances defined for one of the 14 R.E. Ginna Nuclear Power Plant ES2 KLD Engineering, P.C.
| |
| Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 1
| |
| | |
| Evacuation Scenarios (25 x 14 = 350). 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.
| |
| 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, R.E. Ginna Nuclear Power Plant ES3 KLD Engineering, P.C.
| |
| Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 1
| |
| | |
| medicines, etc.) should also be considered.
| |
| Traffic Management This study references the comprehensive traffic management plans provided by Wayne and Monroe 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 Ginna EPZ showing the layout of the 16 ERPAs that comprise, in aggregate, the EPZ.
| |
| Table 31 presents the estimates of permanent resident population in each ERPA based on the 2010 Census data.
| |
| Table 61 defines each of the 25 Evacuation Regions in terms of their respective groups of ERPAs.
| |
| Table 62 lists the Evacuation Scenarios.
| |
| Tables 71 and 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 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 H8 presents an example of an Evacuation Region (Region R08) 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 350 unique cases - a combination of 25 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 2:45 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 because they are directly dependent on the mobilization times, creating an evacuation tail (See Figures 78 through 721). This fact implies that the congestion within the EPZ dissipates prior to the end of mobilization, as is displayed in Figure 77.
| |
| Inspection of Table 73 and Table 74 indicates that a staged evacuation provides no benefits to evacuees from within the 2 mile region and unnecessarily delays the evacuation of those beyond 2 miles (compare Regions R02 and R04 through R08 with R.E. Ginna Nuclear Power Plant ES4 KLD Engineering, P.C.
| |
| Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 1
| |
| | |
| Regions R20 through R25, respectively, in Tables 71 and 72). See Section 7.6 for additional discussion.
| |
| Comparison of Scenarios 3 (summer, midweek, midday) and 13 (summer, midweek, midday) in Table 72 indicates that the special event does not materially affect the ETE.
| |
| See Section 7.5 for additional discussion.
| |
| Comparison of Scenarios 1 and 14 in Table 71 indicates that the roadway closure -
| |
| State Route 404 just below the intersection with Plank Road - does not affect ETE. See Section 7.5 for additional discussion.
| |
| Webster is the most congested area during an evacuation. All congestion within the EPZ clears by 3 hours and 10 minutes after the Advisory to Evacuate. See Section 7.3 and Figures 73 through 77.
| |
| Separate ETE were computed for schools (and evacuating preschools), medical facilities, transitdependent persons and homebound special needs persons. The average single wave ETE for these facilities are within a similar range as the general population ETE at the 90th percentile. See Section 8.
| |
| Table 85 indicates that there are enough transportation resources to evacuate the population 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 3 hours and 45 minutes due to the traffic congestion within the EPZ. See Table M1.
| |
| The general population ETE is 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 51% or decrease of 87% result in ETE changes which meet the criteria for updating ETE between decennial Censuses. See Section M.3.
| |
| R.E. Ginna Nuclear Power Plant ES5 KLD Engineering, P.C.
| |
| Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 1
| |
| | |
| Figure 61. Ginna EPZ ERPAs R.E. Ginna Nuclear Power Plant ES6 KLD Engineering, P.C.
| |
| Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 1
| |
| | |
| Table 31. EPZ Permanent Resident Population ERPA 2000 Population 2010 Population M1 3,938 4,721 M2 477 666 M3 355 1,039 M4 6,903 8,088 M5 1,311 1,323 M6 6,831 7,088 M7 7,556 9,525 M8 3,074 3,151 M9 3,896 3,931 W1 3,817 4,197 W2 5,951 5,939 W3 1,064 1,168 W4 2,191 2,117 W5 3,916 4,232 W6 2,147 2,189 W7 4,509 4,575 TOTAL 57,936 63,949 EPZ Population Growth: 10.4%
| |
| R.E. Ginna Nuclear Power Plant ES7 KLD Engineering, P.C.
| |
| Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 1
| |
| | |
| Table 61. Description of Evacuation Regions Basic Regions ERPA Region Description Degrees W1 W2 W3 W4 W5 W6 W7 M1 M2 M3 M4 M5 M6 M7 M8 M9 R01 2Mile Region x R02 5Mile Region x x x x R03 Full EPZ x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x Evacuate 2Mile Region and Downwind to 5 Miles ERPA Region Wind Direction From: Degrees W1 W2 W3 W4 W5 W6 W7 M1 M2 M3 M4 M5 M6 M7 M8 M9 R04 N 349 11 x x R05 NNE, NE, ENE 12 78 x x x R06 E, ESE 79 124 x x SE, SSE, S, SSW, SW 125 236 See Region R01 R07 WSW, W 237 281 x x R08 WNW, NW, NNW 282 348 x x x Evacuate 5Mile Region and Downwind to the EPZ Boundary ERPA Region Wind Direction From: Degrees W1 W2 W3 W4 W5 W6 W7 M1 M2 M3 M4 M5 M6 M7 M8 M9 R09 N 349 11 x x x x x x x x x R10 NNE 12 33 x x x x x x x x x x R11 NE 34 56 x x x x x x x x x x x x x R12 ENE 57 78 x x x x x x x x x x x x R13 E 79 101 x x x x x x x x x x R14 ESE 102 124 x x x x x x SE, SSE, S, SSW, SW 125 236 See Region R02 R15 WSW 237 258 x x x x x R16 W 259 281 x x x x x x R17 WNW 282 303 x x x x x x x R18 NW 304 326 x x x x x x x x R19 NNW 327 348 x x x x x x x Staged Evacuation 2Mile Region Evacuates, then Evacuate Downwind to 5 Miles ERPA Region Wind Direction From: Degrees W1 W2 W3 W4 W5 W6 W7 M1 M2 M3 M4 M5 M6 M7 M8 M9 R20 No Wind x x x x R21 N 349 11 x x R22 NNE, NE, ENE 12 78 x x x R23 E, ESE 79 124 x x SE, SSE, S, SSW, SW 125 236 See Region R01 R24 WSW, W 237 281 x x R25 WNW, NW, NNW 282 348 x x x Key ERPA Evacuate ERPA ShelterinPlace ShelterinPlace until 90% ETE for R01, then Evacuate R.E. Ginna 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 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 Webster Fathers Day 13 Summer Weekend Midday Good Soccer Tournament Roadway Impact - Lane 14 Summer Midweek Midday Good Closure on SR 104 WB 1
| |
| Winter means that school is in session (also applies to spring and autumn). Summer means that school is not in session.
| |
| R.E. Ginna 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 1:50 1:50 1:35 1:35 1:35 1:50 1:50 2:15 1:35 1:35 2:05 1:35 1:35 1:50 R02 2:00 2:00 1:55 1:55 1:45 2:00 2:05 2:20 1:55 1:55 2:10 1:45 1:55 1:50 R03 2:15 2:20 1:55 2:00 1:50 2:15 2:25 2:45 1:55 2:00 2:15 1:50 1:55 2:20 2Mile Region and Keyhole to 5 Miles R04 2:00 2:05 1:55 2:00 1:50 2:05 2:05 2:15 1:55 2:00 2:10 1:50 1:55 2:00 R05 2:00 2:00 1:55 2:00 1:45 2:00 2:00 2:15 1:55 2:00 2:10 1:45 1:55 2:00 R06 1:50 1:50 1:35 1:35 1:35 1:50 1:50 2:15 1:35 1:35 2:05 1:35 1:35 1:50 R07 2:00 1:55 1:45 1:45 1:40 2:00 1:55 2:15 1:45 1:45 2:10 1:40 1:45 1:55 R08 2:00 2:05 1:55 2:00 1:50 2:05 2:05 2:15 1:55 2:05 2:10 1:50 1:55 2:00 5Mile Region and Keyhole to EPZ Boundary R09 2:00 2:00 1:50 1:55 1:45 2:00 2:00 2:20 1:55 1:55 2:15 1:45 1:50 2:00 R10 2:00 2:00 1:55 1:55 1:50 2:00 2:05 2:25 1:50 1:55 2:10 1:50 1:50 1:55 R11 2:15 2:25 1:55 2:00 1:50 2:15 2:25 2:40 1:55 2:00 2:15 1:50 1:55 2:15 R12 2:15 2:25 1:55 2:00 1:50 2:15 2:25 2:40 1:55 2:00 2:15 1:50 1:55 2:15 R13 2:10 2:25 1:55 2:00 1:50 2:15 2:25 2:40 1:50 2:00 2:15 1:50 1:55 2:15 R14 2:00 2:00 1:50 1:55 1:45 1:55 2:00 2:15 1:50 1:55 2:10 1:45 1:50 2:00 R15 2:00 2:00 1:55 1:55 1:45 2:00 2:00 2:15 1:55 2:00 2:10 1:45 1:55 2:00 R16 2:05 2:05 1:55 1:55 1:45 2:05 2:05 2:15 1:55 1:55 2:15 1:45 1:55 2:05 R17 2:05 2:05 1:55 1:55 1:45 2:00 2:05 2:20 1:55 1:55 2:10 1:45 1:55 2:00 R18 2:05 2:05 1:55 2:00 1:45 2:00 2:05 2:20 1:55 2:00 2:15 1:45 1:55 2:05 R19 2:00 2:05 1:55 1:55 1:45 2:00 2:05 2:20 1:55 1:55 2:15 1:45 1:55 2:00 Staged Evacuation 2Mile Region and Keyhole to 5 Miles R20 2:10 2:15 2:10 2:15 2:10 2:10 2:15 2:45 2:10 2:15 2:45 2:10 2:05 2:10 R21 2:10 2:10 2:05 2:10 2:05 2:10 2:10 2:30 2:05 2:10 2:30 2:05 2:05 2:10 R22 2:10 2:15 2:10 2:10 2:10 2:10 2:10 2:35 2:10 2:15 2:40 2:10 2:10 2:10 R23 2:05 2:10 2:05 2:05 2:05 2:05 2:10 2:40 2:05 2:10 2:40 2:05 2:05 2:05 R24 2:10 2:05 2:05 2:05 2:00 2:10 2:05 2:30 2:05 2:05 2:30 2:00 2:05 2:05 R25 2:10 2:10 2:10 2:10 2:05 2:10 2:10 2:35 2:10 2:10 2:35 2:05 2:10 2:10 R.E. Ginna 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 3:45 3:45 3:45 3:45 3:45 3:45 3:45 4:15 3:45 3:45 4:15 3:45 3:45 3:45 R02 3:50 3:50 3:50 3:50 3:50 3:50 3:50 4:20 3:50 3:50 4:20 3:50 3:50 3:50 R03 3:55 3:55 3:55 3:55 3:55 3:55 3:55 4:25 3:55 3:55 4:25 3:55 3:55 3:55 2Mile Region and Keyhole to 5 Miles R04 3:50 3:50 3:50 3:50 3:50 3:50 3:50 4:20 3:50 3:50 4:20 3:50 3:50 3:50 R05 3:50 3:50 3:50 3:50 3:50 3:50 3:50 4:20 3:50 3:50 4:20 3:50 3:50 3:50 R06 3:50 3:50 3:50 3:50 3:50 3:50 3:50 4:20 3:50 3:50 4:20 3:50 3:50 3:50 R07 3:50 3:50 3:50 3:50 3:50 3:50 3:50 4:20 3:50 3:50 4:20 3:50 3:50 3:50 R08 3:50 3:50 3:50 3:50 3:50 3:50 3:50 4:20 3:50 3:50 4:20 3:50 3:50 3:50 5Mile Region and Keyhole to EPZ Boundary R09 3:55 3:55 3:55 3:55 3:55 3:55 3:55 4:25 3:55 3:55 4:25 3:55 3:55 3:55 R10 3:55 3:55 3:55 3:55 3:55 3:55 3:55 4:25 3:55 3:55 4:25 3:55 3:55 3:55 R11 3:55 3:55 3:55 3:55 3:55 3:55 3:55 4:25 3:55 3:55 4:25 3:55 3:55 3:55 R12 3:55 3:55 3:55 3:55 3:55 3:55 3:55 4:25 3:55 3:55 4:25 3:55 3:55 3:55 R13 3:55 3:55 3:55 3:55 3:55 3:55 3:55 4:25 3:55 3:55 4:25 3:55 3:55 3:55 R14 3:55 3:55 3:55 3:55 3:55 3:55 3:55 4:25 3:55 3:55 4:25 3:55 3:55 3:55 R15 3:55 3:55 3:55 3:55 3:55 3:55 3:55 4:25 3:55 3:55 4:25 3:55 3:55 3:55 R16 3:55 3:55 3:55 3:55 3:55 3:55 3:55 4:25 3:55 3:55 4:25 3:55 3:55 3:55 R17 3:55 3:55 3:55 3:55 3:55 3:55 3:55 4:25 3:55 3:55 4:25 3:55 3:55 3:55 R18 3:55 3:55 3:55 3:55 3:55 3:55 3:55 4:25 3:55 3:55 4:25 3:55 3:55 3:55 R19 3:55 3:55 3:55 3:55 3:55 3:55 3:55 4:25 3:55 3:55 4:25 3:55 3:55 3:55 Staged Evacuation 2Mile Region and Keyhole to 5 Miles R20 3:50 3:50 3:50 3:50 3:50 3:50 3:50 4:20 3:50 3:50 4:20 3:50 3:50 3:50 R21 3:50 3:50 3:50 3:50 3:50 3:50 3:50 4:20 3:50 3:50 4:20 3:50 3:50 3:50 R22 3:50 3:50 3:50 3:50 3:50 3:50 3:50 4:20 3:50 3:50 4:20 3:50 3:50 3:50 R23 3:50 3:50 3:50 3:50 3:50 3:50 3:50 4:20 3:50 3:50 4:20 3:50 3:50 3:50 R24 3:50 3:50 3:50 3:50 3:50 3:50 3:50 4:20 3:50 3:50 4:20 3:50 3:50 3:50 R25 3:50 3:50 3:50 3:50 3:50 3:50 3:50 4:20 3:50 3:50 4:20 3:50 3:50 3:50 R.E. Ginna 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 R01 1:50 1:50 1:35 1:35 1:35 1:50 1:50 2:15 1:35 1:35 2:05 1:35 1:35 1:50 Unstaged Evacuation 2Mile Region and Keyhole to 5Miles R02 1:50 1:50 1:35 1:35 1:35 1:50 1:50 2:15 1:35 1:40 2:05 1:35 1:35 1:50 R04 1:50 1:50 1:35 1:35 1:35 1:50 1:50 2:15 1:35 1:35 2:05 1:35 1:35 1:50 R05 1:50 1:50 1:35 1:35 1:35 1:50 1:50 2:15 1:35 1:35 2:05 1:35 1:35 1:50 R06 1:50 1:50 1:35 1:35 1:35 1:50 1:50 2:15 1:35 1:35 2:05 1:35 1:35 1:50 R07 1:50 1:50 1:35 1:35 1:35 1:50 1:50 2:15 1:35 1:35 2:05 1:35 1:35 1:50 R08 1:50 1:50 1:35 1:35 1:35 1:50 1:50 2:15 1:35 1:35 2:05 1:35 1:35 1:50 Staged Evacuation 2Mile Region and Keyhole to 5Miles R20 2:00 2:00 1:55 1:55 1:55 2:00 2:00 2:25 1:55 1:55 2:25 1:55 1:55 2:00 R21 1:55 1:55 1:40 1:40 1:40 1:55 1:55 2:20 1:40 1:40 2:10 1:40 1:40 1:55 R22 1:55 1:55 1:50 1:50 1:50 1:55 1:55 2:25 1:50 1:50 2:20 1:50 1:50 1:55 R23 1:55 1:55 1:50 1:50 1:50 1:55 1:55 2:25 1:50 1:50 2:20 1:50 1:50 1:55 R24 1:55 1:55 1:50 1:50 1:50 1:55 1:55 2:25 1:50 1:50 2:20 1:50 1:50 1:55 R25 1:55 1:55 1:50 1:50 1:50 1:55 1:55 2:25 1:50 1:50 2:20 1:50 1:50 1:55 R.E. Ginna 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 R01 3:45 3:45 3:45 3:45 3:45 3:45 3:45 4:15 3:45 3:45 4:15 3:45 3:45 3:45 Unstaged Evacuation 2Mile Region and Keyhole to 5Miles R02 3:45 3:45 3:45 3:45 3:45 3:45 3:50 4:15 3:45 3:45 4:15 3:45 3:45 3:45 R04 3:45 3:45 3:45 3:45 3:45 3:50 3:45 4:15 3:45 3:45 4:15 3:45 3:45 3:45 R05 3:45 3:45 3:45 3:45 3:45 3:45 3:45 4:15 3:45 3:45 4:15 3:45 3:45 3:45 R06 3:45 3:50 3:45 3:45 3:45 3:45 3:45 4:15 3:45 3:45 4:15 3:45 3:45 3:50 R07 3:45 3:45 3:45 3:45 3:45 3:45 3:45 4:15 3:45 3:45 4:15 3:45 3:45 3:45 R08 3:45 3:45 3:45 3:45 3:45 3:50 3:45 4:15 3:45 3:45 4:15 3:45 3:45 3:45 Staged Evacuation 2Mile Region and Keyhole to 5Miles R20 3:45 3:45 3:45 3:45 3:45 3:50 3:45 4:20 3:45 3:45 4:15 3:45 3:45 3:45 R21 3:45 3:45 3:45 3:45 3:45 3:45 3:45 4:20 3:45 3:45 4:15 3:45 3:45 3:50 R22 3:45 3:45 3:45 3:45 3:45 3:50 3:45 4:20 3:45 3:45 4:15 3:45 3:45 3:45 R23 3:45 3:45 3:45 3:45 3:45 3:45 3:45 4:15 3:45 3:45 4:15 3:45 3:45 3:45 R24 3:45 3:45 3:45 3:45 3:45 3:45 3:45 4:15 3:45 3:45 4:15 3:45 3:45 3:45 R25 3:45 3:45 3:45 3:45 3:45 3:45 3:45 4:20 3:45 3:45 4:15 3:45 3:45 3:50 R.E. Ginna Nuclear Power Plant ES13 KLD Engineering, P.C.
| |
| Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 1
| |
| | |
| Table 87. School Evacuation Time Estimates - Good Weather Travel Travel Dist. Time to Dist. EPZ Time Driver Loading To EPZ Average EPZ Bdry to from EPZ ETE to Mobilization Time Bdry Speed Bdry ETE R.C./R.L. Bdry to R.C./R.L School Time (min) (min) (mi) (mph) (min) (hr:min) (mi.) H.S. (min) (hr:min)
| |
| MONROE COUNTY SCHOOLS Dewitt Road Elementary School 90 15 School is outside the EPZ 1:45 13.6 21 2:10 Klem Road North Elementary School 90 15 3.4 9.6 22 2:10 13.5 21 2:30 Klem Road South Elementary School 90 15 3.5 9.6 23 2:10 13.4 21 2:30 Plank Road North Elementary School 90 15 School is outside the EPZ 1:45 12.5 19 2:05 Plank Road South Elementary School 90 15 School is outside the EPZ 1:45 12.3 19 2:05 Rochester Christian School 90 15 School is outside the EPZ 1:45 10.8 17 2:05 Schlegel Road Elementary School 90 15 7.1 12.2 35 2:20 13.4 21 2:45 Schroeder High School 90 15 2.3 11.5 13 2:00 13.4 21 2:20 Spry Middle School 90 15 4.3 10.0 26 2:15 13.4 21 2:35 St Rita's School 90 15 School is outside the EPZ 1:45 13.9 21 2:10 State Road Elementary School 90 15 5.7 10.9 32 2:20 13.4 21 2:40 Thomas High School 90 15 1.9 11.5 11 2:00 13.4 21 2:20 Webster Christian School 90 15 4.0 10.0 25 2:10 13.5 21 2:35 Webster Montessori School 90 15 0.2 11.7 2 1:50 13.1 20 2:10 Willink Middle School 90 15 2.2 11.5 12 2:00 13.4 21 2:20 WAYNE COUNTY SCHOOLS Freewill Elementary School 47 15 3.7 37.7 6 1:10 8.4 13 1:25 Hop Skip & Jump Preschool 90 15 7.9 30.8 16 2:05 8.5 13 2:15 James A. Beneway High School 29 15 6.0 33.3 11 0:55 8.4 13 1:10 Lake Ontario Child Development 90 15 4.7 42.4 7 1:55 17.5 27 2:20 Magic Years Nursery School 90 15 6.7 44.7 10 1:55 7.7 12 2:10 Marion Central Middle/High School 90 15 2.4 44.4 4 1:50 14.0 21 2:10 Marion Elementary School 90 15 School is outside the EPZ 1:45 13.9 21 2:10 Ontario Elementary School 23 15 6.8 35.1 12 0:50 8.4 13 1:05 Ontario Primary School 18 15 7.1 36.7 12 0:45 8.4 13 1:00 Raggedy Ann & Andy Day Care 90 15 4.2 42.4 6 1:55 17.2 26 2:20 R.E. Ginna Nuclear Power Plant ES14 KLD Engineering, P.C.
| |
| Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 1
| |
| | |
| Travel Travel Dist. Time to Dist. EPZ Time Driver Loading To EPZ Average EPZ Bdry to from EPZ ETE to Mobilization Time Bdry Speed Bdry ETE R.C./R.L. Bdry to R.C./R.L School Time (min) (min) (mi) (mph) (min) (hr:min) (mi.) H.S. (min) (hr:min)
| |
| Rhyme Tyme Child Care Center 90 15 7.7 30.8 15 2:00 8.4 13 2:15 The Tot Spot Day Care Center 90 15 7.4 30.6 15 2:00 8.4 13 2:15 Thomas C. Armstrong Middle School 39 15 6.0 25.3 15 1:10 8.4 13 1:25 Wayne Education Center 90 15 3.4 46.0 5 1:50 17.5 27 2:20 Wayne Finger Lake BOCES 90 15 3.4 46.0 5 1:50 17.5 27 2:20 Wayne Technical & Career Center 90 15 3.4 46.0 5 1:50 17.5 27 2:20 Williamson Elementary School 23 15 6.3 45.8 9 0:50 14.1 22 1:10 Williamson Middle School 23 15 6.3 45.8 9 0:50 14.1 22 1:10 Williamson Senior High School 23 15 5.1 45.8 7 0:45 14.1 22 1:10 Maximum for EPZ: 2:20 Maximum: 2:45 Average for EPZ: 1:45 Average: 2:05 R.E. Ginna Nuclear Power Plant ES15 KLD Engineering, P.C.
| |
| Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 1
| |
| | |
| Table 811. TransitDependent Evacuation Time Estimates - Good Weather OneWave TwoWave Route Travel Route Route Travel Pickup Distance Time to Driver Travel Pickup Route Bus Mobilization Length Speed Time Time ETE to R. C. R. C. Unload Rest Time Time ETE Number Number (min) (miles) (mph) (min) (min) (hr:min) (miles) (min) (min) (min) (min) (min) (hr:min)
| |
| M1 Route A 1 90 16.3 19.2 51 30 2:55 10.7 16 5 10 45 30 4:45 M1 Route A 2 110 16.3 27.1 36 30 3:00 10.7 16 5 10 45 30 4:50 M1 Route B 1 90 16.7 19.2 52 30 2:55 10.7 16 5 10 45 30 4:45 M1 Route B 2&3 110 16.7 25.1 40 30 3:00 10.7 16 5 10 45 30 4:50 M2 Route C 1 90 15.6 17.4 54 30 2:55 10.7 16 5 10 44 30 4:45 M3 Route D 1 90 14.0 15.1 56 30 3:00 10.7 16 5 10 42 30 4:45 M4 Route E 1 90 12.5 13.3 57 30 3:00 9.4 14 5 10 42 30 4:45 M4 Route E 2&3 110 12.5 18.6 40 30 3:05 9.4 14 5 10 42 30 4:50 M4 Route F 1 90 14.5 20.6 42 30 2:45 9.4 14 5 10 46 30 4:30 M4 Route F 2&3 110 14.5 21.4 41 30 3:05 9.4 14 5 10 45 30 4:50 M4 Route G 1 90 12.1 18.9 38 30 2:40 9.4 14 5 10 42 30 4:25 M4 Route G 2&3 110 12.1 17.8 41 30 3:05 9.4 14 5 10 41 30 4:45 M5 Route H 1 90 12.6 40.7 19 30 2:20 9.4 14 5 10 40 30 4:00 M5 Route H 2 90 12.6 40.7 19 30 2:20 9.4 14 5 10 40 30 4:00 M5 Route I 1 90 18.5 42.4 26 30 2:30 9.4 14 5 10 48 30 4:20 M5 Route I 2 90 18.5 42.4 26 30 2:30 10.7 16 5 10 50 30 4:25 M6 Route J 1 90 10.1 13.8 44 30 2:45 10.7 16 5 10 38 30 4:25 M6 Route J 2 90 10.1 13.8 44 30 2:45 10.7 16 5 10 38 30 4:25 M6 Route K 1 90 13.4 44.4 18 30 2:20 10.7 16 5 10 42 30 4:05 M6 Route K 2 90 13.4 44.4 18 30 2:20 10.7 16 5 10 42 30 4:05 M6 Route L 1 90 9.6 16.2 36 30 2:40 10.7 16 5 10 37 30 4:20 M6 Route L 2 90 9.6 16.2 36 30 2:40 10.7 16 5 10 37 30 4:20 M7 Route M 1 90 7.1 13.9 31 30 2:35 15.3 23 5 10 42 30 4:30 M7 Route M 2&3 100 7.1 14.6 29 30 2:40 15.3 23 5 10 42 30 4:30 M7 Route M 4&5 110 7.1 17.4 24 30 2:45 15.3 23 5 10 42 30 4:35 M7 Route N 1 90 9.9 20.0 30 30 2:30 15.3 23 5 10 45 30 4:25 M7 Route N 2&3 100 9.9 21.4 28 30 2:40 15.3 23 5 10 47 30 4:35 M7 Route N 4&5 110 9.9 23.7 25 30 2:50 15.3 23 5 10 47 30 4:45 M8 Route P 1 90 4.0 8.8 27 30 2:30 10.7 16 5 10 33 30 4:05 M8 Route Q 1 90 4.4 42.8 6 30 2:10 10.7 16 5 10 33 30 3:45 R.E. Ginna Nuclear Power Plant ES16 KLD Engineering, P.C.
| |
| Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 1
| |
| | |
| OneWave TwoWave Route Travel Route Route Travel Pickup Distance Time to Driver Travel Pickup Route Bus Mobilization Length Speed Time Time ETE to R. C. R. C. Unload Rest Time Time ETE Number Number (min) (miles) (mph) (min) (min) (hr:min) (miles) (min) (min) (min) (min) (min) (hr:min)
| |
| M8 Route Q 2 110 4.4 41.6 6 30 2:30 10.7 16 5 10 34 30 4:10 M9 Route R 1&2 90 7.1 8.8 48 30 2:50 10.7 16 5 10 37 30 4:30 M9 Route R 3&4 110 7.1 17.4 24 30 2:45 10.7 16 5 10 35 30 4:25 W1 Route 1 1 90 18.7 39.6 28 30 2:30 8.2 12 5 10 48 30 4:15 W1 Route 1 2 90 18.7 39.6 28 30 2:30 8.2 12 5 10 44 30 4:15 W1 Route 2 1 90 16.2 36.1 27 30 2:30 8.4 13 5 10 46 30 4:15 W1 Route 2 2 110 16.2 38.5 25 30 2:50 8.4 13 5 10 41 30 4:30 W1 Route 3 1 90 14.9 35.8 25 30 2:25 7.7 12 5 10 40 30 4:05 W1 Route 3 2 110 14.9 36.7 24 30 2:45 7.7 12 5 10 41 30 4:25 W2 Route 1 1 90 11.3 45.4 15 30 2:15 8.4 13 5 10 37 30 3:50 W2 Route 1 2 110 11.3 46.0 15 30 2:35 8.4 13 5 10 39 30 4:15 W2 Route 2 1 90 16.1 33.9 28 30 2:30 8.4 13 5 10 45 30 4:15 W2 Route 2 2 110 16.1 36.8 26 30 2:50 8.4 13 5 10 45 30 4:35 W2 Route 3 1 90 16.4 47.0 21 30 2:25 7.7 12 5 10 41 30 4:05 W2 Route 3 2 110 16.4 47.3 21 30 2:45 7.7 12 5 10 42 30 4:25 W3 Route 1 1 90 15.9 40.9 23 30 2:25 17.5 26 5 10 58 30 4:35 W3 Route 2 1 90 7.8 49.4 9 30 2:10 20.6 31 5 10 50 30 4:20 W4 Route 1 1 90 6.5 26.4 15 30 2:15 17.2 26 5 10 44 30 4:10 W4 Route 2 1 90 10.1 22.0 28 30 2:30 17.2 26 5 10 48 30 4:30 W5 Route 1 1 90 8.9 36.7 15 30 2:15 17.2 26 5 10 46 30 4:15 W5 Route 2 1 90 6.4 46.8 8 30 2:10 14.5 22 5 10 40 30 4:00 W5 Route 3 1 90 7.0 50.4 8 30 2:10 14.5 22 5 10 40 30 4:00 W6 Route 1 1 90 7.8 49.4 10 30 2:10 14.5 22 5 10 41 30 4:00 W6 Route 2 1 90 6.5 46.0 8 30 2:10 14.1 21 5 10 39 30 4:00 W6 Route 3 1 90 10.0 45.0 13 30 2:15 14.1 21 5 10 43 30 4:05 W6 Route 4 1 90 7.7 43.8 11 30 2:15 14.2 21 5 10 41 30 4:05 W7 Route 1 1 90 13.3 32.5 25 30 2:25 8.4 13 5 10 38 30 4:05 W7 Route 2 1 90 10.8 43.2 15 30 2:15 8.4 13 5 10 35 30 3:50 W7 Route 3 1 90 9.9 45.7 13 30 2:15 8.4 13 5 10 34 30 3:50 Maximum ETE: 3:05 Maximum ETE: 4:50 Average ETE: 2:35 Average ETE: 4:20 R.E. Ginna Nuclear Power Plant ES17 KLD Engineering, P.C.
| |
| Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 1
| |
| | |
| Figure H8. Region R08 R.E. Ginna 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 R.E. Ginna Nuclear Power Plant (Ginna), located in Ontario, Wayne County, New York. 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 CENG contacts with local government agencies Monroe and Wayne County Emergency Obtain emergency plans and special facility data Management Departments New York State Office of Emergency Management Obtain emergency and traffic management plans Local and State Police Agencies Obtain emergency and traffic management plans 1.1 Overview of the ETE Process The following outline presents a brief description of the work effort in chronological sequence:
| |
| : 1. Information Gathering:
| |
| : a. Defined the scope of work in discussions with representatives from CENG.
| |
| : b. Attended meetings with emergency planners from Monroe County EMD and Wayne County EMD to identify issues to be addressed and resources available.
| |
| R.E. Ginna 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, Monroe County EMD and Wayne County EMD.
| |
| : 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 Emergency Response Planning Areas (ERPAs) to define Evacuation Regions. The EPZ is partitioned into 16 ERPAs along jurisdictional and geographic boundaries. Regions are groups of contiguous ERPAs for which ETE are calculated.
| |
| The configurations of these Regions reflect wind direction and the radial extent of the impacted area. Each Region, other than those that approximate circular areas, approximates a 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, CENG 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.
| |
| R.E. Ginna 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 Ginna Plant.
| |
| : 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 R.E. Ginna Nuclear Power Plant Ginna is located along the shores of Lake Ontario in Ontario, Wayne County, New York.
| |
| The site is approximately 25 miles northeast of Rochester, NY. The Emergency Planning Zone (EPZ) consists of parts of Wayne and Monroe Counties in New York. Figure 11 displays the area surrounding Ginna. This map identifies the communities in the area and the major roads.
| |
| R.E. Ginna Nuclear Power Plant 13 KLD Engineering, P.C.
| |
| Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 1
| |
| | |
| Figure 11. R.E. Ginna Nuclear Power Plant Location R.E. Ginna 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 R.E. Ginna 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).
| |
| R.E. Ginna Nuclear Power Plant 16 KLD Engineering, P.C.
| |
| Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 1
| |
| | |
| Figure 12. Ginna LinkNode Analysis Network R.E. Ginna 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 Ginna location.
| |
| 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 are designed to represent the behavioral responses of evacuees. The effects of these countermeasures may then be tested with the model.
| |
| R.E. Ginna Nuclear Power Plant 18 KLD Engineering, P.C.
| |
| Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 1
| |
| | |
| 1.4 Comparison with Prior ETE Study Table 13 presents a comparison of the present ETE study with the 2004 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:
| |
| Voluntary and shadow evacuations are considered at a different percentage.
| |
| The highway representation is far more detailed, providing evacuating vehicles with more route choices.
| |
| Traffic control points and actuated signals are incorporated into the simulation model.
| |
| Table 13. ETE Study Comparisons Topic Previous ETE Study Current ETE Study ArcGIS Software using 2010 US Resident Population 2000 Census, extrapolated to 2003. Census blocks; area ratio method Basis Population = 58,614 used.
| |
| Population = 63,949 Based on residential telephone survey Based on 2012 telephone survey:
| |
| Resident Population adapted from Nine Mile Point, 1.25 1.33 evacuating vehicles per Vehicle Occupancy evacuating vehicles per household household, 1.92 persons per vehicle.
| |
| Employment journey to work data identified the proportion of employees Employee estimates based on who commute into the EPZ relative to the information provided about major total number of employees. These Employee employers in EPZ. 1.08 employees proportions were applied on an ERPA by Population per vehicle based on telephone ERPA basis to total employment survey results.
| |
| information for the year 2000 from NYS Dept. of Labor. Employees = 8,417 Employees = 13,076 Estimates based upon U.S. Census data and the results of the telephone survey. A total of 2,046 Defined as households with 0 vehicles +
| |
| people who do not have access to a households with 1 and 2 vehicles with vehicle, requiring 69 buses to commuters who do not return home.
| |
| TransitDependent evacuate. An additional 222 Household size varies by county and Population homebound special needs persons number of vehicles in household. Total of needed special transportation to 3,067 people without access to a vehicle, evacuate (113 required a bus, 47 requiring 104 bus runs.
| |
| required a wheelchairaccessible vehicle, and 62 required an ambulance).
| |
| R.E. Ginna Nuclear Power Plant 19 KLD Engineering, P.C.
| |
| Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 1
| |
| | |
| Topic Previous ETE Study Current ETE Study Transient estimates based upon Based on telephone calls to individual Transient information provided about facilities Population transient attractions in EPZ.
| |
| Transients = 2,103 Transients = 2,102 Special facility population based on Special facility population based on information provided by each information provided by each county county within the EPZ.
| |
| Special Facilities within the EPZ.
| |
| Current census = 492 Population Special Facility Population = 68 Vans Required = 32 Vehicles originating at special facilities Wheelchair Bus Required = 16
| |
| =18 Ambulances Required = 2 School population based on School population based on information information provided by each provided by each county within the EPZ.
| |
| School Population county within the EPZ.
| |
| School enrollment = 15,430 School enrollment = 15,033 Vehicles originating at schools = 364 Buses required = 284 Voluntary evacuation from 50 percent within circle. 35 percent in 20 percent of the population within within EPZ in areas annular ring between the circle and EPZ the EPZ, but not within the outside region to be boundary. Evacuation Region (see Figure 21) evacuated Population in areas west and southwest of the EPZ boundary in Monroe County within the bounding state highways in 20% of people outside of the EPZ Shadow Evacuation the west and state highway 31 in the within the Shadow Region south was considered. Nominally, 30 (see Figure 72) percent of this population will move away from the EPZ.
| |
| Network Size 1,148 Links; 444 Nodes 1,539 links; 1,049 nodes Field surveys conducted in 2002 Field surveys conducted in February Roadway Geometric 2012. Roads and intersections were Data video archived.
| |
| Road capacities based on 2000 HCM Road capacities based on 2010 HCM.
| |
| Direct evacuation to designated School Evacuation Direct evacuation Reception Center/Receiving Location.
| |
| 50 percent of transitdependent 50 percent of transitdependent persons Ridesharing persons will evacuate with a will evacuate with a neighbor or friend.
| |
| neighbor or friend.
| |
| R.E. Ginna Nuclear Power Plant 110 KLD Engineering, P.C.
| |
| Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 1
| |
| | |
| Topic Previous ETE Study Current ETE Study Based on residential telephone survey Based on residential telephone of specific pretrip mobilization survey of specific pretrip activities: mobilization activities:
| |
| Residents with commuters returning Residents with commuters leave between 30 and 150 minutes returning leave between 30 and Residents without commuters 225 minutes.
| |
| returning leave between 15 and 120 Residents without commuters minutes returning leave between 15 and Employees and transients leave 165 minutes.
| |
| Trip Generation for between 15 and 90 minutes. Employees and transients leave Evacuation between 15 and 105 minutes.
| |
| All times measured from the Advisory to Evacuate for all above. All times measured from the Additional time to clear snow added Advisory to Evacuate.
| |
| to residential evacuation times for Additional time to clear snow snow scenarios. added to residential mobilization Xerox facility in Webster is notified times for snow scenarios.
| |
| before the Advisory to Evacuate is issued ATE virtually coincident with the the general public. Xerox begins siren alert for all population mobilizing 30 minutes before general groups, as per NUREG/CR7002 public.
| |
| Good, Rain, or Snow. The capacity and free flow speed of all links in the Weather Clear or Rain or Snow network are reduced by 10% in the event of rain and 20% for snow.
| |
| Modeling IDYNEV System: TRAD and PCDYNEV DYNEV II System - Version 4.0.8.0 Webster Fathers Day Soccer Tournament Special Events None considered Special Event Population = 2,500 additional transients 25 Regions (central sector wind 35 Regions and 12 Scenarios producing direction and each adjacent sector Evacuation Cases 420 unique cases. technique used) and 14 Scenarios producing 350 unique cases.
| |
| Reported for 50, 90, 95, and 100 ETE reported for 90th and 100th Evacuation Time percentile population. Results presented percentile population. Results Estimates Reporting by Region presented by Region and Scenario.
| |
| R.E. Ginna 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: 4:55 Good Weather: 2:15 Estimates for the entire EPZ, 90th percentile Summer Weekend, Midday, Summer Weekend, Midday, Good Weather: 3:05 Good Weather: 1:55 R.E. Ginna 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 data provided by the county emergency management departments.
| |
| : 3. Population estimates at special facilities are based on provided by the county emergency management departments.
| |
| : 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 2.56 persons per household and 1.33 evacuating vehicles per household are used. The relationship between persons and vehicles for employees and transients is as follows:
| |
| : a. Employees: 1.08 employees per vehicle (telephone survey results) for all major employers.
| |
| : b. Parks: Vehicle occupancy varies based upon data gathered from local transient facilities.
| |
| : c. Special Events: Assumed transients attending the Webster Fathers Day Soccer Tournament show travel as families/households in a single vehicle, and used the average household size of 2.56 persons to estimate the number of vehicles.
| |
| R.E. Ginna 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 ERPAs that is issued an Advisory to Evacuate. A scenario is a combination of circumstances, including time of day, day of week, season, and weather conditions.
| |
| : 2. The ETE are computed and presented in tabular format and graphically, in a format compliant with NUREG/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 ERPAs 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 State Route 404 just south of the intersection with Plank Road.
| |
| : 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.
| |
| R.E. Ginna 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 Webster Fathers Day 13 Summer Weekend Midday Good Soccer Tournament Roadway Impact - Lane 14 Summer Midweek Midday Good Closure on SR 104 WB 2
| |
| Winter assumes that school is in session (also applies to spring and autumn). Summer assumes that school is not in session.
| |
| R.E. Ginna Nuclear Power Plant 23 KLD Engineering, P.C.
| |
| Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 1
| |
| | |
| Figure 21. Voluntary Evacuation Methodology R.E. Ginna 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 ERPAs forming a Region that is issued an Advisory to Evacuate will, in fact, respond and evacuate in general accord with the planned routes.
| |
| : 3. 65 percent of the households in the EPZ have at least 1 commuter; 34 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 22 percent (65% x 34% = 22%) 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.
| |
| R.E. Ginna 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 receiving location.
| |
| : 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.
| |
| R.E. Ginna 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 F13)
| |
| *Adverse weather capacity and speed values are given as a percentage of good weather conditions. Roads are assumed to be passable.
| |
| R.E. Ginna 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 Ginna 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 ERPA and by polar coordinate representation (population rose).
| |
| The Ginna EPZ is subdivided into 16 ERPAs. The EPZ is shown in Figure 31.
| |
| R.E. Ginna 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 (2.56 persons/household - See Figure F1) and the number of evacuating vehicles per household (1.33 vehicles/household - See Figure F8) 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 ERPA and EPZ boundaries. A ratio of the original area of each census block and the updated area (after cutting) is multiplied by the total block population to estimate what the population is within the EPZ. This methodology assumes that the population is evenly distributed across a census block. Table 31 provides the permanent resident population within the EPZ, by ERPA 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 the Ginna Plant. 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.
| |
| R.E. Ginna Nuclear Power Plant 32 KLD Engineering, P.C.
| |
| Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 1
| |
| | |
| Figure 31. R.E. Ginna Nuclear Power Plant EPZ R.E. Ginna Nuclear Power Plant 33 KLD Engineering, P.C.
| |
| Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 1
| |
| | |
| Table 31. EPZ Permanent Resident Population ERPA 2000 Population 2010 Population M1 3,938 4,721 M2 477 666 M3 355 1,039 M4 6,903 8,088 M5 1,311 1,323 M6 6,831 7,088 M7 7,556 9,525 M8 3,074 3,151 M9 3,896 3,931 W1 3,817 4,197 W2 5,951 5,939 W3 1,064 1,168 W4 2,191 2,117 W5 3,916 4,232 W6 2,147 2,189 W7 4,509 4,575 TOTAL 57,936 63,949 EPZ Population Growth: 10.4%
| |
| Table 32. Permanent Resident Population and Vehicles by ERPA 2010 ERPA 2010 Population Resident Vehicles M1 4,721 2,456 M2 666 344 M3 1,039 539 M4 8,088 4,204 M5 1,323 688 M6 7,088 3,683 M7 9,525 4,950 M8 3,151 1,639 M9 3,931 2,044 W1 4,197 2,180 W2 5,939 3,088 W3 1,168 609 W4 2,117 1,107 W5 4,232 2,201 W6 2,189 1,141 W7 4,575 2,380 TOTAL 63,949 33,253 R.E. Ginna Nuclear Power Plant 34 KLD Engineering, P.C.
| |
| Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 1
| |
| | |
| Figure 32. Permanent Resident Population by Sector R.E. Ginna Nuclear Power Plant 35 KLD Engineering, P.C.
| |
| Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 1
| |
| | |
| Figure 33. Permanent Resident Vehicles by Sector R.E. Ginna 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 Ginna Plant (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 Sector Population Evacuating Vehicles N 0 0 NNE 0 0 NE 0 0 ENE 0 0 E 874 458 ESE 3,944 2,052 SE 2,319 1,206 SSE 4,108 2,138 S 8,844 4,595 SSW 30,026 15,607 SW 41,503 21,552 WSW 56,666 29,454 W 5,033 2,615 WNW 0 0 NW 0 0 NNW 0 0 TOTAL 153,317 79,677 R.E. Ginna Nuclear Power Plant 37 KLD Engineering, P.C.
| |
| Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 1
| |
| | |
| Figure 34. Shadow Population by Sector R.E. Ginna Nuclear Power Plant 38 KLD Engineering, P.C.
| |
| Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 1
| |
| | |
| Figure 35. Shadow Vehicles by Sector R.E. Ginna 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. Data for all facilities was provided by the counties. The Ginna EPZ has a number of areas and facilities that attract transients, including:
| |
| Golf Courses - 240 transients in 95 vehicles Lodging Facilities - 720 transients in 360 vehicles Marinas - 267 transients in 104 vehicles Parks - 875 transients in 327 vehicles Appendix E summarizes the transient data that was estimated for the EPZ. Table E5 presents the number of transients visiting recreational areas, while Table E6 presents the number of transients at lodging facilities within the EPZ.
| |
| Table 34 presents transient population and transient vehicle estimates by ERPA. Figure 36 and Figure 37 present these data by sector and distance from the plant.
| |
| Table 34. Summary of Transients and Transient Vehicles ERPA Transients Transient Vehicles M1 125 49 M2 0 0 M3 114 45 M4 111 43 M5 0 0 M6 750 320 M7 234 105 M8 75 30 M9 0 0 W1 0 0 W2 296 139 W3 259 101 W4 8 3 W5 0 0 W6 0 0 W7 130 51 TOTAL 2,102 886 R.E. Ginna Nuclear Power Plant 310 KLD Engineering, P.C.
| |
| Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 1
| |
| | |
| Figure 36. Transient Population by Sector R.E. Ginna Nuclear Power Plant 311 KLD Engineering, P.C.
| |
| Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 1
| |
| | |
| Figure 37. Transient Vehicles by Sector R.E. Ginna 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 Wayne and Monroe counties were used to estimate the number of employees commuting into the EPZ for those employers who did not provide data.
| |
| In Table E4, 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 1.08 employees per vehicle obtained from the telephone survey (See Figure F7) was used to determine the number of evacuating employee vehicles for all major employers.
| |
| Table 35 presents nonEPZ Resident employee and vehicle estimates by ERPA. Figure 38 and Figure 39 present these data by sector.
| |
| R.E. Ginna Nuclear Power Plant 313 KLD Engineering, P.C.
| |
| Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 1
| |
| | |
| Table 35. Summary of NonEPZ Resident Employees and Employee Vehicles ERPA Employees Employee Vehicles M1 275 255 M2 0 0 M3 7,350 6,806 M4 25 24 M5 0 0 M6 0 0 M7 153 143 M8 0 0 M9 0 0 W1 225 209 W2 202 189 W3 0 0 W4 187 174 W5 0 0 W6 0 0 W7 0 0 TOTAL 8,417 7,800 R.E. Ginna Nuclear Power Plant 314 KLD Engineering, P.C.
| |
| Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 1
| |
| | |
| Figure 38. Employee Population by Sector R.E. Ginna Nuclear Power Plant 315 KLD Engineering, P.C.
| |
| Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 1
| |
| | |
| Figure 39. Employee Vehicles by Sector R.E. Ginna Nuclear Power Plant 316 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 E3 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; wheelchair buses up to 15 people; and ambulances, up to 2 people.
| |
| 3.6 Total Demand in Addition to Permanent Population Vehicles will be traveling through the EPZ (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 - State Route 104, I590 and I490. 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 hours (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 17,134 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 Webster Fathers Day Soccer Tournament. Data were obtained from the county indicating that 5,000 people attended the event, 50% of which traveled from beyond the EPZ boundary. Using the average household size of 2.56 as an estimated vehicle occupancy rate yields a total of 977 additional transit vehicles that were incorporated at various parking locations around the event. The special event vehicle trips were generated utilizing the same mobilization distributions for transients. Public transportation is not provided for this event and was not considered in the special event analysis.
| |
| R.E. Ginna Nuclear Power Plant 317 KLD Engineering, P.C.
| |
| Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 1
| |
| | |
| Table 36. R.E. Ginna Nuclear Power Plant EPZ External Traffic Upstream Downstream HPMS1 Hourly External Node Node Road Name Direction AADT KFactor2 DFactor2 Volume Traffic 8061 61 SR 104 WB 7,574 0.118 0.5 447 894 8049 49 SR 104 EB 15,147 0.116 0.5 879 1,758 8004 4 I590 NB 7,574 0.118 0.5 447 894 8189 169 I490 NB 74,657 0.091 0.5 3,397 6,794 8185 185 I490 SB 74,657 0.091 0.5 3,397 6,794 TOTAL: 17,134 1
| |
| Highway Performance Monitoring System (HPMS), Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), Washington, D.C., 2011 2
| |
| HCM 2010 R.E. Ginna Nuclear Power Plant 318 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 125,322 people and 75,780 vehicles are considered in this study.
| |
| R.E. Ginna Nuclear Power Plant 319 KLD Engineering, P.C.
| |
| Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 1
| |
| | |
| Table 37. Summary of Population Demand Transit Special Schools & Shadow External ERPA Residents Dependent Transients Employees Facilities Preschools Population Traffic Total M1 4,721 151 125 275 0 589 0 0 5,861 M2 666 21 0 0 0 0 0 0 687 M3 1,039 33 114 7,350 0 0 0 0 8,536 M4 8,088 259 111 25 73 1,814 0 0 10,370 M5 1,323 42 0 0 0 0 0 0 1,365 M6 7,088 227 750 0 0 1,461 0 0 9,526 M7 9,525 305 234 153 372 1,953 0 0 12,542 M8 3,151 101 75 0 0 0 0 0 3,327 M9 3,931 126 0 0 0 2,744 0 0 6,801 W1 4,197 134 0 225 10 0 0 0 4,566 W2 5,939 190 296 202 2 2,954 0 0 9,583 W3 1,168 37 259 0 0 0 0 0 1,464 W4 2,117 68 8 187 0 24 0 0 2,404 W5 4,232 135 0 0 7 2,044 0 0 6,418 W6 2,189 70 0 0 0 639 0 0 2,898 W7 4,575 146 130 0 28 366 0 0 5,245 Shadow 0 0 0 0 0 3,065 30,663 0 33,728 Total 63,949 2,046 2,102 8,417 492 17,653 30,663 0 125,322 NOTE: Shadow Population has been reduced to 20%. Refer to Figure 21 for additional information.
| |
| NOTE: Special Facilities included are all medical facilities.
| |
| R.E. Ginna Nuclear Power Plant 320 KLD Engineering, P.C.
| |
| Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 1
| |
| | |
| Table 38. Summary of Vehicle Demand Transit Special Schools & Shadow External ERPA Residents Dependent Transients Employees Facilities Preschools Population Traffic Total M1 2,456 10 49 255 0 16 0 0 2,786 M2 344 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 346 M3 539 2 45 6,806 0 0 0 0 7,392 M4 4,204 18 43 24 12 52 0 0 4,353 M5 688 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 692 M6 3,683 16 320 0 0 44 0 0 4,063 M7 4,950 20 105 143 38 56 0 0 5,312 M8 1,639 6 30 0 0 0 0 0 1,675 M9 2,044 8 0 0 0 78 0 0 2,130 W1 2,180 10 0 209 4 0 0 0 2,403 W2 3,088 12 139 189 4 112 0 0 3,524 W3 609 2 101 0 0 0 0 0 712 W4 1,107 4 3 174 0 2 0 0 1,290 W5 2,201 10 0 0 4 82 0 0 2,283 W6 1,141 4 0 0 0 26 0 0 1,169 W7 2,380 10 51 0 4 12 0 0 2,455 Shadow 0 0 0 0 0 88 15,935 17,134 33,153 Total 33,253 138 886 7,800 66 568 15,935 17,134 75,780 NOTE: Buses represented as two passenger vehicles. Refer to Section 8 for additional information.
| |
| R.E. Ginna Nuclear Power Plant 321 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)
| |
| R.E. Ginna 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 R.E. Ginna 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 R.E. Ginna 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 R.E. Ginna 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.
| |
| R.E. Ginna Nuclear Power Plant 45 KLD Engineering, P.C.
| |
| Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 1
| |
| | |
| 4.3 Application to the R.E. Ginna Nuclear Power Plant 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 R.E. Ginna 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).
| |
| R.E. Ginna 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 R.E. Ginna 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 R.E. Ginna 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 R.E. Ginna 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 this 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.
| |
| R.E. Ginna 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 R.E. Ginna 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.
| |
| R.E. Ginna 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 R.E. Ginna 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 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%
| |
| R.E. Ginna 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% 35 91%
| |
| 5 50% 40 91%
| |
| 10 70% 45 94%
| |
| 15 78% 50 94%
| |
| 20 82% 55 94%
| |
| 25 83% 60 100%
| |
| 30 91%
| |
| 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.
| |
| R.E. Ginna 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% 35 90%
| |
| 5 9% 40 94%
| |
| 10 22% 45 99%
| |
| 15 36% 50 99%
| |
| 20 59% 55 99%
| |
| 25 66% 60 100%
| |
| 30 87%
| |
| NOTE: The survey data was normalized to distribute the "Don't know" response R.E. Ginna 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 14%
| |
| 30 63%
| |
| 45 72%
| |
| 60 87%
| |
| 75 94%
| |
| 90 95%
| |
| 105 95%
| |
| 120 98%
| |
| 135 100%
| |
| NOTE: The survey data was normalized to distribute the "Don't know" response R.E. Ginna 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.
| |
| Note that those respondents (56%) who answered that they would not take time to clear their driveway were assumed to be ready immediately at the start of this activity. Essentially they would drive through the snow on the driveway to access the roadway and begin their evacuation trip.
| |
| Table 56. Time Distribution for Population to Clear 6"8" of Snow Cumulative Percent Elapsed Time Completing (Minutes) Snow Removal 0 56%
| |
| 15 66%
| |
| 30 88%
| |
| 45 92%
| |
| 60 96%
| |
| 75 98%
| |
| 90 98%
| |
| 105 98%
| |
| 120 99%
| |
| 135 100%
| |
| NOTE: The survey data was normalized to distribute the "Don't know" response R.E. Ginna 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 30 60 90 120 150 Elapsed Time from Start of Mobilization Activity (min)
| |
| Figure 52. Evacuation Mobilization Activities R.E. Ginna 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.
| |
| R.E. Ginna 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 hours 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 R.E. Ginna 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.
| |
| R.E. Ginna 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 R.E. Ginna 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.
| |
| R.E. Ginna 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. ERPAs comprising the 2 mile region are advised to evacuate immediately
| |
| : 2. ERPAs comprising regions extending from 2 to 5 miles downwind are advised to shelter inplace while the 2 mile region is cleared
| |
| : 3. As vehicles evacuate the 2 mile region, sheltered people from 2 to 5 miles downwind continue preparation for evacuation
| |
| : 4. The population sheltering in the 2 to 5 mile region are advised to begin evacuating when approximately 90% of those originally within the 2 mile region evacuate across the 2 mile region boundary
| |
| : 5. Noncompliance with the shelter recommendation is the same as the shadow evacuation percentage of 20%
| |
| Assumptions
| |
| : 1. The population in the shadow region beyond the EPZ boundary, extending to approximately 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.
| |
| : 2. 20% of the EPZ population in ERPA beyond 5 miles 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 ERPAs comprising the two mile region. This value, TScen*, is obtained from simulation results. It will become the time at which the region being sheltered will be told to evacuate for each scenario.
| |
| : b. The resultant trip generation curves for staging are then formed as follows:
| |
| : i. The 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*
| |
| R.E. Ginna 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, approximately 20% of the population (who have completed their mobilization activities) 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 In the Monroe County Radiological Emergency Preparedness Plan, Procedure J item II B 1 states that:
| |
| Coast Guard Station Rochester to initiate PRE COMMS instructing local marinas that all vessels stay 10 Statute miles clear of Ginna Station until further notice; (NOTE: The National Weather Service, NWS, radio (162.40 MHz) and/or the Emergency Alert System, may also be used to inform boaters).
| |
| There is no time estimate given for these activities. It is assumed boaters will return to marinas within the mobilization time of transients within the EPZ.
| |
| R.E. Ginna 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 8% 8% 0% 1% 0% 1%
| |
| 2 15 37% 37% 0% 9% 0% 5%
| |
| 3 15 34% 34% 3% 26% 2% 17%
| |
| 4 15 11% 11% 10% 28% 6% 22%
| |
| 5 15 5% 5% 19% 15% 13% 17%
| |
| 6 15 4% 4% 20% 10% 17% 14%
| |
| 7 15 1% 1% 17% 5% 16% 9%
| |
| 8 15 0% 0% 12% 1% 14% 5%
| |
| 9 15 0% 0% 8% 2% 11% 3%
| |
| 10 15 0% 0% 4% 2% 7% 2%
| |
| 11 15 0% 0% 3% 1% 4% 2%
| |
| 12 30 0% 0% 3% 0% 6% 2%
| |
| 13 30 0% 0% 1% 0% 3% 1%
| |
| 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.
| |
| R.E. Ginna 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 R.E. Ginna 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% 2% 0% 1%
| |
| 3 15 1% 5% 0% 4%
| |
| 4 15 2% 6% 2% 4%
| |
| 5 15 3% 3% 2% 3%
| |
| 6 15 4% 2% 4% 3%
| |
| 7 15 4% 1% 3% 2%
| |
| 8 15 67% 76% 3% 1%
| |
| 9 15 8% 2% 2% 1%
| |
| 10 15 4% 2% 70% 76%
| |
| 11 15 3% 1% 4% 2%
| |
| 12 30 3% 0% 6% 2%
| |
| 13 30 1% 0% 3% 1%
| |
| 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.
| |
| R.E. Ginna 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 15 30 45 60 75 90 105 120 135 150 165 180 195 210 225 240 255 270 Elapsed Time from Evacuation Advisory (min)
| |
| Figure 55. Comparison of Staged and Unstaged Trip Generation Distributions in the 2 to 5 Mile Region R.E. Ginna 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 ERPAs that forms either a keyhole sectorbased 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 25 Regions were defined which encompass all the groupings of ERPAs considered.
| |
| These Regions are defined in Table 61. The ERPA 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 through R08) or to the EPZ boundary (Regions R09 through R19).
| |
| Regions R01, R02 and R03 represent evacuations of circular areas with radii of 2, 5 and 10 miles, respectively. Regions R20 through R25 are identical to Regions R02 and R04 through R08, respectively; however, those ERPAs between 2 miles and 5 miles are staged until 90% of the 2 mile region (Region R01) has evacuated.
| |
| A total of 14 Scenarios were evaluated for all Regions. Thus, there are a total of 25 x 14 = 350 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; 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 65% (the number of households with at least one commuter) and 34%
| |
| (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 commuters will have a commuter at work during those times.
| |
| Employment is assumed to be at its peak during the winter, midweek, midday scenarios.
| |
| R.E. Ginna 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 (50%) during the week. As shown in Appendix E, there are six lodging facilities offering overnight accommodations in the EPZ; thus, transient activity still exists in the evening hours - 30% for summer and 20% for winter. Transient activity on winter weekends is estimated to be 40%.
| |
| 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:
| |
| 7,488 20% 1 25%
| |
| 7,424 25,829 One special event - the Webster Fathers Day Soccer Tournament - 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.
| |
| R.E. Ginna Nuclear Power Plant 62 KLD Engineering, P.C.
| |
| Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 1
| |
| | |
| Table 61. Description of Evacuation Regions Basic Regions ERPA Region Description Degrees W1 W2 W3 W4 W5 W6 W7 M1 M2 M3 M4 M5 M6 M7 M8 M9 R01 2Mile Region x R02 5Mile Region x x x x R03 Full EPZ x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x Evacuate 2Mile Region and Downwind to 5 Miles ERPA Region Wind Direction From: Degrees W1 W2 W3 W4 W5 W6 W7 M1 M2 M3 M4 M5 M6 M7 M8 M9 R04 N 349 11 x x R05 NNE, NE, ENE 12 78 x x x R06 E, ESE 79 124 x x SE, SSE, S, SSW, SW 125 236 See Region R01 R07 WSW, W 237 281 x x R08 WNW, NW, NNW 282 348 x x x Evacuate 5Mile Region and Downwind to the EPZ Boundary ERPA Region Wind Direction From: Degrees W1 W2 W3 W4 W5 W6 W7 M1 M2 M3 M4 M5 M6 M7 M8 M9 R09 N 349 11 x x x x x x x x x R10 NNE 12 33 x x x x x x x x x x R11 NE 34 56 x x x x x x x x x x x x x R12 ENE 57 78 x x x x x x x x x x x x R13 E 79 101 x x x x x x x x x x R14 ESE 102 124 x x x x x x SE, SSE, S, SSW, SW 125 236 See Region R02 R15 WSW 237 258 x x x x x R16 W 259 281 x x x x x x R17 WNW 282 303 x x x x x x x R18 NW 304 326 x x x x x x x x R19 NNW 327 348 x x x x x x x Staged Evacuation 2Mile Region Evacuates, then Evacuate Downwind to 5 Miles ERPA Region Wind Direction From: Degrees W1 W2 W3 W4 W5 W6 W7 M1 M2 M3 M4 M5 M6 M7 M8 M9 R20 No Wind x x x x R21 N 349 11 x x R22 NNE, NE, ENE 12 78 x x x R23 E, ESE 79 124 x x SE, SSE, S, SSW, SW 125 236 See Region R01 R24 WSW, W 237 281 x x R25 WNW, NW, NNW 282 348 x x x Key ERPA Evacuate ERPA ShelterinPlace ShelterinPlace until 90% ETE for R01, then Evacuate R.E. Ginna Nuclear Power Plant 63 KLD Engineering, P.C.
| |
| Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 1
| |
| | |
| Figure 61. Ginna EPZ ERPAs R.E. Ginna 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 Webster Fathers Day 13 Summer Weekend Midday Good Soccer Tournament Roadway Impact - Lane 14 Summer Midweek Midday Good Closure on SR 104 WB 1
| |
| Winter means that school is in session (also applies to spring and autumn). Summer means that school is not in session.
| |
| R.E. Ginna 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 22% 78% 96% 50% 25% 0% 10% 100% 100%
| |
| 2 22% 78% 96% 50% 25% 0% 10% 100% 100%
| |
| 3 2% 98% 10% 100% 20% 0% 0% 100% 100%
| |
| 4 2% 98% 10% 100% 20% 0% 0% 100% 100%
| |
| 5 2% 98% 10% 30% 20% 0% 0% 100% 40%
| |
| 6 22% 78% 100% 40% 25% 0% 100% 100% 100%
| |
| 7 22% 78% 100% 40% 25% 0% 100% 100% 100%
| |
| 8 22% 78% 100% 40% 25% 0% 100% 100% 100%
| |
| 9 2% 98% 10% 40% 20% 0% 0% 100% 100%
| |
| 10 2% 98% 10% 40% 20% 0% 0% 100% 100%
| |
| 11 2% 98% 10% 40% 20% 0% 0% 100% 100%
| |
| 12 2% 98% 10% 20% 20% 0% 0% 100% 40%
| |
| 13 2% 98% 10% 100% 20% 100% 0% 100% 100%
| |
| 14 22% 78% 96% 50% 25% 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 hours after the evacuation begins.
| |
| R.E. Ginna 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 7,424 25,829 7,488 443 19,524 57 138 17,134 78,037 2 7,424 25,829 7,488 443 19,524 57 138 17,134 78,037 3 742 32,511 780 886 16,309 138 17,134 68,500 4 742 32,511 780 886 16,309 138 17,134 68,500 5 742 32,511 780 266 16,309 138 6,854 57,600 6 7,424 25,829 7,800 354 19,673 568 138 17,134 78,920 7 7,424 25,829 7,800 354 19,673 568 138 17,134 78,920 8 7,424 25,829 7,800 354 19,673 568 138 17,134 78,920 9 742 32,511 780 354 16,309 138 17,134 67,968 10 742 32,511 780 354 16,309 138 17,134 67,968 11 742 32,511 780 354 16,309 138 17,134 67,968 12 742 32,511 780 177 16,309 138 6,854 57,511 13 742 32,511 780 886 16,309 977 138 17,134 69,477 14 7,424 25,829 7,488 443 19,524 57 138 17,134 78,037 Note: Vehicle estimates are for an evacuation of the entire EPZ (Region R03)
| |
| R.E. Ginna 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 25 regions within the Ginna Nuclear 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 ERPAs 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 Ginna EPZ addresses the issue of voluntary evacuees in the manner shown in Figure 71. Within the EPZ, 20 percent of people located in ERPAs 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 153,317 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 plant 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. ERPAs comprising the 2 mile region are advised to evacuate immediately.
| |
| : 2. ERPAs comprising regions extending from 2 to 5 miles downwind are advised to shelter inplace while the two mile region is cleared.
| |
| R.E. Ginna 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 77 illustrate the patterns of traffic congestion that arise for the case when the entire EPZ (Region R03) is advised to evacuate during the summer, midweek, midday period under good weather conditions (Scenario 1).
| |
| 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 centers of Webster to the southwest of Ginna, and Ontario to the south, just 30 minutes after the Advisory to Evacuate (ATE). Note that State Route 104 (SR 104), which is servicing the externalexternal trips is displaying heavy traffic demand (LOS D and E) on those sections exiting the EPZ to the west. There is never any congestion within 2 miles of the plant due to sufficient roadway capacity and pathways to exit the area.
| |
| At one hour after the ATE, Figure 74 displays fullydeveloped congestion within these R.E. Ginna Nuclear Power Plant 72 KLD Engineering, P.C.
| |
| Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 1
| |
| | |
| population centers and along the exiting sections along SR 104. The most severely impacted area is in northwest Webster at the Xerox Headquarters. The congestion on the southwest is now involving shadow evacuees from the Shadow Region in western Penfield, Fairport and East Rochester. The confluence of the congestion in the Penfield is clearly impacting the rate of travel out of the southwestern boundary of the EPZ. Congestion also exists on SR 350 extending from the Town of Ontario to the EPZ boundary directly south of the plant.
| |
| At 2 hours after the ATE, as shown in Figure 75, congestion still persists but has migrated away from the plant. There is heavy traffic flow but no congestion within the 5mile region and Wayne County, and the majority of congestion in the southwest is outside the EPZ. Congestion still persists in Webster as vehicles wait to access SR 104 westbound, or decide to take alternate routes to the south or west.
| |
| At 2 hours and 30 minutes after the ATE, as shown in Figure 76, the only congestion remaining in the EPZ due to vehicles evacuating from the Webster area on Shoecraft Road, State Road and Plank Road. Congestion in the shadow region continues as most vehicles wait to access I490 and I590.
| |
| At 3 hours and 10 minutes after the ATE, as shown in Figure 77, the EPZ has cleared of all congestions and there is only congestion remaining in East Rochester. The entire network clears of congestion at 3:25 after the ATE.
| |
| 7.4 Evacuation Rates Evacuation is a continuous process, as implied by Figure 78 through Figure 721. 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 78, 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. The fact that the tail of the ETE curve extends considerably beyond the time at which congestion is cleared, is indicative of the mobilization time of residents with commuters, which can be as long as 3 hours and 45 minutes.
| |
| 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.
| |
| R.E. Ginna Nuclear Power Plant 73 KLD Engineering, P.C.
| |
| Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 1
| |
| | |
| 7.5 Evacuation Time Estimate (ETE) Results Table 71 through Table 72 present the ETE values for all 25 Evacuation Regions and all 14 Evacuation Scenarios. Table 73 through Table 74 present the ETE values for the 2Mile region for both staged and unstaged keyhole regions downwind to 5 miles. They 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 77.
| |
| Most of the congestion is located beyond the 5mile radius; some congestion exists between the 2 and 5 mile radii, and virtually none within the 2mile radius. This is reflected in the ETE statistics:
| |
| The 90th percentile ETE for Region R01 (2mile area) generally range between 1:35 (hr:min) and 1:50 (slightly higher for snow).
| |
| The 90th percentile ETE for Region R02 (5mile area) generally range between 1:45 (hr:min) and 2:00 (slightly higher for rain and snow).
| |
| The 90th percentile ETE for Regions R03 (full EPZ) and R09 - R19 (which extend to the EPZ boundary) generally range between 1:50 (hr:min) and 2:00 (slightly higher for rain and snow).
| |
| The 100th percentile ETE for all Regions and for all Scenarios are directly dependent on 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 - the Webster Fathers Day Soccer Tournament - has no impact on the ETE for the 90th percentile. The additional 977 vehicles present for the special event are fastmobilizing transients located less than 2miles from the EPZ boundary. Any increased congestion these vehicles cause early on is R.E. Ginna Nuclear Power Plant 74 KLD Engineering, P.C.
| |
| Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 1
| |
| | |
| negated by how quickly they are able to mobilize and exit the EPZ.
| |
| Comparison of Scenarios 1 and 14 in Table 71 indicates that the roadway closure - SR 404 just south of the intersection of Plank Road - does not have an effect on ETE. There is sufficient roadway capacity for vehicles to find other routes, and the additional congestion created does not back up into the EPZ.
| |
| 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 R20 through R25 are the same geographic areas as Regions R02 and, R04 through R08, respectively.
| |
| To determine whether the staged evacuation strategy is worthy of consideration, one must show that the ETE for the 2 Mile region can be reduced without significantly affecting the region between 2 miles and 5 miles. In all cases, as shown in these tables, the ETE for the 2 mile region increases when a staged evacuation is implemented. The reason for this is that the congestion within the 5mile area does not extend upstream to the extent that it penetrates to within 2 miles of Ginna. Consequently, the impedance, due to this congestion within the 5mile area, to evacuees from within the 2mile area is not sufficient to materially influence the 90th percentile ETE for the 2mile area. Therefore, staging the evacuation to sharply reduce congestion within the 5mile area provides no benefits to evacuees from within the 2 mile region and unnecessarily delays the evacuation of those beyond 2 miles.
| |
| While failing to provide assistance to evacuees from within the 2mile region, staging produces a negative impact on the ETE for those evacuating from within the 5mile area. A comparison of ETE between graphically similar Regions retards the 90th percentile evacuation time for those in the 2 to 5mile area by up to 20 minutes (see Table 71). This extending of ETE is due to the delay in beginning the evacuation trip, experienced by those who shelter, plus the effect of the tripgeneration spike (significant volume of traffic beginning the evacuation trip at the same time) that follows their eventual ATE, in creating congestion within the EPZ area beyond 2 miles.
| |
| In summary, the staged evacuation option provides no benefits and adversely impacts many evacuees located beyond 2 miles away from the plant.
| |
| 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 R.E. Ginna Nuclear Power Plant 75 KLD Engineering, P.C.
| |
| Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 1
| |
| | |
| Midweek Weekend
| |
| * Time of Day Midday Evening
| |
| * Weather Condition Good Weather Rain Snow
| |
| * Special Event Webster Fathers Day Soccer Tournament Road Closure (A lane on SR 104 WB 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.
| |
| * 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 through R08)
| |
| To EPZ Boundary (Regions R03, R09 through R19)
| |
| * Enter Table 75 and identify the applicable group of candidate Regions based on the R.E. Ginna Nuclear Power Plant 76 KLD Engineering, P.C.
| |
| Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 1
| |
| | |
| distance that the selected Region extends from the Ginna Plant. 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.
| |
| R.E. Ginna 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 R11 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 R11. This data cell is in column (4) and in the row for Region R11; it contains the ETE value of 2:00.
| |
| R.E. Ginna 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 1:50 1:50 1:35 1:35 1:35 1:50 1:50 2:15 1:35 1:35 2:05 1:35 1:35 1:50 R02 2:00 2:00 1:55 1:55 1:45 2:00 2:05 2:20 1:55 1:55 2:10 1:45 1:55 1:50 R03 2:15 2:20 1:55 2:00 1:50 2:15 2:25 2:45 1:55 2:00 2:15 1:50 1:55 2:20 2Mile Region and Keyhole to 5 Miles R04 2:00 2:05 1:55 2:00 1:50 2:05 2:05 2:15 1:55 2:00 2:10 1:50 1:55 2:00 R05 2:00 2:00 1:55 2:00 1:45 2:00 2:00 2:15 1:55 2:00 2:10 1:45 1:55 2:00 R06 1:50 1:50 1:35 1:35 1:35 1:50 1:50 2:15 1:35 1:35 2:05 1:35 1:35 1:50 R07 2:00 1:55 1:45 1:45 1:40 2:00 1:55 2:15 1:45 1:45 2:10 1:40 1:45 1:55 R08 2:00 2:05 1:55 2:00 1:50 2:05 2:05 2:15 1:55 2:05 2:10 1:50 1:55 2:00 5Mile Region and Keyhole to EPZ Boundary R09 2:00 2:00 1:50 1:55 1:45 2:00 2:00 2:20 1:55 1:55 2:15 1:45 1:50 2:00 R10 2:00 2:00 1:55 1:55 1:50 2:00 2:05 2:25 1:50 1:55 2:10 1:50 1:50 1:55 R11 2:15 2:25 1:55 2:00 1:50 2:15 2:25 2:40 1:55 2:00 2:15 1:50 1:55 2:15 R12 2:15 2:25 1:55 2:00 1:50 2:15 2:25 2:40 1:55 2:00 2:15 1:50 1:55 2:15 R13 2:10 2:25 1:55 2:00 1:50 2:15 2:25 2:40 1:50 2:00 2:15 1:50 1:55 2:15 R14 2:00 2:00 1:50 1:55 1:45 1:55 2:00 2:15 1:50 1:55 2:10 1:45 1:50 2:00 R15 2:00 2:00 1:55 1:55 1:45 2:00 2:00 2:15 1:55 2:00 2:10 1:45 1:55 2:00 R16 2:05 2:05 1:55 1:55 1:45 2:05 2:05 2:15 1:55 1:55 2:15 1:45 1:55 2:05 R17 2:05 2:05 1:55 1:55 1:45 2:00 2:05 2:20 1:55 1:55 2:10 1:45 1:55 2:00 R18 2:05 2:05 1:55 2:00 1:45 2:00 2:05 2:20 1:55 2:00 2:15 1:45 1:55 2:05 R19 2:00 2:05 1:55 1:55 1:45 2:00 2:05 2:20 1:55 1:55 2:15 1:45 1:55 2:00 Staged Evacuation 2Mile Region and Keyhole to 5 Miles R20 2:10 2:15 2:10 2:15 2:10 2:10 2:15 2:45 2:10 2:15 2:45 2:10 2:05 2:10 R21 2:10 2:10 2:05 2:10 2:05 2:10 2:10 2:30 2:05 2:10 2:30 2:05 2:05 2:10 R22 2:10 2:15 2:10 2:10 2:10 2:10 2:10 2:35 2:10 2:15 2:40 2:10 2:10 2:10 R23 2:05 2:10 2:05 2:05 2:05 2:05 2:10 2:40 2:05 2:10 2:40 2:05 2:05 2:05 R24 2:10 2:05 2:05 2:05 2:00 2:10 2:05 2:30 2:05 2:05 2:30 2:00 2:05 2:05 R25 2:10 2:10 2:10 2:10 2:05 2:10 2:10 2:35 2:10 2:10 2:35 2:05 2:10 2:10 R.E. Ginna 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 3:45 3:45 3:45 3:45 3:45 3:45 3:45 4:15 3:45 3:45 4:15 3:45 3:45 3:45 R02 3:50 3:50 3:50 3:50 3:50 3:50 3:50 4:20 3:50 3:50 4:20 3:50 3:50 3:50 R03 3:55 3:55 3:55 3:55 3:55 3:55 3:55 4:25 3:55 3:55 4:25 3:55 3:55 3:55 2Mile Region and Keyhole to 5 Miles R04 3:50 3:50 3:50 3:50 3:50 3:50 3:50 4:20 3:50 3:50 4:20 3:50 3:50 3:50 R05 3:50 3:50 3:50 3:50 3:50 3:50 3:50 4:20 3:50 3:50 4:20 3:50 3:50 3:50 R06 3:50 3:50 3:50 3:50 3:50 3:50 3:50 4:20 3:50 3:50 4:20 3:50 3:50 3:50 R07 3:50 3:50 3:50 3:50 3:50 3:50 3:50 4:20 3:50 3:50 4:20 3:50 3:50 3:50 R08 3:50 3:50 3:50 3:50 3:50 3:50 3:50 4:20 3:50 3:50 4:20 3:50 3:50 3:50 5Mile Region and Keyhole to EPZ Boundary R09 3:55 3:55 3:55 3:55 3:55 3:55 3:55 4:25 3:55 3:55 4:25 3:55 3:55 3:55 R10 3:55 3:55 3:55 3:55 3:55 3:55 3:55 4:25 3:55 3:55 4:25 3:55 3:55 3:55 R11 3:55 3:55 3:55 3:55 3:55 3:55 3:55 4:25 3:55 3:55 4:25 3:55 3:55 3:55 R12 3:55 3:55 3:55 3:55 3:55 3:55 3:55 4:25 3:55 3:55 4:25 3:55 3:55 3:55 R13 3:55 3:55 3:55 3:55 3:55 3:55 3:55 4:25 3:55 3:55 4:25 3:55 3:55 3:55 R14 3:55 3:55 3:55 3:55 3:55 3:55 3:55 4:25 3:55 3:55 4:25 3:55 3:55 3:55 R15 3:55 3:55 3:55 3:55 3:55 3:55 3:55 4:25 3:55 3:55 4:25 3:55 3:55 3:55 R16 3:55 3:55 3:55 3:55 3:55 3:55 3:55 4:25 3:55 3:55 4:25 3:55 3:55 3:55 R17 3:55 3:55 3:55 3:55 3:55 3:55 3:55 4:25 3:55 3:55 4:25 3:55 3:55 3:55 R18 3:55 3:55 3:55 3:55 3:55 3:55 3:55 4:25 3:55 3:55 4:25 3:55 3:55 3:55 R19 3:55 3:55 3:55 3:55 3:55 3:55 3:55 4:25 3:55 3:55 4:25 3:55 3:55 3:55 Staged Evacuation 2Mile Region and Keyhole to 5 Miles R20 3:50 3:50 3:50 3:50 3:50 3:50 3:50 4:20 3:50 3:50 4:20 3:50 3:50 3:50 R21 3:50 3:50 3:50 3:50 3:50 3:50 3:50 4:20 3:50 3:50 4:20 3:50 3:50 3:50 R22 3:50 3:50 3:50 3:50 3:50 3:50 3:50 4:20 3:50 3:50 4:20 3:50 3:50 3:50 R23 3:50 3:50 3:50 3:50 3:50 3:50 3:50 4:20 3:50 3:50 4:20 3:50 3:50 3:50 R24 3:50 3:50 3:50 3:50 3:50 3:50 3:50 4:20 3:50 3:50 4:20 3:50 3:50 3:50 R25 3:50 3:50 3:50 3:50 3:50 3:50 3:50 4:20 3:50 3:50 4:20 3:50 3:50 3:50 R.E. Ginna 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 R01 1:50 1:50 1:35 1:35 1:35 1:50 1:50 2:15 1:35 1:35 2:05 1:35 1:35 1:50 Unstaged Evacuation 2Mile Region and Keyhole to 5Miles R02 1:50 1:50 1:35 1:35 1:35 1:50 1:50 2:15 1:35 1:40 2:05 1:35 1:35 1:50 R04 1:50 1:50 1:35 1:35 1:35 1:50 1:50 2:15 1:35 1:35 2:05 1:35 1:35 1:50 R05 1:50 1:50 1:35 1:35 1:35 1:50 1:50 2:15 1:35 1:35 2:05 1:35 1:35 1:50 R06 1:50 1:50 1:35 1:35 1:35 1:50 1:50 2:15 1:35 1:35 2:05 1:35 1:35 1:50 R07 1:50 1:50 1:35 1:35 1:35 1:50 1:50 2:15 1:35 1:35 2:05 1:35 1:35 1:50 R08 1:50 1:50 1:35 1:35 1:35 1:50 1:50 2:15 1:35 1:35 2:05 1:35 1:35 1:50 Staged Evacuation 2Mile Region and Keyhole to 5Miles R20 2:00 2:00 1:55 1:55 1:55 2:00 2:00 2:25 1:55 1:55 2:25 1:55 1:55 2:00 R21 1:55 1:55 1:40 1:40 1:40 1:55 1:55 2:20 1:40 1:40 2:10 1:40 1:40 1:55 R22 1:55 1:55 1:50 1:50 1:50 1:55 1:55 2:25 1:50 1:50 2:20 1:50 1:50 1:55 R23 1:55 1:55 1:50 1:50 1:50 1:55 1:55 2:25 1:50 1:50 2:20 1:50 1:50 1:55 R24 1:55 1:55 1:50 1:50 1:50 1:55 1:55 2:25 1:50 1:50 2:20 1:50 1:50 1:55 R25 1:55 1:55 1:50 1:50 1:50 1:55 1:55 2:25 1:50 1:50 2:20 1:50 1:50 1:55 R.E. Ginna 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 R01 3:45 3:45 3:45 3:45 3:45 3:45 3:45 4:15 3:45 3:45 4:15 3:45 3:45 3:45 Unstaged Evacuation 2Mile Region and Keyhole to 5Miles R02 3:45 3:45 3:45 3:45 3:45 3:45 3:50 4:15 3:45 3:45 4:15 3:45 3:45 3:45 R04 3:45 3:45 3:45 3:45 3:45 3:50 3:45 4:15 3:45 3:45 4:15 3:45 3:45 3:45 R05 3:45 3:45 3:45 3:45 3:45 3:45 3:45 4:15 3:45 3:45 4:15 3:45 3:45 3:45 R06 3:45 3:50 3:45 3:45 3:45 3:45 3:45 4:15 3:45 3:45 4:15 3:45 3:45 3:50 R07 3:45 3:45 3:45 3:45 3:45 3:45 3:45 4:15 3:45 3:45 4:15 3:45 3:45 3:45 R08 3:45 3:45 3:45 3:45 3:45 3:50 3:45 4:15 3:45 3:45 4:15 3:45 3:45 3:45 Staged Evacuation 2Mile Region and Keyhole to 5Miles R20 3:45 3:45 3:45 3:45 3:45 3:50 3:45 4:20 3:45 3:45 4:15 3:45 3:45 3:45 R21 3:45 3:45 3:45 3:45 3:45 3:45 3:45 4:20 3:45 3:45 4:15 3:45 3:45 3:50 R22 3:45 3:45 3:45 3:45 3:45 3:50 3:45 4:20 3:45 3:45 4:15 3:45 3:45 3:45 R23 3:45 3:45 3:45 3:45 3:45 3:45 3:45 4:15 3:45 3:45 4:15 3:45 3:45 3:45 R24 3:45 3:45 3:45 3:45 3:45 3:45 3:45 4:15 3:45 3:45 4:15 3:45 3:45 3:45 R25 3:45 3:45 3:45 3:45 3:45 3:45 3:45 4:20 3:45 3:45 4:15 3:45 3:45 3:50 R.E. Ginna Nuclear Power Plant 712 KLD Engineering, P.C.
| |
| Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 1
| |
| | |
| Table 75. Description of Evacuation Regions Basic Regions ERPA Region Description Degrees W1 W2 W3 W4 W5 W6 W7 M1 M2 M3 M4 M5 M6 M7 M8 M9 R01 2Mile Region x R02 5Mile Region x x x x R03 Full EPZ x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x Evacuate 2Mile Region and Downwind to 5 Miles ERPA Region Wind Direction From: Degrees W1 W2 W3 W4 W5 W6 W7 M1 M2 M3 M4 M5 M6 M7 M8 M9 R04 N 349 11 x x R05 NNE, NE, ENE 12 78 x x x R06 E, ESE 79 124 x x SE, SSE, S, SSW, SW 125 236 See Region R01 R07 WSW, W 237 281 x x R08 WNW, NW, NNW 282 348 x x x Evacuate 5Mile Region and Downwind to the EPZ Boundary ERPA Region Wind Direction From: Degrees W1 W2 W3 W4 W5 W6 W7 M1 M2 M3 M4 M5 M6 M7 M8 M9 R09 N 349 11 x x x x x x x x x R10 NNE 12 33 x x x x x x x x x x R11 NE 34 56 x x x x x x x x x x x x x R12 ENE 57 78 x x x x x x x x x x x x R13 E 79 101 x x x x x x x x x x R14 ESE 102 124 x x x x x x SE, SSE, S, SSW, SW 125 236 See Region R02 R15 WSW 237 258 x x x x x R16 W 259 281 x x x x x x R17 WNW 282 303 x x x x x x x R18 NW 304 326 x x x x x x x x R19 NNW 327 348 x x x x x x x Staged Evacuation 2Mile Region Evacuates, then Evacuate Downwind to 5 Miles ERPA Region Wind Direction From: Degrees W1 W2 W3 W4 W5 W6 W7 M1 M2 M3 M4 M5 M6 M7 M8 M9 R20 No Wind x x x x R21 N 349 11 x x R22 NNE, NE, ENE 12 78 x x x R23 E, ESE 79 124 x x SE, SSE, S, SSW, SW 125 236 See Region R01 R24 WSW, W 237 281 x x R25 WNW, NW, NNW 282 348 x x x Key ERPA Evacuate ERPA ShelterinPlace ShelterinPlace until 90% ETE for R01, then Evacuate R.E. Ginna Nuclear Power Plant 713 KLD Engineering, P.C.
| |
| Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 1
| |
| | |
| Figure 71. Voluntary Evacuation Methodology R.E. Ginna Nuclear Power Plant 714 KLD Engineering, P.C.
| |
| Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 1
| |
| | |
| Figure 72. R.E. Ginna Nuclear Power Plant Shadow Region R.E. Ginna 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 R.E. Ginna 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 R.E. Ginna Nuclear Power Plant 717 KLD Engineering, P.C.
| |
| Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 1
| |
| | |
| Figure 75. Congestion Patterns at 2 Hours after the Advisory to Evacuate R.E. Ginna Nuclear Power Plant 718 KLD Engineering, P.C.
| |
| Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 1
| |
| | |
| Figure 76. Congestion Patterns at 2 Hours and 30 Minutes after the Advisory to Evacuate R.E. Ginna Nuclear Power Plant 719 KLD Engineering, P.C.
| |
| Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 1
| |
| | |
| Figure 77. Congestion Patterns at 3 Hours and 10 Minutes after the Advisory to Evacuate R.E. Ginna Nuclear Power Plant 720 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%
| |
| 50 45 40 Vehicles Evacuating 35 30 25 (Thousands) 20 15 10 5
| |
| 0 0 30 60 90 120 150 180 210 240 270 Elapsed Time After Evacuation Recommendation (min)
| |
| Figure 78. 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%
| |
| 50 45 40 Vehicles Evacuating 35 30 25 (Thousands) 20 15 10 5
| |
| 0 0 30 60 90 120 150 180 210 240 270 Elapsed Time After Evacuation Recommendation (min)
| |
| Figure 79. Evacuation Time Estimates Scenario 2 for Region R03 R.E. Ginna Nuclear Power Plant 721 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%
| |
| 50 45 40 Vehicles Evacuating 35 30 25 (Thousands) 20 15 10 5
| |
| 0 0 30 60 90 120 150 180 210 240 270 Elapsed Time After Evacuation Recommendation (min)
| |
| Figure 710. 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%
| |
| 50 45 40 Vehicles Evacuating 35 30 25 (Thousands) 20 15 10 5
| |
| 0 0 30 60 90 120 150 180 210 240 270 Elapsed Time After Evacuation Recommendation (min)
| |
| Figure 711. Evacuation Time Estimates Scenario 4 for Region R03 R.E. Ginna Nuclear Power Plant 722 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%
| |
| 50 45 40 Vehicles Evacuating 35 30 25 (Thousands) 20 15 10 5
| |
| 0 0 30 60 90 120 150 180 210 240 270 Elapsed Time After Evacuation Recommendation (min)
| |
| Figure 712. 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%
| |
| 50 45 40 Vehicles Evacuating 35 30 25 (Thousands) 20 15 10 5
| |
| 0 0 30 60 90 120 150 180 210 240 270 Elapsed Time After Evacuation Recommendation (min)
| |
| Figure 713. Evacuation Time Estimates Scenario 6 for Region R03 R.E. Ginna Nuclear Power Plant 723 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%
| |
| 50 45 40 Vehicles Evacuating 35 30 25 (Thousands) 20 15 10 5
| |
| 0 0 30 60 90 120 150 180 210 240 270 Elapsed Time After Evacuation Recommendation (min)
| |
| Figure 714. 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%
| |
| 50 45 40 Vehicles Evacuating 35 30 25 (Thousands) 20 15 10 5
| |
| 0 0 30 60 90 120 150 180 210 240 270 Elapsed Time After Evacuation Recommendation (min)
| |
| Figure 715. Evacuation Time Estimates Scenario 8 for Region R03 R.E. Ginna Nuclear Power Plant 724 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%
| |
| 50 45 40 Vehicles Evacuating 35 30 25 (Thousands) 20 15 10 5
| |
| 0 0 30 60 90 120 150 180 210 240 270 Elapsed Time After Evacuation Recommendation (min)
| |
| Figure 716. 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%
| |
| 50 45 40 Vehicles Evacuating 35 30 25 (Thousands) 20 15 10 5
| |
| 0 0 30 60 90 120 150 180 210 240 270 Elapsed Time After Evacuation Recommendation (min)
| |
| Figure 717. Evacuation Time Estimates Scenario 10 for Region R03 R.E. Ginna Nuclear Power Plant 725 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%
| |
| 50 45 40 Vehicles Evacuating 35 30 25 (Thousands) 20 15 10 5
| |
| 0 0 30 60 90 120 150 180 210 240 270 Elapsed Time After Evacuation Recommendation (min)
| |
| Figure 718. 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%
| |
| 50 45 40 Vehicles Evacuating 35 30 25 (Thousands) 20 15 10 5
| |
| 0 0 30 60 90 120 150 180 210 240 270 Elapsed Time After Evacuation Recommendation (min)
| |
| Figure 719. Evacuation Time Estimates Scenario 12 for Region R03 R.E. Ginna Nuclear Power Plant 726 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%
| |
| 50 45 40 Vehicles Evacuating 35 30 25 (Thousands) 20 15 10 5
| |
| 0 0 30 60 90 120 150 180 210 240 270 Elapsed Time After Evacuation Recommendation (min)
| |
| Figure 720. 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%
| |
| 50 45 40 Vehicles Evacuating 35 30 25 (Thousands) 20 15 10 5
| |
| 0 0 30 60 90 120 150 180 210 240 270 Elapsed Time After Evacuation Recommendation (min)
| |
| Figure 721. Evacuation Time Estimates Scenario 14 for Region R03 R.E. Ginna Nuclear Power Plant 727 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, and medical 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 county data states otherwise.
| |
| 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 Ginna EPZ indicates that schoolchildren will be evacuated to receiving locations, and that parents should pick schoolchildren up at these receiving locations. 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
| |
| * Estimate time to perform all transit functions R.E. Ginna Nuclear Power Plant 81 KLD Engineering, P.C.
| |
| Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 1
| |
| * Estimate route travel times to the EPZ boundary and to the reception centers/receiving locations 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 2,046 people. Therefore, a total of 69 bus runs are required to transport this population to reception centers.
| |
| 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 Ginna Plant EPZ:
| |
| R.E. Ginna Nuclear Power Plant 82 KLD Engineering, P.C.
| |
| Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 1
| |
| : Where, A = Percent of households with commuters C = Percent of households who will not await the return of a commuter 25,043 0.014 1.29 0.251 1.67 1 0.65 0.66 0.560 2.71 2 0.65 0.66 4,091 0.5 30 69 These calculations are explained as follows:
| |
| * All members (1.29 avg.) of households (HH) with no vehicles (1.4%) will evacuate by public transit or rideshare. The term 25,043 (number of households) x 0.014 x 1.29, accounts for these people.
| |
| * The members of HH with 1 vehicle away (25.1%), who are at home, equal (1.671).
| |
| The number of HH where the commuter will not return home is equal to (25,043 x 0.251 x 0.65 x 0.66), as 65% of EPZ households have a commuter, 66% 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 (56.0%), who are at home, equal (2.71 - 2). The number of HH where neither commuter will return home is equal to 25,043 x 0.56 x (0.65 x 0.66)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.
| |
| 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.
| |
| R.E. Ginna 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 latest available 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, unless county data states otherwise.
| |
| * 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 (approximately one hour after the Advisory to Evacuate), 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 school receiving locations for each school in the EPZ. Students will be transported to these locations 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. 492 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 bus runs assumes 15 wheelchairs per trip and the number of bus runs estimated assumes 30 ambulatory patients per trip.
| |
| R.E. Ginna 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. It is assumed that for a rapidly escalating radiological emergency with no observable indication before the fact, 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 R.E. Ginna 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). These numbers indicate there are sufficient resources available to evacuate everyone in a single wave.
| |
| The buses servicing the schools are ready to begin their evacuation trips at 105 minutes after the advisory to evacuate - 90 minutes mobilization time plus 15 minutes loading time - in good weather. The UNITES software discussed in Section 1.3 was used to define bus routes along the most likely path from a school being evacuated to the EPZ boundary, traveling toward the appropriate school reception center. This is done in UNITES by interactively selecting the series of nodes from the school to the EPZ boundary. Each bus route is given an identification number and is written to the DYNEV II input stream. DYNEV computes the route length and outputs the average speed for each 5 minute interval, for each bus route. The specified bus routes are documented in Table 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:
| |
| 60 .
| |
| 1 .
| |
| . 60 .
| |
| . . 1 .
| |
| R.E. Ginna Nuclear Power Plant 86 KLD Engineering, P.C.
| |
| Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 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 Reception Center 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 44 mph for snow - 20% decrease) for those calculated bus speeds which exceed 35 mph, as the school bus speed limit for state routes in New York 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 School Reception Center. The evacuation time out of the EPZ can be computed as the sum of times associated with Activities ABC, CD, and DE (For example: 90 min. + 15 + 22 = 2:10 for Klem Road North Elementary School, with good weather, rounded up to the nearest 5 minutes). The evacuation time to the School Reception Center is determined by adding the time associated with Activity EF (discussed below), to this EPZ evacuation time.
| |
| 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 county plans identify bus routes and number of busses assigned to each route for all ERPA (Table 810). The start of service on these routes is separated by 10 or 20 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 and 20 minutes longer in snow to account for slower travel speeds and reduced roadway capacity.
| |
| Those buses servicing the transitdependent evacuees will first travel along their pickup routes, then proceed out of the EPZ. Transitdependent pickup locations are provided annually to EPZ residents in the emergency preparedness brochure. 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. Longer pickup times of 40 minutes and 50 minutes are used for rain and snow, respectively.
| |
| R.E. Ginna Nuclear Power Plant 87 KLD Engineering, P.C.
| |
| Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 1
| |
| | |
| 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 ERPA M1 Route A is computed as 90 + 51 + 30 = 2:55 for good weather (rounded up to nearest 5 minutes). Here, 51 minutes is the time to travel 16.3 miles at 19.2 mph, the average speed output by the model for this route. 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 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 ERPA M1 Route A is computed as follows for good weather:
| |
| * Bus arrives at reception center at 3:11 in good weather (2:55 to exit EPZ + 16 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: 16 minutes (equal to travel time to reception center) + 29 minutes (26.3 miles @ 55 mph) = 45 minutes
| |
| * Bus completes pickups along route: 30 minutes.
| |
| * Bus exits EPZ at time 2:55 + 0:16 + 0:15 + 0:45 + 0:30 = 4:45 (rounded to nearest 5 minutes) after the Advisory to Evacuate.
| |
| R.E. Ginna Nuclear Power Plant 88 KLD Engineering, P.C.
| |
| Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 1
| |
| | |
| 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 bus operations for this group are similar to those for school evacuation except:
| |
| * Vans are assigned on the basis of 12 patients to allow for staff to accompany the patients.
| |
| * The passenger loading time will be longer at approximately one minute per patient to account for the time to move patients from inside the facility to the vehicles.
| |
| Table 84 indicates that 32 van runs, 16 wheelchair bus runs and 2 ambulance runs are needed to service all of the special facilities in the EPZ. According to Table 85, the counties can collectively provide 78 vans, 20 wheelchair accessible buses and 45 ambulances. Thus, there are sufficient resources to evacuate all persons from the special 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. Based on the locations of the medical facilities in Figure E4, it is estimated that buses will have to travel 5 miles, on average, to leave the EPZ. Loading times of 1 minute, 5 minutes, and 15 minutes are assumed for ambulatory patients, wheelchair bound patients, and bedridden patients, respectively. 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 44 mph for snow), are used to compute travel time to EPZ boundary. The travel time to the EPZ boundary is computed by dividing the average distance of 5 miles 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. All ETE are rounded to the nearest 5 minutes. For example, the calculation of ETE for the Maplewood Nursing Home with 10 ambulatory residents during good weather is:
| |
| ETE: 90 + 10 x 1 + 30 = 130 min. or 2:10.
| |
| It is assumed that special 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.
| |
| R.E. Ginna Nuclear Power Plant 89 KLD Engineering, P.C.
| |
| Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 1
| |
| | |
| 8.5 Special Needs Population The county emergency management agencies have a combined registration for transit dependent and homebound special needs persons. Based on data provided by the counties, there are an estimated 169 homebound special needs people within the Monroe County portion of the EPZ and 53 people within the Wayne County portion of the EPZ who require transportation assistance to evacuate. In total there are 113 ambulatory persons, 47 wheelchairbound persons and 62 bedridden persons.
| |
| 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 40 mph (35 mph for rain and 30 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 113 ambulatory households need to be serviced. While only 11 vans are needed from a capacity perspective, if 29 vans are deployed to service these special needs HH, then each would require about 4 stops. The following outlines the ETE calculations:
| |
| : 1. Assume 29 vans are deployed, each with about 4 stops, to service a total of 113 HH.
| |
| : 2. The ETE is calculated as follows:
| |
| : a. Vans arrive at the first pickup location: 90 minutes
| |
| : b. Load HH members at first pickup: 5 minutes
| |
| : c. Travel to subsequent pickup locations: 3 @ 9 minutes = 27 minutes
| |
| : d. Load HH members at subsequent pickup locations: 3 @ 5 minutes = 15 minutes
| |
| : e. Travel to EPZ boundary: 11 minutes (5 miles at 26.5 mph).
| |
| ETE: 90 + 5 + 27 + 15 + 11 = 2:30 rounded up to the nearest 5 minutes R.E. Ginna Nuclear Power Plant 810 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/Receiving Location 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 R.E. Ginna Nuclear Power Plant 811 KLD Engineering, P.C.
| |
| Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 1
| |
| | |
| Figure 82. Monroe County Transit Dependent Bus Routes R.E. Ginna Nuclear Power Plant 812 KLD Engineering, P.C.
| |
| Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 1
| |
| | |
| Figure 83. Wayne County Transit Dependent Bus Routes R.E. Ginna Nuclear Power Plant 813 KLD Engineering, P.C.
| |
| Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 1
| |
| | |
| Table 81. TransitDependent Population Estimates Survey Average HH Survey Percent Size Survey Percent HH Survey Percent HH Total People Population with Indicated No. of Estimated with Indicated No. of Percent HH with Non People Estimated Requiring Requiring 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 64,109 1.29 1.67 2.71 25,043 1.4% 25.1% 56.0% 65% 66% 4,091 50% 2,046 3.2%
| |
| R.E. Ginna Nuclear Power Plant 814 KLD Engineering, P.C.
| |
| Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 1
| |
| | |
| Table 82. School and Evacuating Preschool Population Demand Estimates Bus Runs ERPA School Name Enrollment Staff Required SCHOOLS M1 Schlegel Road Elementary School 512 77 8 M4 Spry Middle School 1,048 161 17 M4 State Road Elementary School 536 69 9 M6 Klem Road North Elementary School 534 66 9 M6 Klem Road South Elementary School 533 70 9 M6 Webster Christian School 220 38 4 M7 Schroeder High School 1,504 308 26 M9 Thomas High School 1,388 216 23 M9 Willink Middle School 977 163 16 W2 James A. Beneway High School 811 148 20 W2 Ontario Elementary School 356 194 8 W2 Ontario Primary School 347 40 6 W2 Thomas C. Armstrong Middle School 549 166 15 W5 Wayne Education Center 179 37 5 W5 Wayne Finger Lake BOCES 19 7 1 W5 Wayne Technical & Career Center 231 44 6 W5 Williamson Elementary School 460 85 8 W5 Williamson Middle School 325 95 9 W5 Williamson Senior High School 378 100 10 W6 Marion Central Middle/High School 563 76 13 W7 Freewill Elementary School 314 52 6 S.R. Dewitt Road Elementary School 517 73 8 S.R. Marion Elementary School 625 83 11 S.R. Plank Road North Elementary School 576 63 9 S.R. Plank Road South Elementary School 557 80 9 S.R. Rochester Christian School 106 20 2 S.R. St Rita's School 332 33 5 Schools Subtotal: 14,497 2,564 272 PRESCHOOLS M7 Webster Montessori School 118 23 2 W2 Hop Skip & Jump Preschool 89 7 2 W2 Rhyme Tyme Child Care Center 74 6 2 W2 The Tot Spot Day Care Center 155 12 3 W4 Raggedy Ann & Andy Day Care 22 2 1 W5 Lake Ontario Child Development 78 6 2 Preschools Subtotal: 536 56 12 TOTAL: 15,033 2,620 284 R.E. Ginna Nuclear Power Plant 815 KLD Engineering, P.C.
| |
| Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 1
| |
| | |
| Table 83. School and Preschool Receiving Locations School/Preschool Receiving Location Dewitt Road Elementary School Klem Road North Elementary School Klem Road South Elementary School Plank Road North Elementary School Plank Road South Elementary School Rochester Christian School Schlegel Road Elementary School Schroeder High School Monroe Community College Spry Middle School St Ritas School State Road Elementary School Thomas High School Webster Christian School Webster Montessori School Willink Middle School Lake Ontario Child Development Raggedy Ann & Andy Day Care Wayne Education Center Wayne Finger Lake BOCES Newark High School Wayne Technical & Career Center Williamson Elementary School Williamson Middle School Williamson Senior High School Marion Central Middle/High School Newark Middle School Marion Elementary School Freewill Elementary School Hop Skip & Jump Preschool James A. Beneway High School Ontario Elementary School PalmyraMacedon High School Ontario Primary School Rhyme Tyme Child Care Center The Tot Spot Day Care Center Thomas C. Armstrong Middle School R.E. Ginna Nuclear Power Plant 816 KLD Engineering, P.C.
| |
| Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 1
| |
| | |
| Table 84. Special Facility Transit Demand Wheel Wheel chair Cap Current Ambu chair Bed Van Bus ERPA Facility Name Municipality acity Census latory Bound ridden Runs Runs Ambulance MONROE COUNTY M4 Maplewood Nursing Home Webster 74 73 10 63 0 1 5 0 M7 Cherry Ridge Webster 273 273 206 64 3 18 5 2 M7 AHEPA 67 Webster 50 50 45 5 0 4 1 0 M7 Quinby Park Apartments Webster 49 49 45 4 0 4 1 0 Monroe County Subtotal: 446 445 306 136 3 27 12 2 WAYNE COUNTY W1 Ontario Community Residence Ontario 10 10 7 3 0 1 1 0 W2 Pines of Peace Hospice Center Ontario 2 2 1 1 0 1 1 0 W5 Williamson Community Residence Williamson 7 7 5 2 0 1 1 0 W7 Wayne ARC Day Activity Training Program Walworth 28 28 19 9 0 2 1 0 Wayne County Subtotal: 47 47 32 15 0 5 4 0 TOTAL: 493 492 338 151 3 32 16 2 R.E. Ginna Nuclear Power Plant 817 KLD Engineering, P.C.
| |
| Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 1
| |
| | |
| Table 85. Summary of Transportation Resources Transportation Wheelchair Wheelchair Resource Buses Vans Buses Vans Ambulances Resources Available Regional Transit Service Inc. 250 Monroe County EMS Coordinator 10 Medical Motor Services 14 30 40 Rochester Medical Transport Genesee Transportation Paratransit 48 A&E Medical Transport 10 Wayne Area Transportation Services (WATS) 12 Wayne Central School District 17 Ganada Central School District 17 Penfield Central School District 5 Marion Central School District 6 Lyons Central School District 12 Sodus Central School District 20 Newark School District 4 PalmyraMacedon School District 3 Wayne County Nursing Home 3 Local Fire Departments and Towns 45 TOTAL: 360 78 20 43 45 Resources Needed Schools (Table 82): 284 Medical Facilities (Table 84): 32 16 2 TransitDependent Population (Table 810): 69 Homebound Special Needs (Section 8.5): 29 16 31 TOTAL TRANSPORTATION NEEDS: 353 61 16 16 33 R.E. Ginna 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 Raggedy Ann & Lake Ontario 1 38, 39, 928, 40, 778, 793, 41, 42 Child Magic Years & Williamson 2 38, 186, 116, 187, 188, 189, 190, 191, 192, 193 Schools 3 Marion High School 189, 190, 191, 192, 193 4 Ontario Schools 29, 30, 74, 903, 75, 76, 77, 78, 1025, 79 5 Freewill Elementary School 77, 78, 1025, 79 6 Webster Schools 22, 21, 20, 19, 18, 920, 747 7 Webster Christian School 289, 923, 290, 755, 20, 19, 18, 920, 747 8 Klem Schools 295, 303, 304, 305, 416, 921, 417, 18, 920, 747 Thomas High, Willink &
| |
| 9 417, 18, 920, 747 Schroeder 10 Webster Montessori School 422, 375, 411 20 Maplewood Nursing Home 264, 358, 766, 294, 293, 292, 291, 290, 755, 20, 19, 18, 920 21 Cherry Ridge 761, 361, 362, 419, 981, 418, 417, 18, 920 AHEPA 67 and Quimby Park 22 635, 299, 298, 751, 297, 753, 19, 18, 920 Apartments Ontario Community 23 636, 637, 893, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 928, 40, 778, 793, 41 Residence Pines of Peace Hospice 24 100, 112, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 928, 40, 778, 793, 41 Center Williamson Community 25 115, 116, 186, 38, 39, 928, 40, 778, 793, 41 Residence Wayne ARC Day Activity 26 105, 662, 663, 659, 664, 665, 666, 796, 192 Training Program 341, 136, 137, 138, 886, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 74, 903, 75, 76, 77, 30 W1 Route 1 78, 1025, 79 954, 209, 71, 211, 773, 772, 891, 31, 30, 74, 903, 75, 76, 77, 78, 31 W1 Route 2 1025, 79 32 W1 Route 3 95, 96, 97, 98, 99, 892, 32, 31, 30, 74, 903, 75, 76, 77, 78, 1025, 79 33 W2 Route 1 903, 101, 102, 103, 654, 655, 656, 657, 658, 659, 1026, 660 34 W2 Route 2 27, 28, 29, 30, 74, 903, 75, 76, 77, 78, 1025, 79 93, 349, 74, 774, 100, 112, 113, 114, 776, 115, 116, 187, 188, 189, 35 W2 Route 3 190, 191, 192, 193 212, 636, 637, 893, 34, 112, 113, 114, 776, 115, 116, 186, 38, 39, 36 W3 Route 1 928, 40, 778, 793, 41, 42 37 W3 Route 2 791, 790, 216, 111, 217, 218, 219, 220, 221, 222 38 W4 Route 641, 897, 39, 928, 40, 778, 793, 41, 42 39 W4 Route 2 218, 219, 220, 221, 683, 899, 41, 42 40 W5 Route 1 112, 113, 114, 36, 37, 38, 39, 928, 40, 778, 793, 41, 42 41 W5 Route 2 189, 190, 197, 649 R.E. Ginna 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 42 W5 Route 3 114, 776, 115, 116, 117, 118, 119, 120, 121, 122, 123 43 W6 Route 1 187, 188, 189, 190, 197, 649 45 W6 Route 2 188, 189, 190, 191, 192, 193 46 W6 Route 3 799, 798, 998, 797, 796, 192, 193 47 W6 Route 4 656, 657, 658, 659, 664, 665, 666, 796, 192, 193 48 W7 Route 1 144, 145, 146, 77, 78, 1025, 79 49 W7 Route 2 75, 76, 77, 146, 147, 986, 148, 149, 782, 78, 1025, 79 50 W7 Route 3 103, 654, 655, 656, 657, 658, 659, 1026, 660 51 M1 Route A 136, 137, 138, 886, 25, 24, 749, 23, 22, 21, 20, 19, 18, 920 136, 225, 228, 239, 251, 252, 253, 254, 255, 256, 257, 258, 259, 52 M1 Route B 260, 261, 926, 262, 757, 21, 20, 19, 18, 920 53 M2 Route C 233, 232, 231, 23, 22, 21, 20, 19, 18, 920 230, 242, 256, 257, 258, 259, 260, 261, 926, 262, 757, 21, 20, 19, 54 M3 Route D 18, 920 246, 883, 261, 926, 262, 263, 927, 264, 770, 265, 266, 267, 268, 55 M4 Route E 269, 270 758, 760, 750, 231, 232, 233, 357, 249, 264, 770, 265, 266, 267, 56 M4 Route F 268, 269, 270 57 M4 Route G 926, 262, 263, 927, 264, 770, 265, 266, 267, 268, 269, 270 58 M5 Route H 404, 406, 407, 1020, 237, 336, 269, 270 59 M5 Route I 406, 407, 1020, 1021, 238, 337, 270 60 M6 Route J 251, 287, 288, 289, 923, 290, 755, 20, 19, 18, 920 61 M6 Route K 251, 287, 342, 300, 343, 344, 345, 346, 347, 332, 333, 312 62 M6 Route L 258, 951, 634, 289, 295, 296, 922, 297, 753, 19, 18, 920 63 M7 Route M 766, 294, 359, 299, 298, 751, 297, 753, 19, 18, 920 64 M7 Route N 418, 981, 419, 362, 363, 364, 365 65 M8 ROUTE P 348, 306, 307, 308, 309, 310, 311, 312 66 M8 Route Q 300, 343, 344, 345, 346, 347, 332, 333, 312 67 M9 Route R 295, 303, 304, 305, 306, 307, 369, 370, 1018, 365 747, 920, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 749, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 80 SR 104 EB 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 928, 40, 778, 793, 41 41, 793, 778, 40, 928, 39, 38, 37, 36, 35, 34, 33, 32, 31, 30, 29, 28, 81 SR 104 WB 27, 26, 25, 24, 749, 23, 22, 21, 20, 19, 18, 920, 747 82 SR 250 SB 261, 926, 262, 263, 927, 264, 770, 265, 266, 267, 268, 269, 270 83 SR 350 SB 74, 903, 75, 76, 77, 78 84 SR 21 SB 38, 186, 116, 187, 188, 189, 190, 191, 192 85 SR 286 WB 77, 146, 406, 407, 1020, 237, 336, 269 R.E. Ginna Nuclear Power Plant 820 KLD Engineering, P.C.
| |
| Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 1
| |
| | |
| Table 87. School Evacuation Time Estimates Good Weather Travel Travel Dist. Time to Dist. EPZ Time Driver Loading To EPZ Average EPZ Bdry to from EPZ ETE to Mobilization Time Bdry Speed Bdry ETE R.C./R.L. Bdry to R.C./R.L School Time (min) (min) (mi) (mph) (min) (hr:min) (mi.) H.S. (min) (hr:min)
| |
| MONROE COUNTY SCHOOLS Dewitt Road Elementary School 90 15 School is outside the EPZ 1:45 13.6 21 2:10 Klem Road North Elementary School 90 15 3.4 9.6 22 2:10 13.5 21 2:30 Klem Road South Elementary School 90 15 3.5 9.6 23 2:10 13.4 21 2:30 Plank Road North Elementary School 90 15 School is outside the EPZ 1:45 12.5 19 2:05 Plank Road South Elementary School 90 15 School is outside the EPZ 1:45 12.3 19 2:05 Rochester Christian School 90 15 School is outside the EPZ 1:45 10.8 17 2:05 Schlegel Road Elementary School 90 15 7.1 12.2 35 2:20 13.4 21 2:45 Schroeder High School 90 15 2.3 11.5 13 2:00 13.4 21 2:20 Spry Middle School 90 15 4.3 10.0 26 2:15 13.4 21 2:35 St Rita's School 90 15 School is outside the EPZ 1:45 13.9 21 2:10 State Road Elementary School 90 15 5.7 10.9 32 2:20 13.4 21 2:40 Thomas High School 90 15 1.9 11.5 11 2:00 13.4 21 2:20 Webster Christian School 90 15 4.0 10.0 25 2:10 13.5 21 2:35 Webster Montessori School 90 15 0.2 11.7 2 1:50 13.1 20 2:10 Willink Middle School 90 15 2.2 11.5 12 2:00 13.4 21 2:20 WAYNE COUNTY SCHOOLS Freewill Elementary School 47 15 3.7 37.7 6 1:10 8.4 13 1:25 Hop Skip & Jump Preschool 90 15 7.9 30.8 16 2:05 8.5 13 2:15 James A. Beneway High School 29 15 6.0 33.3 11 0:55 8.4 13 1:10 Lake Ontario Child Development 90 15 4.7 42.4 7 1:55 17.5 27 2:20 Magic Years Nursery School 90 15 6.7 44.7 10 1:55 7.7 12 2:10 Marion Central Middle/High School 90 15 2.4 44.4 4 1:50 14.0 21 2:10 Marion Elementary School 90 15 School is outside the EPZ 1:45 13.9 21 2:10 Ontario Elementary School 23 15 6.8 35.1 12 0:50 8.4 13 1:05 Ontario Primary School 18 15 7.1 36.7 12 0:45 8.4 13 1:00 Raggedy Ann & Andy Day Care 90 15 4.2 42.4 6 1:55 17.2 26 2:20 R.E. Ginna Nuclear Power Plant 821 KLD Engineering, P.C.
| |
| Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 1
| |
| | |
| Travel Travel Dist. Time to Dist. EPZ Time Driver Loading To EPZ Average EPZ Bdry to from EPZ ETE to Mobilization Time Bdry Speed Bdry ETE R.C./R.L. Bdry to R.C./R.L School Time (min) (min) (mi) (mph) (min) (hr:min) (mi.) H.S. (min) (hr:min)
| |
| Rhyme Tyme Child Care Center 90 15 7.7 30.8 15 2:00 8.4 13 2:15 The Tot Spot Day Care Center 90 15 7.4 30.6 15 2:00 8.4 13 2:15 Thomas C. Armstrong Middle School 39 15 6.0 25.3 15 1:10 8.4 13 1:25 Wayne Education Center 90 15 3.4 46.0 5 1:50 17.5 27 2:20 Wayne Finger Lake BOCES 90 15 3.4 46.0 5 1:50 17.5 27 2:20 Wayne Technical & Career Center 90 15 3.4 46.0 5 1:50 17.5 27 2:20 Williamson Elementary School 23 15 6.3 45.8 9 0:50 14.1 22 1:10 Williamson Middle School 23 15 6.3 45.8 9 0:50 14.1 22 1:10 Williamson Senior High School 23 15 5.1 45.8 7 0:45 14.1 22 1:10 Maximum for EPZ: 2:20 Maximum: 2:45 Average for EPZ: 1:45 Average: 2:05 R.E. Ginna Nuclear Power Plant 822 KLD Engineering, P.C.
| |
| Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 1
| |
| | |
| Table 88. School Evacuation Time Estimates Rain Travel Travel Dist. To Time to Dist. EPZ Time from Driver Loading EPZ Average EPZ Bdry to EPZ Bdry ETE to Mobilization Time Bdry Speed Bdry ETE R.C./R.L. to H.S. R.C./R.L School Time (min) (min) (mi) (mph) (min) (hr:min) (mi.) (min) (hr:min)
| |
| MONROE COUNTY SCHOOLS Dewitt Road Elementary School 100 20 School is outside the EPZ 2:00 13.6 24 2:25 Klem Road North Elementary School 100 20 3.4 13.7 16 2:20 13.5 24 2:40 Klem Road South Elementary School 100 20 3.5 13.7 16 2:20 13.4 24 2:40 Plank Road North Elementary School 100 20 School is outside the EPZ 2:00 12.5 22 2:25 Plank Road South Elementary School 100 20 School is outside the EPZ 2:00 12.3 22 2:25 Rochester Christian School 100 20 School is outside the EPZ 2:00 10.8 19 2:20 Schlegel Road Elementary School 100 20 7.1 11.1 39 2:40 13.4 24 3:05 Schroeder High School 100 20 2.3 10.7 14 2:15 13.4 24 2:40 Spry Middle School 100 20 4.3 8.9 29 2:30 13.4 23 2:55 St Rita's School 100 20 School is outside the EPZ 2:00 13.9 24 2:25 State Road Elementary School 100 20 5.7 10.0 35 2:35 13.4 24 3:00 Thomas High School 100 20 1.9 10.7 11 2:15 13.4 24 2:35 Webster Christian School 100 20 4.0 8.2 30 2:30 13.5 24 2:55 Webster Montessori School 100 20 0.2 10.8 2 2:05 13.1 23 2:25 Willink Middle School 100 20 2.2 10.7 13 2:15 13.4 24 2:40 WAYNE COUNTY SCHOOLS Freewill Elementary School 47 20 3.7 34.0 7 1:15 8.4 15 1:30 Hop Skip & Jump Preschool 100 20 7.9 38.9 13 2:15 8.5 15 2:30 James A. Beneway High School 29 20 6.0 22.2 17 1:10 8.4 15 1:25 Lake Ontario Child Development 100 20 4.7 47.2 6 2:10 17.5 30 2:40 Magic Years Nursery School 100 20 6.7 42.4 10 2:10 7.7 14 2:25 Marion Central Middle/High School 100 20 2.4 41.6 4 2:05 14.0 24 2:30 Marion Elementary School 100 20 School is outside the EPZ 2:00 13.9 24 2:25 Ontario Elementary School 23 20 6.8 24.0 18 1:05 8.4 15 1:20 Ontario Primary School 18 20 7.1 26.8 16 0:55 8.4 15 1:10 Raggedy Ann & Andy Day Care 100 20 4.2 47.2 6 2:10 17.2 30 2:40 Rhyme Tyme Child Care Center 100 20 7.7 38.9 12 2:15 8.4 15 2:30 R.E. Ginna Nuclear Power Plant 823 KLD Engineering, P.C.
| |
| Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 1
| |
| | |
| Travel Travel Dist. To Time to Dist. EPZ Time from Driver Loading EPZ Average EPZ Bdry to EPZ Bdry ETE to Mobilization Time Bdry Speed Bdry ETE R.C./R.L. to H.S. R.C./R.L School Time (min) (min) (mi) (mph) (min) (hr:min) (mi.) (min) (hr:min)
| |
| The Tot Spot Day Care Center 100 20 7.4 38.9 12 2:15 8.4 15 2:30 Thomas C. Armstrong Middle School 39 20 6.0 20.0 19 1:20 8.4 15 1:35 Wayne Education Center 100 20 3.4 42.4 5 2:05 17.5 30 2:35 Wayne Finger Lake BOCES 100 20 3.4 42.4 5 2:05 17.5 30 2:35 Wayne Technical & Career Center 100 20 3.4 42.4 5 2:05 17.5 30 2:35 Williamson Elementary School 23 20 6.3 40.9 10 0:55 14.1 25 1:20 Williamson Middle School 23 20 6.3 40.9 10 0:55 14.1 25 1:20 Williamson Senior High School 23 20 5.1 40.9 8 0:55 14.1 25 1:20 Maximum for EPZ: 2:40 Maximum: 3:05 Average for EPZ: 2:00 Average: 2:20 R.E. Ginna Nuclear Power Plant 824 KLD Engineering, P.C.
| |
| Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 1
| |
| | |
| Table 89. School Evacuation Time Estimates Snow Travel Dist. Travel Dist. To Time to EPZ Time Driver Loading EPZ Average EPZ Bdry to from EPZ ETE to Mobilization Time Bdry Speed Bdry ETE R.C./R.L. Bdry to R.C./R.L School Time (min) (min) (mi) (mph) (min) (hr:min) (mi.) H.S. (min) (hr:min)
| |
| MONROE COUNTY SCHOOLS Dewitt Road Elementary School 110 25 School is outside the EPZ 2:15 13.6 28 2:45 Klem Road North Elementary School 110 25 3.4 12.3 17 2:35 13.5 27 3:00 Klem Road South Elementary School 110 25 3.5 12.3 18 2:35 13.4 27 3:00 Plank Road North Elementary School 110 25 School is outside the EPZ 2:15 12.5 26 2:45 Plank Road South Elementary School 110 25 School is outside the EPZ 2:15 12.3 25 2:40 Rochester Christian School 110 25 School is outside the EPZ 2:15 10.8 22 2:40 Schlegel Road Elementary School 110 25 7.1 10.3 42 3:00 13.4 27 3:25 Schroeder High School 110 25 2.3 9.5 15 2:30 13.4 27 3:00 Spry Middle School 110 25 4.3 7.9 33 2:50 13.4 27 3:15 St Rita's School 110 25 School is outside the EPZ 2:15 13.9 28 2:45 State Road Elementary School 110 25 5.7 9.2 38 2:55 13.4 27 3:20 Thomas High School 110 25 1.9 9.5 13 2:30 13.4 27 2:55 Webster Christian School 110 25 4.0 7.9 31 2:50 13.5 27 3:15 Webster Montessori School 110 25 0.2 7.9 2 2:20 13.1 27 2:45 Willink Middle School 110 25 2.2 9.5 14 2:30 13.4 27 3:00 WAYNE COUNTY SCHOOLS Freewill Elementary School 47 25 3.7 31.0 8 1:20 8.4 17 1:40 Hop Skip & Jump Preschool 110 25 7.9 23.9 20 2:35 8.5 17 2:55 James A. Beneway High School 29 25 6.0 24.6 15 1:10 8.4 17 1:30 Lake Ontario Child Development 110 25 4.7 43.3 7 2:25 17.5 35 3:00 Magic Years Nursery School 110 25 6.7 37.0 11 2:30 7.7 16 2:45 Marion Central Middle/High School 110 25 2.4 36.2 5 2:20 14.0 28 2:50 Marion Elementary School 110 25 School is outside the EPZ 2:15 13.9 28 2:45 Ontario Elementary School 23 25 6.8 25.6 17 1:05 8.4 17 1:25 Ontario Primary School 18 25 7.1 27.3 16 1:00 8.4 17 1:20 Raggedy Ann & Andy Day Care 110 25 4.2 43.3 6 2:25 17.2 35 3:00 Rhyme Tyme Child Care Center 110 25 7.7 23.9 20 2:35 8.4 17 2:55 R.E. Ginna Nuclear Power Plant 825 KLD Engineering, P.C.
| |
| Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 1
| |
| | |
| Travel Dist. Travel Dist. To Time to EPZ Time Driver Loading EPZ Average EPZ Bdry to from EPZ ETE to Mobilization Time Bdry Speed Bdry ETE R.C./R.L. Bdry to R.C./R.L School Time (min) (min) (mi) (mph) (min) (hr:min) (mi.) H.S. (min) (hr:min)
| |
| The Tot Spot Day Care Center 110 25 7.4 23.9 19 2:35 8.4 17 2:55 Thomas C. Armstrong Middle School 39 25 6.0 22.4 17 1:25 8.4 17 1:40 Wayne Education Center 110 25 3.4 36.9 6 2:25 17.5 35 3:00 Wayne Finger Lake BOCES 110 25 3.4 36.9 6 2:25 17.5 35 3:00 Wayne Technical & Career Center 110 25 3.4 36.9 6 2:25 17.5 35 3:00 Williamson Elementary School 23 25 6.3 36.9 11 1:00 14.1 29 1:30 Williamson Middle School 23 25 6.3 36.9 11 1:00 14.1 29 1:30 Williamson Senior High School 23 25 5.1 37.2 9 1:00 14.1 29 1:30 Maximum for EPZ: 3:00 Maximum: 3:25 Average for EPZ: 2:10 Average: 2:40 R.E. Ginna 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.)
| |
| M1 Route A 2 Services half of ERPA M1 16.3 M1 Route B 3 Services half of ERPA M1 16.7 M2 Route C 1 Services ERPA M2 15.6 M3 Route D 1 Services ERPA M3 14.0 M4 Route E 3 Services half of the eastern portion of ERPA M4 12.5 M4 Route F 3 Services half of the eastern portion of ERPA M4 14.5 M4 Route G 3 Services the western portion of ERPA M4 12.1 M5 Route H 2 Services the northern portion ERPA M5 13.2 M5 Route I 2 Services the southern portion ERPA M5 18.5 M6 Route J 2 Services the eastern portion of ERPA M6 10.1 M6 Route K 2 Services the northern portion of ERPA M6 13.4 M6 Route L 2 Services the southern portion of ERPA M6 9.6 M7 Route M 5 Services the eastern portion of ERPA M7 7.1 M7 Route N 5 Services the western portion of ERPA M8 9.9 M8 Route P 1 Services the eastern portion of ERPA M8 4.0 M8 Route Q 2 Services the western portion of ERPA M8 4.4 M9 Route R 4 Services ERPA M9 7.1 W1 Route 1 2 Services the western portion of ERPA W1 18.7 W1 Route 2 2 Services the central portion of ERPA W1 16.2 W1 Route 3 2 Services the eastern portion of ERPA W1 14.9 W2 Route 1 2 Services the southern portion of ERPA W2 11.3 W2 Route 2 2 Services ERPA W2 along Route 104 16.1 W2 Route 3 2 Services ERPA W2 along Ridge Road 16.4 W3 Route 1 1 Services the western portion of ERPA W3 15.9 W3 Route 2 1 Services the eastern portion of ERPA W3 7.8 W4 Route 1 1 Services the southern portion of ERPA W4 6.5 W4 Route 2 1 Services the northern portion of ERPA W4 10.1 W5 Route 1 1 Services the northern portion of ERPA W5 8.9 W5 Route 2 1 Services the southern portion of ERPA W5 6.4 W5 Route 3 1 Services the central portion of ERPA W5 7.0 W6 Route 1 1 Services the eastern portion of ERPA W6 7.8 W6 Route 2 1 Services the central portion of ERPA W6 6.5 W6 Route 3 1 Services the centralwestern portion of ERPA W6 10.0 W6 Route 4 1 Services the western portion of ERPA W6 7.7 W7 Route 1 1 Services the western portion of ERPA W7 13.3 W7 Route 2 1 Services the central portion of ERPA W7 10.8 W7 Route 3 1 Services the eastern portion of ERPA W7 9.9 Total: 69 R.E. Ginna Nuclear Power Plant 827 KLD Engineering, P.C.
| |
| Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 1
| |
| | |
| Table 811. TransitDependent Evacuation Time Estimates Good Weather OneWave TwoWave Route Travel Route Route Travel Pickup Distance Time to Driver Travel Pickup Route Bus Mobilization Length Speed Time Time ETE to R. C. R. C. Unload Rest Time Time ETE Number Number (min) (miles) (mph) (min) (min) (hr:min) (miles) (min) (min) (min) (min) (min) (hr:min)
| |
| M1 Route A 1 90 16.3 19.2 51 30 2:55 10.7 16 5 10 45 30 4:45 M1 Route A 2 110 16.3 27.1 36 30 3:00 10.7 16 5 10 45 30 4:50 M1 Route B 1 90 16.7 19.2 52 30 2:55 10.7 16 5 10 45 30 4:45 M1 Route B 2&3 110 16.7 25.1 40 30 3:00 10.7 16 5 10 45 30 4:50 M2 Route C 1 90 15.6 17.4 54 30 2:55 10.7 16 5 10 44 30 4:45 M3 Route D 1 90 14.0 15.1 56 30 3:00 10.7 16 5 10 42 30 4:45 M4 Route E 1 90 12.5 13.3 57 30 3:00 9.4 14 5 10 42 30 4:45 M4 Route E 2&3 110 12.5 18.6 40 30 3:05 9.4 14 5 10 42 30 4:50 M4 Route F 1 90 14.5 20.6 42 30 2:45 9.4 14 5 10 46 30 4:30 M4 Route F 2&3 110 14.5 21.4 41 30 3:05 9.4 14 5 10 45 30 4:50 M4 Route G 1 90 12.1 18.9 38 30 2:40 9.4 14 5 10 42 30 4:25 M4 Route G 2&3 110 12.1 17.8 41 30 3:05 9.4 14 5 10 41 30 4:45 M5 Route H 1 90 12.6 40.7 19 30 2:20 9.4 14 5 10 40 30 4:00 M5 Route H 2 90 12.6 40.7 19 30 2:20 9.4 14 5 10 40 30 4:00 M5 Route I 1 90 18.5 42.4 26 30 2:30 9.4 14 5 10 48 30 4:20 M5 Route I 2 90 18.5 42.4 26 30 2:30 10.7 16 5 10 50 30 4:25 M6 Route J 1 90 10.1 13.8 44 30 2:45 10.7 16 5 10 38 30 4:25 M6 Route J 2 90 10.1 13.8 44 30 2:45 10.7 16 5 10 38 30 4:25 M6 Route K 1 90 13.4 44.4 18 30 2:20 10.7 16 5 10 42 30 4:05 M6 Route K 2 90 13.4 44.4 18 30 2:20 10.7 16 5 10 42 30 4:05 M6 Route L 1 90 9.6 16.2 36 30 2:40 10.7 16 5 10 37 30 4:20 M6 Route L 2 90 9.6 16.2 36 30 2:40 10.7 16 5 10 37 30 4:20 M7 Route M 1 90 7.1 13.9 31 30 2:35 15.3 23 5 10 42 30 4:30 M7 Route M 2&3 100 7.1 14.6 29 30 2:40 15.3 23 5 10 42 30 4:30 M7 Route M 4&5 110 7.1 17.4 24 30 2:45 15.3 23 5 10 42 30 4:35 M7 Route N 1 90 9.9 20.0 30 30 2:30 15.3 23 5 10 45 30 4:25 M7 Route N 2&3 100 9.9 21.4 28 30 2:40 15.3 23 5 10 47 30 4:35 M7 Route N 4&5 110 9.9 23.7 25 30 2:50 15.3 23 5 10 47 30 4:45 M8 Route P 1 90 4.0 8.8 27 30 2:30 10.7 16 5 10 33 30 4:05 M8 Route Q 1 90 4.4 42.8 6 30 2:10 10.7 16 5 10 33 30 3:45 R.E. Ginna Nuclear Power Plant 828 KLD Engineering, P.C.
| |
| Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 1
| |
| | |
| OneWave TwoWave Route Travel Route Route Travel Pickup Distance Time to Driver Travel Pickup Route Bus Mobilization Length Speed Time Time ETE to R. C. R. C. Unload Rest Time Time ETE Number Number (min) (miles) (mph) (min) (min) (hr:min) (miles) (min) (min) (min) (min) (min) (hr:min)
| |
| M8 Route Q 2 110 4.4 41.6 6 30 2:30 10.7 16 5 10 34 30 4:10 M9 Route R 1&2 90 7.1 8.8 48 30 2:50 10.7 16 5 10 37 30 4:30 M9 Route R 3&4 110 7.1 17.4 24 30 2:45 10.7 16 5 10 35 30 4:25 W1 Route 1 1 90 18.7 39.6 28 30 2:30 8.2 12 5 10 48 30 4:15 W1 Route 1 2 90 18.7 39.6 28 30 2:30 8.2 12 5 10 44 30 4:15 W1 Route 2 1 90 16.2 36.1 27 30 2:30 8.4 13 5 10 46 30 4:15 W1 Route 2 2 110 16.2 38.5 25 30 2:50 8.4 13 5 10 41 30 4:30 W1 Route 3 1 90 14.9 35.8 25 30 2:25 7.7 12 5 10 40 30 4:05 W1 Route 3 2 110 14.9 36.7 24 30 2:45 7.7 12 5 10 41 30 4:25 W2 Route 1 1 90 11.3 45.4 15 30 2:15 8.4 13 5 10 37 30 3:50 W2 Route 1 2 110 11.3 46.0 15 30 2:35 8.4 13 5 10 39 30 4:15 W2 Route 2 1 90 16.1 33.9 28 30 2:30 8.4 13 5 10 45 30 4:15 W2 Route 2 2 110 16.1 36.8 26 30 2:50 8.4 13 5 10 45 30 4:35 W2 Route 3 1 90 16.4 47.0 21 30 2:25 7.7 12 5 10 41 30 4:05 W2 Route 3 2 110 16.4 47.3 21 30 2:45 7.7 12 5 10 42 30 4:25 W3 Route 1 1 90 15.9 40.9 23 30 2:25 17.5 26 5 10 58 30 4:35 W3 Route 2 1 90 7.8 49.4 9 30 2:10 20.6 31 5 10 50 30 4:20 W4 Route 1 1 90 6.5 26.4 15 30 2:15 17.2 26 5 10 44 30 4:10 W4 Route 2 1 90 10.1 22.0 28 30 2:30 17.2 26 5 10 48 30 4:30 W5 Route 1 1 90 8.9 36.7 15 30 2:15 17.2 26 5 10 46 30 4:15 W5 Route 2 1 90 6.4 46.8 8 30 2:10 14.5 22 5 10 40 30 4:00 W5 Route 3 1 90 7.0 50.4 8 30 2:10 14.5 22 5 10 40 30 4:00 W6 Route 1 1 90 7.8 49.4 10 30 2:10 14.5 22 5 10 41 30 4:00 W6 Route 2 1 90 6.5 46.0 8 30 2:10 14.1 21 5 10 39 30 4:00 W6 Route 3 1 90 10.0 45.0 13 30 2:15 14.1 21 5 10 43 30 4:05 W6 Route 4 1 90 7.7 43.8 11 30 2:15 14.2 21 5 10 41 30 4:05 W7 Route 1 1 90 13.3 32.5 25 30 2:25 8.4 13 5 10 38 30 4:05 W7 Route 2 1 90 10.8 43.2 15 30 2:15 8.4 13 5 10 35 30 3:50 W7 Route 3 1 90 9.9 45.7 13 30 2:15 8.4 13 5 10 34 30 3:50 Maximum ETE: 3:05 Maximum ETE: 4:50 Average ETE: 2:35 Average ETE: 4:20 R.E. Ginna Nuclear Power Plant 829 KLD Engineering, P.C.
| |
| Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 1
| |
| | |
| Table 812. TransitDependent Evacuation Time Estimates Rain OneWave TwoWave Route Travel Route Route Travel Pickup Distance Time to Driver Travel Pickup Route Bus Mobilization Length Speed Time Time ETE to R. C. R. C. Unload Rest Time Time ETE Number Number (min) (miles) (mph) (min) (min) (hr:min) (miles) (min) (min) (min) (min) (min) (hr:min)
| |
| M1 Route A 1 100 16.3 16.1 61 40 3:25 10.7 18 5 10 50 40 5:30 M1 Route A 2 120 16.3 20.4 48 40 3:30 10.7 18 5 10 50 40 5:35 M1 Route B 1 100 16.7 15.6 64 40 3:25 10.7 18 5 10 50 40 5:30 M1 Route B 2&3 120 16.7 20.8 48 40 3:30 10.7 18 5 10 50 40 5:35 M2 Route C 1 100 15.6 14.8 63 40 3:25 10.7 18 5 10 49 40 5:30 M3 Route D 1 100 14.0 12.3 68 40 3:30 10.7 18 5 10 47 40 5:35 M4 Route E 1 100 12.5 13.2 57 40 3:20 9.4 16 5 10 47 40 5:20 M4 Route E 2&3 120 12.5 16.7 45 40 3:25 9.4 16 5 10 47 40 5:25 M4 Route F 1 100 14.5 24.6 35 40 3:00 9.4 16 5 10 50 40 5:05 M4 Route F 2&3 120 14.5 26.2 33 40 3:15 9.4 16 5 10 50 40 5:20 M4 Route G 1 100 12.1 24.0 30 40 2:55 9.4 16 5 10 46 40 4:55 M4 Route G 2&3 120 12.1 24.7 29 40 3:10 9.4 16 5 10 46 40 5:10 M5 Route H 1 100 12.6 36.4 21 40 2:45 9.4 16 5 10 45 40 4:45 M5 Route H 2 100 12.6 36.4 21 40 2:45 9.4 16 5 10 45 40 4:45 M5 Route I 1 100 18.5 38.5 29 40 2:50 9.4 16 5 10 52 40 4:55 M5 Route I 2 100 18.5 38.5 29 40 2:50 10.7 18 5 10 55 40 5:00 M6 Route J 1 100 10.1 12.5 48 40 3:10 10.7 18 5 10 42 40 5:10 M6 Route J 2 100 10.1 12.5 48 40 3:10 10.7 18 5 10 42 40 5:10 M6 Route K 1 100 13.4 39.7 20 40 2:45 10.7 18 5 10 53 40 4:55 M6 Route K 2 100 13.4 39.7 20 40 2:45 10.7 18 5 10 53 40 4:55 M6 Route L 1 100 9.6 15.0 38 40 3:00 10.7 18 5 10 42 40 5:00 M6 Route L 2 100 9.6 15.0 38 40 3:00 10.7 18 5 10 42 40 5:00 M7 Route M 1 100 7.1 11.8 36 40 3:00 15.3 26 5 10 47 40 5:10 M7 Route M 2&3 110 7.1 13.0 33 40 3:05 15.3 26 5 10 47 40 5:15 M7 Route M 4&5 120 7.1 15.5 27 40 3:10 15.3 26 5 10 47 40 5:20 M7 Route N 1 100 9.9 14.1 42 40 3:05 15.3 26 5 10 54 40 5:25 M7 Route N 2&3 110 9.9 15.2 39 40 3:10 15.3 26 5 10 54 40 5:30 M7 Route N 4&5 120 9.9 17.2 35 40 3:15 15.3 26 5 10 54 40 5:35 M8 Route P 1 100 4.0 9.6 25 40 2:45 10.7 18 5 10 35 40 4:35 M8 Route Q 1 100 4.4 38.5 7 40 2:30 10.7 18 5 10 42 40 4:30 R.E. Ginna Nuclear Power Plant 830 KLD Engineering, P.C.
| |
| Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 1
| |
| | |
| OneWave TwoWave Route Travel Route Route Travel Pickup Distance Time to Driver Travel Pickup Route Bus Mobilization Length Speed Time Time ETE to R. C. R. C. Unload Rest Time Time ETE Number Number (min) (miles) (mph) (min) (min) (hr:min) (miles) (min) (min) (min) (min) (min) (hr:min)
| |
| M8 Route Q 2 120 4.4 38.6 7 40 2:50 10.7 18 5 10 41 40 4:45 M9 Route R 1&2 100 7.1 9.6 44 40 3:05 10.7 18 5 10 39 40 5:00 M9 Route R 3&4 120 7.1 20.1 21 40 3:05 10.7 18 5 10 39 40 5:00 W1 Route 1 1 100 18.7 32.5 34 40 2:55 8.2 14 5 10 49 40 4:55 W1 Route 1 2 100 18.7 32.5 34 40 2:55 8.2 14 5 10 49 40 4:55 W1 Route 2 1 100 16.2 29.2 33 40 2:55 8.4 14 5 10 47 40 4:55 W1 Route 2 2 120 16.2 41.7 23 40 3:05 8.4 14 5 10 46 40 5:05 W1 Route 3 1 100 14.9 28.4 31 40 2:55 7.7 13 5 10 44 40 4:50 W1 Route 3 2 120 14.9 40.9 22 40 3:05 7.7 13 5 10 44 40 5:00 W2 Route 1 1 100 11.3 41.8 16 40 2:40 8.4 14 5 10 44 40 4:35 W2 Route 1 2 120 11.3 42.9 16 40 3:00 8.4 14 5 10 43 40 4:55 W2 Route 2 1 100 16.1 27.9 35 40 2:55 8.4 14 5 10 47 40 4:55 W2 Route 2 2 120 16.1 42.2 23 40 3:05 8.4 14 5 10 46 40 5:05 W2 Route 3 1 100 16.4 43.3 23 40 2:45 7.7 13 5 10 49 40 4:45 W2 Route 3 2 120 16.4 42.9 23 40 3:05 7.7 13 5 10 48 40 5:05 W3 Route 1 1 100 15.9 39.7 24 40 2:45 17.5 30 5 10 61 40 5:15 W3 Route 2 1 100 7.8 44.6 11 40 2:35 20.6 35 5 10 58 40 5:05 W4 Route 1 1 100 6.5 27.6 14 40 2:35 17.2 29 5 10 49 40 4:50 W4 Route 2 1 100 10.1 21.1 29 40 2:50 17.2 29 5 10 56 40 5:15 W5 Route 1 1 100 8.9 37.3 14 40 2:35 17.2 29 5 10 52 40 4:55 W5 Route 2 1 100 6.4 42.4 9 40 2:30 14.5 25 5 10 46 40 4:40 W5 Route 3 1 100 7.0 45.8 9 40 2:30 14.5 25 5 10 46 40 4:40 W6 Route 1 1 100 7.8 44.2 11 40 2:35 14.5 25 5 10 47 40 4:45 W6 Route 2 1 100 6.5 42.9 9 40 2:30 14.1 24 5 10 46 40 4:40 W6 Route 3 1 100 10.0 40.2 15 40 2:35 14.1 24 5 10 50 40 4:45 W6 Route 4 1 100 7.7 40.1 11 40 2:35 14.2 24 5 10 49 40 4:45 W7 Route 1 1 100 13.3 31.6 25 40 2:50 8.4 14 5 10 43 40 4:45 W7 Route 2 1 100 10.8 38.5 17 40 2:40 8.4 14 5 10 41 40 4:35 W7 Route 3 1 100 9.9 42.0 14 40 2:35 8.4 14 5 10 44 40 4:30 Maximum ETE: 3:30 Maximum ETE: 5:35 Average ETE: 3:00 Average ETE: 5:00 R.E. Ginna Nuclear Power Plant 831 KLD Engineering, P.C.
| |
| Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 1
| |
| | |
| Table 813. Transit Dependent Evacuation Time Estimates Snow OneWave TwoWave Route Travel Route Route Travel Pickup Distance Time to Driver Travel Pickup Route Bus Mobilization Length Speed Time Time ETE to R. C. R. C. Unload Rest Time Time ETE Number Number (min) (miles) (mph) (min) (min) (hr:min) (miles) (min) (min) (min) (min) (min) (hr:min)
| |
| M1 Route A 1 110 16.3 14.5 67 50 3:50 10.7 21 5 10 57 50 6:15 M1 Route A 2 130 16.3 18.6 52 50 3:55 10.7 21 5 10 57 50 6:20 M1 Route B 1 110 16.7 14.9 67 50 3:50 10.7 21 5 10 58 50 6:15 M1 Route B 2&3 130 16.7 19.0 53 50 3:55 10.7 21 5 10 58 50 6:20 M2 Route C 1 110 15.6 13.9 67 50 3:50 10.7 21 5 10 56 50 6:15 M3 Route D 1 110 14.0 12.0 70 50 3:50 10.7 21 5 10 54 50 6:15 M4 Route E 1 110 12.5 13.1 57 50 3:40 9.4 19 5 10 53 50 6:00 M4 Route E 2&3 130 12.5 17.3 43 50 3:45 9.4 19 5 10 53 50 6:05 M4 Route F 1 110 14.5 22.9 38 50 3:20 9.4 19 5 10 57 50 5:45 M4 Route F 2&3 130 14.5 23.4 37 50 3:40 9.4 19 5 10 57 50 6:05 M4 Route G 1 110 12.1 20.8 35 50 3:15 9.4 19 5 10 53 50 5:35 M4 Route G 2&3 130 12.1 20.6 35 50 3:40 9.4 19 5 10 52 50 6:00 M5 Route H 1 110 12.6 33.0 23 50 3:05 9.4 19 5 10 52 50 5:25 M5 Route H 2 110 12.6 33.0 23 50 3:05 9.4 19 5 10 52 50 5:25 M5 Route I 1 110 18.5 34.8 32 50 3:15 9.4 19 5 10 60 50 5:40 M5 Route I 2 110 18.5 34.8 32 50 3:15 10.7 21 5 10 62 50 5:45 M6 Route J 1 110 10.1 10.3 59 50 3:40 10.7 21 5 10 50 50 6:00 M6 Route J 2 110 10.1 10.3 59 50 3:40 10.7 21 5 10 49 50 6:00 M6 Route K 1 110 13.4 35.2 23 50 3:05 10.7 21 5 10 61 50 5:35 M6 Route K 2 110 13.4 35.2 23 50 3:05 10.7 21 5 10 61 50 5:35 M6 Route L 1 110 9.6 12.9 45 50 3:25 10.7 21 5 10 48 50 5:40 M6 Route L 2 110 9.6 12.9 45 50 3:25 10.7 21 5 10 48 50 5:40 M7 Route M 1 110 7.1 9.7 44 50 3:25 15.3 31 5 10 54 50 5:55 M7 Route M 2&3 120 7.1 10.6 40 50 3:35 15.3 31 5 10 54 50 6:05 M7 Route M 4&5 130 7.1 12.1 35 50 3:40 15.3 31 5 10 54 50 6:10 M7 Route N 1 110 9.9 13.1 45 50 3:30 15.3 31 5 10 58 50 6:05 M7 Route N 2&3 120 9.9 14.6 41 50 3:35 15.3 31 5 10 62 50 6:15 M7 Route N 4&5 130 9.9 15.8 38 50 3:40 15.3 31 5 10 62 50 6:20 M8 Route P 1 110 4.0 6.0 40 50 3:20 10.7 21 5 10 44 50 5:30 M8 Route Q 1 110 4.4 33.7 8 50 2:50 10.7 21 5 10 48 50 5:05 M8 Route Q 2 130 4.4 34.0 8 50 3:10 10.7 21 5 10 47 50 5:25 R.E. Ginna Nuclear Power Plant 832 KLD Engineering, P.C.
| |
| Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 1
| |
| | |
| OneWave TwoWave Route Travel Route Route Travel Pickup Distance Time to Driver Travel Pickup Route Bus Mobilization Length Speed Time Time ETE to R. C. R. C. Unload Rest Time Time ETE Number Number (min) (miles) (mph) (min) (min) (hr:min) (miles) (min) (min) (min) (min) (min) (hr:min)
| |
| M9 Route R 1&2 110 7.1 9.2 46 50 3:30 10.7 21 5 10 51 50 5:50 M9 Route R 3&4 130 7.1 16.9 25 50 3:30 10.7 21 5 10 45 50 5:45 W1 Route 1 1 110 18.7 26.4 43 50 3:25 8.2 16 5 10 56 50 5:45 W1 Route 1 2 110 18.7 26.4 43 50 3:25 8.2 16 5 10 56 50 5:45 W1 Route 2 1 110 16.2 22.1 44 50 3:25 8.4 17 5 10 53 50 5:40 W1 Route 2 2 130 16.2 29.5 33 50 3:35 8.4 17 5 10 53 50 5:50 W1 Route 3 1 110 14.9 21.5 41 50 3:25 7.7 15 5 10 50 50 5:35 W1 Route 3 2 130 14.9 27.2 33 50 3:35 7.7 15 5 10 50 50 5:50 W2 Route 1 1 110 11.3 37.0 18 50 3:00 8.4 17 5 10 53 50 5:15 W2 Route 1 2 130 11.3 37.6 18 50 3:20 8.4 17 5 10 53 50 5:35 W2 Route 2 1 110 16.1 21.7 45 50 3:25 8.4 17 5 10 53 50 5:40 W2 Route 2 2 130 16.1 28.2 34 50 3:35 8.4 17 5 10 52 50 5:50 W2 Route 3 1 110 16.4 38.0 26 50 3:10 7.7 15 5 10 51 50 5:25 W2 Route 3 2 130 16.4 36.9 27 50 3:30 7.7 15 5 10 55 50 5:50 W3 Route 1 1 110 15.9 34.6 27 50 3:10 17.5 35 5 10 70 50 6:05 W3 Route 2 1 110 7.8 39.5 12 50 2:55 20.6 41 5 10 65 50 5:50 W4 Route 1 1 110 6.5 23.2 17 50 3:00 17.2 34 5 10 57 50 5:40 W4 Route 2 1 110 10.1 24.3 25 50 3:05 17.2 34 5 10 65 50 5:50 W5 Route 1 1 110 8.9 29.9 18 50 3:00 17.2 34 5 10 63 50 5:45 W5 Route 2 1 110 6.4 37.6 10 50 2:55 14.5 29 5 10 53 50 5:25 W5 Route 3 1 110 7.0 39.1 11 50 2:55 14.5 29 5 10 53 50 5:25 W6 Route 1 1 110 7.8 39.5 12 50 2:55 14.5 29 5 10 55 50 5:25 W6 Route 2 1 110 6.5 37.3 10 50 2:55 14.1 28 5 10 53 50 5:25 W6 Route 3 1 110 10.0 36.0 17 50 3:00 14.1 28 5 10 57 50 5:35 W6 Route 4 1 110 7.7 35.6 13 50 2:55 14.2 28 5 10 54 50 5:25 W7 Route 1 1 110 13.3 27.4 29 50 3:10 8.4 17 5 10 50 50 5:25 W7 Route 2 1 110 10.8 34.5 19 50 3:00 8.4 17 5 10 51 50 5:15 W7 Route 3 1 110 9.9 36.9 16 50 3:00 8.4 17 5 10 49 50 5:15 Maximum ETE: 3:55 Maximum ETE: 6:20 Average ETE: 3:25 Average ETE: 5:45 R.E. Ginna 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 10 10 4.0 30 2:10 Maplewood Wheelchair bound 90 5 63 75 4.0 5 2:50 Nursing Home Bedridden 90 15 0 0 4.0 30 2:00 Ambulatory 90 1 206 30 2.4 10 2:10 Cherry Ridge Wheelchair bound 90 5 64 75 2.4 3 2:50 Bedridden 90 15 3 30 2.4 10 2:10 Ambulatory 90 1 45 30 3.5 13 2:15 AHEPA 67 Wheelchair bound 90 5 5 25 3.5 15 2:10 Bedridden 90 15 0 0 3.5 18 1:50 Ambulatory 90 1 45 30 2.8 10 2:10 Quinby Park Wheelchair bound 90 5 4 20 2.8 14 2:05 Apartments Bedridden 90 15 0 0 2.8 13 1:45 Ontario Ambulatory 90 1 7 7 9.3 12 1:50 Community Wheelchair bound 90 5 3 15 9.3 11 2:00 Residence Bedridden 90 15 0 0 9.3 15 1:45 Ambulatory 90 1 1 1 8.5 13 1:45 Pines of Peace Wheelchair bound 90 5 1 5 8.5 13 1:50 Hospice Center Bedridden 90 15 0 0 8.5 14 1:45 Williamson Ambulatory 90 1 5 5 4.7 9 1:45 Community Wheelchair bound 90 5 2 10 4.7 8 1:50 Residence Bedridden 90 15 0 0 4.7 10 1:40 Wayne ARC Day Ambulatory 90 1 19 19 3.9 5 1:55 Activity Training Wheelchair bound 90 5 9 45 3.9 5 2:20 Program Bedridden 90 15 0 0 3.9 5 1:35 Maximum ETE: 2:50 Average ETE: 2:05 R.E. Ginna Nuclear Power Plant 834 KLD Engineering, P.C.
| |
| Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 1
| |
| | |
| Table 815. Special 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 10 10 4.0 32 2:25 Maplewood Wheelchair bound 100 5 63 75 4.0 5 3:00 Nursing Home Bedridden 100 15 0 0 4.0 36 2:20 Ambulatory 100 1 206 30 2.4 14 2:25 Cherry Ridge Wheelchair bound 100 5 64 75 2.4 3 3:00 Bedridden 100 15 3 30 2.4 14 2:25 Ambulatory 100 1 45 30 3.5 15 2:25 AHEPA 67 Wheelchair bound 100 5 5 25 3.5 16 2:25 Bedridden 100 15 0 0 3.5 23 2:05 Ambulatory 100 1 45 30 2.8 12 2:25 Quinby Park Wheelchair bound 100 5 4 20 2.8 15 2:15 Apartments Bedridden 100 15 0 0 2.8 17 2:00 Ontario Ambulatory 100 1 7 7 9.3 13 2:00 Community Wheelchair bound 100 5 3 15 9.3 12 2:10 Residence Bedridden 100 15 0 0 9.3 15 1:55 Ambulatory 100 1 1 1 8.5 13 1:55 Pines of Peace Wheelchair bound 100 5 1 5 8.5 13 2:00 Hospice Center Bedridden 100 15 0 0 8.5 14 1:55 Williamson Ambulatory 100 1 5 5 4.7 9 1:55 Community Wheelchair bound 100 5 2 10 4.7 8 2:00 Residence Bedridden 100 15 0 0 4.7 10 1:50 Wayne ARC Day Ambulatory 100 1 19 19 3.9 5 2:05 Activity Training Wheelchair bound 100 5 9 45 3.9 5 2:30 Program Bedridden 100 15 0 0 3.9 5 1:45 Maximum ETE: 3:00 Average ETE: 2:15 R.E. Ginna Nuclear Power Plant 835 KLD Engineering, P.C.
| |
| Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 1
| |
| | |
| Table 816. Special 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 10 10 4.0 38 2:40 Maplewood Wheelchair bound 110 5 63 75 4.0 6 3:15 Nursing Home Bedridden 110 15 0 0 4.0 39 2:30 Ambulatory 110 1 206 30 2.4 17 2:40 Cherry Ridge Wheelchair bound 110 5 64 75 2.4 4 3:10 Bedridden 110 15 3 30 2.4 17 2:40 Ambulatory 110 1 45 30 3.5 19 2:40 AHEPA 67 Wheelchair bound 110 5 5 25 3.5 22 2:40 Bedridden 110 15 0 0 3.5 26 2:20 Ambulatory 110 1 45 30 2.8 16 2:40 Quinby Park Wheelchair bound 110 5 4 20 2.8 19 2:30 Apartments Bedridden 110 15 0 0 2.8 20 2:10 Ontario Ambulatory 110 1 7 7 9.3 15 2:15 Community Wheelchair bound 110 5 3 15 9.3 14 2:20 Residence Bedridden 110 15 0 0 9.3 18 2:10 Ambulatory 110 1 1 1 8.5 15 2:10 Pines of Peace Wheelchair bound 110 5 1 5 8.5 15 2:10 Hospice Center Bedridden 110 15 0 0 8.5 17 2:10 Williamson Ambulatory 110 1 5 5 4.7 10 2:05 Community Wheelchair bound 110 5 2 10 4.7 10 2:10 Residence Bedridden 110 15 0 0 4.7 12 2:05 Wayne ARC Day Ambulatory 110 1 19 19 3.9 6 2:15 Activity Training Wheelchair bound 110 5 9 45 3.9 6 2:45 Program Bedridden 110 15 0 0 3.9 6 2:00 Maximum ETE: 3:15 Average ETE: 2:30 R.E. Ginna 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)
| |
| Normal 90 27 11 2:30 Vans 113 29 4 Rain 100 5 30 15 14 2:45 Snow 110 33 16 3:00 Normal 90 18 11 2:15 Wheelchair 47 16 3 Rain 100 5 20 10 14 2:30 Vans Snow 110 22 16 2:45 Normal 90 10 11 2:25 Ambulances 62 31 2 Rain 100 15 11 15 14 2:35 Snow 110 13 16 2:50 Maximum ETE: 3:00 Average ETE: 2:40 R.E. Ginna 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" are employed to indicate the need for flexibility in performing the traffic control function. There are always legitimate reasons for a driver to prefer a direction other than that indicated. For example:
| |
| * A driver may be traveling home from work or from another location, to join other family members prior to evacuating.
| |
| * An evacuating driver may be travelling to pick up a relative, or other evacuees.
| |
| * The driver may be an emergency worker en route to perform an important activity.
| |
| The implementation of a plan must also be flexible enough for the application of sound judgment by the traffic guide.
| |
| The traffic management plan is the outcome of the following process:
| |
| : 1. The existing TCPs and ACPs identified by the offsite agencies in their existing emergency plans serve as the basis of the traffic management plan, as per NUREG/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. A field survey of the highway network within 15 miles of the power plant. The schematics describing traffic and access control at suggested additional TCPs and ACPs, which are presented in Appendix G, are based on data collected during field surveys, R.E. Ginna Nuclear Power Plant 91 KLD Engineering, P.C.
| |
| Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 1
| |
| | |
| upon large scale maps, and on overhead photos.
| |
| : 4. Consultation with emergency management and law enforcement personnel.
| |
| Trained personnel who are experienced in controlling traffic and are aware of the likely evacuation traffic patterns should review the control tactics at the suggested additional TCPs and ACPs.
| |
| : 5. Prioritization of TCPs and ACPs.
| |
| Application of traffic and access control at some TCPs and ACPs will have a more pronounced influence on expediting traffic movements than at other TCPs and ACPs. For example, TCPs controlling traffic originating from areas in close proximity to the power plant could have a more beneficial effect on minimizing potential exposure to radioactivity than those TCPs located far from the power plant. These priorities should be assigned by state/county emergency management representatives and by law enforcement personnel.
| |
| It is recommended that the control tactics identified in the schematics in Appendix G be reviewed by the state and county emergency planners, and local and state police. Specifically the number and locations of the suggested TCPs should be reviewed in detail, and the indicated resource requirements should be reconciled with current assets and consideration be given to incorporating them into the county Radiological Emergency Preparedness Plans.
| |
| 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 hours 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.
| |
| R.E. Ginna Nuclear Power Plant 92 KLD Engineering, P.C.
| |
| Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 1
| |
| | |
| Study Assumptions 5 and 6 in Section 2.3 discuss ACP and TCP staffing schedules and operations.
| |
| R.E. Ginna Nuclear Power Plant 93 KLD Engineering, P.C.
| |
| Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 1
| |
| | |
| 10 EVACUATION ROUTES Evacuation routes are comprised of two distinct components:
| |
| * Routing from an ERPA being evacuated to the boundary of the Evacuation Region and thence out of the EPZ.
| |
| * Routing of 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 present a map showing the general population and school reception centers 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 school receiving locations 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.
| |
| R.E. Ginna Nuclear Power Plant 101 KLD Engineering, P.C.
| |
| Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 1
| |
| | |
| Figure 101. General Population Reception Centers and School Receiving Locations R.E. Ginna Nuclear Power Plant 102 KLD Engineering, P.C.
| |
| Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 1
| |
| | |
| Figure 102. Evacuation Route Map R.E. Ginna 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.
| |
| R.E. Ginna 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. The Counties have developed procedures to confirm evacuation. To assist the confirmation process, the Ginna Emergency Planning Calendar contains a Notification Sign that the members of the household are instructed to place in a window visible from the street, so law enforcement personnel will know that they have left home.1 Detailed below is a complementary approach for confirming evacuation, which could be utilized as needed.
| |
| The suggested procedure employs a stratified random sample and a telephone survey. The size of the sample is dependent on the expected number of households that do not comply with the Advisory to Evacuate. It is reasonable to assume, for the purpose of estimating sample size that at least 80 percent of the population within the EPZ will comply with the Advisory to Evacuate.
| |
| On this basis, an analysis could be undertaken (see Table 121) to yield an estimated sample size of approximately 300.
| |
| The confirmation process should start at about 2 hours and 15 minutes after the Advisory to Evacuate, which is when approximately 90 percent of evacuees have completed their mobilization activities (see Table 59). 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 ERPAs), then the confirmation process will extend over a timeframe of about 75 minutes. Thus, the confirmation should be completed before the evacuated area is cleared. Of course, fewer people would be needed for this survey if the Evacuation Region were only a portion of the EPZ. Use of modern automated computer controlled dialing equipment or other technologies (e.g., reverse 911 or equivalent) can significantly reduce the manpower requirements and the time required to undertake this type of confirmation survey.
| |
| If this method is indeed used by the offsite agencies, consideration should be given to maintain a list of telephone numbers within the EPZ in the EOC at all times. Such a list could be purchased from vendors and could be periodically updated. As indicated above, the confirmation process should not begin until 2 hours and 15 minutes after the Advisory to Evacuate, to ensure that households have had enough time to mobilize. This 2 hours and 15 minutes timeframe will enable telephone operators to arrive at their workplace, obtain a call list and prepare to make the necessary phone calls.
| |
| Should the number of telephone responses (i.e., people still at home) exceed 20 percent, then the telephone survey should be repeated after an hour's interval until the confirmation process is completed.
| |
| 1 Wayne County REP Plan Rev 16, Appendix A Evacuation Plan 2011 R.E. Ginna Nuclear Power Plant 121 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.) = 25,100 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:
| |
| 304 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 = 215.
| |
| 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 R.E. Ginna Nuclear Power Plant 122 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.
| |
| R.E. Ginna 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.
| |
| R.E. Ginna 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.
| |
| R.E. Ginna 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 R.E. Ginna 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.
| |
| R.E. Ginna 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.
| |
| R.E. Ginna 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 R.E. Ginna 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 R.E. Ginna 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 R.E. Ginna 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 R.E. Ginna 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 R.E. Ginna 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.
| |
| R.E. Ginna 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 R.E. Ginna 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 R.E. Ginna 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.
| |
| R.E. Ginna 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.
| |
| R.E. Ginna 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 R.E. Ginna 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 R.E. Ginna 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:
| |
| R.E. Ginna 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 R.E. Ginna 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.
| |
| R.E. Ginna 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)
| |
| R.E. Ginna 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.
| |
| R.E. Ginna 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. Data for employees, transients, schools, and other facilities were obtained from local emergency management agencies.
| |
| Step 3 A kickoff meeting was conducted with major stakeholders (state and local emergency managers, onsite and offsite utility emergency managers, local and state law enforcement agencies). The purpose of the kickoff meeting was to present an overview of the work effort, identify key agency personnel, and indicate the data requirements for the study. Specific requests for information were presented to local emergency managers. Unique features of the study area were discussed to identify the local concerns that should be addressed by the ETE study.
| |
| Step 4 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 the average number of evacuating vehicles used by each household, and the time required to perform preevacuation mobilization activities.
| |
| R.E. Ginna Nuclear Power Plant D1 KLD Engineering, P.C.
| |
| Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 1
| |
| | |
| 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 16 ERPAs. Based on wind direction and speed, Regions (groupings of ERPA) 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 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.
| |
| R.E. Ginna Nuclear Power Plant D2 KLD Engineering, P.C.
| |
| Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 1
| |
| | |
| 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 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.
| |
| R.E. Ginna Nuclear Power Plant D3 KLD Engineering, P.C.
| |
| Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 1
| |
| | |
| 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.
| |
| R.E. Ginna 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 R.E. Ginna 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 August, 2012, for special facilities that are located within the Ginna EPZ. Special facilities are defined as schools, preschools and medical care 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, preschool, medical facility, major employer, recreational area and lodging facility are also provided.
| |
| R.E. Ginna Nuclear Power Plant E1 KLD Engineering, P.C.
| |
| Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 1
| |
| | |
| Table E1. Schools and within the EPZ Distance Dire Enroll ERPA (miles) ction School Name Street Address Municipality Phone ment Staff MONROE COUNTY M1 5.6 WSW Schlegel Road Elementary School 1548 Schlegel Road Webster (585) 2652500 512 77 M4 7.9 SW Spry Middle School 119 South Ave Webster (585) 2656500 1,048 161 M4 7.7 SW State Road Elementary School 1401State Road Webster (585) 8724200 536 69 Klem Road North Elementary M6 8.2 WSW 1015 Klem Road Webster (585) 8721770 534 66 School Klem Road South Elementary M6 8.2 WSW 1025 Klem Road Webster (585) 8721320 533 70 School M6 7.8 WSW Webster Christian School 675 Holt Road Webster (585) 8725150 220 38 M7 9.5 WSW Schroeder High School 875 Ridge Road Webster (585) 6705000 1,504 308 M9 9.2 WSW Thomas High School 800 Five Mile Line Road Webster (585) 6708000 1,388 216 M9 8.8 WSW Willink Middle School 900 Publishers Parkway Webster (585) 6701030 977 163 S.R. 10.9 WSW Dewitt Road Elementary School 722 Dewitt Road Webster (585) 6710710 517 73 Plank Road North Elementary S.R. 11.0 SW 705 Plank Road Penfield (585) 6718858 576 63 School Plank Road South Elementary S.R. 11.1 SW 715 Plank Road Webster (585) 6713190 557 80 School S.R. 12.3 SW Rochester Christian School 260 Embury Road Rochester (585) 6714910 106 20 S.R. 11.0 WSW St Rita's School 1008 Maple Drive Webster (585) 6713132 332 33 Monroe County Subtotals: 9,340 1,437 WAYNE COUNTY 6200 Ontario Center W2 3.8 S James A. Beneway High School Ontario Center (315) 5241050 811 148 Road W2 3.8 S Ontario Elementary School 1730 Ridge Road Ontario Center (315) 5241153 356 194 W2 3.9 S Ontario Primary School 1730 Ridge Road Ontario Center (315) 5241150 347 40 Thomas C. Armstrong Middle 6076 Ontario Center W2 3.9 S Ontario (315) 5241080 549 166 School Road W5 7.9 ESE Wayne Education Center 4440 Ridge Road Williamson (315) 5897900 179 31 W5 7.9 ESE Wayne Finger Lake BOCES 4440 Ridge Road Williamson (315) 3327400 19 7 W5 7.9 ESE Wayne Technical & Career Center 4440 Ridge Road Williamson (315) 5897900 231 44 W5 7.6 ESE Williamson Elementary School 6036 Highland Avenue Williamson (315) 5899668 460 85 W5 7.5 ESE Williamson Middle School 4184 Miller Street Williamson (315) 5899665 325 95 W5 7.3 SE Williamson Senior High School 5891 New York 21 Williamson (315) 5899621 378 100 Marion Central Middle/High W6 9.5 SE 4034 Warner Road Marion (315) 9264228 563 76 School W7 8.2 S Freewill Elementary School 4320 Canandaigua Road Walworth (315) 5241170 314 52 S.R. 11.0 SSE Marion Elementary School 3863 North Main Street Marion (315) 9264256 625 83 Wayne County Subtotals: 5,157 1,121 TOTAL: 14,497 2,558 R.E. Ginna Nuclear Power Plant E2 KLD Engineering, P.C.
| |
| Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 1
| |
| | |
| Table E2. Preschools within the EPZ Distance Dire Enroll ERPA (miles) ction School Name Street Address Municipality Phone ment MONROE COUNTY Webster Early Learning Center M1 6.0 WSW 369 Phillips Road Webster (585) 2169740 82
| |
| & Day Care Railroad Junction School Age M3 7.3 SW 10 May Street Webster (585) 8722160 156 Program Toddler's Workshop Child M3 7.3 SW 12 May Street Webster (585) 8720663 149 Care Webster Presbyterian Church M3 6.5 WSW 550 Webster Road Webster (585) 2659700 21 Preschool M4 6.9 SW Positive Preschool 1460 Ridge Road Webster (585) 2652002 28 M4 7.7 SW Webster Nursery School 59 South Avenue Webster (585) 2652430 43 M6 8.1 WSW Webster KinderCare 856 Holt Road Webster (585) 8726530 140 M6 8.1 WSW YMCA of Greater Rochester 1025 Klem Road Webster (585) 6718414 80 Doodle Bugs! Children's M7 8.3 SW 979 Jackson Road Webster (585) 8722300 176 Centers M7 10.5 SW Webster Montessori School 1310 5 Mile Line Road Webster (585) 3470055 118 M8 10.0 WSW Woodside Nursery School 570 Klem Road Webster (585) 6716757 20 Monroe County Subtotals: 1,013 WAYNE COUNTY W2 4.1 SSE Hop Skip & Jump Preschool 6341 Ontario Center Rd Ontario (315) 5245537 89 Rhyme Tyme Child Care W2 3.8 SSW 944 New York 104 Ontario (315) 5245170 74 Center W2 3.8 SSW The Tot Spot Day Care Center 6225 Slocum Road Ontario (315) 5244264 155 W4 6.6 ESE Raggedy Ann & Andy Day Care 3955 New York 104 Williamson (315) 5899310 22 Lake Ontario Child W5 6.2 ESE 6395 Tuckahoe Road Williamson (315) 5897421 78 Development Wayne County Subtotals: 418 TOTAL: 1,431 R.E. Ginna Nuclear Power Plant E3 KLD Engineering, P.C.
| |
| Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 1
| |
| | |
| Table E3. Medical Facilities within the EPZ Ambul Wheel Bed Dist. Dire Cap Current atory chair ridden ERPA (miles) ction Facility Name Street Address Municipality Phone acity Census Patients Patients Patients MONROE COUNTY Maplewood Nursing M4 7.7 SW 100 Daniel Drive Webster (585) 8721800 74 73 10 63 0 Home M7 9.0 SW Ahepa 67 Apartments 100 Ahepa Circle Webster (585) 8726300 50 50 45 5 0 900 Cherry Ridge M7 9.4 WSW Cherry Ridge Webster (585) 6976700 273 273 206 64 3 Boulevard Quinby Park Senior 1030 Shoecraft M7 9.2 WSW Webster (585) 6711450 49 49 45 4 0 Apartments Road Monroe County Subtotals: 446 445 306 136 3 WAYNE COUNTY Ontario Community 2420 Trimble W1 2.9 SE Ontario (315) 5241970 10 10 7 3 0 Residence Road Pines of Peace Hospice W5 4.5 SSE 2378 Ridge Road Ontario (315) 5242388 2 2 1 1 0 Center Williamson W5 7.1 ESE 4080 Circle Drive Williamson (315) 5898811 7 7 5 2 0 Community Residence Wayne ARC Day 2261 Marion W7 9.8 S Activity Training Walworth (315) 9861630 28 28 19 9 0 Road Program Wayne County Subtotals: 47 47 32 15 0 TOTAL: 493 492 338 151 3 R.E. Ginna Nuclear Power Plant E4 KLD Engineering, P.C.
| |
| Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 1
| |
| | |
| Table E4. Major Employers within the EPZ Distance Dire Employees % Non Employees ERPA (miles) ction Facility Name Street Address Municipality Phone (max shift) EPZ (Non EPZ)
| |
| MONROE COUNTY M1 5.4 SW Paychex Inc. 675 Basket Road Webster (585) 2160820 550 50% 275 M3 6.5 SW Xerox Headquarters 800 Phillips Road Webster (585) 4229098 7,500 98% 7,350 M4 8.1 WSW Wegmans 900 Holt Road Webster (585) 8720780 250 10% 25 M7 9.1 WSW Hegedorn's Inc. 964 Ridge Road Webster (585) 6710230 80 25% 20 M7 9.6 WSW Lowe's Home Improvement 900 5 Mile Line Road Webster (585) 7877900 110 25% 28 M7 8.5 WSW Towne Center at Webster 1028 Ridge Road Webster N/A 90 61% 55 M7 9.1 WSW Webster Square 950 Ridge Road Webster N/A 100 50% 50 Monroe County Subtotals: 8,680 7,803 WAYNE COUNTY W1 0.0 S R.E. Ginna Nuclear Power Plant 1503 Lake Road Ontario N/A 450 50% 225 W2 4.4 SW Harbec Inc. 369 New York 104 Ontario (585) 2650010 141 44% 63 W2 4.3 SW Optimax Systems Inc. 6367 Dean Parkway Ontario (585) 2651066 170 44% 75 W2 4.3 SW Vette Corporation 6377 Dean Parkway Ontario (585) 2650330 65 44% 29 W2 4.3 SW Weco Manufacturing 6364 Dean Parkway Ontario (585) 2653000 78 44% 35 W4 7.3 ESE Dr Pepper Snapple Group 4363 New York 104 Williamson (315) 5892011 353 44% 156 W4 7.5 ESE R Brooks Associates Inc 6546 Pound Road Williamson (315) 5894000 69 44% 31 Wayne County Subtotals: 1,326 614 TOTAL: 10,006 8,417 R.E. Ginna Nuclear Power Plant E5 KLD Engineering, P.C.
| |
| Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 1
| |
| | |
| Table E5. Recreational Attractions within the EPZ Distance Dire ERPA (miles) ction Facility Name Street Address Municipality Phone Transients Vehicles MONROE COUNTY M1 4.8 WSW Irving R. Kent Park 1700 Schlegel Road Webster (585) 8722911 105 41 M1 4.9 WSW Webster East Golf Course 440 Salt Road Webster (585) 2651708 20 8 M3 6.7 WSW Webster Recreation Center 1350 Chiyoda Drive Webster (585) 8722911 114 45 M4 8.0 SW Milton R. Case Park South Avenue Webster (585) 8722911 6 2 M4 8.2 SW Ridgecrest Park 988 Ebner Drive Webster (585) 8722911 105 41 M6 7.8 WSW North Ponds Park 750 Holt Road Webster (585) 8727103 90 35 M6 7.3 W Webster County Park 255 Holt Road Webster (585) 8720083 272 91 M7 8.7 WSW Ridge Park 1000 Ridge Road Webster (585) 8722911 108 42 M8 9.9 WSW Vosburg Road Park Vosburg Road Webster (585) 8722911 30 12 M8 8.4 WSW Whiting Road Park Whiting Road Webster (585) 8722911 45 18 Monroe County Subtotals: 895 335 WAYNE COUNTY W2 4.7 SSE The Brookwoods Country Club 2101 Country Club Lane Ontario (315) 5247184 90 36 W3 6.2 E Pultneyville Marina 7539 Lake Avenue Pultneyville (315) 5898922 259 101 Hughes Marina/Anchor W4 8.3 E 5003 Lake Road Williamson (315) 5892752 8 3 Campsites W7 7.9 S Greystone Golf Club 1400 Atlantic Avenue Walworth (585) 2344653 130 51 Wayne County Subtotals: 487 191 TOTAL: 1,382 526 R.E. Ginna Nuclear Power Plant E6 KLD Engineering, P.C.
| |
| Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 1
| |
| | |
| Table E6. Lodging Facilities within the EPZ Distance Dire ERPA (miles) ction Facility Name Street Address Municipality Phone Transients Vehicles MONROE COUNTY Hampton Inn M6 8.8 WSW 878 Hard Road Webster (585) 6712050 180 90 Rochester/Webster Holiday Inn Express Hotel &
| |
| M6 8.1 WSW 860 Holt Road Webster (585) 8720900 208 104 Suites Webster M7 8.9 WSW Fairfield inn 915 Hard Road Webster (585) 6711500 126 63 Monroe County Subtotals: 514 257 WAYNE COUNTY W2 3.9 SSW Cornerstone Inn 6270 Lakeside Road Ontario (315) 5245024 46 23 W2 4.4 SW Ontario Motel 440 State Route 104 Ontario (585) 2651881 120 60 W2 3.5 SSE The Twin Rock Motel 1785 New York 104 Ontario (315) 5246411 40 20 Wayne County Subtotals: 206 103 TOTAL: 720 360 R.E. Ginna Nuclear Power Plant E7 KLD Engineering, P.C.
| |
| Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 1
| |
| | |
| Figure E1. Monroe County Schools within the EPZ R.E. Ginna Nuclear Power Plant E8 KLD Engineering, P.C.
| |
| Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 1
| |
| | |
| Figure E2. Wayne County Schools within the EPZ R.E. Ginna Nuclear Power Plant E9 KLD Engineering, P.C.
| |
| Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 1
| |
| | |
| Figure E3. Preschools within the EPZ R.E. Ginna Nuclear Power Plant E10 KLD Engineering, P.C.
| |
| Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 1
| |
| | |
| Figure E4. Medical Facilities within the EPZ R.E. Ginna Nuclear Power Plant E11 KLD Engineering, P.C.
| |
| Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 1
| |
| | |
| Figure E5. Major Employers within the EPZ R.E. Ginna Nuclear Power Plant E12 KLD Engineering, P.C.
| |
| Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 1
| |
| | |
| Figure E6. Recreational Areas within the EPZ R.E. Ginna Nuclear Power Plant E13 KLD Engineering, P.C.
| |
| Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 1
| |
| | |
| Figure E7. Lodging within the EPZ R.E. Ginna Nuclear Power Plant E14 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 Ginna 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 ?)
| |
| R.E. Ginna 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.1 Following the completion of the instrument, a sampling plan was developed. A sample size of approximately 500 completed survey forms yields results with a sampling error of +/-4.5% at the 95% confidence level. The sample must be drawn from the EPZ population. Consequently, a list of zip codes in 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 a close approximation of 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. R.E. Ginna Nuclear Power Plant Telephone Survey Sampling Plan Population within Required Zip Code EPZ (2010) Households Sample 14450 341 112 2 14502 1,358 511 10 14505 1,962 723 14 14519 11,254 4,397 87 14526 688 253 5 14551 14 6 0 14568 2,479 946 19 14580 38,679 15,265 305 14589 7,334 2,921 58 Total 64,109 25,134 500 Average Household Size 2.55 1
| |
| Wayne and Monroe County Emergency Planners requested that several additional questions be added to the telephone survey, in order to provide specific information that would be useful to them but that is not required for the calculation of ETE. The results from these supplementary questions were documented in a separate memo.
| |
| R.E. Ginna 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 2.56 people. The estimated household size (2.55 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.
| |
| Ginna Household Size 50%
| |
| 40%
| |
| % of Households 30%
| |
| 20%
| |
| 10%
| |
| 0%
| |
| 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Household Size Figure F1. Household Size in the EPZ R.E. Ginna 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 2.00. It should be noted that approximately 1.4 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.
| |
| Ginna 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 R.E. Ginna Nuclear Power Plant F4 KLD Engineering, P.C.
| |
| Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 1
| |
| | |
| Distribution of Vehicles by HH Size 15 Person Households 1 Person 2 People 3 People 4 People 5 People 100%
| |
| 80%
| |
| % of Households 60%
| |
| 40%
| |
| 20%
| |
| 0%
| |
| 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9+
| |
| Vehicles Figure F3. Vehicle Availability 1 to 5 Person Households Distribution of Vehicles by HH Size 69+ Person Households 6 People 7 People 8 People 9+ People 100%
| |
| 80%
| |
| % of Households 60%
| |
| 40%
| |
| 20%
| |
| 0%
| |
| 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9+
| |
| Vehicles Figure F4. Vehicle Availability 6 to 9+ Person Households R.E. Ginna Nuclear Power Plant F5 KLD Engineering, P.C.
| |
| Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 1
| |
| | |
| Ridesharing 75% of the households surveyed (who do not own a vehicle) responded that they would share a ride with a neighbor, relative, or friend if a car was not available to them when advised to evacuate in the event of an emergency. Note, however, that only those households with no access to a vehicle - 8 total out of the sample size of 500 - answered this question. Thus, the results are not statistically significant. As such, the NRC recommendation of 50% ridesharing is used throughout this study. Figure F5 presents this response.
| |
| Ginna Rideshare with Neighbor/Friend 100%
| |
| 80%
| |
| % of Households 60%
| |
| 40%
| |
| 20%
| |
| 0%
| |
| Yes No Figure F5. Household Ridesharing Preference R.E. Ginna Nuclear Power Plant F6 KLD Engineering, P.C.
| |
| Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 1
| |
| | |
| Commuters Figure F6 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 1.14 commuters in each household in the EPZ, and 65% of households have at least one commuter.
| |
| Ginna Commuters 50%
| |
| 40%
| |
| % of Households 30%
| |
| 20%
| |
| 10%
| |
| 0%
| |
| 0 1 2 3 4+
| |
| Number of Commuters Figure F6. Commuters in Households in the EPZ R.E. Ginna Nuclear Power Plant F7 KLD Engineering, P.C.
| |
| Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 1
| |
| | |
| Commuter Travel Modes Figure F7 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 1.08 employees per vehicle, assuming 2 people per vehicle - on average - for carpools.
| |
| Ginna Travel Mode to Work 100% 90.3%
| |
| 80%
| |
| % of Commuters 60%
| |
| 40%
| |
| 20%
| |
| 7.5%
| |
| 0.0% 0.9% 1.3%
| |
| 0%
| |
| Rail Bus Walk/Bike Drive Alone Carpool (2+)
| |
| Mode of Travel Figure F7. 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 F8. On average, evacuating households would use 1.33 vehicles.
| |
| Would your family await the return of other family members prior to evacuating the area?
| |
| Of the survey participants who responded, 34 percent said they would await the return of other family members before evacuating and 66 percent indicated that they would not await the return of other family members.
| |
| What would you do with your pet(s) if you had to evacuate? Based on the responses to the survey, 44 percent of households do not have a family pet. Of the households with pets, 45 percent would take their pets to a public assembly center or shelter, 43 percent would take their pets somewhere else and 11 percent would not take their pets, as shown in Figure F9.
| |
| R.E. Ginna Nuclear Power Plant F8 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 F8. Number of Vehicles Used for Evacuation Households Evacuating with Pets 100%
| |
| 80%
| |
| % of Households 60%
| |
| 40%
| |
| 20%
| |
| 0%
| |
| Take it with me to a Take it with me Leave it at home public assembly center somewhere else or shelter Figure F9. Households Evacuating with Pets R.E. Ginna Nuclear Power Plant F9 KLD Engineering, P.C.
| |
| Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 1
| |
| | |
| Emergency officials advise you to take shelter at home in an emergency. Would you? This question is designed to elicit information regarding compliance with instructions to shelter in place. The results indicate that 75 percent of households who are advised to shelter in place would do so; the remaining 25 percent would choose to evacuate the area. Note the baseline ETE study assumes 20 percent of households will not comply with the shelter advisory, as per Section 2.5.2 of NUREG/CR7002. Thus, the data obtained above is in good agreement with the federal guidance.
| |
| Emergency officials advise you to take shelter at home now in an emergency and possibly evacuate later while people in other areas are advised to evacuate now. Would you? This question is designed to elicit information specifically related to the possibility of a staged evacuation. That is, asking a population to shelter in place now and then to evacuate after a specified period of time. Results indicate that 68 percent of households would follow instructions and delay the start of evacuation until so advised, while the balance of 32 percent would choose to begin evacuating immediately.
| |
| F.3.3 Time Distribution Results The survey asked several questions about the amount of time it takes to perform certain pre evacuation activities. These activities involve actions taken by residents during the course of their 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.
| |
| R.E. Ginna Nuclear Power Plant F10 KLD Engineering, P.C.
| |
| Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 1
| |
| | |
| How long does it take the commuter to complete preparation for leaving work? Figure F10 presents the cumulative distribution; in all cases, the activity is completed by about 75 minutes.
| |
| Ninety percent can leave within 30 minutes.
| |
| Time to Prepare to Leave Work 100%
| |
| 80%
| |
| % of Commuters 60%
| |
| 40%
| |
| 20%
| |
| 0%
| |
| 0 15 30 45 60 75 Preparation Time (min)
| |
| Figure F10. Time Required to Prepare to Leave Work/School How long would it take the commuter to travel home? Figure F11 presents the work to home travel time for the EPZ. About 90 percent of commuters can arrive home within about 35 minutes of leaving work; all within 60 minutes.
| |
| Work to Home Travel 100%
| |
| 80%
| |
| % of Commuters 60%
| |
| 40%
| |
| 20%
| |
| 0%
| |
| 0 15 30 45 60 Travel Time (min)
| |
| Figure F11. Work to Home Travel Time R.E. Ginna Nuclear Power Plant F11 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 F12 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 F12 has a long tail. About 87 percent of households can be ready to leave home within 60 minutes; the remaining households require up to an additional hour and a half.
| |
| Time to Prepare to Leave Home 100%
| |
| 80%
| |
| % of Households 60%
| |
| 40%
| |
| 20%
| |
| 0%
| |
| 0 30 60 90 120 150 Preparation Time (min)
| |
| Figure F12. Time to Prepare Home for Evacuation R.E. Ginna Nuclear Power Plant F12 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 F13 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 88 percent of driveways are passable within 30 minutes. The last driveway is cleared 135 minutes after the start of this activity. Note that those respondents (56%) who answered that they would not take time to clear their driveway were assumed to be ready immediately at the start of this activity. Essentially they would drive through the snow on the driveway to access the roadway and begin their evacuation trip.
| |
| Time to Remove Snow from Driveway 100%
| |
| 80%
| |
| % of Households 60%
| |
| 40%
| |
| 20%
| |
| 0%
| |
| 0 15 30 45 60 75 90 105 120 135 Travel Time (min)
| |
| Figure F13. 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.
| |
| R.E. Ginna Nuclear Power Plant F13 KLD Engineering, P.C.
| |
| Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 1
| |
| | |
| ATTACHMENT A Telephone Survey Instrument R.E. Ginna Nuclear Power Plant F14 KLD Engineering, P.C.
| |
| Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 1
| |
| | |
| Telephone Survey Instrument Hello, my name is ___________ and Im working on a survey for COL. 1 Unused your county emergency management agency to identify local COL. 2 Unused behavior during emergency situations. This information will be COL. 3 Unused used for emergency planning and will be shared with local officials COL. 4 Unused to enhance emergency response plans in your area for all hazards, some of which may require evacuation. Your responses will greatly COL. 5 Unused contribute to local emergency preparedness. I will not ask for your Sex COL. 8 name or any personal information, and the survey will take less 1 Male than 10 minutes to complete. 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. 911 1B. Record exchange number. To Be Determined COL. 1214 2A. What is your home zip code? (DO NOT READ COL. 15 ANSWERS) 14450 1 14502 2 14505 3 14519 4 14526 5 14568 6 14580 7 14589 8 All Other Zip Codes or Dont Know/Refused Out of Study Area - Terminate Call 3A. In total, how many running cars, or other COL. 20 SKIP TO vehicles are usually available to the household? 1 ONE Q. 4 (DO NOT READ ANSWERS) 2 TWO Q. 4 3 THREE Q. 4 4 FOUR Q. 4 5 FIVE Q. 4 6 SIX Q. 4 7 SEVEN Q. 4 8 EIGHT Q. 4 9 NINE OR MORE Q. 4 R.E. Ginna Nuclear Power Plant 15 KLD Engineering, P.C.
| |
| Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 1
| |
| | |
| 0 ZERO (NONE) Q. 3B X DONT KNOW/REFUSED Q. 3B 3B. In an emergency, could you get a ride out of the COL. 21 area with a neighbor or friend? 1 YES 2 NO X DONT KNOW/REFUSED
| |
| : 4. How many people usually live in this household? COL. 22 COL. 23 (DO NOT READ ANSWERS) 1 ONE 0 TEN 2 TWO 1 ELEVEN 3 THREE 2 TWELVE 4 FOUR 3 THIRTEEN 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 DONT KNOW/REFUSED
| |
| : 5. How many people in the household commute to a COL. 24 SKIP TO job, or to college on a daily basis? 0 ZERO Q. 9 1 ONE Q. 6 2 TWO Q. 6 3 THREE Q. 6 4 FOUR OR MORE Q. 6 5 DONT KNOW/REFUSED Q. 9 INTERVIEWER: For each person identified in Question 5, ask Questions 6, 7, and 8.
| |
| : 6. Thinking about commuter #1, how does that person usually travel to work or college? (REPEAT QUESTION FOR EACH COMMUTER)
| |
| Commuter #1 Commuter #2 Commuter #3 Commuter #4 COL. 25 COL. 26 COL. 27 COL. 28 Bus 2 2 2 2 Walk/Bicycle 3 3 3 3 Drive Alone 4 4 4 4 Carpool2 or more people 5 5 5 5 Dont know/Refused 6 6 6 6
| |
| : 7. How much time on average, would it take Commuter #1 to travel home from work or college? (REPEAT QUESTION FOR EACH COMMUTER) (DO NOT READ ANSWERS)
| |
| COMMUTER #1 COMMUTER #2 R.E. Ginna Nuclear Power Plant 16 KLD Engineering, P.C.
| |
| Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 1
| |
| | |
| COL. 29 COL. 30 COL. 31 COL. 32 1 5 MINUTES OR LESS 1 4650 MINUTES 1 5 MINUTES OR LESS 1 4650 MINUTES 2 610 MINUTES 2 5155 MINUTES 2 610 MINUTES 2 5155 MINUTES 3 1115 MINUTES 3 56 - 1 HOUR 3 1115 MINUTES 3 56 - 1 HOUR OVER 1 HOUR, BUT OVER 1 HOUR, BUT 4 1620 MINUTES 4 LESS THAN 1 HOUR 15 4 1620 MINUTES 4 LESS THAN 1 HOUR MINUTES 15 MINUTES BETWEEN 1 HOUR 16 BETWEEN 1 HOUR 16 5 2125 MINUTES 5 MINUTES AND 1 HOUR 5 2125 MINUTES 5 MINUTES AND 1 30 MINUTES HOUR 30 MINUTES BETWEEN 1 HOUR 31 BETWEEN 1 HOUR 31 6 2630 MINUTES 6 MINUTES AND 1 HOUR 6 2630 MINUTES 6 MINUTES AND 1 45 MINUTES HOUR 45 MINUTES BETWEEN 1 HOUR 46 BETWEEN 1 HOUR 46 7 3135 MINUTES 7 MINUTES AND 2 7 3135 MINUTES 7 MINUTES AND 2 HOURS HOURS OVER 2 HOURS OVER 2 HOURS 8 3640 MINUTES 8 8 3640 MINUTES 8 (SPECIFY ______) (SPECIFY ______)
| |
| 9 4145 MINUTES 9 9 4145 MINUTES 9 0 0 DONT KNOW DONT KNOW X X
| |
| /REFUSED /REFUSED R.E. Ginna Nuclear Power Plant 17 KLD Engineering, P.C.
| |
| Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 1
| |
| | |
| COMMUTER #3 COMMUTER #4 COL. 33 COL. 34 COL. 35 COL. 36 1 5 MINUTES OR LESS 1 4650 MINUTES 1 5 MINUTES OR LESS 1 4650 MINUTES 2 610 MINUTES 2 5155 MINUTES 2 610 MINUTES 2 5155 MINUTES 3 1115 MINUTES 3 56 - 1 HOUR 3 1115 MINUTES 3 56 - 1 HOUR OVER 1 HOUR, BUT OVER 1 HOUR, BUT 4 1620 MINUTES 4 LESS THAN 1 HOUR 15 4 1620 MINUTES 4 LESS THAN 1 HOUR MINUTES 15 MINUTES BETWEEN 1 HOUR 16 BETWEEN 1 HOUR 16 5 2125 MINUTES 5 MINUTES AND 1 HOUR 5 2125 MINUTES 5 MINUTES AND 1 30 MINUTES HOUR 30 MINUTES BETWEEN 1 HOUR 31 BETWEEN 1 HOUR 31 6 2630 MINUTES 6 MINUTES AND 1 HOUR 6 2630 MINUTES 6 MINUTES AND 1 45 MINUTES HOUR 45 MINUTES BETWEEN 1 HOUR 46 BETWEEN 1 HOUR 46 7 3135 MINUTES 7 MINUTES AND 2 7 3135 MINUTES 7 MINUTES AND 2 HOURS HOURS OVER 2 HOURS OVER 2 HOURS 8 3640 MINUTES 8 8 3640 MINUTES 8 (SPECIFY ______) (SPECIFY ______)
| |
| 9 4145 MINUTES 9 9 4145 MINUTES 9 0 0 DONT KNOW DONT KNOW X X
| |
| /REFUSED /REFUSED
| |
| : 8. Approximately how much time does it take Commuter #1 to complete preparation for leaving work or college prior to starting the trip home? (REPEAT QUESTION FOR EACH COMMUTER) (DO NOT READ ANSWERS)
| |
| COMMUTER #1 COMMUTER #2 COL. 37 COL. 38 COL. 39 COL. 40 1 5 MINUTES OR LESS 1 4650 MINUTES 1 5 MINUTES OR LESS 1 4650 MINUTES 2 610 MINUTES 2 5155 MINUTES 2 610 MINUTES 2 5155 MINUTES 3 1115 MINUTES 3 56 - 1 HOUR 3 1115 MINUTES 3 56 - 1 HOUR OVER 1 HOUR, BUT OVER 1 HOUR, BUT 4 1620 MINUTES 4 LESS THAN 1 HOUR 15 4 1620 MINUTES 4 LESS THAN 1 HOUR MINUTES 15 MINUTES BETWEEN 1 HOUR 16 BETWEEN 1 HOUR 16 5 2125 MINUTES 5 MINUTES AND 1 HOUR 5 2125 MINUTES 5 MINUTES AND 1 30 MINUTES HOUR 30 MINUTES BETWEEN 1 HOUR 31 BETWEEN 1 HOUR 31 6 2630 MINUTES 6 MINUTES AND 1 HOUR 6 2630 MINUTES 6 MINUTES AND 1 45 MINUTES HOUR 45 MINUTES BETWEEN 1 HOUR 46 BETWEEN 1 HOUR 46 7 3135 MINUTES 7 MINUTES AND 2 7 3135 MINUTES 7 MINUTES AND 2 HOURS HOURS OVER 2 HOURS OVER 2 HOURS 8 3640 MINUTES 8 8 3640 MINUTES 8 (SPECIFY ______) (SPECIFY ______)
| |
| 9 4145 MINUTES 9 9 4145 MINUTES 9 0 0 R.E. Ginna Nuclear Power Plant 18 KLD Engineering, P.C.
| |
| Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 1
| |
| | |
| X DONT KNOW /REFUSED X DONT KNOW /REFUSED COMMUTER #3 COMMUTER #4 COL. 41 COL. 42 COL. 43 COL. 44 1 5 MINUTES OR LESS 1 4650 MINUTES 1 5 MINUTES OR LESS 1 4650 MINUTES 2 610 MINUTES 2 5155 MINUTES 2 610 MINUTES 2 5155 MINUTES 3 1115 MINUTES 3 56 - 1 HOUR 3 1115 MINUTES 3 56 - 1 HOUR OVER 1 HOUR, BUT OVER 1 HOUR, BUT LESS 4 1620 MINUTES 4 LESS THAN 1 HOUR 15 4 1620 MINUTES 4 THAN 1 HOUR 15 MINUTES MINUTES BETWEEN 1 HOUR 16 BETWEEN 1 HOUR 16 5 2125 MINUTES 5 MINUTES AND 1 HOUR 5 2125 MINUTES 5 MINUTES AND 1 HOUR 30 30 MINUTES MINUTES BETWEEN 1 HOUR 31 BETWEEN 1 HOUR 31 6 2630 MINUTES 6 MINUTES AND 1 HOUR 6 2630 MINUTES 6 MINUTES AND 1 HOUR 45 45 MINUTES MINUTES BETWEEN 1 HOUR 46 BETWEEN 1 HOUR 46 7 3135 MINUTES 7 MINUTES AND 2 7 3135 MINUTES 7 MINUTES AND 2 HOURS HOURS OVER 2 HOURS OVER 2 HOURS (SPECIFY 8 3640 MINUTES 8 8 3640 MINUTES 8 (SPECIFY ______) ______)
| |
| 9 4145 MINUTES 9 9 4145 MINUTES 9 0 0 X DONT KNOW /REFUSED X DONT KNOW /REFUSED
| |
| : 9. If you were advised by local authorities to evacuate, how much time would it take the household to pack clothing, medications, secure the house, load the car, and complete preparations prior to evacuating the area? (DO NOT READ ANSWERS)
| |
| COL. 45 COL. 46 1 LESS THAN 15 MINUTES 1 3 HOURS TO 3 HOURS 15 MINUTES 2 1530 MINUTES 2 3 HOURS 16 MINUTES TO 3 HOURS 30 MINUTES 3 3145 MINUTES 3 3 HOURS 31 MINUTES TO 3 HOURS 45 MINUTES 4 46 MINUTES - 1 HOUR 4 3 HOURS 46 MINUTES TO 4 HOURS 5 1 HOUR TO 1 HOUR 15 MINUTES 5 4 HOURS TO 4 HOURS 15 MINUTES 6 1 HOUR 16 MINUTES TO 1 HOUR 30 MINUTES 6 4 HOURS 16 MINUTES TO 4 HOURS 30 MINUTES 7 1 HOUR 31 MINUTES TO 1 HOUR 45 MINUTES 7 4 HOURS 31 MINUTES TO 4 HOURS 45 MINUTES 8 1 HOUR 46 MINUTES TO 2 HOURS 8 4 HOURS 46 MINUTES TO 5 HOURS 9 2 HOURS TO 2 HOURS 15 MINUTES 9 5 HOURS TO 5 HOURS 30 MINUTES 0 2 HOURS 16 MINUTES TO 2 HOURS 30 MINUTES 0 5 HOURS 31 MINUTES TO 6 HOURS X 2 HOURS 31 MINUTES TO 2 HOURS 45 MINUTES X OVER 6 HOURS (SPECIFY _______)
| |
| Y 2 HOURS 46 MINUTES TO 3 HOURS Z WILL NOT EVACUATE COL. 47 1 DONT KNOW/REFUSED R.E. Ginna Nuclear Power Plant 19 KLD Engineering, P.C.
| |
| Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 1
| |
| | |
| 10 If there is 68 of snow on your driveway or curb, would you need to shovel out to evacuate? If yes, how
| |
| . much time, on average, would it take you to clear the 68 of snow to move the car from the driveway or curb to begin the evacuation trip? Assume the roads are passable. (DO NOT READ RESPONSES)
| |
| COL. 48 COL. 49 1 LESS THAN 15 MINUTES 1 OVER 3 HOURS (SPECIFY _______)
| |
| 2 1530 MINUTES 2 DONT KNOW/REFUSED 3 3145 MINUTES 4 46 MINUTES - 1 HOUR 5 1 HOUR TO 1 HOUR 15 MINUTES 6 1 HOUR 16 MINUTES TO 1 HOUR 30 MINUTES 7 1 HOUR 31 MINUTES TO 1 HOUR 45 MINUTES 8 1 HOUR 46 MINUTES TO 2 HOURS 9 2 HOURS TO 2 HOURS 15 MINUTES 0 2 HOURS 16 MINUTES TO 2 HOURS 30 MINUTES X 2 HOURS 31 MINUTES TO 2 HOURS 45 MINUTES Y 2 HOURS 46 MINUTES TO 3 HOURS Z NO, WILL NOT SHOVEL OUT
| |
| : 11. Please choose one of the following (READ COL. 50 ANSWERS): 1 A A. I would await the return of household commuters to evacuate together. 2 B B. I would evacuate independently and meet X DONT KNOW/REFUSED other household members later.
| |
| : 12. How many vehicles would your household use during an evacuation? (DO NOT READ ANSWERS)
| |
| COL. 51 1 ONE 2 TWO 3 THREE 4 FOUR 5 FIVE 6 SIX 7 SEVEN 8 EIGHT 9 NINE OR MORE 0 ZERO (NONE)
| |
| X DONT KNOW/REFUSED R.E. Ginna Nuclear Power Plant 20 KLD Engineering, P.C.
| |
| Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 1
| |
| | |
| 13A. Emergency officials advise you to COL. 52 shelterinplace in an emergency 1 A because you are not in the area of risk.
| |
| 2 B Would you: (READ ANSWERS)
| |
| X DONT KNOW/REFUSED A. SHELTERINPLACE; or B. EVACUATE 13B. Emergency officials advise you to COL. 53 shelterinplace now in an emergency 1 A and possibly evacuate later while 2 B people in other areas are advised to evacuate now. Would you: (READ X DONT KNOW/REFUSED ANSWERS)
| |
| A. SHELTERINPLACE; or B. EVACUATE 13C. Emergency officials advise you to evacuate in an emergency. Where would you evacuate to?:
| |
| (DO NOT READ ANSWERS)
| |
| COL 54 1 A RELATIVES OR FRIENDS HOME (Go to Question 14) 2 A RECEPTION CENTER (Go to Question 13D) 3 A HOTEL, MOTEL OR CAMPGROUND (Go to Question 14) 4 A SECOND/SEASONAL HOME (Go to Question 14) 5 OTHER (specify) (Go to Question 14) 6 WOULD NOT EVACUATE (Go to Question 14)
| |
| X DONT KNOW REFUSED (Go to Question 14) 13D. After the Reception Center, do you plan on COL. 55 going to a Red Cross Shelter? 1 YES 2 NO X DONT KNOW/REFUSED 14A. What type of pets do you have, and how many of each type? (DO NOT READ ANSWERS)
| |
| COL 5660 COL 61: (For species listed in COL 56 list number of pets) 1 DOG COL 62: (For species listed in COL 57 list number of pets) 2 CAT COL 63: (For species listed in COL 58 list number of pets) 3 OTHER SMALL MAMMAL COL 64: (For species listed in COL 59 list number of pets) 4 BIRD COL 65: (For species listed in COL 60 list number of pets) 5 REPTILE 6 HORSE 7 FISH 8 OTHER (Specify) 9 NO PETS (Go To End of Survey)
| |
| X DONT KNOW/REFUSED R.E. Ginna Nuclear Power Plant 21 KLD Engineering, P.C.
| |
| Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 1
| |
| | |
| 14B. What would you do with your pet(s) if you had to evacuate? (READ ANSWERS)
| |
| COL. 66 1 TAKE IT WITH ME TO A SHELTER 2 TAKE IT WITH ME SOMEWHERE ELSE 3 LEAVE IT AT HOME X DONT KNOW/REFUSED Thank you very much. _______________________________
| |
| (TELEPHONE NUMBER CALLED)
| |
| IF REQUESTED:
| |
| For additional information, contact your County Emergency Management Agency during normal business hours.
| |
| County EMA Phone Wayne (315) 9465663 County Monroe (585) 7533810 County R.E. Ginna Nuclear Power Plant 22 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 TCPs were modeled accordingly.
| |
| G.1 Traffic Control Points As discussed in Section 9, traffic control points at intersections (which are controlled) are modeled as actuated signals. If an intersection has a pretimed signal, stop, or yield control, and the intersection is identified as a traffic control point, the control type was changed to an actuated signal in the DYNEV II system. Table 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 Traffic Control Point, the control type is indicated as TCP in Table K2.
| |
| Figure G1 maps the TCPs identified in the county emergency plans. These TCPS are concentrated along ERPA boundaries and major intersections within the EPZ which were identified as the congested areas/roadways in Section 7.3. Theses TCPs would be manned during evacuation by traffic guides who would direct evacuees As discussed in Section 7.3, the animation of evacuation traffic conditions indicates several critical intersections which could be bottlenecks during evacuation. These critical intersections were crosschecked with the EPZ county emergency plans. All of the intersections, except two -
| |
| Shoecraft Road and State Road, and Shoecraft Road and Plank Road in Monroe County - were identified as TCPs in the county plan. As these are two of the last congested intersections to clear, the county may want to consider these intersection as TCPs.
| |
| Figure G2 and Figure G3 show the schematics for these TCPs, in case Monroe County should decide to add them to the traffic control plans. Both intersections are allway stops, a type of control that is not designed for high traffic volume. The use of a control officer facilitates the movement of traffic out of the EPZ and increases the vehicle flow rate on the feeder roadways.
| |
| G.2 Access Control Points It is assumed that ACPs will be established within 2 hours of the advisory to evacuate to discourage through travelers from using major through routes which traverse the EPZ. As discussed in Section 3.7, external traffic was only considered on three routes which traverse the study area - SR 104, I590 and I490 - in this analysis. The generation of these external trips ceased at 2 hours after the advisory to evacuate in the simulation.
| |
| According to the countys emergency plans, the access control points will be manned after the advisory to evacuate has been given. It is recommended that ACPs along the three aforementioned routes be the top priority in assigning manpower and equipment as they are R.E. Ginna Nuclear Power Plant G1 KLD Engineering, P.C.
| |
| Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 1
| |
| | |
| the major routes entering the EPZ, which will typically carry the highest volume of through traffic.
| |
| R.E. Ginna Nuclear Power Plant G2 KLD Engineering, P.C.
| |
| Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 1
| |
| | |
| Figure G1. Traffic Control Points for the R.E. Ginna Nuclear Power Plant R.E. Ginna Nuclear Power Plant G3 KLD Engineering, P.C.
| |
| Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 1
| |
| | |
| Key MOVEMENT FACILITATED MUNICIPALITY: Webster, NY TCP MOVEMENT DISCOURAGED/DIVERTED LOCATION: Shoecraft Road & State Road TRAFFIC GUIDE 2 ft ID: 1 STOP SIGN ERPA: M-7 Shoecraft Rd 3 ft TRAFFIC BARRICADE 2 PER LANE (LOCAL ROADS AND RAMPS) 4 PER LANE (FREEWAY AND RAMPS)
| |
| TRAFFIC SIGNAL TRAFFIC CONES SPACED TO DISCOURAGE TRAFFIC BUT ALLOW PASSAGE (3 PER LANE):
| |
| 8 ft State Rd ACTIONS TO BE TAKEN
| |
| : 1. Discourage northbound traffic on Bypass Road MANPOWER/EQUIPMENT ESTIMATE 1 Traffic Guide 6 Traffic Cones LOCATION PRIORITY 1
| |
| N
| |
| **Traffic Guide should position himself safely Figure G2. Intersection of Shoecraft Road and State Road R.E. Ginna Nuclear Power Plant G4 KLD Engineering, P.C.
| |
| Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 1
| |
| | |
| Key MOVEMENT FACILITATED MUNICIPALITY: Webster, NY TCP MOVEMENT DISCOURAGED/DIVERTED LOCATION: Shoecraft Road & Plank Road TRAFFIC GUIDE 2 ft ID: 1 STOP SIGN ERPA: M-7 Shoecraft Rd 3 ft TRAFFIC BARRICADE 2 PER LANE (LOCAL ROADS AND RAMPS) 4 PER LANE (FREEWAY AND RAMPS)
| |
| TRAFFIC SIGNAL TRAFFIC CONES SPACED TO DISCOURAGE TRAFFIC BUT ALLOW PASSAGE (3 PER LANE):
| |
| 8 ft ACTIONS TO BE TAKEN
| |
| : 1. Discourage northbound traffic on Bypass Road Plank Rd MANPOWER/EQUIPMENT ESTIMATE 1 Traffic Guide 6 Traffic Cones LOCATION PRIORITY 1
| |
| N
| |
| **Traffic Guide should position himself safely Figure G3. Intersection of Shoecraft Road and Plank Road R.E. Ginna Nuclear Power Plant G5 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.
| |
| R.E. Ginna Nuclear Power Plant H1 KLD Engineering, P.C.
| |
| Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 1
| |
| | |
| Table H1. Percent of ERPA Population Evacuating for Each Region Basic Regions ERPA Region Description Degrees W1 W2 W3 W4 W5 W6 W7 M1 M2 M3 M4 M5 M6 M7 M8 M9 R01 2Mile Region 100% 20% 20% 20% 20% 20% 20% 20% 20% 20% 20% 20% 20% 20% 20% 20%
| |
| R02 5Mile Region 100% 100% 100% 20% 20% 20% 20% 100% 20% 20% 20% 20% 20% 20% 20% 20%
| |
| R03 Full EPZ 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100%
| |
| Evacuate 2Mile Region and Downwind to 5 Miles ERPA Region Wind Direction From: Degrees W1 W2 W3 W4 W5 W6 W7 M1 M2 M3 M4 M5 M6 M7 M8 M9 R04 N 349 to 11 100% 100% 20% 20% 20% 20% 20% 20% 20% 20% 20% 20% 20% 20% 20% 20%
| |
| R05 NNE, NE, ENE 12 to 78 100% 100% 20% 20% 20% 20% 20% 100% 20% 20% 20% 20% 20% 20% 20% 20%
| |
| R06 E, ESE 79 to 124 100% 20% 20% 20% 20% 20% 20% 100% 20% 20% 20% 20% 20% 20% 20% 20%
| |
| SE, SSE, S, SSW, SW 125 to 236 See Region R01 R07 WSW, W 237 to 281 100% 20% 100% 20% 20% 20% 20% 20% 20% 20% 20% 20% 20% 20% 20% 20%
| |
| R08 WNW, NW, NNW 282 to 348 100% 100% 100% 20% 20% 20% 20% 20% 20% 20% 20% 20% 20% 20% 20% 20%
| |
| Evacuate 5Mile Region and Downwind to the EPZ Boundary ERPA Region Wind Direction From: Degrees W1 W2 W3 W4 W5 W6 W7 M1 M2 M3 M4 M5 M6 M7 M8 M9 R09 N 349 to 11 100% 100% 100% 20% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 20% 20% 100% 20% 20% 20% 20%
| |
| R10 NNE 12 to 33 100% 100% 100% 20% 20% 20% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 20% 100% 20% 20%
| |
| R11 NE 34 to 56 100% 100% 100% 20% 20% 20% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100%
| |
| R12 ENE 57 to 78 100% 100% 100% 20% 20% 20% 20% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100%
| |
| R13 E 79 to 101 100% 100% 100% 20% 20% 20% 20% 100% 20% 100% 100% 20% 100% 100% 100% 100%
| |
| R14 ESE 102 to 124 100% 100% 100% 20% 20% 20% 20% 100% 20% 20% 20% 20% 100% 20% 100% 20%
| |
| SE, SSE, S, SSW, SW 125 to 236 See Region R02 R15 WSW 237 to 258 100% 100% 100% 100% 20% 20% 20% 100% 20% 20% 20% 20% 20% 20% 20% 20%
| |
| R16 W 259 to 281 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 20% 20% 100% 20% 20% 20% 20% 20% 20% 20% 20%
| |
| R17 WNW 282 to 303 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 20% 100% 20% 20% 20% 20% 20% 20% 20% 20%
| |
| R18 NW 304 to 326 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 20% 20% 20% 20% 20% 20% 20% 20%
| |
| R19 NNW 327 to 348 100% 100% 100% 20% 100% 100% 100% 100% 20% 20% 20% 20% 20% 20% 20% 20%
| |
| R.E. Ginna Nuclear Power Plant H2 KLD Engineering, P.C.
| |
| Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 1
| |
| | |
| Staged Evacuation 2Mile Region Evacuates, then Evacuate Downwind to 5 Miles ERPA Region Wind Direction From: Degrees W1 W2 W3 W4 W5 W6 W7 M1 M2 M3 M4 M5 M6 M7 M8 M9 R20 No Wind 100% 100% 100% 20% 20% 20% 20% 100% 20% 20% 20% 20% 20% 20% 20% 20%
| |
| R21 N 349 to 11 100% 100% 20% 20% 20% 20% 20% 20% 20% 20% 20% 20% 20% 20% 20% 20%
| |
| R22 NNE, NE, ENE 12 to 78 100% 100% 20% 20% 20% 20% 20% 100% 20% 20% 20% 20% 20% 20% 20% 20%
| |
| R23 E, ESE 79 to 124 100% 20% 20% 20% 20% 20% 20% 100% 20% 20% 20% 20% 20% 20% 20% 20%
| |
| SE, SSE, S, SSW, SW 125 to 236 See Region R01 R24 WSW, W 237 to 281 100% 20% 100% 20% 20% 20% 20% 20% 20% 20% 20% 20% 20% 20% 20% 20%
| |
| R25 WNW, NW, NNW 282 to 348 100% 100% 100% 20% 20% 20% 20% 20% 20% 20% 20% 20% 20% 20% 20% 20%
| |
| Key ERPA Evacuate ERPA ShelterinPlace ShelterinPlace until 90% ETE for R01, then Evacuate R.E. Ginna Nuclear Power Plant H3 KLD Engineering, P.C.
| |
| Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 1
| |
| | |
| Figure H1. Region R01 R.E. Ginna Nuclear Power Plant H4 KLD Engineering, P.C.
| |
| Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 1
| |
| | |
| Figure H2. Region R02 R.E. Ginna Nuclear Power Plant H5 KLD Engineering, P.C.
| |
| Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 1
| |
| | |
| Figure H3. Region R03 R.E. Ginna Nuclear Power Plant H6 KLD Engineering, P.C.
| |
| Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 1
| |
| | |
| Figure H4. Region R04 R.E. Ginna Nuclear Power Plant H7 KLD Engineering, P.C.
| |
| Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 1
| |
| | |
| Figure H5. Region R05 R.E. Ginna Nuclear Power Plant H8 KLD Engineering, P.C.
| |
| Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 1
| |
| | |
| Figure H6. Region R06 R.E. Ginna Nuclear Power Plant H9 KLD Engineering, P.C.
| |
| Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 1
| |
| | |
| Figure H7. Region R07 R.E. Ginna Nuclear Power Plant H10 KLD Engineering, P.C.
| |
| Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 1
| |
| | |
| Figure H8. Region R08 R.E. Ginna Nuclear Power Plant H11 KLD Engineering, P.C.
| |
| Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 1
| |
| | |
| Figure H9. Region R09 R.E. Ginna Nuclear Power Plant H12 KLD Engineering, P.C.
| |
| Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 1
| |
| | |
| Figure H10. Region R10 R.E. Ginna Nuclear Power Plant H13 KLD Engineering, P.C.
| |
| Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 1
| |
| | |
| Figure H11. Region R11 R.E. Ginna Nuclear Power Plant H14 KLD Engineering, P.C.
| |
| Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 1
| |
| | |
| Figure H12. Region R12 R.E. Ginna Nuclear Power Plant H15 KLD Engineering, P.C.
| |
| Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 1
| |
| | |
| Figure H13. Region R13 R.E. Ginna Nuclear Power Plant H16 KLD Engineering, P.C.
| |
| Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 1
| |
| | |
| Figure H14. Region R14 R.E. Ginna Nuclear Power Plant H17 KLD Engineering, P.C.
| |
| Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 1
| |
| | |
| Figure H15. Region R15 R.E. Ginna Nuclear Power Plant H18 KLD Engineering, P.C.
| |
| Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 1
| |
| | |
| Figure H16. Region R16 R.E. Ginna Nuclear Power Plant H19 KLD Engineering, P.C.
| |
| Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 1
| |
| | |
| Figure H17. Region R17 R.E. Ginna Nuclear Power Plant H20 KLD Engineering, P.C.
| |
| Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 1
| |
| | |
| Figure H18. Region R18 R.E. Ginna Nuclear Power Plant H21 KLD Engineering, P.C.
| |
| Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 1
| |
| | |
| Figure H19. Region R19 R.E. Ginna Nuclear Power Plant H22 KLD Engineering, P.C.
| |
| Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 1
| |
| | |
| Figure H20. Region R20 R.E. Ginna Nuclear Power Plant H23 KLD Engineering, P.C.
| |
| Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 1
| |
| | |
| Figure H21. Region R21 R.E. Ginna Nuclear Power Plant H24 KLD Engineering, P.C.
| |
| Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 1
| |
| | |
| Figure H22. Region R22 R.E. Ginna Nuclear Power Plant H25 KLD Engineering, P.C.
| |
| Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 1
| |
| | |
| Figure H23. Region R23 R.E. Ginna Nuclear Power Plant H26 KLD Engineering, P.C.
| |
| Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 1
| |
| | |
| Figure H24. Region R24 R.E. Ginna Nuclear Power Plant H27 KLD Engineering, P.C.
| |
| Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 1
| |
| | |
| Figure H25. Region 25 R.E. Ginna Nuclear Power Plant H28 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, Scenarios 8 and 11, which are snow scenarios, exhibit the slowest average speed and longest average travel times.
| |
| Table J4 provides statistics (average speed and travel time) for the major evacuation routes -
| |
| SR 104, SR 250, SR 350 SR 21 and SR 286 - 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 77, SR 250 is congested for the first two hours of the evacuation. As such, the average speeds are comparably slower (and travel times longer) than other evacuation routes.
| |
| Table J5 provides the cumulative 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.
| |
| R.E. Ginna Nuclear Power Plant J1 KLD Engineering, P.C.
| |
| Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 1
| |
| | |
| Table J1. Characteristics of the Ten Highest Volume Signalized Intersections Total Max. Turn Intersection Approach Volume Queue Node Location Control (Up Node) (Veh) (Veh) 45 3,042 246 675 1,838 37 46 SR 104 & Ridge Rd Actuated 673 2,720 151 TOTAL 7,600 978 3,483 291 317 SR 404 & Bay Rd Actuated 368 3,877 390 TOTAL 7,360 380 6,950 87 455 34 0 381 SR 404 & N Winton Rd Actuated 811 138 5 TOTAL 7,122 318 1,749 448 377 SR 404 & Plank Rd Actuated 317 5,108 332 TOTAL 6,857 320 3,892 446 415 2,141 37 321 SR 286 & Blossom Rd Actuated 443 0 0 TOTAL 6,033 38 3,443 0 928 1,922 0 39 SR 104 & Pound Rd Actuated 897 295 2 118 97 0 TOTAL 5,757 37 3,130 0 39 1,927 0 38 SR 104 & SR 21 Actuated 896 367 0 186 260 0 TOTAL 5,684 918 2,257 91 SR 441 & 5 Mile Line 159 Actuated 424 3,188 226 Rd TOTAL 5,445 317 2,473 384 318 Plank Rd & Creek St Actuated 376 2,872 163 TOTAL 5,345 440 2,918 0 442 0 0 441 Penfield Rd & East Ave Actuated 167 2,336 0 TOTAL 5,254 R.E. Ginna 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 8061 6,750 258 106 W 8393 1,698 8329 1,698 8004 6,750 596 83 SW 8185 4,500 8839 1,698 8061 6,750 530 248 W 8004 6,750 8189 9,000 8801 1,698 1202 145 SE 8089 1,698 8135 1,698 8630 1,698 157 49 S 8801 1,698 8089 1,698 369 30 S 8089 1,698 673 97 SW 8329 1,698 828 60 SW 8393 1,698 8587 1,698 1000 102 S 8185 4,500 8942 1,698 8004 6,750 1252 54 SW 8185 4,500 8189 9,000 R.E. Ginna 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 2.3 2.7 2.0 2.4 1.9 2.3 2.7 Travel Time (Min/VehMi)
| |
| NetworkWide Average 26.4 22.2 30.6 25.2 31.4 25.8 21.9 Speed (mph)
| |
| Total Vehicles 83,335 83,192 72,592 72,977 60,432 84,335 84,451 Exiting Network Scenario 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 NetworkWide Average 3.0 1.9 2.3 2.5 1.9 2.0 2.7 Travel Time (Min/VehMi)
| |
| NetworkWide Average 19.9 31.4 26.3 23.8 31.9 29.8 22.4 Speed (mph)
| |
| Total Vehicles 84,884 71,964 72,164 72,254 60,237 73,701 83,624 Exiting Network Table J4. Average Speed (mph) and Travel Time (min) for Major Evacuation Routes (Region R03, Scenario 1)
| |
| Elapsed Time (hours) 1 2 3 Travel Length Speed Time Travel Travel Route# (miles) (mph) (min) Speed Time Speed Time SR 104 EB 20.4 43.0 28.4 62.4 19.6 60.7 20.1 SR 104 WB 20.4 23.6 51.8 29.2 41.9 65.3 18.7 SR 250 SB 4.6 19.7 14.1 13.5 20.6 43.9 6.3 SR 350 SB 6.2 21.1 17.6 51.0 7.3 51.8 7.2 SR 21 SB 6.4 43.6 8.8 46.2 8.3 48.1 8.0 SR 286 WB 7.2 45.4 9.5 48.1 9.0 53.4 8.1 R.E. Ginna Nuclear Power Plant J4 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 Exit Link Cumulative Vehicles Discharged by the Indicated Time Cumulative Percent of Vehicles Discharged by the Indicated Time 2,565 7,066 10,703 5
| |
| 13% 12% 13%
| |
| 997 2,327 3,318 114 5% 4% 4%
| |
| 1,922 7,864 9,833 131 10% 13% 12%
| |
| 328 1,096 1,287 177 2% 2% 2%
| |
| 408 1,470 1,729 180 2% 2% 2%
| |
| 586 1,956 2,244 182 3% 3% 3%
| |
| 187 693 789 254 1% 1% 1%
| |
| 332 1,364 1,705 257 2% 2% 2%
| |
| 5,446 12,031 15,778 319 27% 20% 19%
| |
| 4,172 8,658 11,671 355 21% 14% 14%
| |
| 624 2,169 3,201 584 3% 4% 4%
| |
| 203 1,214 1,542 680 1% 2% 2%
| |
| 80 559 689 885 0% 1% 1%
| |
| 171 859 1,042 903 1% 1% 1%
| |
| 130 584 711 952 1% 1% 1%
| |
| 98 1,310 2,112 961 0% 2% 3%
| |
| 225 1,382 2,068 966 1% 2% 3%
| |
| 1024 202 643 778 R.E. Ginna Nuclear Power Plant J5 KLD Engineering, P.C.
| |
| Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 1
| |
| | |
| Elapsed Time (hours)
| |
| Network 1 2 3 Exit Link Cumulative Vehicles Discharged by the Indicated Time Cumulative Percent of Vehicles Discharged by the Indicated Time 1% 1% 1%
| |
| 42 113 127 1073 0% 0% 0%
| |
| 524 1,888 2,532 1085 3% 3% 3%
| |
| 48 255 292 1106 0% 0% 0%
| |
| 101 477 753 1287 1% 1% 1%
| |
| 43 441 1,476 1288 0% 1% 2%
| |
| 175 1,304 1,720 1290 1% 2% 2%
| |
| 264 818 1,265 1308 1% 1% 2%
| |
| 285 1,684 2,135 1405 1% 3% 3%
| |
| R.E. Ginna Nuclear Power Plant J6 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)
| |
| R.E. Ginna Nuclear Power Plant J7 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)
| |
| R.E. Ginna Nuclear Power Plant J8 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)
| |
| R.E. Ginna Nuclear Power Plant J9 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)
| |
| R.E. Ginna Nuclear Power Plant J10 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)
| |
| R.E. Ginna Nuclear Power Plant J11 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)
| |
| R.E. Ginna Nuclear Power Plant J12 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)
| |
| R.E. Ginna Nuclear Power Plant J13 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 44 more detailed figures (Figure K2 through Figure K45) 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 February 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 generally based on the following criteria:
| |
| Freeway: limited access highway, 2 or more lanes in each direction, high free flow speeds Freeway ramp: ramp on to or off of a limited access highway 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.
| |
| R.E. Ginna Nuclear Power Plant K1 KLD Engineering, P.C.
| |
| Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 1
| |
| | |
| Figure K1. Ginna Nuclear Power Plant LinkNode Analysis Network R.E. Ginna Nuclear Power Plant K2 KLD Engineering, P.C.
| |
| Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 1
| |
| | |
| Figure K2. LinkNode Analysis Network - Grid 1 R.E. Ginna Nuclear Power Plant K3 KLD Engineering, P.C.
| |
| Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 1
| |
| | |
| Figure K3. LinkNode Analysis Network - Grid 2 R.E. Ginna Nuclear Power Plant K4 KLD Engineering, P.C.
| |
| Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 1
| |
| | |
| Figure K4. LinkNode Analysis Network - Grid 3 R.E. Ginna Nuclear Power Plant K5 KLD Engineering, P.C.
| |
| Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 1
| |
| | |
| Figure K5. LinkNode Analysis Network - Grid 4 R.E. Ginna Nuclear Power Plant K6 KLD Engineering, P.C.
| |
| Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 1
| |
| | |
| Figure K6. LinkNode Analysis Network - Grid 5 R.E. Ginna Nuclear Power Plant K7 KLD Engineering, P.C.
| |
| Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 1
| |
| | |
| Figure K7. LinkNode Analysis Network - Grid 6 R.E. Ginna Nuclear Power Plant K8 KLD Engineering, P.C.
| |
| Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 1
| |
| | |
| Figure K8. LinkNode Analysis Network - Grid 7 R.E. Ginna Nuclear Power Plant K9 KLD Engineering, P.C.
| |
| Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 1
| |
| | |
| Figure K9. LinkNode Analysis Network - Grid 8 R.E. Ginna Nuclear Power Plant K10 KLD Engineering, P.C.
| |
| Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 1
| |
| | |
| Figure K10. LinkNode Analysis Network - Grid 9 R.E. Ginna Nuclear Power Plant K11 KLD Engineering, P.C.
| |
| Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 1
| |
| | |
| Figure K11. LinkNode Analysis Network - Grid 10 R.E. Ginna Nuclear Power Plant K12 KLD Engineering, P.C.
| |
| Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 1
| |
| | |
| Figure K12. LinkNode Analysis Network - Grid 11 R.E. Ginna Nuclear Power Plant K13 KLD Engineering, P.C.
| |
| Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 1
| |
| | |
| Figure K13. LinkNode Analysis Network - Grid 12 R.E. Ginna Nuclear Power Plant K14 KLD Engineering, P.C.
| |
| Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 1
| |
| | |
| Figure K14. LinkNode Analysis Network - Grid 13 R.E. Ginna Nuclear Power Plant K15 KLD Engineering, P.C.
| |
| Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 1
| |
| | |
| Figure K15. LinkNode Analysis Network - Grid 14 R.E. Ginna Nuclear Power Plant K16 KLD Engineering, P.C.
| |
| Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 1
| |
| | |
| Figure K16. LinkNode Analysis Network - Grid 15 R.E. Ginna Nuclear Power Plant K17 KLD Engineering, P.C.
| |
| Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 1
| |
| | |
| Figure K17. LinkNode Analysis Network - Grid 16 R.E. Ginna Nuclear Power Plant K18 KLD Engineering, P.C.
| |
| Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 1
| |
| | |
| Figure K18. LinkNode Analysis Network - Grid 17 R.E. Ginna Nuclear Power Plant K19 KLD Engineering, P.C.
| |
| Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 1
| |
| | |
| Figure K19. LinkNode Analysis Network - Grid 18 R.E. Ginna Nuclear Power Plant K20 KLD Engineering, P.C.
| |
| Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 1
| |
| | |
| Figure K20. LinkNode Analysis Network - Grid 19 R.E. Ginna Nuclear Power Plant K21 KLD Engineering, P.C.
| |
| Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 1
| |
| | |
| Figure K21. LinkNode Analysis Network - Grid 20 R.E. Ginna Nuclear Power Plant K22 KLD Engineering, P.C.
| |
| Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 1
| |
| | |
| Figure K22. LinkNode Analysis Network - Grid 21 R.E. Ginna Nuclear Power Plant K23 KLD Engineering, P.C.
| |
| Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 1
| |
| | |
| Figure K23. LinkNode Analysis Network - Grid 22 R.E. Ginna Nuclear Power Plant K24 KLD Engineering, P.C.
| |
| Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 1
| |
| | |
| Figure K24. LinkNode Analysis Network - Grid 23 R.E. Ginna Nuclear Power Plant K25 KLD Engineering, P.C.
| |
| Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 1
| |
| | |
| Figure K25. LinkNode Analysis Network - Grid 24 R.E. Ginna Nuclear Power Plant K26 KLD Engineering, P.C.
| |
| Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 1
| |
| | |
| Figure K26. LinkNode Analysis Network - Grid 25 R.E. Ginna Nuclear Power Plant K27 KLD Engineering, P.C.
| |
| Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 1
| |
| | |
| Figure K27. LinkNode Analysis Network - Grid 26 R.E. Ginna Nuclear Power Plant K28 KLD Engineering, P.C.
| |
| Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 1
| |
| | |
| Figure K28. LinkNode Analysis Network - Grid 27 R.E. Ginna Nuclear Power Plant K29 KLD Engineering, P.C.
| |
| Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 1
| |
| | |
| Figure K29. LinkNode Analysis Network - Grid 28 R.E. Ginna Nuclear Power Plant K30 KLD Engineering, P.C.
| |
| Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 1
| |
| | |
| Figure K30. LinkNode Analysis Network - Grid 29 R.E. Ginna Nuclear Power Plant K31 KLD Engineering, P.C.
| |
| Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 1
| |
| | |
| Figure K31. LinkNode Analysis Network - Grid 30 R.E. Ginna Nuclear Power Plant K32 KLD Engineering, P.C.
| |
| Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 1
| |
| | |
| Figure K32. LinkNode Analysis Network - Grid 31 R.E. Ginna Nuclear Power Plant K33 KLD Engineering, P.C.
| |
| Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 1
| |
| | |
| Figure K33. LinkNode Analysis Network - Grid 32 R.E. Ginna Nuclear Power Plant K34 KLD Engineering, P.C.
| |
| Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 1
| |
| | |
| Figure K34. LinkNode Analysis Network - Grid 33 R.E. Ginna Nuclear Power Plant K35 KLD Engineering, P.C.
| |
| Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 1
| |
| | |
| Figure K35. LinkNode Analysis Network - Grid 34 R.E. Ginna Nuclear Power Plant K36 KLD Engineering, P.C.
| |
| Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 1
| |
| | |
| Figure K36. LinkNode Analysis Network - Grid 35 R.E. Ginna Nuclear Power Plant K37 KLD Engineering, P.C.
| |
| Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 1
| |
| | |
| Figure K37. LinkNode Analysis Network - Grid 36 R.E. Ginna Nuclear Power Plant K38 KLD Engineering, P.C.
| |
| Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 1
| |
| | |
| Figure K38. LinkNode Analysis Network - Grid 37 R.E. Ginna Nuclear Power Plant K39 KLD Engineering, P.C.
| |
| Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 1
| |
| | |
| Figure K39. LinkNode Analysis Network - Grid 38 R.E. Ginna Nuclear Power Plant K40 KLD Engineering, P.C.
| |
| Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 1
| |
| | |
| Figure K40. LinkNode Analysis Network - Grid 39 R.E. Ginna Nuclear Power Plant K41 KLD Engineering, P.C.
| |
| Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 1
| |
| | |
| Figure K41. LinkNode Analysis Network - Grid 40 R.E. Ginna Nuclear Power Plant K42 KLD Engineering, P.C.
| |
| Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 1
| |
| | |
| Figure K42. LinkNode Analysis Network - Grid 41 R.E. Ginna Nuclear Power Plant K43 KLD Engineering, P.C.
| |
| Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 1
| |
| | |
| Figure K43. LinkNode Analysis Network - Grid 42 R.E. Ginna Nuclear Power Plant K44 KLD Engineering, P.C.
| |
| Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 1
| |
| | |
| Figure K44. LinkNode Analysis Network - Grid 43 R.E. Ginna Nuclear Power Plant K45 KLD Engineering, P.C.
| |
| Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 1
| |
| | |
| Figure K45. LinkNode Analysis Network - Grid 44 R.E. Ginna Nuclear Power Plant K46 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 1 525 ST. PAUL BLVD COLLECTOR 498 1 12 2 1750 40 1 2 2 134 CO RD 221 COLLECTOR 733 1 12 2 1700 55 44 3 3 953 PLANT DRIVEWAY COLLECTOR 431 1 12 12 1575 35 5 4 4 5 SR 590 FREEWAY 1942 3 12 12 2250 70 31 5 5 4 SR 590 FREEWAY 1942 3 12 12 2250 70 31 6 5 6 SR 590 FREEWAY 1970 3 12 12 2250 70 31 7 6 5 SR 590 FREEWAY 1970 3 12 12 2250 70 31 8 6 7 SR 590 FREEWAY 1677 2 12 12 2250 70 28 9 6 822 I490 ONRAMP FREEWAY RAMP 1093 2 12 2 1900 55 28 10 7 6 SR 590 FREEWAY 1679 2 12 12 2250 70 28 11 7 825 SR 590 FREEWAY 1325 4 12 12 2250 70 28 SR 590 ONRAMP 12 9 447 FREEWAY RAMP 861 1 12 2 1750 40 28 FROM BLOSSOM RD 13 9 824 SR 590 FREEWAY 1466 3 12 12 2250 70 28 14 9 863 SR 590 FREEWAY 1290 4 12 12 2250 70 28 15 10 11 SR 590 FREEWAY 4714 3 12 12 2250 70 28 16 10 863 SR 590 FREEWAY 1281 3 12 12 2250 70 28 17 11 10 SR 590 FREEWAY 4714 3 12 12 2250 70 28 18 11 12 SR 590 FREEWAY 1494 3 12 12 2250 70 17 19 12 11 SR 590 FREEWAY 1494 3 12 12 2250 70 17 20 12 13 SR 590 FREEWAY 4578 3 12 12 2250 70 17 21 13 12 SR 590 FREEWAY 4578 3 12 12 2250 70 17 22 13 873 SR 590 FREEWAY 2119 3 12 12 2250 70 17 23 14 15 SR 590 FREEWAY 1496 2 12 12 2250 70 11 SR 590 OFFRAMP TO 24 14 66 FREEWAY RAMP 1693 2 12 10 1900 55 11 SR 104 R.E. Ginna Nuclear Power 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 25 14 873 SR 590 FREEWAY 981 5 12 12 2250 70 17 26 15 14 SR 590 FREEWAY 1496 3 12 12 2250 70 11 27 15 68 SR 590 MINOR ARTERIAL 1301 1 12 4 1700 55 11 SR 590 OFFRAMP TO 28 15 69 FREEWAY RAMP 1696 1 12 12 1700 55 11 SR 104 29 16 17 SR 104 FREEWAY 6021 3 12 1 2250 65 11 30 16 874 SR 104 FREEWAY 2470 3 12 12 2250 70 11 31 17 16 SR 104 FREEWAY 6021 3 12 1 2250 65 11 32 17 747 SR 104 FREEWAY 3145 3 12 12 2250 70 12 33 18 19 SR 104 FREEWAY 1160 2 12 12 2250 70 13 SR 104 OFFRAMP TO 34 18 418 FREEWAY RAMP 763 1 12 2 1750 45 13 5 MILE LINE RD 35 18 920 SR 104 FREEWAY 5958 2 12 12 2250 70 13 36 19 18 SR 104 FREEWAY 1160 2 12 12 2250 70 13 37 19 20 SR 104 FREEWAY 5698 2 12 12 2250 70 13 38 20 19 SR 104 FREEWAY 5695 2 12 12 2250 70 13 39 20 21 SR 104 FREEWAY 3840 2 12 12 2250 70 14 40 21 20 SR 104 FREEWAY 3840 2 12 12 2250 70 14 41 21 22 SR 104 FREEWAY 4020 2 12 12 2250 70 14 42 22 21 SR 104 FREEWAY 4015 2 12 12 2250 70 14 43 22 23 SR 104 FREEWAY 5557 2 12 12 2250 70 15 SR 104 OFFRAMP TO 44 22 248 FREEWAY RAMP 1082 1 12 2 1750 45 14 PHILLIPS RD 45 23 22 SR 104 FREEWAY 5567 2 12 12 2250 70 15 SR 104 OFFRAMP TO 46 23 232 FREEWAY RAMP 726 1 12 2 1750 50 15 SALT RD 47 23 749 SR 104 MINOR ARTERIAL 1979 2 12 10 1900 65 15 R.E. Ginna Nuclear Power 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 48 24 25 SR 104 MINOR ARTERIAL 3212 2 12 10 1750 65 15 49 24 356 BASKET RD COLLECTOR 482 1 12 2 1700 40 15 50 24 749 SR 104 MINOR ARTERIAL 2272 2 12 10 1900 65 15 51 25 24 SR 104 MINOR ARTERIAL 3212 2 12 10 1750 65 15 52 25 26 SR 104 MINOR ARTERIAL 2813 2 12 10 1750 65 22 53 25 355 SR 404 MINOR ARTERIAL 153 1 12 2 1700 40 15 54 26 25 SR 104 MINOR ARTERIAL 2813 2 12 10 1750 65 22 55 26 27 SR 104 MINOR ARTERIAL 4864 2 12 10 1750 65 22 56 27 26 SR 104 MINOR ARTERIAL 4864 2 12 10 1750 65 22 57 27 28 SR 104 MINOR ARTERIAL 2404 2 12 10 1750 65 22 58 27 142 LINCOLN RD COLLECTOR 544 1 12 2 1575 35 22 59 28 27 SR 104 MINOR ARTERIAL 2404 2 12 10 1750 65 22 60 28 29 SR 104 MINOR ARTERIAL 3729 2 12 10 1750 65 22 61 28 340 CO RD 102 COLLECTOR 836 1 12 2 1575 35 22 62 29 28 SR 104 MINOR ARTERIAL 3729 2 12 10 1750 65 22 63 29 30 SR 104 MINOR ARTERIAL 4698 2 12 10 1750 65 5 64 29 93 SLOCUM RD COLLECTOR 1590 1 12 2 1700 45 22 65 30 29 SR 104 MINOR ARTERIAL 4698 2 12 10 1750 65 5 66 30 31 SR 104 MINOR ARTERIAL 5314 2 12 10 1750 65 5 67 30 74 SR 350 MINOR ARTERIAL 457 1 12 2 1750 40 22 68 31 30 SR 104 MINOR ARTERIAL 5314 2 12 10 1750 65 5 69 31 32 SR 104 MINOR ARTERIAL 1122 2 12 10 1750 65 23 70 32 31 SR 104 MINOR ARTERIAL 1122 2 12 10 1750 65 23 71 32 33 SR 104 MINOR ARTERIAL 4311 2 12 10 1750 65 6 WALWORTH 72 32 100 COLLECTOR 2390 1 12 2 1750 40 23 ONTARIO RD 73 33 32 SR 104 MINOR ARTERIAL 4311 2 12 10 1750 65 6 R.E. Ginna Nuclear Power 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 74 33 34 SR 104 MINOR ARTERIAL 3769 2 12 10 1900 65 6 75 34 33 SR 104 MINOR ARTERIAL 3769 2 12 10 1750 65 6 76 34 35 SR 104 MINOR ARTERIAL 3129 2 12 10 1900 65 6 77 34 112 FISHER RD COLLECTOR 3151 1 12 2 1700 55 23 78 35 34 SR 104 MINOR ARTERIAL 3129 2 12 10 1900 65 6 79 35 36 SR 104 MINOR ARTERIAL 5985 2 12 10 1900 65 6 80 36 35 SR 104 MINOR ARTERIAL 5985 2 12 10 1900 65 6 81 36 37 SR 104 MINOR ARTERIAL 4414 2 12 10 1900 65 7 82 36 114 SALMON CREEK RD COLLECTOR 3564 1 12 2 1700 55 23 83 37 36 SR 104 MINOR ARTERIAL 4414 2 12 10 1900 65 7 84 37 38 SR 104 MINOR ARTERIAL 3871 2 12 10 1750 65 7 85 37 776 CO RD 116 COLLECTOR 2824 1 12 2 1700 55 7 86 38 37 SR 104 MINOR ARTERIAL 3871 2 12 10 1900 65 7 87 38 39 SR 104 MINOR ARTERIAL 4119 2 12 10 1750 65 7 88 38 186 SR 21 MINOR ARTERIAL 1860 1 12 12 1700 40 7 89 39 38 SR 104 MINOR ARTERIAL 4119 2 12 10 1750 65 7 90 39 118 POUND RD COLLECTOR 1170 1 12 2 1700 55 7 91 39 928 SR 104 MINOR ARTERIAL 1158 2 12 10 1900 65 7 92 40 119 E TOWNLINE RD COLLECTOR 1788 1 12 2 1700 55 7 93 40 778 SR 104 MINOR ARTERIAL 1943 1 12 10 1700 60 7 94 40 928 SR 104 MINOR ARTERIAL 6101 1 12 10 1700 65 7 95 41 42 SR 104 MINOR ARTERIAL 4798 1 12 10 1700 60 8 96 41 122 N CENTENARY RD COLLECTOR 2544 1 12 2 1700 50 8 97 41 793 SR 104 MINOR ARTERIAL 4462 1 12 10 1700 60 8 98 42 41 SR 104 MINOR ARTERIAL 4798 1 12 10 1700 60 8 99 42 43 SR 104 MINOR ARTERIAL 3742 1 12 10 1700 60 8 R.E. Ginna Nuclear Power 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 100 43 42 SR 104 MINOR ARTERIAL 3748 1 12 10 1700 60 8 101 43 44 SR 104 MINOR ARTERIAL 4935 1 12 10 1750 60 8 102 43 124 SR 88 MINOR ARTERIAL 599 1 12 2 1750 40 8 103 44 43 SR 104 MINOR ARTERIAL 4950 1 12 10 1700 60 8 104 44 45 SR 104 MINOR ARTERIAL 3947 1 12 10 1700 60 9 105 44 126 MAPLE AVE COLLECTOR 2600 1 12 2 1750 55 8 106 45 44 SR 104 MINOR ARTERIAL 3961 1 12 10 1750 60 9 107 45 46 SR 104 MINOR ARTERIAL 4663 1 12 10 1750 60 9 108 46 45 SR 104 MINOR ARTERIAL 4663 1 12 10 1700 60 9 109 46 674 RIDGE RD COLLECTOR 1332 1 12 2 1700 55 9 110 46 675 SR 104 MINOR ARTERIAL 1776 1 12 10 1700 60 26 111 47 48 SR 104 MINOR ARTERIAL 3144 1 12 10 1700 60 26 112 47 675 SR 104 MINOR ARTERIAL 2424 1 12 10 1700 60 26 113 48 47 SR 104 MINOR ARTERIAL 3144 1 12 10 1700 60 26 114 48 49 SR 104 MINOR ARTERIAL 1291 1 12 10 1700 60 26 115 49 48 SR 104 MINOR ARTERIAL 1291 1 12 10 1700 60 26 116 50 51 CULVER RD COLLECTOR 672 1 12 4 1700 40 2 117 51 52 SEA BREEZE DR COLLECTOR 3131 1 12 4 1700 50 2 118 51 474 CULVER RD COLLECTOR 1543 1 12 2 1700 40 2 SEA BREEZE DR 119 52 515 COLLECTOR 120 1 12 4 900 20 2 TRAFFIC CIRCLE 120 53 54 SEA BREEZE DR COLLECTOR 997 1 12 4 1700 50 2 SEA BREEZE DR 121 54 808 COLLECTOR 177 1 12 4 900 20 11 TRAFFIC CIRCLE 122 55 56 SEA BREEZE DR COLLECTOR 2617 1 12 4 1700 50 11 SEA BREEZE DR 123 56 805 COLLECTOR 180 1 12 4 900 20 11 TRAFFIC CIRCLE R.E. Ginna Nuclear Power 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 124 57 58 SEA BREEZE DR COLLECTOR 1641 1 12 4 1700 50 11 SEA BREEZE DR 125 58 497 COLLECTOR 144 1 12 4 1125 25 11 TRAFFIC CIRCLE 126 59 60 SR 590 MINOR ARTERIAL 1265 2 12 4 1900 50 11 SR 590 TRAFFIC 127 59 498 MINOR ARTERIAL 150 1 12 4 1125 25 11 CIRCLE 128 60 59 SR 590 MINOR ARTERIAL 1265 1 12 4 1700 50 11 129 60 68 SR 590 MINOR ARTERIAL 2029 1 12 4 1700 55 11 130 61 62 SR 104 FREEWAY 641 3 12 12 2250 70 16 131 62 61 SR 104 FREEWAY 641 3 12 12 2250 70 16 132 62 63 SR 104 FREEWAY 3149 3 12 12 2250 70 16 133 63 62 SR 104 FREEWAY 3148 3 12 12 2250 70 16 134 63 64 SR 104 FREEWAY 3969 3 12 12 2250 70 16 135 64 63 SR 104 FREEWAY 3969 3 12 12 2250 70 16 136 64 65 SR 104 FREEWAY 4393 3 12 12 2250 70 16 137 65 64 SR 104 FREEWAY 4392 3 12 12 2250 70 16 SR 104 OFFRAMP TO 138 65 482 FREEWAY RAMP 1044 1 12 2 1700 40 17 CULVER RD 139 65 871 SR 104 FREEWAY 1948 3 12 12 2250 70 17 140 66 871 SR 104 FREEWAY 2266 4 12 12 2250 70 11 SR 104 OFFRAMP TO 141 67 14 FREEWAY RAMP 1242 2 12 10 1900 55 17 SR 590 SR 104 OFFRAMP TO 142 67 69 FREEWAY RAMP 2848 2 12 10 1900 55 11 SR 590 143 68 15 SR 590 FREEWAY RAMP 1301 1 12 4 1700 55 11 144 68 60 SR 590 MINOR ARTERIAL 2029 1 12 4 1700 55 11 145 69 16 SR 104 FREEWAY 2080 3 12 12 2250 70 11 R.E. Ginna Nuclear Power 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 SR 104 OFFRAMP TO 146 70 15 FREEWAY RAMP 816 2 12 4 1900 55 11 SR 590 SR 590 OFFRAMP TO 147 70 66 FREEWAY RAMP 1184 2 12 10 1900 55 11 SR 104 148 71 72 ONTARIO CENTER RD COLLECTOR 5393 1 12 2 1700 55 5 149 71 209 LAKE RD COLLECTOR 949 1 12 2 1700 55 5 150 71 211 LAKE RD COLLECTOR 5046 1 12 2 1700 55 5 151 72 73 ONTARIO CENTER RD COLLECTOR 6646 1 12 2 1750 55 5 152 73 772 KENYON RD COLLECTOR 5291 1 12 2 1700 55 5 153 73 890 ONTARIO CENTER RD COLLECTOR 3748 1 12 2 1700 55 5 154 74 30 SR 350 MINOR ARTERIAL 457 1 12 2 1750 40 22 156 74 774 RIDGE RD COLLECTOR 5534 1 12 2 1700 45 22 157 74 903 SR 350 MINOR ARTERIAL 6579 1 12 2 1700 55 22 158 75 76 SR 350 MINOR ARTERIAL 5653 1 12 2 1700 55 23 159 76 77 SR 350 MINOR ARTERIAL 7201 1 12 2 1750 55 23 160 76 145 PLANK RD COLLECTOR 14868 1 12 2 1700 55 22 161 77 78 SR 350 MINOR ARTERIAL 9220 1 12 2 1750 55 36 162 77 146 SR 286 MINOR ARTERIAL 13043 1 12 2 1700 55 35 163 78 105 CO RD 205 COLLECTOR 5421 1 12 2 1750 55 36 WALWORTH 164 78 782 COLLECTOR 7980 1 12 2 1700 55 35 PENFIELD RD 165 78 1025 SR 350 MINOR ARTERIAL 2795 1 12 4 1700 60 36 166 79 80 SR 350 MINOR ARTERIAL 3320 1 12 2 1700 60 36 167 80 908 BARNES RD COLLECTOR 6651 1 12 2 1700 45 42 168 80 997 SR 350 MINOR ARTERIAL 4311 1 12 2 1700 55 42 169 81 82 31F COLLECTOR 682 1 12 2 1750 55 41 R.E. Ginna Nuclear Power 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 MACEDON CENTER 170 81 631 COLLECTOR 1236 1 12 2 1700 55 41 RD 171 82 81 31F COLLECTOR 681 1 12 2 1700 55 41 172 82 786 31F COLLECTOR 4897 1 12 2 1750 55 41 173 82 996 SR 350 MINOR ARTERIAL 6353 1 12 2 1700 55 41 174 83 84 SR 350 MINOR ARTERIAL 2230 1 12 2 1750 40 41 175 84 569 SR 31 MINOR ARTERIAL 5034 1 12 2 1700 40 41 176 84 933 SR 31 MINOR ARTERIAL 2083 1 12 2 1700 45 42 177 85 86 SR 31 MINOR ARTERIAL 6270 1 12 2 1700 55 42 178 85 630 CO RD 312 COLLECTOR 4056 1 12 2 1700 50 42 179 86 85 SR 31 MINOR ARTERIAL 6265 1 12 2 1700 55 42 180 86 931 SR 31 MINOR ARTERIAL 3547 1 12 2 1750 55 42 181 87 801 SR 21 MINOR ARTERIAL 2524 1 12 2 1700 55 42 182 87 929 SR 31 MINOR ARTERIAL 573 1 12 2 1750 40 42 183 88 89 SR 31 MINOR ARTERIAL 2414 1 12 2 1700 45 42 184 90 91 SLOCUM RD COLLECTOR 5077 1 12 2 1700 55 5 185 90 338 LAKE RD COLLECTOR 3701 1 12 2 1700 55 5 186 90 954 LAKE RD COLLECTOR 2737 1 12 2 1700 55 5 187 91 72 BRICK CHURCH RD COLLECTOR 5118 1 12 2 1700 55 5 188 91 92 SLOCUM RD COLLECTOR 6685 1 12 2 1700 55 5 189 92 73 KENYON RD COLLECTOR 4759 1 12 2 1750 55 5 190 92 889 SLOCUM RD COLLECTOR 3976 1 12 2 1700 55 5 191 93 29 SLOCUM RD COLLECTOR 1589 1 12 2 1750 35 22 192 93 94 SLOCUM RD COLLECTOR 7321 1 12 2 1700 55 22 193 93 340 RIDGE RD COLLECTOR 3791 1 12 2 1700 50 22 194 93 349 RIDGE RD COLLECTOR 2490 1 12 2 1700 50 22 195 94 143 WHITNEY RD COLLECTOR 5947 1 12 2 1700 55 22 R.E. Ginna Nuclear Power 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 196 94 904 BUSHWOOD RD COLLECTOR 2540 1 12 2 1700 45 22 197 95 96 SR 110 MINOR ARTERIAL 4973 1 12 2 1700 50 6 198 95 212 LAKE RD COLLECTOR 4228 1 12 2 1700 55 6 199 96 97 SR 110 MINOR ARTERIAL 2240 1 12 2 1700 45 6 200 97 98 SR 110 MINOR ARTERIAL 2532 1 12 2 1700 50 6 201 98 99 SR 110 MINOR ARTERIAL 4207 1 12 2 1700 55 6 202 99 637 KENYON RD COLLECTOR 6061 1 12 0 1700 55 6 203 99 892 SR 110 MINOR ARTERIAL 3319 1 12 2 1700 50 6 WALWORTH 204 100 32 COLLECTOR 2390 1 12 2 1750 40 23 ONTARIO RD WALWORTH 205 100 101 COLLECTOR 4566 1 12 2 1700 50 23 ONTARIO RD 206 100 112 RIDGE RD COLLECTOR 8374 1 12 2 1700 50 23 WALWORTH 207 101 102 COLLECTOR 3523 1 12 2 1700 50 23 ONTARIO RD WALWORTH 208 102 103 COLLECTOR 4147 1 12 2 1700 50 23 ONTARIO RD WALWORTH 209 103 104 COLLECTOR 15286 1 12 2 1700 55 36 ONTARIO RD 210 103 654 TUMMONDS RD COLLECTOR 5811 1 12 2 1700 55 23 WALWORTH 211 104 105 COLLECTOR 2802 1 12 2 1750 40 36 ONTARIO RD WALWORTH 212 105 662 COLLECTOR 2454 1 12 2 1700 50 36 MARION RD WALWORTH 213 105 667 COLLECTOR 2854 1 12 2 1700 50 36 ONTARIO RD WALWORTH 214 106 107 COLLECTOR 1562 1 12 2 1700 55 36 ONTARIO RD R.E. Ginna Nuclear Power 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 WALWORTH 215 107 908 COLLECTOR 3835 1 12 2 1700 55 36 ONTARIO RD MACEDON CENTER 216 108 632 COLLECTOR 8006 1 12 2 1700 55 42 RD WALWORTH 217 108 993 COLLECTOR 1790 1 12 2 1575 35 42 ONTARIO RD WALWORTH 218 109 995 COLLECTOR 3412 1 12 2 1700 50 42 ONTARIO RD 219 110 640 CO RD 120 COLLECTOR 6485 1 12 2 1700 55 7 220 110 641 CO RD 120 COLLECTOR 3053 1 12 2 1700 55 7 221 111 217 LAKE RD COLLECTOR 1972 1 12 2 1700 50 7 222 111 640 CO RD 120 COLLECTOR 2840 1 12 2 1700 45 7 223 112 34 FISHER RD COLLECTOR 3151 1 12 2 1700 50 23 224 112 113 RIDGE RD COLLECTOR 3916 1 12 2 1700 55 23 225 112 651 CO RD 210 COLLECTOR 3863 1 10 2 1700 55 23 226 113 114 RIDGE RD COLLECTOR 5368 1 12 2 1700 55 23 227 114 36 SALMON CREEK RD COLLECTOR 3564 1 12 2 1700 50 23 228 114 776 CO RD 103 COLLECTOR 4624 1 12 2 1700 55 24 229 115 116 CO RD 103 COLLECTOR 2744 1 12 2 1750 45 24 230 116 117 CO RD 103 COLLECTOR 4499 1 12 2 1700 40 24 231 116 186 SR 21 MINOR ARTERIAL 1419 1 12 2 1700 40 24 232 116 187 SR 21 MINOR ARTERIAL 6072 1 12 12 1700 45 24 233 117 118 CO RD 103 COLLECTOR 1265 1 12 2 1700 55 7 234 118 39 POUND RD COLLECTOR 1164 1 12 2 1750 40 7 235 118 119 CO RD 103 COLLECTOR 6666 1 12 2 1700 55 7 236 119 40 E TOWNLINE RD COLLECTOR 1788 1 12 2 1700 45 7 237 119 120 CO RD 103 COLLECTOR 3383 1 12 2 1700 55 7 R.E. Ginna Nuclear Power 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 238 119 643 E TOWNLINE RD COLLECTOR 3643 1 12 2 1700 55 24 239 120 121 CO RD 103 COLLECTOR 2908 1 12 2 1700 60 8 240 120 795 TRIPP RD COLLECTOR 2814 1 12 2 1700 50 25 241 121 122 CO RD 103 COLLECTOR 2745 1 12 2 1700 60 8 242 122 123 CO RD 103 COLLECTOR 4893 1 12 2 1700 55 8 243 123 124 CO RD 103 COLLECTOR 4398 1 12 2 1750 55 8 244 124 43 SR 88 MINOR ARTERIAL 599 1 12 2 1700 40 8 245 124 125 SR 88 MINOR ARTERIAL 2735 1 12 2 1700 40 8 246 125 126 SR 88 MINOR ARTERIAL 1709 1 12 2 1750 40 8 247 125 127 SR 88 MINOR ARTERIAL 3862 1 12 2 1700 40 8 248 126 672 CO RD 103 COLLECTOR 724 1 12 2 1700 40 8 249 127 128 SR 88 MINOR ARTERIAL 9480 1 12 2 1700 55 25 250 128 682 SR 88 MINOR ARTERIAL 2260 1 12 2 1700 65 25 251 128 699 CO RD 241 COLLECTOR 4268 1 12 2 1700 55 25 252 129 130 SR 88 MINOR ARTERIAL 4921 1 12 2 1700 65 25 253 130 131 SR 88 MINOR ARTERIAL 10536 1 12 2 1700 65 38 254 131 132 SR 88 MINOR ARTERIAL 7801 1 12 2 1700 45 38 FAIRVILLE MAPLE 255 132 697 COLLECTOR 2356 1 12 2 1700 50 38 RIDGE RD 256 132 1003 SR 88 MINOR ARTERIAL 4391 1 12 2 1700 60 44 257 133 134 SR 88 MINOR ARTERIAL 8666 1 12 2 1700 55 44 258 134 135 SR 88 MINOR ARTERIAL 1179 1 12 2 1700 55 44 259 136 137 CO RD 2 COLLECTOR 5178 1 12 2 1700 60 4 260 136 225 LAKE RD COLLECTOR 3214 1 12 2 1700 55 4 261 137 138 CO RD 2 COLLECTOR 5301 1 12 2 1700 60 4 262 138 227 SCHLEGEL RD COLLECTOR 3237 1 12 2 1700 55 4 263 138 886 CO RD 100 COLLECTOR 5962 1 12 2 1700 50 4 R.E. Ginna Nuclear Power 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 264 139 351 RIDGE RD COLLECTOR 578 1 12 2 1700 55 15 265 139 371 COUNTY LINE RD COLLECTOR 6827 1 12 2 1700 50 15 266 140 371 COUNTY LINE RD COLLECTOR 424 1 12 2 1700 55 15 267 140 1007 COUNTY LINE RD COLLECTOR 3515 1 12 2 1700 55 21 268 141 405 HALEY RD COLLECTOR 597 1 12 2 1700 55 22 269 142 27 LINCOLN RD COLLECTOR 544 1 12 2 1750 35 22 270 142 143 CO RD 200 COLLECTOR 7947 1 12 2 1700 55 22 271 142 350 RIDGE RD COLLECTOR 4704 1 12 2 1700 55 22 272 143 94 WHITNEY RD COLLECTOR 5947 1 12 2 1700 55 22 273 143 140 WHITNEY RD COLLECTOR 7806 1 12 2 1700 55 22 274 143 144 CO RD 202 COLLECTOR 3641 1 12 2 1700 55 22 275 144 145 CO RD 202 COLLECTOR 3626 1 12 2 1700 55 22 276 144 405 HALEY RD COLLECTOR 6771 1 12 2 1700 55 22 277 145 76 PLANK RD COLLECTOR 14868 1 12 2 1700 55 22 278 145 146 CO RD 202 COLLECTOR 7272 1 12 2 1700 55 22 279 145 404 PLANK RD COLLECTOR 6984 1 12 2 1700 50 22 280 146 77 SR 286 MINOR ARTERIAL 13043 1 12 2 1750 55 35 281 146 147 CO RD 204 COLLECTOR 4049 1 12 2 1700 50 35 282 146 406 SR 286 MINOR ARTERIAL 8178 1 12 2 1700 55 35 283 147 986 CO RD 204 COLLECTOR 1157 1 12 2 1700 45 35 284 148 149 CO RD 204 COLLECTOR 4974 1 12 2 1700 45 35 285 149 150 SR 441 MINOR ARTERIAL 1841 1 12 2 1700 45 35 WALWORTH 286 149 782 COLLECTOR 6931 1 12 2 1700 55 35 PENFIELD RD 287 150 151 SR 441 MINOR ARTERIAL 2907 1 12 2 1700 55 35 288 150 615 W WALWORTH RD COLLECTOR 2439 1 12 2 1700 50 35 289 151 152 SR 441 MINOR ARTERIAL 2838 1 12 2 1750 50 35 R.E. Ginna Nuclear Power 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 290 152 619 SR 441 MINOR ARTERIAL 538 1 12 2 1700 50 34 291 153 154 SR 441 MINOR ARTERIAL 3306 1 12 2 1700 55 34 292 153 598 CARTER RD COLLECTOR 8060 1 12 2 1700 55 34 293 154 155 SR 441 MINOR ARTERIAL 4394 1 12 2 1700 55 34 294 155 156 SR 441 MINOR ARTERIAL 1083 2 12 2 1750 55 34 295 156 157 SR 441 MINOR ARTERIAL 2404 2 12 2 1750 55 34 296 156 280 WATSON RD COLLECTOR 2354 1 12 2 1700 50 34 297 157 272 SR 250 MINOR ARTERIAL 1240 2 12 2 1750 55 34 298 157 911 SR 441 MINOR ARTERIAL 1520 2 12 2 1750 50 34 299 158 592 BAIRD RD COLLECTOR 2622 1 12 2 1700 55 33 300 158 918 SR 441 MINOR ARTERIAL 1336 2 12 2 1750 55 33 301 159 160 SR 441 MINOR ARTERIAL 2367 2 12 2 1900 55 33 302 159 425 5 MILE LINE RD COLLECTOR 3196 1 12 2 1750 50 33 303 160 161 SR 441 MINOR ARTERIAL 1912 2 12 2 1900 65 33 304 160 972 PENFIELD RD COLLECTOR 2236 1 12 2 1700 55 33 305 161 162 SR 441 MINOR ARTERIAL 1562 2 12 2 1900 55 32 SR 441 OFFRAMP TO 306 161 428 FREEWAY RAMP 871 1 12 2 1750 45 32 SR 153 307 162 163 SR 441 MINOR ARTERIAL 2998 2 12 2 1750 55 32 308 163 813 SR 441 MINOR ARTERIAL 2118 2 12 2 1900 55 32 309 164 817 SR 441 MAJOR ARTERIAL 765 3 12 2 1750 55 32 310 165 166 SR 441 MINOR ARTERIAL 485 2 12 2 1750 40 32 I490 ONRAMP 311 165 176 FREEWAY RAMP 730 1 12 2 1700 45 32 FROM SR 441 312 166 165 SR 441 MINOR ARTERIAL 485 1 12 2 1750 40 32 313 166 167 SR 441 MINOR ARTERIAL 905 2 12 2 1750 40 32 R.E. Ginna Nuclear Power 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 I490 ONRAMP 314 166 177 FREEWAY RAMP 736 1 12 2 1700 45 32 FROM SR 441 315 167 166 SR 441 MINOR ARTERIAL 905 2 12 2 1750 40 32 316 167 441 EAST AVE MINOR ARTERIAL 4376 2 12 2 1750 45 31 317 167 848 SR 96 MINOR ARTERIAL 487 2 12 2 1750 45 32 318 167 1024 ELMWOOD AVE COLLECTOR 311 2 12 2 1900 40 32 319 169 170 I490 FREEWAY 812 3 12 12 2250 70 28 320 170 169 I490 FREEWAY 812 4 12 12 2250 70 28 321 170 171 I490 FREEWAY 862 4 12 12 2250 70 28 I490 OFFRAMP TO S 322 170 836 FREEWAY RAMP 479 1 12 2 1900 45 28 WINTON RD 323 171 170 I490 FREEWAY 862 4 12 12 2250 70 28 324 171 172 I490 FREEWAY 1440 3 12 12 2250 70 28 325 171 823 SR 590 ONRAMP FREEWAY RAMP 778 2 12 2 1900 55 28 326 172 171 I490 FREEWAY 1440 3 12 12 2250 70 28 327 172 173 I490 FREEWAY 698 3 12 12 2250 70 28 328 173 172 I490 FREEWAY 698 4 12 12 2250 70 28 329 173 174 I490 FREEWAY 1471 3 12 12 2250 70 28 330 174 173 I490 FREEWAY 1473 3 12 12 2250 70 28 331 174 175 I490 FREEWAY 1193 3 12 12 2250 70 28 332 174 826 SR 590 ONRAMP FREEWAY RAMP 774 2 12 2 1900 50 28 333 175 174 I490 FREEWAY 1193 4 12 12 2250 70 28 334 175 176 I490 FREEWAY 4583 3 12 12 2250 70 32 I490 OFFRAMP TO 335 175 440 FREEWAY RAMP 660 1 12 2 1750 45 31 PENFIELD RD I490 OFFRAMP TO 336 176 166 FREEWAY RAMP 555 1 12 2 1750 55 32 SR 441 R.E. Ginna Nuclear Power 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 337 176 175 I490 FREEWAY 4583 3 12 12 2250 70 32 338 176 177 I490 FREEWAY 1277 3 12 12 2250 70 32 I490 OFFRAMP TO 339 177 165 FREEWAY RAMP 691 1 12 2 1750 55 32 SR 441 340 177 176 I490 FREEWAY 1281 3 12 12 2250 70 32 341 177 178 I490 FREEWAY 2038 3 12 12 2250 70 32 342 178 177 I490 FREEWAY 2037 3 12 12 2250 70 32 343 178 179 I490 FREEWAY 2332 3 12 12 2250 70 32 344 179 178 I490 FREEWAY 2333 3 12 12 2250 70 32 345 179 180 I490 FREEWAY 1668 3 12 12 2250 70 32 346 180 179 I490 FREEWAY 1672 3 12 12 2250 70 32 347 180 549 I490 FREEWAY 2289 4 12 12 2250 70 32 348 181 549 I490 FREEWAY 1176 3 12 12 2250 70 39 I490 OFFRAMP TO 349 181 553 FREEWAY RAMP 877 2 12 2 1750 45 39 31F 350 181 988 I490 FREEWAY 3440 3 12 12 2250 70 39 351 182 183 I490 FREEWAY 2991 2 12 12 2250 70 39 352 182 988 I490 FREEWAY 4012 2 12 12 2250 70 39 353 183 182 I490 FREEWAY 2987 2 12 12 2250 70 39 354 183 184 I490 FREEWAY 2975 2 12 12 2250 70 39 355 184 183 I490 FREEWAY 2980 2 12 12 2250 70 39 356 184 185 I490 FREEWAY 2308 2 12 12 2250 70 39 357 185 184 I490 FREEWAY 2308 2 12 12 2250 70 39 358 186 38 SR 21 MINOR ARTERIAL 1859 1 12 2 1750 40 7 359 186 116 SR 21 MINOR ARTERIAL 1419 1 12 12 1750 55 24 360 187 188 SR 21 MINOR ARTERIAL 3570 1 12 12 1700 55 24 361 188 189 SR 21 MINOR ARTERIAL 7960 1 12 12 1700 55 24 R.E. Ginna Nuclear Power 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 362 189 190 SR 21 MINOR ARTERIAL 7961 1 12 2 1700 50 37 363 190 191 SR 21 MINOR ARTERIAL 2770 1 12 2 1700 45 37 364 190 197 N MAIN ST COLLECTOR 1352 1 12 2 1700 45 37 365 191 192 SR 21 MINOR ARTERIAL 2221 1 12 2 1750 45 37 366 192 193 SR 21 MINOR ARTERIAL 3180 1 12 2 1700 45 37 367 192 199 BUFFALO ST COLLECTOR 2191 1 12 2 1750 45 37 368 193 194 SR 21 MINOR ARTERIAL 6499 1 12 2 1700 60 37 369 194 195 SR 21 MINOR ARTERIAL 10982 1 12 12 1700 60 43 370 195 196 SR 21 MINOR ARTERIAL 8215 1 12 12 1700 55 43 371 196 88 SR 21 MINOR ARTERIAL 3064 1 12 12 1750 50 42 372 197 198 N MAIN ST COLLECTOR 2346 1 10 2 1575 35 37 373 197 649 E WILLIAMSON RD COLLECTOR 4840 1 12 2 1700 60 37 374 198 199 N MAIN ST COLLECTOR 1865 1 10 2 1750 35 37 375 199 200 CO RD 216 COLLECTOR 478 1 12 2 1700 40 37 376 200 193 CO RD 216 COLLECTOR 2307 1 12 2 1700 45 37 377 200 201 MILL ST COLLECTOR 2090 1 12 2 1700 45 37 378 201 202 NEWARK RD COLLECTOR 7454 1 12 2 1700 55 37 379 202 203 NEWARK MARION RD COLLECTOR 1272 1 12 2 1700 50 37 380 203 204 NEWARK MARION RD COLLECTOR 7310 1 12 2 1700 55 43 381 204 205 NEWARK MARION RD COLLECTOR 3562 1 12 2 1700 55 43 382 205 206 CO RD 221 COLLECTOR 1675 1 12 2 1700 55 43 383 206 207 CO RD 221 COLLECTOR 5153 1 12 2 1700 55 43 384 207 208 CO RD 221 COLLECTOR 6121 1 12 2 1700 55 44 385 208 2 CO RD 221 COLLECTOR 5411 1 12 2 1700 55 44 386 209 71 LAKE RD COLLECTOR 947 1 12 2 1750 55 5 387 209 954 LAKE RD COLLECTOR 1428 1 12 2 1700 55 5 R.E. Ginna Nuclear Power 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 388 210 71 PLANT DRIVEWAY COLLECTOR 1480 1 12 2 1750 40 5 389 210 209 PLANT DRIVEWAY COLLECTOR 965 1 12 2 1700 40 5 390 211 95 LAKE RD COLLECTOR 5217 1 12 2 1700 55 6 391 211 773 KNICKERBOCKER RD COLLECTOR 7417 1 12 2 1700 50 6 392 212 213 LAKE RD COLLECTOR 6143 1 12 2 1700 55 6 393 212 636 FISHER RD COLLECTOR 3869 1 12 2 1700 50 6 394 213 214 LAKE RD COLLECTOR 4172 1 12 2 1700 55 6 STONEY LONESOME 395 213 789 COLLECTOR 14281 1 12 2 1700 55 6 RD 396 214 215 LAKE RD COLLECTOR 4128 1 12 2 1700 55 7 397 215 216 LAKE RD COLLECTOR 3503 1 12 2 1700 45 7 398 216 111 LAKE RD COLLECTOR 1511 1 12 2 1575 35 7 399 216 790 HAMILTON RD COLLECTOR 1304 1 12 2 1750 45 7 400 217 218 LAKE RD COLLECTOR 4274 1 12 2 1700 55 7 401 218 219 LAKE RD COLLECTOR 4368 1 12 2 1700 55 7 402 219 220 LAKE RD COLLECTOR 1665 1 12 2 1700 55 7 403 219 642 E TOWNLINE RD COLLECTOR 12152 1 12 2 1700 50 7 404 220 221 LAKE RD COLLECTOR 6587 1 12 2 1700 55 8 405 221 222 LAKE RD COLLECTOR 3255 1 12 2 1700 55 8 406 221 683 N CENTENARY RD COLLECTOR 8874 1 12 2 1700 45 8 407 222 223 LAKE RD COLLECTOR 5706 1 12 2 1700 55 8 408 223 224 LAKE RD COLLECTOR 5233 1 12 2 1700 55 8 409 224 44 MAPLE AVE COLLECTOR 7522 1 12 2 1750 55 8 410 224 668 LAKE RD COLLECTOR 3166 1 12 2 1700 55 8 411 225 226 BASKET RD COLLECTOR 5956 1 12 2 1700 55 4 412 225 228 LAKE RD COLLECTOR 3411 1 12 2 1700 55 4 413 226 227 BASKET RD COLLECTOR 4290 1 12 2 1700 55 4 R.E. Ginna Nuclear Power 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 414 227 230 SCHLEGEL RD COLLECTOR 3406 1 12 2 1700 55 4 415 227 885 BASKET RD COLLECTOR 6150 1 12 2 1700 55 4 416 228 229 SALT RD COLLECTOR 5625 1 12 2 1700 50 4 417 228 239 LAKE RD COLLECTOR 5232 1 12 2 1700 50 4 418 229 230 SALT RD COLLECTOR 4362 1 12 2 1700 50 4 419 230 242 SCHLEGEL RD COLLECTOR 5032 1 12 2 1700 55 4 420 230 760 SALT RD COLLECTOR 5271 1 12 2 1700 50 4 SR 104 ONRAMP 421 231 23 FREEWAY RAMP 718 1 12 2 1700 50 15 FROM SALT RD 422 231 232 SALT RD MINOR ARTERIAL 401 2 12 2 1750 30 15 423 232 231 SALT RD MINOR ARTERIAL 401 1 12 2 1750 30 15 424 232 233 SALT RD MINOR ARTERIAL 465 2 12 2 1750 35 15 425 233 232 SALT RD MINOR ARTERIAL 465 2 12 2 1750 35 15 426 233 234 SALT RD COLLECTOR 5241 1 12 2 1700 50 15 427 233 357 SR 404 MINOR ARTERIAL 2968 1 12 2 1700 50 15 428 234 235 SALT RD COLLECTOR 3847 1 12 2 1700 50 15 429 234 334 STATE RD COLLECTOR 2946 1 12 2 1700 55 15 430 235 236 SALT RD COLLECTOR 4241 1 12 2 1700 50 21 431 236 237 SALT RD COLLECTOR 8088 1 10 1 1700 55 21 432 236 335 PLANK RD COLLECTOR 3009 1 12 2 1700 50 21 433 237 238 SALT RD COLLECTOR 2551 1 10 1 1750 55 34 434 237 336 SR 286 MINOR ARTERIAL 3145 1 12 2 1700 50 34 435 238 153 SALT RD COLLECTOR 7965 1 10 1 1750 55 34 436 238 337 SWEET CORNERS RD COLLECTOR 3230 1 10 2 1750 50 34 437 239 240 PHILLIPS RD COLLECTOR 3232 1 12 2 1700 55 4 438 239 251 LAKE RD COLLECTOR 3867 1 12 2 1700 55 4 439 240 241 PHILLIPS RD COLLECTOR 2198 1 12 2 1700 55 4 R.E. Ginna Nuclear Power 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 440 241 242 PHILLIPS RD COLLECTOR 3589 1 12 2 1700 55 4 441 242 243 PHILLIPS RD COLLECTOR 2968 1 12 2 1750 55 4 442 242 256 SCHLEGEL RD COLLECTOR 2487 1 12 2 1750 50 4 443 243 244 PHILLIPS RD COLLECTOR 2367 1 12 2 1750 55 4 444 243 950 KLEM RD COLLECTOR 2087 1 12 2 1700 55 4 445 244 245 PHILLIPS RD COLLECTOR 1263 1 12 2 1700 55 14 446 244 884 CHIYODA DR COLLECTOR 1596 1 12 2 1700 40 14 447 245 246 PHILLIPS RD COLLECTOR 962 1 12 2 1750 55 14 448 246 247 PHILLIPS RD MINOR ARTERIAL 350 2 12 2 1900 40 14 449 246 883 ORCHARD RD MINOR ARTERIAL 1595 2 12 2 1750 55 14 450 247 248 PHILLIPS RD COLLECTOR 448 1 12 2 1750 40 14 SR 104 ONRAMP 451 247 902 FREEWAY RAMP 591 2 12 2 1900 45 14 FROM PHILLIPS RD 452 248 247 PHILLIPS RD COLLECTOR 448 1 12 2 1700 40 14 453 248 1002 PHILLIPS RD COLLECTOR 988 1 12 2 1700 55 14 454 249 264 SR 404 MINOR ARTERIAL 3064 1 12 2 1750 50 14 455 249 1001 PHILLIPS RD MINOR ARTERIAL 2007 2 12 2 1900 50 14 456 249 1002 PHILLIPS RD MINOR ARTERIAL 346 2 12 2 1900 40 14 457 250 266 STATE RD COLLECTOR 3238 1 12 2 1750 50 14 458 251 252 SR 250 MINOR ARTERIAL 1260 1 12 2 1700 50 4 459 251 287 LAKE RD COLLECTOR 3564 1 12 2 1700 55 4 460 252 253 SR 250 MINOR ARTERIAL 865 1 12 2 1700 50 4 461 253 254 SR 250 MINOR ARTERIAL 3260 1 12 2 1700 50 4 462 254 255 SR 250 MINOR ARTERIAL 2118 1 12 2 1700 50 4 463 255 256 SR 250 MINOR ARTERIAL 1386 1 12 2 1750 50 4 464 256 257 SR 250 MINOR ARTERIAL 2594 1 12 2 1700 50 4 465 257 258 SR 250 MINOR ARTERIAL 388 2 12 2 1750 50 4 R.E. Ginna Nuclear Power 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 466 258 259 SR 250 MINOR ARTERIAL 367 2 12 2 1900 50 4 467 258 951 KLEM RD MINOR ARTERIAL 389 2 12 2 1900 50 4 468 259 260 SR 250 MINOR ARTERIAL 2212 1 12 2 1700 50 4 469 260 261 SR 250 MINOR ARTERIAL 2099 1 12 2 1750 50 14 470 261 926 SR 250 MINOR ARTERIAL 978 1 12 2 1575 35 14 471 262 263 SR 250 MINOR ARTERIAL 346 2 12 2 1750 35 14 472 262 757 SR 104 SERVICE RD MINOR ARTERIAL 1075 2 12 2 1900 55 14 473 263 262 SR 250 MINOR ARTERIAL 346 1 12 2 1750 35 14 474 263 927 SR 250 MINOR ARTERIAL 332 2 12 2 1900 35 14 475 264 358 SR 404 MINOR ARTERIAL 2072 1 12 2 1750 40 14 476 264 770 SR 250 MINOR ARTERIAL 1153 1 12 2 1750 40 14 477 264 927 SR 250 MINOR ARTERIAL 844 1 12 2 1700 40 14 478 265 266 SR 250 MINOR ARTERIAL 2368 1 12 2 1750 50 14 479 266 267 SR 250 MINOR ARTERIAL 6313 1 12 2 1750 50 20 480 266 372 STATE RD COLLECTOR 3701 1 12 2 1700 50 20 481 267 268 SR 250 MINOR ARTERIAL 5380 1 12 2 1700 55 20 482 267 400 PLANK RD COLLECTOR 1611 1 12 2 1700 50 20 483 268 269 SR 250 MINOR ARTERIAL 2560 1 12 2 1750 55 34 484 268 999 PENFIELD CENTER RD COLLECTOR 4155 1 12 2 1700 50 34 485 269 270 SR 250 MINOR ARTERIAL 2747 1 12 2 1700 55 34 486 269 408 SR 286 MINOR ARTERIAL 4839 1 12 2 1700 50 34 487 270 271 SR 250 MINOR ARTERIAL 4698 1 12 2 1750 55 34 488 271 910 SR 250 MINOR ARTERIAL 2153 1 12 2 1700 50 34 489 271 1022 WHALEN RD COLLECTOR 2375 1 12 2 1700 50 34 490 272 157 SR 250 MINOR ARTERIAL 1240 1 12 2 1750 50 34 491 272 273 SR 250 MINOR ARTERIAL 6895 1 12 4 1750 55 34 R.E. Ginna Nuclear Power 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 492 273 274 SR 250 MINOR ARTERIAL 1254 1 12 2 1750 35 40 493 273 594 WHITNEY RD W COLLECTOR 5809 1 12 2 1750 50 39 494 274 275 SR 250 MINOR ARTERIAL 1769 1 12 2 1750 30 40 495 274 282 HIGH ST COLLECTOR 2676 1 12 2 1750 45 40 496 275 276 SR 250 MINOR ARTERIAL 591 1 12 2 1750 35 40 497 276 565 31F COLLECTOR 2238 1 12 2 1700 55 40 498 276 947 SR 250 MINOR ARTERIAL 2904 1 12 2 1750 40 40 499 277 567 SR 250 MINOR ARTERIAL 990 2 12 2 1900 50 40 500 277 944 AYRAULT RD MINOR ARTERIAL 632 2 12 2 1900 45 40 501 278 580 SR 31 MINOR ARTERIAL 487 2 12 2 1750 55 40 502 278 937 SR 250 MINOR ARTERIAL 379 2 12 2 1900 40 40 503 280 156 WATSON RD COLLECTOR 2354 1 12 2 1750 50 34 504 280 281 WATSON RD COLLECTOR 5797 1 12 2 1750 50 34 505 281 273 WHITNEY RD E COLLECTOR 2571 1 12 2 1750 50 40 506 281 282 TURK HILL RD COLLECTOR 1908 1 12 2 1750 55 40 507 282 274 HIGH ST COLLECTOR 2676 1 12 2 1750 45 40 508 282 283 TURK HILL RD COLLECTOR 2283 1 12 2 1750 50 40 509 283 284 TURK HILL RD COLLECTOR 564 1 12 2 1700 50 40 510 283 566 31F COLLECTOR 1041 1 12 2 1700 50 40 511 284 945 TURK HILL RD COLLECTOR 4810 1 12 2 1750 40 40 512 285 943 AYRAULT RD COLLECTOR 1807 1 12 2 1700 45 40 513 285 955 TURK HILL RD MINOR ARTERIAL 326 2 12 2 1900 40 40 514 286 579 SR 31 MINOR ARTERIAL 1976 2 12 2 1750 55 40 515 287 288 HOLT RD COLLECTOR 7706 1 12 2 1700 50 4 516 287 342 LAKE RD COLLECTOR 3591 1 12 2 1700 45 4 517 288 289 HOLT RD COLLECTOR 3134 1 12 2 1750 50 4 R.E. Ginna Nuclear Power 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 518 288 952 SHOEMAKER RD COLLECTOR 3960 1 12 2 1700 55 3 519 289 295 KLEM RD COLLECTOR 3925 1 12 2 1750 50 3 520 289 923 HOLT RD COLLECTOR 4909 1 12 2 1700 45 14 521 290 291 HOLT RD MINOR ARTERIAL 494 2 12 2 1750 40 14 522 290 755 SR 104 SERVICE RD MINOR ARTERIAL 494 2 12 2 1900 55 14 523 291 290 HOLT RD COLLECTOR 494 1 12 2 1750 40 14 524 291 292 HOLT RD MINOR ARTERIAL 526 2 12 2 1750 45 14 525 292 291 HOLT RD MINOR ARTERIAL 526 2 12 2 1750 45 14 526 292 293 HOLT RD MINOR ARTERIAL 496 2 12 2 1750 45 14 527 293 292 HOLT RD MINOR ARTERIAL 496 2 12 2 1750 45 14 528 293 294 HOLT RD MINOR ARTERIAL 592 1 12 2 1750 45 14 529 294 293 HOLT RD MINOR ARTERIAL 592 2 12 2 1750 45 14 530 294 359 SR 404 MINOR ARTERIAL 1325 1 12 2 1750 45 14 531 295 296 HARD RD COLLECTOR 4600 1 12 2 1700 50 13 532 295 303 KLEM RD COLLECTOR 1756 1 12 2 1700 55 3 533 296 416 PUBLISHERS PKWY COLLECTOR 3859 1 12 2 1750 40 13 534 296 922 HARD RD COLLECTOR 986 1 12 2 1700 45 13 535 297 751 HARD RD MINOR ARTERIAL 362 2 12 2 1750 40 13 536 297 753 SR 104 SERVICE RD MINOR ARTERIAL 2667 2 12 2 1900 55 13 537 298 299 HARD RD COLLECTOR 809 1 12 2 1750 45 13 538 298 751 HARD RD COLLECTOR 1028 1 12 2 1750 45 13 539 299 298 HARD RD COLLECTOR 809 1 12 2 1750 45 13 540 299 360 SR 404 MINOR ARTERIAL 980 1 12 2 1750 45 13 541 299 635 SHOECRAFT RD COLLECTOR 627 1 12 2 1700 50 13 542 300 301 WHITING RD COLLECTOR 3671 1 12 2 1700 55 3 543 300 343 LAKE RD COLLECTOR 4408 1 12 2 1700 45 3 R.E. Ginna Nuclear Power Plant K68 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 544 301 302 WHITING RD COLLECTOR 3286 1 12 2 1700 55 3 545 302 303 WHITING RD COLLECTOR 2329 1 12 2 1700 55 3 546 302 348 SHOEMAKER RD COLLECTOR 3195 1 12 2 1700 55 3 547 303 304 KLEM RD COLLECTOR 957 1 12 2 1700 55 3 548 304 305 KLEM RD COLLECTOR 1116 1 12 2 1700 55 3 549 305 306 KLEM RD COLLECTOR 1798 1 12 2 1700 55 3 550 305 416 5 MILE LINE RD COLLECTOR 4333 1 12 2 1750 50 13 551 306 307 KLEM RD COLLECTOR 1278 1 12 2 1700 55 3 552 307 308 KLEM RD COLLECTOR 1100 1 12 2 1700 55 3 553 307 369 GRAVEL RD COLLECTOR 2613 1 12 2 1700 50 3 554 308 309 KLEM RD COLLECTOR 743 1 12 2 1700 55 3 555 309 310 KLEM RD COLLECTOR 597 1 12 2 1700 55 3 556 310 311 KLEM RD COLLECTOR 1644 1 12 2 1700 55 3 557 311 312 KLEM RD COLLECTOR 1727 1 12 2 1700 55 3 558 312 313 BAY RD MINOR ARTERIAL 3073 2 12 2 1900 50 3 559 313 314 BAY RD MINOR ARTERIAL 3079 2 12 2 1750 50 12 SR 104 ONRAMP 560 314 17 FREEWAY RAMP 2138 1 12 2 1700 55 12 FROM BAY RD 561 314 315 BAY RD MINOR ARTERIAL 723 2 12 2 1750 55 12 562 315 314 BAY RD COLLECTOR 723 1 12 2 1750 55 12 563 315 316 BAY RD MINOR ARTERIAL 2566 2 12 2 1750 50 12 564 316 315 BAY RD MINOR ARTERIAL 2563 2 12 2 1750 50 12 565 316 978 BAY RD COLLECTOR 4972 1 12 2 1750 45 12 566 317 318 CREEK ST COLLECTOR 2720 1 12 2 1750 45 18 567 317 377 SR 404 MINOR ARTERIAL 2870 2 12 2 1750 50 18 568 318 319 CREEK ST COLLECTOR 3613 1 12 2 1700 50 18 569 318 377 PLANK RD COLLECTOR 1504 1 12 2 1750 55 18 R.E. Ginna Nuclear Power Plant K69 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 570 319 320 CREEK ST COLLECTOR 861 1 12 2 1700 50 18 571 320 321 CREEK ST COLLECTOR 6108 1 12 2 1750 50 29 572 321 322 SR 286 MINOR ARTERIAL 2754 2 12 2 1900 55 29 573 321 443 BLOSSOM RD COLLECTOR 1910 1 12 2 1700 50 29 574 322 323 SR 286 MINOR ARTERIAL 3463 2 12 2 1900 55 29 575 323 324 SR 286 MINOR ARTERIAL 2748 2 12 2 1750 40 28 576 323 444 N LANDING RD COLLECTOR 2999 1 12 2 1700 55 29 577 324 325 BANCROFT BLVD MINOR ARTERIAL 484 2 12 2 1900 40 28 578 325 330 BANCROFT BLVD MINOR ARTERIAL 269 2 12 2 1900 55 28 SR 590 ONRAMP 579 325 331 FROM BANCROFT FREEWAY RAMP 385 1 12 2 1575 35 28 BLVD 580 326 327 BANCROFT BLVD COLLECTOR 1536 1 12 2 1900 40 28 581 326 330 BANCROFT BLVD MINOR ARTERIAL 619 1 12 2 1900 40 28 582 327 326 BANCROFT BLVD COLLECTOR 1536 1 12 2 1900 40 28 583 327 450 N WHINTON RD COLLECTOR 1701 1 12 2 1900 40 28 584 327 866 ATLANTIC AVE COLLECTOR 3835 1 12 2 1700 40 28 585 328 329 ATLANTIC AVE COLLECTOR 1209 1 12 2 1700 40 28 586 330 326 BANCROFT BLVD MINOR ARTERIAL 619 1 12 2 1900 40 28 SR 590 ONRAMP 587 330 331 FROM BANCROFT FREEWAY RAMP 256 1 12 2 1575 35 28 BLVD SR 590 ONRAMP 588 331 10 FROM BANCROFT FREEWAY RAMP 739 1 12 2 1575 35 28 BLVD SR 590 ONRAMP 589 331 330 FROM BANCROFT FREEWAY RAMP 256 1 12 2 1900 35 28 BLVD R.E. Ginna Nuclear Power Plant K70 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 590 332 50 CULVER RD COLLECTOR 5710 1 12 4 1575 35 3 591 332 333 BAY RD MINOR ARTERIAL 1517 2 12 2 1900 50 3 592 333 312 BAY RD MINOR ARTERIAL 2474 2 12 2 1900 50 3 593 334 250 STATE RD COLLECTOR 2037 1 12 2 1750 45 14 594 334 335 HARRIS RD COLLECTOR 8029 1 12 2 1700 50 21 595 335 336 HARRIS RD COLLECTOR 8033 1 12 2 1700 50 21 596 335 401 PLANK RD COLLECTOR 2600 1 12 2 1700 50 20 597 336 269 SR 286 MINOR ARTERIAL 5172 1 12 2 1750 50 34 598 336 337 HARRIS RD COLLECTOR 2577 1 12 2 1750 50 34 599 337 154 HARRIS RD COLLECTOR 8519 1 10 1 1700 50 34 600 337 270 SWEET CORNERS RD COLLECTOR 5626 1 10 2 1700 50 34 601 338 341 LAKE RD COLLECTOR 4453 1 12 2 1700 55 5 602 338 781 CO RD 102 COLLECTOR 5395 1 12 2 1700 55 5 603 339 138 BERG RD COLLECTOR 9971 1 12 2 1700 55 5 604 339 888 CO RD 102 COLLECTOR 4774 1 12 2 1700 55 5 605 340 28 CO RD 102 COLLECTOR 836 1 12 2 1750 35 22 606 340 142 RIDGE RD COLLECTOR 2378 1 12 2 1700 55 22 607 341 136 LAKE RD COLLECTOR 5493 1 12 2 1700 55 5 608 342 300 LAKE RD COLLECTOR 2457 1 12 2 1700 45 3 609 343 344 LAKE RD COLLECTOR 1159 1 12 2 1700 40 3 610 344 345 LAKE RD COLLECTOR 3200 1 12 2 1700 40 3 611 345 346 LAKE RD COLLECTOR 3242 1 12 2 1700 40 3 612 346 347 LAKE RD COLLECTOR 1254 1 12 2 1700 40 3 613 347 332 LAKE RD COLLECTOR 1235 1 12 2 1700 40 3 614 348 306 VAN ALSTYNE RD COLLECTOR 2120 1 12 2 1700 55 3 615 349 74 RIDGE RD COLLECTOR 2449 1 12 2 1750 45 22 R.E. Ginna Nuclear Power Plant K71 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 616 349 93 RIDGE RD COLLECTOR 2488 1 12 2 1700 50 22 617 350 139 RIDGE RD COLLECTOR 2986 1 12 2 1700 50 22 618 351 352 RIDGE RD COLLECTOR 1995 1 12 2 1700 55 15 619 351 354 COUNTY LINE RD COLLECTOR 227 1 12 2 1350 30 15 620 352 356 SR 404 MINOR ARTERIAL 652 1 12 2 1700 55 15 621 353 352 SR 404 MINOR ARTERIAL 479 1 12 2 1700 50 15 622 354 353 SR 404 MINOR ARTERIAL 1694 1 12 2 1700 55 15 623 354 355 SR 404 MINOR ARTERIAL 540 1 12 2 1700 40 15 624 355 25 SR 404 MINOR ARTERIAL 153 1 12 2 1750 35 15 625 355 354 SR 404 MINOR ARTERIAL 540 1 12 2 1700 55 15 626 356 24 BASKET RD COLLECTOR 482 1 12 2 1750 55 15 627 356 233 SR 404 MINOR ARTERIAL 3609 1 12 2 1750 55 15 628 357 249 SR 404 MINOR ARTERIAL 2361 1 12 2 1750 50 14 629 358 766 SR 404 MINOR ARTERIAL 1437 1 12 2 1750 45 14 630 359 299 SR 404 MINOR ARTERIAL 2540 1 12 2 1750 45 13 631 360 361 SR 404 MINOR ARTERIAL 1260 1 12 2 1750 45 13 632 361 362 SR 404 MINOR ARTERIAL 1619 1 12 2 1750 45 13 633 362 363 SR 404 MINOR ARTERIAL 2731 1 12 2 1750 50 13 634 362 419 5 MILE LINE RD COLLECTOR 2154 1 12 2 1750 45 13 635 362 422 5 MILE LINE RD COLLECTOR 3836 1 12 2 1700 45 13 636 363 364 SR 404 MINOR ARTERIAL 1979 1 12 2 1750 50 13 637 363 433 HATCH RD COLLECTOR 2711 1 12 2 1700 50 13 638 364 365 RIDGE RD COLLECTOR 1091 1 12 2 1750 50 12 639 364 366 SR 404 MINOR ARTERIAL 1984 1 12 2 1700 45 12 640 365 316 RIDGE RD COLLECTOR 4564 1 12 2 1750 55 12 641 365 364 RIDGE RD COLLECTOR 1091 1 12 2 1750 50 12 R.E. Ginna Nuclear Power Plant K72 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 642 365 366 GRAVEL RD COLLECTOR 1497 1 12 2 1700 45 12 643 366 367 SR 404 MINOR ARTERIAL 3188 2 12 2 1750 50 18 644 367 368 SR 404 MINOR ARTERIAL 471 2 12 2 1750 50 18 645 368 317 SR 404 MINOR ARTERIAL 667 2 12 2 1750 50 18 646 369 370 GRAVEL RD COLLECTOR 3208 1 12 2 1700 50 13 647 370 1018 GRAVEL RD COLLECTOR 1881 1 12 2 1700 50 13 648 371 140 COUNTY LINE RD COLLECTOR 424 1 12 2 1700 55 15 649 371 234 STATE RD COLLECTOR 6762 1 12 2 1700 55 15 650 372 373 STATE RD COLLECTOR 6176 1 12 2 1700 50 20 651 372 399 JACKSON RD COLLECTOR 2593 1 12 2 1700 55 20 652 373 374 STATE RD COLLECTOR 2431 1 12 2 1700 50 19 653 373 396 SHOECRAFT RD COLLECTOR 1423 1 12 2 1700 50 19 654 374 375 PLANK RD COLLECTOR 1264 1 12 2 1750 50 19 655 375 376 PLANK RD COLLECTOR 2659 1 12 2 1700 50 19 656 375 411 5 MILE LINE RD COLLECTOR 10510 1 12 2 1750 55 30 657 376 318 PLANK RD COLLECTOR 4692 1 12 2 1750 50 18 658 376 434 SCRIBNER RD COLLECTOR 5342 1 12 2 1700 55 19 659 377 378 SR 404 MINOR ARTERIAL 2652 2 12 4 1900 55 18 660 378 379 SR 404 MINOR ARTERIAL 3070 2 12 4 1900 55 18 661 379 380 SR 404 MINOR ARTERIAL 2371 2 12 4 1900 50 18 662 380 381 SR 404 MINOR ARTERIAL 1922 2 12 4 1750 50 17 663 381 382 SR 404 MINOR ARTERIAL 833 2 12 2 1750 45 17 664 381 455 N WHINTON RD COLLECTOR 1997 1 12 2 1700 40 17 665 382 383 SR 404 MINOR ARTERIAL 577 2 12 2 1750 40 17 590 ONRAMP FROM 666 383 12 FREEWAY RAMP 955 1 12 2 1700 45 17 SR 404 667 383 384 SR 404 MINOR ARTERIAL 400 2 12 2 1750 40 17 R.E. Ginna Nuclear Power Plant K73 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 668 384 383 SR 404 MINOR ARTERIAL 400 1 12 2 1750 40 17 669 384 385 SR 404 MINOR ARTERIAL 1290 2 12 2 1750 40 17 670 385 384 SR 404 MINOR ARTERIAL 1290 2 12 2 1750 40 17 671 385 386 SR 404 MINOR ARTERIAL 1998 2 12 2 1900 40 17 672 385 462 SHELFORD RD COLLECTOR 1910 1 12 0 1700 40 17 673 386 387 CLIFFORD AVE COLLECTOR 826 1 12 2 1900 40 17 674 386 459 CULVER RD COLLECTOR 1921 1 12 2 1900 40 17 675 386 483 CULVER RD COLLECTOR 1502 1 12 2 1900 40 17 676 387 388 CLIFFORD AVE COLLECTOR 2006 1 12 2 1900 40 17 677 388 389 CLIFFORD AVE COLLECTOR 2206 1 12 2 1900 40 17 678 389 390 CLIFFORD AVE COLLECTOR 1554 1 12 2 1900 40 16 679 390 391 CLIFFORD AVE COLLECTOR 738 1 12 2 1900 40 16 680 391 392 CLIFFORD AVE COLLECTOR 1718 1 12 2 1900 40 16 681 392 393 CLIFFORD AVE COLLECTOR 845 1 12 2 1700 40 16 682 394 391 COLEMAN TERRACE COLLECTOR 915 1 12 2 1900 40 16 683 395 390 6TH ST COLLECTOR 911 1 12 2 1900 40 16 684 396 374 PLANK RD COLLECTOR 2015 1 12 2 1700 50 19 685 397 396 PLANK RD COLLECTOR 2500 1 12 2 1700 50 19 686 398 397 PLANK RD COLLECTOR 2550 1 12 2 1700 50 20 687 398 999 JACKSON RD COLLECTOR 5531 1 12 2 1700 50 20 688 399 398 JACKSON RD COLLECTOR 2256 1 12 2 1700 50 20 689 400 398 PLANK RD COLLECTOR 1792 1 12 2 1700 50 20 690 401 267 PLANK RD COLLECTOR 2461 1 12 2 1750 50 20 691 402 236 PLANK RD COLLECTOR 3315 1 12 2 1700 50 21 692 403 402 PLANK RD COLLECTOR 3559 1 12 2 1700 50 21 693 404 403 PLANK RD COLLECTOR 1153 1 12 2 1700 50 22 R.E. Ginna Nuclear Power Plant K74 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 694 404 406 COUNTY LINE RD COLLECTOR 7373 1 12 2 1700 50 22 695 405 404 COUNTY LINE RD COLLECTOR 3588 1 12 2 1700 50 22 696 406 407 SR 286 MINOR ARTERIAL 1690 1 12 2 1700 55 35 697 406 982 COUNTY LINE RD COLLECTOR 5850 1 12 2 1700 50 35 698 407 1020 SR 286 MINOR ARTERIAL 4944 1 12 2 1700 55 34 699 408 409 SR 286 MINOR ARTERIAL 3543 1 12 2 1700 50 30 700 408 1022 JACKSON RD COLLECTOR 7050 1 12 2 1700 50 34 701 409 410 SR 286 MINOR ARTERIAL 3092 1 12 2 1700 50 30 702 409 590 BAIRD RD COLLECTOR 6611 1 12 2 1700 55 30 703 410 411 SR 286 MINOR ARTERIAL 1371 1 12 2 1750 50 30 704 411 412 SR 286 MINOR ARTERIAL 2572 1 12 2 1750 55 30 705 411 423 5 MILE LINE RD COLLECTOR 4049 1 12 2 1750 55 30 706 412 413 SR 286 MINOR ARTERIAL 2119 1 12 2 1700 55 30 707 413 414 SR 286 MINOR ARTERIAL 414 2 12 2 1750 55 29 708 414 415 SR 286 MINOR ARTERIAL 1991 2 12 2 1750 55 29 709 415 321 SR 286 MINOR ARTERIAL 1015 2 12 2 1750 55 29 710 415 971 PANORAMA TRAIL COLLECTOR 1654 1 12 4 1575 35 29 711 416 296 PUBLISHERS PKWY COLLECTOR 3859 1 12 2 1700 40 13 712 416 921 5 MILE LINE RD COLLECTOR 1107 1 12 2 1700 50 13 SR 104 ONRAMP 713 417 18 FROM 5 MILE LINE FREEWAY RAMP 737 1 12 2 1700 45 13 RD 714 417 418 5 MILE LINE RD MINOR ARTERIAL 302 2 12 2 1750 40 13 715 418 417 5 MILE LINE RD COLLECTOR 302 1 12 2 1750 40 13 716 418 981 5 MILE LINE RD MINOR ARTERIAL 443 2 12 2 1900 40 13 717 419 362 5 MILE LINE RD COLLECTOR 2154 1 12 2 1750 45 13 718 419 981 5 MILE LINE RD COLLECTOR 526 1 12 2 1700 40 13 R.E. Ginna Nuclear Power Plant K75 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 719 420 419 DRIVEWAY COLLECTOR 415 1 12 2 1750 35 13 720 421 298 DRIVEWAY COLLECTOR 623 2 12 2 1750 45 13 721 422 375 5 MILE LINE RD COLLECTOR 4468 1 12 2 1750 50 19 722 423 424 5 MILE LINE RD COLLECTOR 2224 1 12 2 1750 55 30 723 424 159 5 MILE LINE RD COLLECTOR 2288 1 12 2 1750 55 33 724 425 432 E LINDEN AVE COLLECTOR 626 1 12 2 1750 50 33 725 425 595 WHITNEY RD COLLECTOR 2609 1 12 2 1700 50 33 726 426 435 PENFIELD RD MINOR ARTERIAL 1027 2 12 2 1750 50 32 727 426 968 PANORAMA TRAIL MINOR ARTERIAL 519 2 12 2 1750 45 32 728 427 970 PANORAMA TRAIL COLLECTOR 3153 1 12 2 1700 50 32 SR 441 ONRAMP 729 428 162 FROM PANORAMA FREEWAY RAMP 747 1 12 2 1700 45 32 TRAIL 730 428 429 PANORAMA TRAIL MINOR ARTERIAL 320 2 12 2 1750 55 32 731 429 428 PANORAMA TRAIL COLLECTOR 320 1 12 2 1750 55 32 732 429 430 SR 153 MINOR ARTERIAL 2696 2 12 2 1900 55 33 733 430 429 SR 153 MINOR ARTERIAL 2696 2 12 2 1750 55 33 734 430 431 SR 153 MINOR ARTERIAL 1694 2 12 2 1750 50 33 735 431 539 LINDEN AVE COLLECTOR 4978 1 12 2 1700 50 32 736 431 540 SR 153 MINOR ARTERIAL 907 2 12 2 1750 40 33 737 432 431 E LINDEN AVE COLLECTOR 2327 1 12 2 1750 45 33 738 432 589 BLUFF DR COLLECTOR 923 1 12 2 1700 45 33 739 433 363 HATCH RD COLLECTOR 2711 1 12 2 1750 50 13 740 433 376 HATCH RD COLLECTOR 5228 1 12 2 1700 50 19 741 434 412 SCRIBNER RD COLLECTOR 5201 1 12 2 1750 55 30 742 435 436 PENFIELD RD MINOR ARTERIAL 584 2 12 2 1900 50 32 743 436 437 PENFIELD RD COLLECTOR 4838 1 12 2 1700 50 32 R.E. Ginna Nuclear Power Plant K76 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 744 437 438 PENFIELD RD COLLECTOR 3862 1 12 2 1750 50 32 745 438 439 PENFIELD RD COLLECTOR 1506 1 12 2 1700 50 31 I490 ONRAMP 746 439 175 FREEWAY RAMP 927 1 12 2 1700 45 31 FROM PENFIELD RD 747 439 440 PENFIELD RD MINOR ARTERIAL 373 2 12 2 1750 55 31 748 440 441 PENFIELD RD MINOR ARTERIAL 736 2 12 2 1750 40 31 749 441 167 EAST AVE MINOR ARTERIAL 4375 2 12 2 1750 45 31 750 441 442 EAST AVE MINOR ARTERIAL 352 2 12 2 1750 40 31 751 442 441 EAST AVE MINOR ARTERIAL 352 2 12 2 1750 40 31 752 442 741 CLOVER ST COLLECTOR 318 1 12 2 1750 40 31 753 442 830 EAST AVE MINOR ARTERIAL 2318 2 12 2 1750 40 28 754 443 321 BLOSSOM RD COLLECTOR 1910 1 12 2 1750 50 29 755 443 990 BLOSSOM RD COLLECTOR 1151 1 12 2 1700 40 29 756 444 445 BLOSSOM RD COLLECTOR 1819 1 12 2 1750 45 29 757 444 536 N LANDING RD COLLECTOR 2470 1 12 2 1750 45 29 758 445 858 BLOSSOM RD COLLECTOR 890 1 12 2 1700 45 28 759 446 447 BLOSSOM RD MINOR ARTERIAL 386 2 12 2 1750 40 28 SR 590 OFFRAMP TO 760 447 857 FREEWAY RAMP 1020 1 12 2 1700 45 28 BLOSSOM RD 761 447 862 BLOSSOM RD MINOR ARTERIAL 596 2 12 2 1900 40 28 762 448 449 BLOSSOM RD COLLECTOR 1866 1 12 2 1900 40 28 763 449 451 N WHINTON RD MINOR ARTERIAL 249 2 12 2 1900 40 28 764 450 861 N WHINTON RD COLLECTOR 929 1 12 2 1700 40 28 765 451 452 N WHINTON RD MINOR ARTERIAL 927 2 10 2 1900 40 28 766 452 453 N WHINTON RD MINOR ARTERIAL 390 2 12 2 1900 45 28 767 452 832 UNIVERSITY AVE MINOR ARTERIAL 875 2 12 2 1900 45 28 768 453 454 N WHINTON RD MINOR ARTERIAL 156 2 12 2 1900 40 28 R.E. Ginna Nuclear Power Plant K77 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 769 453 833 EAST AVE MINOR ARTERIAL 888 2 12 2 1900 40 28 I490 ONRAMP 770 454 170 FREEWAY RAMP 575 1 12 2 1700 55 28 FROM S WINTON RD 771 454 836 S WINTON RD MINOR ARTERIAL 326 2 12 2 1900 45 28 772 455 381 N WHINTON RD COLLECTOR 1997 1 12 2 1750 40 17 773 455 456 N WHINTON RD COLLECTOR 4794 1 12 2 1900 40 28 774 455 1012 CULVER PKWY COLLECTOR 964 1 12 2 1700 40 17 775 456 326 MERCHANTS RD COLLECTOR 1437 1 12 2 1900 40 28 776 456 457 N WHINTON RD COLLECTOR 416 1 12 2 1900 40 28 777 457 327 N WHINTON RD COLLECTOR 635 1 12 2 1900 40 28 778 458 456 MERCHANTS RD COLLECTOR 2644 1 10 2 1900 35 28 779 458 1009 WISCONSIN ST COLLECTOR 381 1 12 2 1700 40 28 780 459 867 CULVER RD COLLECTOR 195 1 12 2 1900 40 17 781 460 328 CULVER RD COLLECTOR 1297 1 12 2 1900 40 28 782 461 865 E MAIN ST COLLECTOR 1096 1 12 2 1900 40 28 783 462 385 SHELFORD RD COLLECTOR 1910 1 12 0 1750 40 17 784 462 458 SHELFORD RD COLLECTOR 2964 1 12 0 1900 40 17 785 462 459 CULVER PKWY COLLECTOR 2197 1 12 2 1900 40 17 786 463 464 NORTON ST COLLECTOR 252 1 12 2 1700 45 17 787 463 467 NORTON ST COLLECTOR 1966 1 12 2 1750 45 17 SR 590 ONRAMP 788 464 13 FREEWAY RAMP 469 1 12 2 1700 50 17 FROM NORTON ST 789 464 463 NORTON ST COLLECTOR 252 1 12 2 1700 45 17 790 465 464 BAYVIEW RD COLLECTOR 481 1 12 2 1700 40 17 791 466 465 BAYVIEW RD COLLECTOR 591 1 12 2 1700 40 17 792 467 463 NORTON ST COLLECTOR 1966 1 12 2 1700 45 17 793 467 469 NORTON ST COLLECTOR 2117 1 12 2 1900 45 17 R.E. Ginna Nuclear Power Plant K78 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 794 468 467 PARDEE RD COLLECTOR 1503 1 12 2 1750 40 17 795 469 470 NORTON ST COLLECTOR 2601 1 12 2 1900 45 17 796 469 483 CULVER RD COLLECTOR 2994 1 12 2 1900 40 17 797 469 872 CULVER RD COLLECTOR 1005 1 12 2 1700 45 17 798 470 471 NORTON ST COLLECTOR 1486 1 12 2 1900 45 16 799 471 472 NORTON ST COLLECTOR 2089 1 12 2 1900 45 16 800 471 484 N GOODMAN ST COLLECTOR 2252 1 12 2 1900 45 16 801 471 508 N GOODMAN ST COLLECTOR 599 1 12 2 1750 45 16 802 472 473 PORTLAND AVE COLLECTOR 1063 1 12 2 1700 40 16 803 472 509 PORTLAND AVE MINOR ARTERIAL 2205 2 12 2 1900 40 16 804 473 392 PORTLAND AVE COLLECTOR 3832 1 12 2 1900 40 16 805 473 472 PORTLAND AVE COLLECTOR 1063 1 12 2 1900 40 16 806 474 475 CULVER RD COLLECTOR 2644 1 12 2 1750 40 2 807 475 476 CULVER RD COLLECTOR 1529 1 12 2 1700 40 2 808 475 516 SWEET FERN RD COLLECTOR 1543 1 12 2 1700 45 2 809 476 477 CULVER RD COLLECTOR 3544 1 12 2 1700 40 11 810 477 478 CULVER RD COLLECTOR 1787 1 12 2 1900 40 11 811 477 805 SENECA RD COLLECTOR 2740 1 12 2 1700 40 11 812 478 479 CULVER RD COLLECTOR 1694 1 12 2 1900 40 11 813 478 497 TITUS AVE COLLECTOR 2681 1 12 2 1700 40 11 814 478 499 TITUS AVE COLLECTOR 1057 1 12 2 1700 45 11 815 479 876 CULVER RD COLLECTOR 1057 1 12 2 1700 40 11 816 480 481 CULVER RD MINOR ARTERIAL 2445 2 12 2 1900 45 11 817 480 493 E RIDGE RD MINOR ARTERIAL 1551 2 12 2 1750 45 11 818 481 482 CULVER RD MINOR ARTERIAL 401 2 12 2 1900 45 17 819 481 726 SR 104 SERVICE RD MINOR ARTERIAL 290 2 12 2 1900 40 11 R.E. Ginna Nuclear Power Plant K79 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 820 482 481 CULVER RD COLLECTOR 401 1 12 2 1900 45 17 821 482 872 CULVER RD MINOR ARTERIAL 1742 2 12 2 1900 45 17 822 483 387 WOODMAN PK COLLECTOR 1263 1 12 2 1900 40 17 823 483 469 CULVER RD COLLECTOR 2994 1 12 2 1900 40 17 824 483 485 WARING RD COLLECTOR 1219 1 12 2 1900 40 17 825 484 389 N GOODMAN ST COLLECTOR 2022 1 12 2 1900 40 16 826 485 470 WARING RD COLLECTOR 2784 1 12 2 1900 40 17 827 485 486 NORTHLAND AVE COLLECTOR 1222 1 12 2 1700 40 17 828 486 388 LYCEUM ST COLLECTOR 2166 1 12 2 1900 40 17 829 486 484 NORTHLAND AVE COLLECTOR 2089 1 12 2 1900 40 17 830 486 485 NORTHLAND AVE COLLECTOR 1222 1 12 2 1900 40 17 831 487 488 E RIDGE RD COLLECTOR 1319 1 12 2 1700 55 11 832 488 489 E RIDGE RD COLLECTOR 303 1 12 2 1700 55 11 SR 590 ONRAMP 833 489 68 FREEWAY RAMP 684 1 12 2 1700 50 11 FROM E RIDGE RD 834 489 490 E RIDGE RD COLLECTOR 1594 1 12 2 1750 45 11 835 490 491 E RIDGE RD COLLECTOR 560 1 12 2 1750 45 11 836 491 492 E RIDGE RD MINOR ARTERIAL 575 2 12 2 1750 45 11 837 492 480 E RIDGE RD MINOR ARTERIAL 707 2 12 2 1900 45 11 838 493 494 E RIDGE RD MINOR ARTERIAL 774 2 12 2 1750 45 11 839 494 495 E RIDGE RD MINOR ARTERIAL 1969 2 12 2 1750 45 10 840 495 504 N GOODMAN ST MINOR ARTERIAL 424 2 12 2 1750 45 10 841 495 1015 E RIDGE RD MINOR ARTERIAL 706 2 12 2 1750 45 10 842 496 511 PORTLAND AVE MINOR ARTERIAL 700 2 12 2 1900 40 10 843 496 717 E RIDGE RD MINOR ARTERIAL 763 2 12 2 1750 45 10 SEA BREEZE DR 844 497 59 COLLECTOR 121 1 12 4 1125 25 11 TRAFFIC CIRCLE R.E. Ginna Nuclear Power Plant K80 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 845 497 478 TITUS AVE COLLECTOR 2681 1 12 2 1900 40 11 TITUS AVE EXT 846 498 58 COLLECTOR 109 1 12 4 1125 25 11 TRAFFIC CIRCLE 847 499 500 TITUS AVE COLLECTOR 4332 1 12 2 1750 45 11 848 500 501 TITUS AVE COLLECTOR 1406 1 12 2 1750 45 10 849 500 503 KINGS HWY S COLLECTOR 2993 1 12 2 1700 40 10 850 501 512 PORTLAND AVE COLLECTOR 4349 1 12 2 1700 40 10 851 501 514 TITUS AVE COLLECTOR 3386 1 12 2 1750 45 10 852 502 500 KINGS HWY N COLLECTOR 2918 1 12 2 1750 35 10 853 503 495 KINGS HWY S MINOR ARTERIAL 1544 2 12 2 1750 40 10 854 504 505 N GOODMAN ST MINOR ARTERIAL 445 2 12 2 1750 45 10 855 505 506 N GOODMAN ST MINOR ARTERIAL 331 2 12 2 1750 45 16 856 505 724 SR 104 SERVICE RD MINOR ARTERIAL 757 2 12 2 1900 55 10 857 506 505 N GOODMAN ST MINOR ARTERIAL 331 1 12 2 1750 45 16 858 506 507 N GOODMAN ST MINOR ARTERIAL 652 2 12 2 1900 45 16 859 507 506 N GOODMAN ST MINOR ARTERIAL 652 2 12 2 1750 45 16 860 507 508 N GOODMAN ST COLLECTOR 1733 1 12 2 1750 45 16 861 508 471 N GOODMAN ST COLLECTOR 599 1 12 2 1900 45 16 862 508 507 N GOODMAN ST COLLECTOR 1733 1 12 2 1700 45 16 863 509 472 PORTLAND AVE MINOR ARTERIAL 2205 2 12 2 1900 40 16 864 509 510 PORTLAND AVE MINOR ARTERIAL 479 2 12 2 1900 40 16 865 510 509 PORTLAND AVE MINOR ARTERIAL 479 2 12 2 1900 40 16 866 510 511 PORTLAND AVE MINOR ARTERIAL 322 1 12 2 1900 40 16 867 511 510 PORTLAND AVE MINOR ARTERIAL 322 2 12 2 1900 40 16 868 511 723 SR 104 SERVICE RD MINOR ARTERIAL 2244 2 12 2 1900 55 16 869 512 496 PORTLAND AVE MINOR ARTERIAL 563 2 12 2 1750 40 10 870 513 501 OAKVIEW DR COLLECTOR 3745 1 12 2 1750 40 10 R.E. Ginna Nuclear Power Plant K81 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 871 514 702 TITUS AVE COLLECTOR 699 1 12 2 1750 45 10 SEA BREEZE DR 872 515 53 COLLECTOR 127 1 12 4 900 20 2 TRAFFIC CIRCLE 873 515 475 DURAND BLVD COLLECTOR 568 1 12 2 1750 40 2 874 516 517 SWEET FERN RD COLLECTOR 1182 1 12 2 1700 40 2 875 517 518 PINE VALLEY RD COLLECTOR 1357 1 12 2 1700 50 2 876 518 519 LAKE SHORE BLVD COLLECTOR 1338 1 12 2 1700 45 2 877 519 520 LAKE SHORE BLVD COLLECTOR 2692 1 12 2 1700 50 2 878 520 521 LAKE SHORE BLVD COLLECTOR 2880 1 12 2 1700 50 2 879 521 522 LAKE SHORE BLVD COLLECTOR 395 1 12 2 1700 50 1 880 522 523 LAKE SHORE BLVD COLLECTOR 4665 1 12 2 1700 45 1 881 523 1 LAKE SHORE BLVD COLLECTOR 710 1 12 2 1750 45 1 882 524 520 KINGS HWY N COLLECTOR 1399 1 12 2 1575 35 2 883 525 527 PATTONWOOD DR COLLECTOR 2312 1 12 2 1750 40 1 884 526 525 ST. PAUL BLVD COLLECTOR 1565 1 12 2 1750 40 1 885 527 528 PATTONWOOD DR MINOR ARTERIAL 664 2 12 2 1750 40 1 886 528 529 PATTONWOOD DR MINOR ARTERIAL 1123 2 12 2 1900 40 1 887 530 531 THOMAS AVE COLLECTOR 4173 1 12 2 1700 40 1 888 530 532 ST PAUL BLVD MINOR ARTERIAL 1602 2 10 4 1900 45 1 889 531 528 THOMAS AVE COLLECTOR 3495 1 12 2 1750 40 1 890 532 530 ST PAUL BLVD COLLECTOR 1602 1 10 4 1750 45 1 891 532 703 ST PAUL BLVD MINOR ARTERIAL 1313 2 10 4 1900 45 10 892 533 532 PINEGROVE AVE COLLECTOR 1705 1 12 2 1700 40 1 893 534 1 ST PAUL BLVD COLLECTOR 2790 1 12 2 1750 45 1 894 534 881 ST PAUL BLVD COLLECTOR 2614 1 12 2 1700 45 1 895 535 534 COLEBROOK DR COLLECTOR 690 1 12 2 1750 40 1 896 536 438 N LANDING RD COLLECTOR 1812 1 12 2 1750 45 29 R.E. Ginna Nuclear Power Plant K82 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 897 537 445 CLOVER ST COLLECTOR 1172 1 12 2 1750 40 28 898 538 445 CLOVER ST COLLECTOR 2606 1 12 2 1750 40 28 899 539 163 LINDEN AVE COLLECTOR 1031 1 12 2 1750 45 32 900 540 541 SR 153 MINOR ARTERIAL 1081 2 12 2 1750 40 33 901 541 542 SR 153 MINOR ARTERIAL 2582 1 12 2 1700 50 32 902 541 546 W COMMERCIAL ST MINOR ARTERIAL 2454 2 12 2 1750 50 32 903 542 543 SR 153 MINOR ARTERIAL 790 1 12 2 1750 45 39 904 543 544 SR 153 MINOR ARTERIAL 1298 1 12 2 1700 50 39 905 543 552 31F MINOR ARTERIAL 882 2 12 2 1750 55 39 906 545 541 W COMMERCIAL ST COLLECTOR 723 1 12 2 1750 35 33 907 546 547 W COMMERCIAL ST MINOR ARTERIAL 1626 2 12 2 1900 55 32 I490 ONRAMP 908 547 548 FROM W FREEWAY RAMP 1038 1 12 2 1700 55 32 COMMERCIAL ST 909 547 556 I490 ACCESS RD FREEWAY RAMP 611 1 12 2 1700 55 32 I490 ONRAMP 910 548 550 FROM W FREEWAY RAMP 593 1 12 2 1700 40 32 COMMERCIAL ST 911 549 180 I490 FREEWAY 2293 3 12 12 2250 70 32 912 549 181 I490 FREEWAY 1176 3 12 12 2250 70 39 I490 ONRAMP 913 550 180 FROM W FREEWAY RAMP 542 1 12 2 1700 40 32 COMMERCIAL ST 914 551 546 ROOSEVELT RD COLLECTOR 862 1 12 2 1750 50 32 915 551 552 ROOSEVELT RD COLLECTOR 2093 1 12 2 1750 40 32 916 552 553 31F MINOR ARTERIAL 1030 2 12 2 1750 50 39 917 553 554 31F MINOR ARTERIAL 1141 2 12 2 1900 45 32 R.E. Ginna Nuclear Power Plant K83 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 918 553 557 I490 ACCESS RD MINOR ARTERIAL 1827 2 12 2 1900 55 32 I490 ONRAMP 919 554 181 FREEWAY RAMP 1700 1 12 2 1700 45 32 FROM 31F 920 554 553 31F MINOR ARTERIAL 1141 1 12 2 1750 45 32 921 554 844 31F MINOR ARTERIAL 675 2 12 2 1750 45 32 922 555 561 31F MINOR ARTERIAL 633 2 12 2 1750 50 39 923 555 588 MARSH RD COLLECTOR 3669 1 12 2 1700 45 39 924 556 558 I490 ACCESS RD COLLECTOR 1071 1 12 2 1700 50 32 925 557 556 I490 ACCESS RD COLLECTOR 803 1 12 2 1700 55 32 926 558 179 I490 ONRAMP FREEWAY RAMP 773 1 12 2 1700 45 32 927 559 543 31F MINOR ARTERIAL 1511 2 12 2 1750 50 39 928 560 559 31F MINOR ARTERIAL 1596 2 12 2 1750 50 39 929 561 560 31F MINOR ARTERIAL 1729 2 12 2 1750 55 39 930 562 555 31F MINOR ARTERIAL 3300 2 12 2 1750 50 39 931 563 562 31F MINOR ARTERIAL 709 2 12 2 1750 50 39 932 563 957 31F MAJOR ARTERIAL 566 2 12 2 1900 50 39 933 564 956 JEFFERSON AVE COLLECTOR 813 1 12 2 1700 40 39 934 564 957 31F MINOR ARTERIAL 546 1 12 2 1700 50 39 935 565 564 31F COLLECTOR 3187 1 12 2 1750 50 39 936 566 276 31F COLLECTOR 1573 1 12 2 1750 50 40 937 566 283 31F COLLECTOR 1042 1 12 2 1750 50 40 938 567 939 SR 250 MINOR ARTERIAL 1680 1 12 2 1700 50 40 939 568 277 SR 250 MINOR ARTERIAL 959 2 12 2 1750 40 40 940 569 84 SR 31 MINOR ARTERIAL 5036 1 12 2 1750 40 41 941 569 570 SR 31 MINOR ARTERIAL 1338 1 12 2 1750 50 41 942 569 628 VICTOR RD COLLECTOR 2035 1 12 2 1700 50 41 943 570 569 SR 31 MINOR ARTERIAL 1338 1 12 2 1700 50 41 R.E. Ginna Nuclear Power Plant K84 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 944 570 571 SR 31 MINOR ARTERIAL 9645 1 12 8 1750 50 41 945 570 628 CANANDAIGUA RD COLLECTOR 1479 1 12 2 1700 50 41 946 571 570 SR 31 MINOR ARTERIAL 9645 1 12 8 1750 50 41 947 571 572 SR 31 MINOR ARTERIAL 1377 1 12 2 1750 50 41 948 572 571 SR 31 MINOR ARTERIAL 1377 1 12 2 1750 50 41 949 572 573 SR 31 MINOR ARTERIAL 2819 1 12 2 1700 55 41 950 573 574 SR 31 MINOR ARTERIAL 5417 1 12 2 1700 55 40 951 574 575 SR 31 MINOR ARTERIAL 1295 1 12 2 1750 55 40 952 575 576 SR 31 MINOR ARTERIAL 2793 1 12 2 1750 50 40 953 575 627 VICTOR RD COLLECTOR 2914 1 12 2 1700 50 40 954 576 575 SR 31 MINOR ARTERIAL 2792 1 12 2 1750 50 40 955 576 577 SR 31 MINOR ARTERIAL 4759 1 12 2 1700 50 40 956 577 578 SR 31 MINOR ARTERIAL 1061 1 12 2 1700 55 40 957 578 286 SR 31 MINOR ARTERIAL 1188 2 12 2 1750 55 40 958 579 278 SR 31 MINOR ARTERIAL 782 2 12 2 1750 55 40 959 580 581 SR 31 MINOR ARTERIAL 970 2 12 2 1750 55 40 960 581 582 SR 31 MINOR ARTERIAL 3787 2 12 2 1750 55 39 961 582 583 SR 31 MINOR ARTERIAL 4558 2 12 2 1750 55 39 962 582 942 KREAG RD COLLECTOR 1115 1 12 2 1700 40 39 963 583 584 SR 31 MINOR ARTERIAL 1874 2 12 2 1900 55 39 964 584 585 SR 31 MINOR ARTERIAL 616 2 12 2 1900 50 39 I490 ONRAMP 965 585 744 FREEWAY RAMP 592 1 12 2 1700 40 39 FROM SR 31 966 585 987 SR 31 MINOR ARTERIAL 240 2 12 2 1900 45 39 967 586 587 SR 31 MINOR ARTERIAL 1622 1 12 2 1700 45 39 968 586 987 SR 31 MINOR ARTERIAL 1966 1 12 2 1700 45 39 969 588 586 MARSH RD COLLECTOR 5006 1 12 2 1750 45 39 R.E. Ginna Nuclear Power Plant K85 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 970 589 432 BLUFF DR COLLECTOR 922 1 12 2 1750 45 33 971 589 960 S LINCOLN RD COLLECTOR 2528 1 12 2 1750 40 33 972 590 158 BAIRD RD COLLECTOR 4025 1 12 2 1750 55 33 973 590 423 WHALEN RD COLLECTOR 3194 1 12 2 1750 50 30 974 591 271 WHALEN RD COLLECTOR 1691 1 12 2 1750 55 34 975 592 593 BAIRD RD COLLECTOR 813 1 12 2 1700 55 33 976 593 594 BAIRD RD COLLECTOR 4721 1 12 2 1750 55 33 977 594 563 BAIRD RD COLLECTOR 2855 1 12 2 1750 40 39 978 595 425 WHITNEY RD COLLECTOR 2617 1 12 2 1750 50 33 979 595 594 WHITNEY RD COLLECTOR 2775 1 12 2 1750 50 33 980 596 597 WHITNEY RD E COLLECTOR 6588 1 12 2 1700 50 40 MONROEWAYNE 981 596 602 COLLECTOR 4773 1 12 0 1700 55 41 COUNTY LINE RD 982 597 598 WHITNEY RD E COLLECTOR 1275 1 12 2 1700 50 40 983 597 603 HOWELL RD COLLECTOR 5247 1 12 2 1700 55 40 984 598 281 WHITNEY RD E COLLECTOR 7975 1 12 2 1750 50 40 985 599 79 EDDY RD COLLECTOR 2852 1 12 2 1700 50 35 986 599 82 WIEKRICK RD COLLECTOR 7974 1 12 2 1750 55 41 987 599 907 EDDY RD COLLECTOR 4713 1 12 2 1700 50 35 988 600 601 31F COLLECTOR 2790 1 12 2 1700 50 41 989 600 623 W WALWORTH RD COLLECTOR 2758 1 12 2 1700 50 41 990 600 786 31F COLLECTOR 8408 1 12 2 1750 55 41 991 601 602 31F COLLECTOR 2827 1 12 2 1700 50 41 992 602 621 31F COLLECTOR 5388 1 12 2 1700 55 40 993 603 604 31F COLLECTOR 1563 1 12 2 1750 55 40 994 604 605 31F COLLECTOR 4092 1 12 2 1700 55 40 995 604 612 LYNDON RD COLLECTOR 2219 1 12 4 1700 50 40 R.E. Ginna Nuclear Power Plant K86 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 996 605 282 31F COLLECTOR 4997 1 12 2 1750 55 40 997 606 583 AYRAULT RD COLLECTOR 4050 1 12 2 1750 45 39 998 606 607 AYRAULT RD COLLECTOR 1358 1 12 2 1700 45 39 999 607 582 KREAG RD COLLECTOR 2108 1 12 2 1750 40 39 1000 607 606 AYRAULT RD COLLECTOR 1358 1 12 2 1750 45 39 1001 608 285 AYRAULT RD COLLECTOR 4906 1 12 2 1750 50 40 1002 609 608 DRIVEWAY COLLECTOR 1130 1 12 2 1750 40 40 1003 610 614 AYRAULT RD COLLECTOR 1432 1 12 2 1700 40 40 1004 611 574 ALDRICH RD COLLECTOR 5449 1 12 2 1700 40 40 1005 611 610 AYRAULT RD COLLECTOR 2628 1 12 2 1700 40 40 1006 612 613 LYNDON RD COLLECTOR 548 1 10 4 1700 50 40 1007 613 610 LYNDON RD COLLECTOR 2643 1 12 4 1700 50 40 1008 614 576 MASON RD COLLECTOR 5441 1 12 2 1750 40 40 1009 614 608 AYRAULT RD COLLECTOR 1709 1 12 2 1750 40 40 1010 615 600 W WALWORTH RD COLLECTOR 12415 1 12 2 1700 50 41 1011 615 616 GANANDA PKWY COLLECTOR 1953 1 12 2 1700 50 35 1012 616 618 GANANDA PKWY COLLECTOR 2545 1 12 2 1700 50 35 1013 617 615 GANANDA PKWY COLLECTOR 1976 1 12 2 1700 55 35 1014 618 152 GANANDA PKWY COLLECTOR 1142 1 12 2 1750 45 35 MONROEWAYNE 1015 619 620 COLLECTOR 1331 1 12 2 1700 45 34 COUNTY LINE RD 1016 619 984 SR 441 MINOR ARTERIAL 607 1 12 2 1700 55 34 MONROEWAYNE 1017 620 596 COLLECTOR 6843 1 12 0 1700 50 35 COUNTY LINE RD 1018 621 603 31F COLLECTOR 1350 1 12 2 1700 55 40 1019 622 621 PERINTON PKWY COLLECTOR 1901 1 12 2 1700 45 40 1020 623 624 QUAKER RD COLLECTOR 2638 1 12 2 1700 55 41 R.E. Ginna Nuclear Power Plant K87 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 1021 624 625 CO RD 206 COLLECTOR 3332 1 12 2 1700 50 41 1022 625 626 CO RD 206 COLLECTOR 984 1 12 2 1125 25 41 1023 626 572 CO RD 206 COLLECTOR 3737 1 12 2 1750 50 41 1024 627 575 VICTOR RD COLLECTOR 2914 1 12 2 1750 50 40 1025 628 629 CANANDAIGUA RD COLLECTOR 2296 1 12 2 1700 50 41 MACEDON CENTER 1026 631 108 COLLECTOR 7296 1 12 2 1700 55 42 RD 1027 632 991 CO RD 210 COLLECTOR 1629 1 12 2 1700 50 42 1028 633 243 CARACUS DR COLLECTOR 1130 1 12 2 1750 40 4 1029 633 758 RESENDE RD COLLECTOR 2216 1 12 2 1750 40 4 1030 634 289 KLEM RD COLLECTOR 1322 1 12 2 1750 55 4 1031 635 299 SHOECRAFT RD COLLECTOR 628 1 12 2 1750 50 13 1032 635 373 SHOECRAFT RD COLLECTOR 7649 1 12 2 1700 50 19 1033 636 637 FISHER RD COLLECTOR 9444 1 12 2 1700 55 6 1034 637 789 CO RD 113 COLLECTOR 6105 1 12 0 1700 55 6 1035 637 893 FISHER RD COLLECTOR 3052 1 12 2 1700 55 6 1036 638 777 WOODS RD COLLECTOR 4409 1 12 0 1700 55 7 1037 638 894 SALMON CREEK RD COLLECTOR 2710 1 12 2 1700 55 6 1038 639 638 SALMON CREEK RD COLLECTOR 2253 1 12 2 1700 50 6 1039 640 110 CO RD 120 COLLECTOR 6486 1 12 2 1700 55 7 1040 640 111 CO RD 120 COLLECTOR 2846 1 12 2 1700 45 7 1041 640 790 HAMILTON RD COLLECTOR 844 1 12 2 1750 45 7 1042 641 896 CO RD 120 COLLECTOR 4460 1 12 2 1700 50 7 1043 641 897 POUND RD COLLECTOR 5824 1 12 2 1700 55 7 1044 642 898 E TOWNLINE RD COLLECTOR 4572 1 12 2 1700 50 7 1045 643 644 E TOWNLINE RD COLLECTOR 7866 1 12 2 1700 55 24 1046 644 645 E WILLIAMSON RD COLLECTOR 1649 1 12 2 1700 50 24 R.E. Ginna Nuclear Power Plant K88 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 1047 645 646 E WILLIAMSON RD COLLECTOR 2167 1 12 2 1700 50 24 1048 646 647 E WILLIAMSON RD COLLECTOR 4934 1 12 2 1700 55 24 1049 646 1006 BEAM HILL RD COLLECTOR 1318 1 12 2 1700 55 24 1050 647 648 E WILLIAMSON RD COLLECTOR 3888 1 12 2 1700 55 24 1051 648 649 E WILLIAMSON RD COLLECTOR 5152 1 12 2 1700 50 37 1052 649 650 E WILLIAMSON RD COLLECTOR 1304 1 12 2 1700 55 37 1053 650 692 SKINNER RD COLLECTOR 7123 1 12 2 1700 55 37 1054 651 652 CO RD 210 COLLECTOR 3069 1 10 2 1700 55 23 1055 652 653 CO RD 210 COLLECTOR 1477 1 10 2 1700 55 23 1056 653 654 CO RD 210 COLLECTOR 3768 1 10 2 1700 55 23 1057 654 655 CO RD 210 COLLECTOR 2680 1 10 2 1700 55 23 1058 655 656 CO RD 210 COLLECTOR 492 1 12 2 1350 30 23 1059 656 657 CO RD 210 COLLECTOR 6097 1 10 2 1700 45 23 1060 657 658 CO RD 210 COLLECTOR 5540 1 10 2 1700 45 36 1061 658 659 CO RD 210 COLLECTOR 3141 1 10 2 1700 45 36 WALWORTH 1062 659 664 COLLECTOR 2216 1 12 2 1700 55 36 MARION RD 1063 659 1026 CO RD 210 COLLECTOR 2711 1 12 2 1700 55 36 1064 660 632 CO RD 210 COLLECTOR 8799 1 12 2 1700 55 42 1065 661 87 CO RD 210 COLLECTOR 2053 1 12 2 1750 40 42 WALWORTH 1066 662 663 COLLECTOR 2995 1 12 2 1700 55 36 MARION RD WALWORTH 1067 663 659 COLLECTOR 1100 1 12 2 1700 55 36 MARION RD WALWORTH 1068 664 665 COLLECTOR 5151 1 12 2 1700 55 36 MARION RD R.E. Ginna Nuclear Power Plant K89 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 WALWORTH 1069 665 666 COLLECTOR 2888 1 12 2 1700 50 36 MARION RD WALWORTH 1070 666 796 COLLECTOR 3209 1 12 2 1700 50 37 MARION RD WALWORTH 1071 667 106 COLLECTOR 3222 1 12 2 1700 55 36 ONTARIO RD 1072 668 669 LAKE RD COLLECTOR 5337 1 12 2 1700 55 9 1073 669 670 LAKE RD COLLECTOR 4907 1 12 2 1700 55 9 1074 670 671 LAKE RD COLLECTOR 1806 1 12 2 1700 55 9 1075 672 45 CO RD 103 COLLECTOR 2529 1 12 2 1700 45 9 1076 672 673 RIDGE RD COLLECTOR 4514 1 12 2 1700 55 9 1077 673 46 RIDGE RD COLLECTOR 2198 1 12 2 1750 55 9 1078 674 675 BURLEE RD COLLECTOR 789 1 12 2 1700 40 26 1079 674 677 RIDGE RD COLLECTOR 2746 1 12 2 1700 55 26 1080 675 46 SR 104 MINOR ARTERIAL 1777 1 12 10 1750 60 26 1081 675 47 SR 104 MINOR ARTERIAL 2417 1 12 10 1700 60 26 1082 676 674 KELLY RD COLLECTOR 3625 1 12 2 1700 55 9 1083 677 47 BARCLAY RD COLLECTOR 788 1 12 2 1700 40 26 1084 677 678 RIDGE RD COLLECTOR 2817 1 12 2 1700 55 26 1085 678 48 CO RD 140 COLLECTOR 791 1 12 2 1700 40 26 1086 678 679 RIDGE RD COLLECTOR 1599 1 12 2 1700 55 26 1087 680 675 BURLEE RD COLLECTOR 911 1 12 2 1700 40 26 1088 681 47 BARCLAY RD COLLECTOR 1915 1 12 2 1700 40 26 1089 682 129 SR 88 MINOR ARTERIAL 6800 1 12 2 1700 65 25 1090 683 899 N CENTENARY RD COLLECTOR 3922 1 12 2 1700 45 8 1091 684 1005 CO RD 215 COLLECTOR 2927 1 12 2 1700 55 24 1092 685 686 CO RD 215 COLLECTOR 2457 1 12 2 1700 55 38 R.E. Ginna Nuclear Power Plant K90 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 1093 686 687 MINSTEED RD COLLECTOR 7346 1 12 2 1700 55 38 1094 687 688 MINSTEED RD COLLECTOR 3130 1 12 2 1700 55 38 1095 687 694 MARTIN RD COLLECTOR 3178 1 12 2 1700 55 38 1096 688 689 MINSTEED RD COLLECTOR 1619 1 12 2 1700 50 38 1097 689 690 MINSTEED RD COLLECTOR 9221 1 12 2 1700 55 38 1098 690 691 MINSTEED RD COLLECTOR 12488 1 12 2 1700 55 44 1099 691 2 MINSTEED RD COLLECTOR 4297 1 12 2 1700 55 44 1100 692 693 SKINNER RD COLLECTOR 526 1 12 2 1575 35 37 1101 693 687 SKINNER RD COLLECTOR 4228 1 12 2 1700 55 38 1102 694 695 MARTIN RD COLLECTOR 1726 1 12 2 1700 45 38 FAIRVILLE MAPLE 1103 695 696 COLLECTOR 11495 1 12 2 1700 55 38 RIDGE RD FAIRVILLE MAPLE 1104 696 132 COLLECTOR 2250 1 12 2 1700 55 38 RIDGE RD 1105 698 128 JOY RD COLLECTOR 5104 1 12 2 1700 55 25 1106 699 700 CO RD 241 COLLECTOR 2665 1 12 2 1700 55 26 1107 700 701 CO RD 241 COLLECTOR 4393 1 12 2 1700 55 26 1108 702 708 HUDSON AVE MINOR ARTERIAL 766 2 12 2 1750 45 10 1109 703 704 COOPER RD COLLECTOR 1438 1 10 4 1750 45 10 1110 704 705 COOPER RD COLLECTOR 863 1 10 4 1750 45 10 1111 705 514 COOPER RD COLLECTOR 1995 1 10 4 1750 45 10 1112 706 704 DRIVEWAY COLLECTOR 304 1 12 2 1750 40 10 1113 707 705 DRIVEWAY COLLECTOR 266 1 12 2 1750 40 10 1114 708 709 HUDSON AVE MINOR ARTERIAL 480 2 12 2 1750 45 10 1115 709 710 HUDSON AVE MINOR ARTERIAL 1220 2 12 2 1750 45 10 1116 710 711 HUDSON AVE MINOR ARTERIAL 2801 2 12 2 1750 45 10 1117 711 712 HUDSON AVE MINOR ARTERIAL 867 2 12 2 1900 45 16 R.E. Ginna Nuclear Power Plant K91 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 1118 712 713 HUDSON AVE COLLECTOR 539 1 12 2 1900 45 16 1119 713 879 SR 104 SERVICE RD MINOR ARTERIAL 1245 2 12 2 1900 55 16 1120 714 708 DRIVEWAY COLLECTOR 313 1 12 2 1750 45 10 1121 715 709 DRAKE DR COLLECTOR 449 1 12 2 1750 40 10 1122 716 710 BROOKVIEW DR COLLECTOR 1069 1 12 2 1750 40 10 1123 717 718 E RIDGE RD MINOR ARTERIAL 677 2 12 2 1750 45 10 1124 718 719 E RIDGE RD MINOR ARTERIAL 620 2 12 2 1750 45 10 1125 719 711 E RIDGE RD COLLECTOR 2100 1 12 2 1750 45 10 1126 719 723 CARTER ST COLLECTOR 1235 1 12 2 1900 40 16 1127 720 717 DRIVEWAY COLLECTOR 405 1 12 2 1750 35 10 1128 721 718 DRIVEWAY COLLECTOR 352 1 12 2 1750 35 10 1129 722 719 STATON LN COLLECTOR 2253 1 12 2 1750 40 10 1130 723 880 SR 104 SERVICE RD MINOR ARTERIAL 335 2 12 2 1900 55 16 1131 724 64 SR 104 ONRAMP FREEWAY RAMP 619 1 12 2 1700 45 16 1132 724 511 SR 104 SERVICE RD MINOR ARTERIAL 1341 2 12 2 1900 55 16 1133 726 65 SR 104 ONRAMP FREEWAY RAMP 753 1 12 2 1700 45 17 1134 726 505 SR 104 SERVICE RD MINOR ARTERIAL 3814 2 12 2 1750 55 11 1135 727 506 SR 104 SERVICE RD COLLECTOR 291 1 12 2 1750 40 16 1136 728 510 SR 104 SERVICE RD MINOR ARTERIAL 348 2 12 2 1750 35 16 1137 729 509 DRIVEWAY COLLECTOR 405 1 12 2 1900 35 16 1138 730 508 REYNOLDS AVE COLLECTOR 1242 1 12 2 1750 40 16 590 OFFRAMP TO SR 1139 731 382 FREEWAY RAMP 288 2 12 2 1750 40 17 404 590 OFFRAMP TO SR 1140 732 383 FREEWAY RAMP 378 1 12 2 1750 40 17 404 1141 733 490 FOREST AVE COLLECTOR 1250 1 12 2 1750 35 11 1142 734 491 DRIVEWAY COLLECTOR 257 1 12 2 1750 35 11 R.E. Ginna Nuclear Power Plant K92 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 1143 735 492 DRIVEWAY COLLECTOR 238 2 12 2 1750 35 11 1144 736 493 BROWN ROAD COLLECTOR 2543 1 12 2 1750 40 11 1145 737 494 ARROW DR COLLECTOR 233 1 12 2 1750 35 11 1146 738 448 CROYDON RD COLLECTOR 1944 1 12 2 1900 40 28 1147 739 448 BOBRICH DR COLLECTOR 625 1 12 2 1900 40 28 1148 740 442 CLOVER ST COLLECTOR 1108 1 12 2 1750 40 28 1149 741 742 HIGHLAND AVE COLLECTOR 3030 1 12 2 1900 40 31 1150 741 842 CLOVER ST COLLECTOR 4109 1 12 2 1750 40 31 1151 742 741 HIGHLAND AVE COLLECTOR 3030 1 12 2 1750 40 31 1152 742 743 HIGHLAND AVE COLLECTOR 386 1 12 2 1700 40 31 SR 590 ONRAMP 1153 743 5 FROM HIGHLAND FREEWAY RAMP 729 1 12 2 1700 45 31 AVE 1154 743 838 HIGHLAND AVE COLLECTOR 1690 1 12 0 1900 45 31 I490 ONRAMP 1155 744 184 FREEWAY RAMP 675 1 12 2 1700 45 39 FROM SR 31 SR 104 OFFRAMP TO 1156 745 315 FREEWAY RAMP 578 1 12 2 1750 45 12 BAY RD 1157 746 261 ORCHARD RD COLLECTOR 2578 1 12 2 1750 50 14 1158 747 17 SR 104 FREEWAY 3145 3 12 12 2250 70 12 SR 104 OFFRAMP TO 1159 747 314 FREEWAY RAMP 1026 1 12 2 1750 45 12 BAY RD 1160 747 920 SR 104 FREEWAY 3099 3 12 12 2250 70 12 1161 748 246 SAN JOSE DR MINOR ARTERIAL 1425 2 12 2 1750 55 14 1162 748 750 SAN JOSE DR COLLECTOR 3713 1 12 2 1700 55 15 1163 749 23 SR 104 MINOR ARTERIAL 1979 2 12 10 1900 65 15 1164 749 24 SR 104 MINOR ARTERIAL 2271 2 12 10 1750 65 15 R.E. Ginna Nuclear Power Plant K93 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 SR 104 OFFRAMP TO 1165 749 231 FREEWAY RAMP 1265 1 12 2 1750 50 15 SALT RD 1166 750 231 SALT RD MINOR ARTERIAL 509 2 12 2 1750 30 15 1167 750 748 SAN JOSE DR COLLECTOR 3713 1 12 2 1700 55 15 1168 751 297 HARD RD COLLECTOR 362 1 12 2 1750 40 13 1169 751 298 HARD RD COLLECTOR 1028 1 12 2 1750 45 13 1170 752 751 SR 104 SERVICE RD MINOR ARTERIAL 313 2 12 2 1750 50 13 1171 753 19 SR 104 ONRAMP FREEWAY RAMP 600 1 12 2 1700 55 13 1172 753 417 SR 104 SERVICE RD MINOR ARTERIAL 1020 2 12 2 1900 50 13 1173 754 291 SR 104 SERVICE RD MINOR ARTERIAL 647 2 12 2 1750 55 14 1174 755 20 SR 104 ONRAMP FREEWAY RAMP 1036 1 12 2 1700 55 14 1175 755 297 SR 104 SERVICE RD MINOR ARTERIAL 3456 2 12 2 1750 55 13 1176 756 263 SR 104 SERVICE RD MINOR ARTERIAL 687 1 12 2 1750 50 14 1177 757 21 SR 104 ONRAMP FREEWAY RAMP 983 1 12 2 1700 55 14 1178 757 290 SR 104 SERVICE RD MINOR ARTERIAL 3307 2 12 2 1750 55 14 1179 758 244 MITCHELDEAN DR COLLECTOR 1420 1 12 2 1750 40 14 1180 758 748 EUSTON RD COLLECTOR 2196 1 12 2 1700 40 15 1181 758 760 MITCHELDEAN DR COLLECTOR 3656 1 12 2 1700 40 15 1182 759 262 SR 104 OFFRAMP FREEWAY RAMP 537 2 12 2 1750 50 14 1183 760 750 SALT RD COLLECTOR 1645 1 12 2 1700 45 15 1184 760 758 MITCHELDEAN DR COLLECTOR 3656 1 12 2 1750 40 15 1185 761 361 DRIVEWAY COLLECTOR 522 1 12 2 1750 35 13 1186 762 359 DRIVEWAY COLLECTOR 329 1 12 2 1750 35 14 WEBSTER COMMONS 1187 763 359 COLLECTOR 1014 1 12 2 1750 35 14 BLVD 1188 764 360 DRIVEWAY COLLECTOR 226 1 12 2 1750 35 13 1189 765 358 BARRETT DR COLLECTOR 1048 1 12 2 1750 40 14 R.E. Ginna Nuclear Power Plant K94 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 1190 766 294 SR 404 MINOR ARTERIAL 917 1 12 2 1750 45 14 1191 766 767 JACKSON RD COLLECTOR 2635 1 12 2 1700 50 14 1192 767 372 JACKSON RD COLLECTOR 2847 1 12 2 1700 50 14 1193 768 766 RACHEL DR COLLECTOR 1104 1 12 2 1750 45 14 1194 769 770 SANFORD ST COLLECTOR 1485 1 12 2 1750 35 14 1195 770 264 SR 250 MINOR ARTERIAL 1153 1 12 2 1750 40 14 1196 770 265 SR 250 MINOR ARTERIAL 1222 1 12 2 1700 40 14 1197 771 887 DEAN PKWY COLLECTOR 1723 1 12 2 1700 55 5 1198 772 99 KENYON RD COLLECTOR 3024 1 12 2 1700 50 6 1199 772 891 KNICKERBOCKER RD COLLECTOR 2916 1 12 2 1700 55 6 1200 773 772 KNICKERBOCKER RD COLLECTOR 4689 1 12 2 1700 50 6 1201 774 31 KNICKERBOCKER RD COLLECTOR 2059 1 12 2 1750 40 23 1202 774 100 RIDGE RD COLLECTOR 972 1 12 2 1750 45 23 1203 775 33 CORTLAND DR COLLECTOR 783 1 12 2 1750 35 6 1204 776 37 CO RD 116 COLLECTOR 2824 1 12 2 1700 50 7 1205 776 115 CO RD 103 COLLECTOR 1591 1 12 2 1700 50 24 1206 777 895 CO RD 116 COLLECTOR 2297 1 12 2 1700 55 7 1207 778 40 SR 104 MINOR ARTERIAL 1935 1 12 10 1700 60 7 1208 778 793 SR 104 MINOR ARTERIAL 2524 1 12 10 1700 60 8 1209 779 686 JOY RD COLLECTOR 3577 1 12 2 1700 55 25 1210 780 699 CO RD 236 COLLECTOR 6793 1 12 2 1700 55 26 1211 781 137 BOSTON RD COLLECTOR 9972 1 12 2 1700 55 5 1212 781 339 CO RD 102 COLLECTOR 5349 1 12 2 1700 55 5 WALWORTH 1213 782 78 COLLECTOR 7979 1 12 2 1750 55 35 PENFIELD RD WALWORTH 1214 782 149 COLLECTOR 6931 1 12 2 1700 55 35 PENFIELD RD R.E. Ginna Nuclear Power Plant K95 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 1215 782 783 CANANDAIGUA RD COLLECTOR 4450 1 12 2 1700 60 35 1216 783 784 CANANDAIGUA RD COLLECTOR 1416 1 12 2 1700 50 35 1217 784 785 GANANDA PKWY COLLECTOR 4359 1 12 2 1700 50 35 1218 784 907 CANANDAIGUA RD COLLECTOR 2486 1 12 2 1700 55 35 1219 785 617 GANANDA PKWY COLLECTOR 2603 1 12 2 1700 50 35 1220 785 784 GANANDA PKWY COLLECTOR 4359 1 12 2 1700 50 35 1221 786 82 31F COLLECTOR 4897 1 12 2 1750 55 41 1222 786 600 31F COLLECTOR 8407 1 12 2 1700 55 41 1223 787 786 CANANDAIGUA RD COLLECTOR 5677 1 12 2 1750 50 41 1224 788 570 CANANDAIGUA RD COLLECTOR 3280 1 12 2 1750 55 41 1225 789 638 CO RD 113 COLLECTOR 3046 1 12 0 1700 55 6 1226 790 216 HAMILTON RD COLLECTOR 1304 1 12 2 1700 45 7 1227 790 640 HAMILTON RD COLLECTOR 844 1 12 2 1700 45 7 1228 791 790 SALMON CREEK RD COLLECTOR 4882 1 12 2 1750 45 7 1229 792 793 REDMAN RD COLLECTOR 2600 1 12 2 1700 40 8 1230 793 41 SR 104 MINOR ARTERIAL 4453 1 12 10 1700 60 8 1231 793 778 SR 104 MINOR ARTERIAL 2523 1 12 10 1700 60 8 1232 794 644 PODGER RD COLLECTOR 2579 1 12 0 1700 55 24 1233 795 794 TRIPP RD COLLECTOR 9023 1 12 2 1700 50 25 WALWORTH 1234 796 192 COLLECTOR 919 1 12 2 1750 45 37 MARION RD 1235 797 796 DEAN RD COLLECTOR 3726 1 12 2 1700 55 37 1236 798 998 DEAN RD COLLECTOR 1010 1 12 2 1700 50 37 1237 799 798 EDDY RIDGE RD COLLECTOR 10623 1 12 2 1700 55 24 1238 800 206 FAGNER RD COLLECTOR 12395 1 12 2 1700 55 43 TITUS AVENUE 1239 802 498 COLLECTOR 645 1 12 2 1575 35 11 EXTENSION R.E. Ginna Nuclear Power Plant K96 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 1240 803 804 SENECA RD COLLECTOR 1016 1 12 2 1575 35 11 SENECA RD TRAFFIC 1241 804 56 COLLECTOR 96 1 12 4 900 20 11 CIRCLE SEA BREEZE DR 1242 805 57 COLLECTOR 112 1 12 4 900 20 11 TRAFFIC CIRCLE 1243 805 477 SENECA RD COLLECTOR 2740 1 12 2 1700 40 11 1244 806 807 POINT PLEASANT RD COLLECTOR 747 1 12 2 1575 35 11 POINT PLEASANT RD 1245 807 54 COLLECTOR 157 1 12 2 900 20 11 TRAFFIC CIRCLE SEA BREEZE DR 1246 808 55 COLLECTOR 129 1 12 4 900 20 11 TRAFFIC CIRCLE 1247 808 476 POINT PLEASANT RD COLLECTOR 1098 1 12 2 1700 40 11 1248 809 810 DURAND BLVD COLLECTOR 384 1 12 2 1575 35 2 DURAND BLVD 1249 810 52 COLLECTOR 101 1 12 2 900 20 2 TRAFFIC CIRCLE 1250 811 381 WINTON RD N COLLECTOR 2049 1 12 2 1750 40 17 1251 812 459 BAY ST COLLECTOR 2194 1 12 2 1900 40 17 1252 813 843 SR 441 MINOR ARTERIAL 1232 2 12 2 1900 55 32 1253 814 163 LINDEN AVE COLLECTOR 185 1 12 2 1750 55 32 1254 815 164 LINDEN AVE COLLECTOR 685 1 12 2 1750 55 32 1255 816 164 LINDEN OAKS COLLECTOR 237 1 12 2 1750 55 32 1256 817 165 SR 441 MAJOR ARTERIAL 744 3 12 2 1750 40 32 1257 818 817 ASTOR DR COLLECTOR 298 1 12 2 1750 35 32 1258 819 817 GLEN RD COLLECTOR 714 1 12 2 1750 35 32 SR 441 OFFRAMP TO 1259 820 429 FREEWAY RAMP 321 1 12 2 1750 45 32 SR 153 1260 821 742 E HIGHLAND DR COLLECTOR 1577 1 12 2 1900 45 28 R.E. Ginna Nuclear Power Plant K97 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 1261 821 830 E HIGHLAND DR COLLECTOR 1208 1 12 2 1750 45 28 1262 822 171 I490 ONRAMP FREEWAY RAMP 1138 1 12 2 1700 55 28 1263 822 172 I490 ONRAMP FREEWAY RAMP 526 1 12 2 1700 55 28 1264 823 6 SR 590 ONRAMP FREEWAY RAMP 1106 1 12 2 1700 55 28 1265 823 7 SR 590 ONRAMP FREEWAY RAMP 1135 2 12 2 1900 55 28 1266 824 9 SR 590 FREEWAY 1466 3 12 12 2250 70 28 SR 590 ONRAMP 1267 824 446 FREEWAY RAMP 773 1 12 2 1750 40 28 FROM BLOSSOM RD 1268 824 828 SR 590 FREEWAY 1407 2 12 12 2250 70 28 1269 824 857 SR 590 FREEWAY 404 2 12 12 2250 70 28 1270 825 824 SR 590 FREEWAY 1345 4 12 12 2250 70 28 1271 826 7 SR 590 ONRAMP FREEWAY RAMP 1281 1 12 2 1700 55 28 1272 826 825 SR 590 ONRAMP FREEWAY RAMP 583 1 12 2 1700 50 28 1273 828 173 I490 ONRAMP FREEWAY RAMP 917 1 12 2 1700 55 28 1274 828 829 I490 ONRAMP FREEWAY RAMP 940 1 12 2 1700 55 28 1275 829 174 I490 ONRAMP FREEWAY RAMP 735 2 12 2 1900 55 28 1276 830 821 E HIGHLAND DR COLLECTOR 1203 1 12 2 1700 45 28 1277 830 829 I490 ONRAMP FREEWAY RAMP 740 1 12 2 1700 45 28 1278 830 831 EAST AVE MINOR ARTERIAL 998 2 12 2 1900 45 28 1279 831 830 EAST AVE MINOR ARTERIAL 998 2 12 2 1750 45 28 1280 831 832 EAST AVE MINOR ARTERIAL 717 2 12 2 1900 45 28 1281 832 453 EAST AVE MINOR ARTERIAL 836 2 12 2 1900 45 28 1282 832 831 EAST AVE MINOR ARTERIAL 717 2 12 2 1900 45 28 1283 833 855 EAST AVE MINOR ARTERIAL 226 2 12 2 1900 40 28 1284 834 452 UNIVERSITY AVE MINOR ARTERIAL 911 2 12 2 1900 45 28 1285 834 833 PROBERT ST COLLECTOR 373 1 12 2 1900 40 28 1286 836 854 S WINTON RD MINOR ARTERIAL 212 2 12 2 1900 45 28 R.E. Ginna Nuclear Power Plant K98 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 1287 837 838 S WINTON RD COLLECTOR 2471 1 12 2 1900 45 28 1288 838 839 S WINTON RD COLLECTOR 913 1 12 2 1700 45 31 1289 838 841 HIGHLAND AVE COLLECTOR 1041 1 12 0 1700 45 31 1290 840 837 HILLSIDE AVE COLLECTOR 994 1 12 2 1900 45 28 1291 842 168 CLOVER ST COLLECTOR 1106 1 12 2 1700 40 31 1292 843 164 SR 441 MAJOR ARTERIAL 580 3 12 2 1750 55 32 1293 844 554 31F MINOR ARTERIAL 675 2 12 2 1900 45 32 1294 844 845 31F MINOR ARTERIAL 1960 2 12 2 1750 45 32 1295 845 844 31F MINOR ARTERIAL 1961 2 12 2 1750 45 32 1296 845 846 SR 96 MINOR ARTERIAL 1376 2 12 2 1750 45 32 1297 846 845 SR 96 MINOR ARTERIAL 1376 2 12 2 1750 45 32 1298 846 847 SR 96 MINOR ARTERIAL 2457 2 12 2 1750 45 32 1299 847 846 SR 96 MINOR ARTERIAL 2457 2 12 2 1750 45 32 1300 847 848 SR 96 MINOR ARTERIAL 868 2 12 2 1750 45 32 1301 848 167 SR 96 MINOR ARTERIAL 487 2 12 2 1750 45 32 1302 848 847 SR 96 MINOR ARTERIAL 868 2 12 2 1750 45 32 1303 849 844 FAIRPORT RD COLLECTOR 714 1 12 2 1750 40 32 1304 850 845 EAST AVE COLLECTOR 2077 1 12 2 1750 40 32 1305 851 846 KILBORN AVE COLLECTOR 398 1 12 2 1750 45 32 1306 852 847 KNOLLYWOOD DR COLLECTOR 704 1 12 2 1750 40 32 1307 853 848 ALLINS CREEK RD COLLECTOR 1234 1 12 2 1750 40 32 1308 854 837 S WINTON RD COLLECTOR 209 1 12 2 1900 45 28 1309 855 835 EAST AVE COLLECTOR 531 1 12 2 1700 40 28 1310 856 831 ROCKWOOD ST MINOR ARTERIAL 387 2 12 2 1900 35 28 1311 857 1023 SR 590 FREEWAY 800 3 12 2 2250 70 28 1312 858 446 BLOSSOM RD MINOR ARTERIAL 177 2 12 2 1750 40 28 R.E. Ginna Nuclear Power Plant K99 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 1313 859 451 GALE TERRACE COLLECTOR 625 1 12 2 1900 40 28 1314 860 450 JUNIPER ST COLLECTOR 768 1 12 2 1900 40 28 1315 861 449 N WHINTON RD MINOR ARTERIAL 347 2 12 2 1900 40 28 1316 862 448 BLOSSOM RD COLLECTOR 871 1 12 2 1900 40 28 1317 863 9 SR 590 FREEWAY 1287 3 12 12 2250 70 28 1318 863 10 SR 590 FREEWAY 1262 3 12 12 2250 70 28 SR 590 OFFRAMP TO 1319 863 324 FREEWAY RAMP 1026 1 12 2 1750 50 28 BANCROFT BLVD 1320 864 457 E MAIN ST COLLECTOR 1362 1 12 2 1900 40 28 1321 864 461 E MAIN ST COLLECTOR 1324 1 12 2 1900 40 28 1322 865 460 E MAIN ST COLLECTOR 1161 1 12 2 1900 40 28 1323 866 328 ATLANTIC AVE COLLECTOR 1195 1 12 2 1900 40 28 1324 866 865 OHIO ST COLLECTOR 1267 1 12 2 1900 40 28 1325 867 1010 CULVER RD COLLECTOR 2016 1 12 2 1900 40 17 1326 868 458 MERCHANTS RD COLLECTOR 1501 1 12 2 1900 40 28 1327 868 867 MERCHANTS RD COLLECTOR 1300 1 12 2 1900 40 17 1328 869 386 DEERFIELD DR COLLECTOR 1277 1 12 2 1900 30 17 1329 870 384 HELENDALE RD COLLECTOR 3199 1 12 2 1750 40 17 1330 870 463 HELENDALE RD COLLECTOR 1057 1 12 2 1700 40 17 1331 871 65 SR 104 FREEWAY 1936 3 12 12 2250 70 17 1332 871 67 SR 104 FREEWAY 2016 4 12 12 2250 70 17 1333 872 469 CULVER RD COLLECTOR 1003 1 12 2 1900 45 17 1334 872 482 CULVER RD MINOR ARTERIAL 1740 2 12 2 1900 45 17 1335 873 13 SR 590 FREEWAY 2119 3 12 12 2250 70 17 1336 873 14 SR 590 FREEWAY 981 4 12 12 2250 70 17 1337 874 70 SR 104 FREEWAY 809 4 12 12 2250 70 11 1338 875 479 WORTHINGTON RD COLLECTOR 1337 1 12 2 1900 40 11 R.E. Ginna Nuclear Power Plant K100 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 1339 876 480 CULVER RD MINOR ARTERIAL 352 2 12 2 1900 40 11 1340 877 504 DRIVEWAY COLLECTOR 413 1 12 2 1750 35 10 1341 878 712 DRIVEWAY COLLECTOR 528 1 12 2 1900 35 16 1342 879 62 SR 104 ONRAMP FREEWAY RAMP 813 1 12 2 1700 50 16 1343 880 63 SR 104 ONRAMP FREEWAY RAMP 674 1 12 2 1700 50 16 1344 880 713 SR 104 SERVICE RD MINOR ARTERIAL 1728 2 12 2 1900 55 16 1345 881 530 ST PAUL BLVD MINOR ARTERIAL 826 2 12 2 1750 45 1 1346 881 534 ST PAUL BLVD COLLECTOR 2612 1 12 2 1750 45 1 1347 882 527 DRIVEWAY COLLECTOR 330 1 12 2 1750 40 1 1348 883 261 ORCHARD RD MINOR ARTERIAL 1304 1 12 2 1750 50 14 1349 884 883 PANAMA RD COLLECTOR 2034 1 12 2 1750 40 14 1350 885 24 BASKET RD COLLECTOR 612 1 12 2 1750 30 15 1351 886 25 CO RD 100 COLLECTOR 300 1 12 2 1750 30 15 1352 887 26 DEAN PKWY COLLECTOR 793 1 12 2 1750 30 22 1353 888 28 CO RD 102 COLLECTOR 531 1 12 2 1750 30 5 1354 889 29 SLOCUM RD COLLECTOR 442 1 12 2 1750 30 5 1355 890 30 ONTARIO CENTER RD COLLECTOR 673 1 12 2 1750 35 5 1356 891 31 KNICKERBOCKER RD COLLECTOR 1528 1 12 2 1750 40 6 1357 892 32 SR 110 MINOR ARTERIAL 2041 1 12 2 1750 40 6 1358 893 34 FISHER RD COLLECTOR 593 1 12 2 1575 35 6 1359 894 36 SALMON CREEK RD COLLECTOR 502 1 12 2 1350 30 6 1360 895 37 CO RD 116 COLLECTOR 595 1 12 2 1350 30 7 1361 896 38 CO RD 120 COLLECTOR 1041 1 12 2 1750 35 7 1362 897 39 POUND RD COLLECTOR 532 1 12 2 1750 30 7 1363 898 40 E TOWNLINE RD COLLECTOR 821 1 12 2 1350 30 7 1364 899 41 N CENTENARY RD COLLECTOR 760 1 12 2 1350 30 8 R.E. Ginna Nuclear Power Plant K101 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 1365 900 677 NORTH RD COLLECTOR 10457 1 12 2 1700 55 9 1366 901 122 S CENTENARY RD COLLECTOR 2217 1 12 2 1700 50 25 SR 104 ONRAMP 1367 902 22 FREEWAY RAMP 651 1 12 2 1700 55 14 FROM PHILLIPS RD 1368 903 75 SR 350 MINOR ARTERIAL 4024 1 12 2 1700 55 22 1369 903 101 PADDY LN COLLECTOR 5761 1 12 2 1700 50 23 1370 904 905 BUSHWOOD RD COLLECTOR 1775 1 12 2 1700 45 22 1371 905 75 HENNESSEY RD COLLECTOR 3191 1 12 2 1700 45 22 1372 906 599 WIEDRICK RD COLLECTOR 2375 1 12 2 1700 45 35 1373 907 786 CANANDAIGUA RD COLLECTOR 8020 1 12 2 1750 55 41 WALWORTH 1374 908 108 COLLECTOR 6154 1 12 2 1700 55 42 ONTARIO RD 1375 909 272 ST CAMILLUS WAY COLLECTOR 1177 1 12 2 1750 40 34 1376 910 157 SR 250 MINOR ARTERIAL 1666 2 12 2 1750 55 34 1377 911 914 SR 441 MINOR ARTERIAL 1056 2 12 2 1750 50 34 HARRIS WHALEN 1378 912 911 COLLECTOR 1517 1 12 2 1750 40 34 PARK RD 1379 913 911 DRIVEWAY COLLECTOR 357 2 12 2 1750 35 34 1380 914 158 SR 441 MINOR ARTERIAL 3473 2 12 2 1750 50 33 1381 915 914 WILLOW POND WAY COLLECTOR 1577 1 12 2 1750 45 34 ROSSCOMMON 1382 916 604 COLLECTOR 2056 1 12 2 1750 40 40 CRESCENT 1383 917 275 DRIVEWAY COLLECTOR 463 1 12 2 1750 35 40 1384 918 159 SR 441 MINOR ARTERIAL 1940 2 12 2 1750 50 33 1385 919 918 HILLCREST DR COLLECTOR 451 1 12 2 1750 35 33 1386 920 18 SR 104 FREEWAY 5952 2 12 12 2250 70 13 1387 920 747 SR 104 FREEWAY 3094 2 12 12 2250 70 12 R.E. Ginna Nuclear Power Plant K102 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 1388 921 417 5 MILE LINE RD MINOR ARTERIAL 393 2 12 2 1750 40 13 1389 922 297 HARD RD MINOR ARTERIAL 275 2 12 2 1750 45 13 1390 923 290 HOLT RD MINOR ARTERIAL 371 2 12 2 1750 40 14 1391 924 292 DRIVEWAY COLLECTOR 372 2 12 2 1750 35 14 1392 925 293 DRIVEWAY COLLECTOR 390 2 12 2 1750 35 14 1393 926 262 SR 250 MINOR ARTERIAL 233 2 12 2 1750 35 14 1394 927 263 SR 250 MINOR ARTERIAL 331 2 12 2 1750 35 14 1395 927 264 SR 250 MINOR ARTERIAL 843 1 12 2 1750 40 14 1396 928 39 SR 104 MINOR ARTERIAL 1157 2 12 10 1750 65 7 1397 928 40 SR 104 MINOR ARTERIAL 6100 1 12 10 1700 65 7 1398 929 88 SR 31 MINOR ARTERIAL 2720 1 12 2 1750 40 42 1399 930 929 WILLIAM ST COLLECTOR 629 1 12 2 1750 35 42 1400 931 87 SR 31 MINOR ARTERIAL 2966 1 12 2 1750 40 42 1401 932 931 HYDE PKWY COLLECTOR 867 1 12 2 1750 35 42 1402 933 85 SR 31 MINOR ARTERIAL 3454 1 12 2 1700 55 42 1403 934 933 O'NEIL RD COLLECTOR 1200 1 12 2 1125 25 42 1404 935 571 DRIVEWAY COLLECTOR 762 2 12 2 1750 35 41 1405 936 579 COURTNEY DR COLLECTOR 402 1 12 2 1750 35 40 1406 937 279 SR 250 MINOR ARTERIAL 1583 1 12 2 1700 40 40 1407 938 278 SR 250 MINOR ARTERIAL 592 2 12 2 1750 40 40 1408 939 938 SR 250 MINOR ARTERIAL 536 2 12 2 1750 50 40 1409 940 580 DRIVEWAY COLLECTOR 511 1 12 2 1750 35 40 1410 940 938 DRIVEWAY COLLECTOR 455 1 12 2 1750 35 40 1411 941 581 VALLEY CREEK DR COLLECTOR 865 1 12 2 1750 35 40 1412 943 277 AYRAULT RD MINOR ARTERIAL 782 2 12 2 1750 45 40 1413 944 607 AYRAULT RD COLLECTOR 3436 1 12 2 1700 45 40 R.E. Ginna Nuclear Power Plant K103 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 1414 945 285 TURK HILL RD COLLECTOR 1112 1 12 2 1750 40 40 1415 946 945 DRIVEWAY COLLECTOR 332 1 12 2 1750 35 40 1416 947 568 SR 250 MINOR ARTERIAL 3198 1 12 2 1700 45 40 1417 948 947 PARK CIRCLE DR COLLECTOR 977 1 12 2 1750 35 40 1418 949 947 HULBERT LN COLLECTOR 3064 1 12 2 1750 35 40 1419 950 258 KLEM RD MAJOR ARTERIAL 397 2 12 2 1750 50 4 1420 951 634 KLEM RD COLLECTOR 3246 1 12 2 1700 55 4 1421 952 295 HARD RD COLLECTOR 2522 1 12 2 1750 50 3 1422 952 302 SHOEMAKER RD COLLECTOR 1788 1 12 2 1700 55 3 1423 953 210 PLANT DRIVEWAY COLLECTOR 355 1 12 12 1575 35 5 1424 953 954 PLANT DRIVEWAY COLLECTOR 2088 1 12 2 1700 40 5 1425 954 90 LAKE RD COLLECTOR 2737 1 12 2 1700 55 5 1426 954 209 LAKE RD COLLECTOR 1428 1 12 2 1700 55 5 1427 955 286 TURK HILL RD COLLECTOR 3571 1 12 2 1750 40 40 1428 956 564 JEFFERSON AVE COLLECTOR 813 1 12 2 1750 40 39 1429 956 606 JEFFERSON AVE COLLECTOR 7308 1 12 2 1750 40 39 1430 957 563 31F MINOR ARTERIAL 565 2 12 2 1750 50 39 1431 957 564 31F MAJOR ARTERIAL 546 1 12 2 1750 50 39 1432 958 562 DRIVEWAY COLLECTOR 227 1 12 2 1750 35 39 1433 959 561 LAKE CRESCENT DR COLLECTOR 314 1 12 2 1750 30 39 1434 960 555 S LINCOLN RD COLLECTOR 3255 1 12 2 1750 35 39 1435 961 960 E COMMERCIAL ST COLLECTOR 794 1 12 2 1750 35 33 1436 962 960 E COMMERCIAL ST COLLECTOR 786 1 12 2 1750 35 33 1437 963 560 WEST AVE COLLECTOR 2176 1 12 2 1750 35 39 1438 964 559 DRIVEWAY COLLECTOR 297 1 12 2 1750 35 39 1439 965 540 DESPATCH DR COLLECTOR 2034 1 12 2 1750 40 33 R.E. Ginna Nuclear Power Plant K104 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 1440 966 428 PANORAMA TRAIL MINOR ARTERIAL 716 2 12 2 1750 55 32 PANORAMA CREEK 1441 967 966 COLLECTOR 1162 1 12 2 1750 35 32 DR 1442 968 966 PANORAMA TRAIL MINOR ARTERIAL 849 2 12 2 1750 45 32 1443 969 968 DRIVEWAY COLLECTOR 222 1 12 2 1750 35 32 1444 970 426 PANORAMA TRAIL MINOR ARTERIAL 518 2 12 2 1750 45 33 1445 971 415 PANORAMA TRAIL COLLECTOR 1662 1 10 0 1750 35 29 1446 971 427 PANORAMA TRAIL COLLECTOR 3046 1 10 0 1575 35 29 1447 972 426 PENFIELD RD MINOR ARTERIAL 422 2 12 2 1750 50 33 1448 973 435 DRIVEWAY COLLECTOR 220 1 12 2 1750 35 32 1449 974 414 QUALTROUGH RD COLLECTOR 5207 1 12 2 1750 50 29 1450 975 414 CLARCK RD COLLECTOR 2254 1 12 2 1750 45 29 1451 976 368 DRIVEWAY COLLECTOR 345 1 12 2 1750 35 18 1452 977 367 DRIVEWAY COLLECTOR 290 1 12 2 1750 35 18 1453 978 317 BAY RD COLLECTOR 1347 1 12 2 1750 40 18 1454 979 978 KIDD CASTLE WAY COLLECTOR 1356 1 12 2 1750 35 18 1455 980 316 GLEN EDYTH RD COLLECTOR 174 1 12 2 1750 30 12 1456 981 418 5 MILE LINE RD MINOR ARTERIAL 441 2 12 2 1750 40 13 1457 981 419 5 MILE LINE RD COLLECTOR 525 1 12 2 1750 40 13 1458 982 985 BILLS RD COLLECTOR 1949 1 12 2 1700 50 35 1459 983 984 WATSON HUBERT RD COLLECTOR 5178 1 12 2 1700 50 34 1460 984 1019 SR 441 MINOR ARTERIAL 4205 1 12 2 1750 55 34 1461 985 983 BILLS RD COLLECTOR 103 1 12 2 1125 25 34 1462 986 148 CO RD 204 COLLECTOR 234 1 12 2 1125 25 35 1463 987 585 SR 31 MINOR ARTERIAL 238 1 12 2 1700 45 39 1464 987 586 SR 31 MINOR ARTERIAL 1964 1 12 2 1750 45 39 1465 988 181 I490 FREEWAY 3439 3 12 12 2250 70 39 R.E. Ginna Nuclear Power Plant K105 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 1466 988 182 I490 FREEWAY 4012 2 12 12 2250 70 39 1467 989 536 FOREST HILLS RD COLLECTOR 646 1 12 2 1750 40 29 1468 990 444 BLOSSOM RD COLLECTOR 4169 1 12 2 1700 50 29 1469 991 992 CO RD 210 COLLECTOR 471 1 12 2 1350 30 42 1470 992 661 CO RD 210 COLLECTOR 6055 1 12 2 1700 50 42 WALWORTH 1471 993 994 COLLECTOR 4672 1 12 2 1700 60 42 ONTARIO RD WALWORTH 1472 994 109 COLLECTOR 1131 1 12 2 1575 35 42 ONTARIO RD WALWORTH 1473 995 86 COLLECTOR 1041 1 12 2 1350 30 42 ONTARIO RD 1474 996 83 SR 350 MINOR ARTERIAL 627 1 12 2 1700 40 41 1475 997 81 SR 350 MINOR ARTERIAL 1744 1 12 2 1700 45 41 1476 997 631 SCOTT RD COLLECTOR 973 1 12 2 1700 45 41 1477 998 797 DEAN RD COLLECTOR 105 1 12 2 1350 30 37 1478 999 408 JACKSON RD COLLECTOR 2776 1 12 2 1700 50 34 1479 1000 424 DRIVEWAY COLLECTOR 663 1 12 2 1750 35 33 1480 1001 250 PHILLIPS RD COLLECTOR 2358 1 12 2 1750 50 14 1481 1002 248 PHILLIPS RD MINOR ARTERIAL 988 2 12 2 1750 40 14 1482 1002 249 PHILLIPS RD MINOR ARTERIAL 347 2 12 2 1750 50 14 1483 1003 133 SR 88 MINOR ARTERIAL 6245 1 12 2 1700 60 44 1484 1004 685 CO RD 215 COLLECTOR 264 1 12 2 1350 30 38 1485 1005 1004 CO RD 215 COLLECTOR 3688 1 12 2 1700 55 25 1486 1006 684 BEAM HILL RD COLLECTOR 1442 1 12 2 1700 55 24 1487 1007 141 COUNTY LINE RD COLLECTOR 206 1 12 2 1350 30 21 1488 1008 460 CULVER RD COLLECTOR 1624 1 12 2 1900 40 28 1489 1009 461 WISCONSIN ST COLLECTOR 1212 1 12 2 1900 40 28 R.E. Ginna Nuclear Power Plant K106 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 1490 1009 1008 GARSON AVE COLLECTOR 2004 1 12 2 1900 35 28 1491 1010 1008 CULVER RD COLLECTOR 736 1 12 2 1900 40 28 1492 1011 1010 PARCELLS AVE COLLECTOR 945 1 12 2 1900 35 28 1493 1012 384 HELENDALE RD COLLECTOR 1800 1 12 2 1750 40 17 1494 1012 462 CULVER PKWY COLLECTOR 1871 1 12 2 1700 40 17 1495 1013 702 TITUS AVE COLLECTOR 334 1 12 2 1750 40 10 1496 1014 530 SAGAMORE CIR COLLECTOR 285 1 12 2 1750 30 1 1497 1015 496 E RIDGE RD MINOR ARTERIAL 1445 2 12 2 1750 45 10 1498 1016 1015 DRIVEWAY COLLECTOR 171 1 12 2 1750 35 10 SR 104 OFFRAMP TO 1499 1017 481 FREEWAY RAMP 306 2 12 2 1900 40 11 CULVER RD 1500 1018 365 GRAVEL RD COLLECTOR 2192 1 12 2 1750 50 12 1501 1019 153 SR 441 MINOR ARTERIAL 2026 1 12 2 1750 55 34 1502 1020 237 SR 286 MINOR ARTERIAL 1964 1 12 2 1700 55 34 1503 1020 1021 GLORIA DR COLLECTOR 2547 1 10 1 1750 55 34 1504 1021 238 SWEET CORNERS RD COLLECTOR 1999 1 10 2 1750 50 34 1505 1021 1019 GLORIA DR COLLECTOR 7936 1 10 1 1750 55 34 1506 1022 590 WHALEN RD COLLECTOR 3709 1 12 2 1700 50 30 1507 1023 7 SR 590 FREEWAY 1341 2 12 2 2250 70 28 1508 1024 842 ELMWOOD AVE COLLECTOR 4513 1 12 2 1750 40 31 1509 1025 79 SR 350 MINOR ARTERIAL 4984 1 12 4 1700 60 36 1510 1026 660 CO RD 210 COLLECTOR 6861 1 12 2 1700 55 36 1511 8004 4 SR 590 FREEWAY 388 3 12 12 2250 70 31 1512 8049 49 SR 104 MINOR ARTERIAL 624 1 12 10 1700 60 26 1513 8061 61 SR 104 FREEWAY 494 3 12 12 2250 70 16 1514 8185 185 I490 FREEWAY 626 2 12 12 2250 70 39 R.E. Ginna Nuclear Power Plant K107 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 135 8135 SR 88 MINOR ARTERIAL 340 1 12 2 1700 55 44 Link Exit 49 8049 SR 104 MINOR ARTERIAL 624 1 12 10 1700 60 26 Link Exit 89 8089 SR 31 MINOR ARTERIAL 580 1 12 2 1700 45 43 Link Exit 544 8544 SR 153 MINOR ARTERIAL 523 1 12 2 1700 50 39 Link Exit 801 8801 SR 21 MINOR ARTERIAL 591 1 12 2 1700 55 42 Link Exit 279 8279 SR 250 MINOR ARTERIAL 372 1 12 2 1700 40 40 Link Exit 587 8587 SR 31 MINOR ARTERIAL 413 1 12 2 1700 45 39 Link Exit 4 8004 SR 590 FREEWAY 388 3 12 12 2250 70 31 Link Exit 61 8061 SR 104 FREEWAY 494 3 12 12 2250 70 16 Link Exit 185 8185 I490 FREEWAY 626 2 12 12 2250 70 39 Link Exit 168 8168 CLOVER ST COLLECTOR 318 1 12 2 1700 40 31 Link Exit 169 8189 I490 FREEWAY 460 4 12 12 2250 70 28 Link Exit 529 8529 PATTONWOOD DR MINOR ARTERIAL 192 2 12 2 1900 40 1 Link Exit FAIRVILLE MAPLE 697 8697 COLLECTOR 665 1 12 2 1700 50 44 Link RIDGE RD R.E. Ginna Nuclear Power Plant K108 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 701 8701 CO RD 241 COLLECTOR 837 1 12 2 1700 55 26 Link Exit 835 8835 EAST AVE COLLECTOR 221 1 12 2 1700 40 28 Link Exit 839 8839 S WINTON RD COLLECTOR 309 1 12 2 1700 45 31 Link Exit 841 8841 HIGHLAND AVE COLLECTOR 282 1 12 0 1700 45 31 Link Exit 942 8942 KREAG RD COLLECTOR 356 1 12 2 1700 40 39 Link Exit 329 8329 ATLANTIC AVE COLLECTOR 467 1 12 2 1700 40 27 Link Exit 393 8393 CLIFFORD AVE COLLECTOR 232 1 12 2 1700 40 16 Link Exit 627 8627 VICTOR RD COLLECTOR 964 1 12 2 1700 50 40 Link Exit 629 8629 CANANDAIGUA RD COLLECTOR 682 1 12 2 1700 50 41 Link Exit 630 8630 CO RD 312 COLLECTOR 615 1 12 2 1700 50 42 Link Exit 671 8671 LAKE RD COLLECTOR 478 1 12 2 1700 55 9 Link Exit 679 8679 RIDGE RD COLLECTOR 530 1 12 2 1700 55 26 Link R.E. Ginna Nuclear Power Plant K109 KLD Engineering, P.C.
| |
| Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 1
| |
| | |
| Table K2. Nodes in the LinkNode Analysis Network which are Controlled X Y Coordinate Coordinate Control Grid Map Node (ft) (ft) Type Number 1 550109 1184807 Actuated 1 2 683328 1118583 Stop 44 24 605906 1175248 Actuated 15 25 609098 1175603 Actuated 15 26 611869 1176088 Actuated 22 27 616723 1176403 Actuated 22 28 619125 1176504 Actuated 22 29 622844 1176775 Actuated 5 30 627542 1176835 TCP Actuated 5 31 632855 1176730 Actuated 23 32 633977 1176726 TCP Actuated 23 33 638185 1177665 Actuated 6 34 641948 1177875 Stop 6 36 651042 1178463 Stop 6 37 655453 1178627 Stop 7 38 659323 1178537 TCP Actuated 7 39 663372 1179290 Actuated 7 40 670628 1179471 Stop 7 41 679500 1180386 Stop 8 43 687950 1180785 Stop 8 44 692596 1182109 TCP Actuated 8 45 695917 1180030 Stop 9 46 699534 1177088 TCP Actuated 9 47 702939 1174691 Stop 26 48 705819 1173430 Stop 26 52 564102 1177434 Yield 2 54 563927 1176297 Yield 11 56 563483 1173507 Yield 11 58 562563 1171900 Yield 11 59 562589 1171757 Yield 11 71 627762 1193289 TCP Actuated 5 72 627820 1187896 Stop 5 73 627541 1181256 TCP Actuated 5 74 627518 1176379 TCP Actuated 22 75 630144 1166127 Stop 22 76 632103 1160831 Stop 23 77 631688 1153751 TCP Actuated 36 R.E. Ginna Nuclear Power Plant K110 KLD Engineering, P.C.
| |
| Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 1
| |
| | |
| X Y Coordinate Coordinate Control Grid Map Node (ft) (ft) Type Number 78 630830 1144581 TCP Actuated 36 79 630660 1136814 Stop 36 82 628188 1128231 Actuated 41 84 629366 1119277 Actuated 41 86 640057 1116263 Stop 42 87 646466 1116879 Actuated 42 88 649681 1116437 Actuated 42 TCP No 90 622662 1192954 5 Control TCP No 92 622782 1181193 5 Control 93 622872 1175186 Stop 22 94 622842 1167865 Stop 22 TCP No 95 637824 1194558 6 Control 99 635856 1181297 Stop 6 100 633612 1174364 Pretimed 23 101 634601 1170049 Stop 23 105 636251 1144560 TCP Actuated 36 108 637294 1127330 Stop 42 111 660987 1196305 Stop 7 112 641921 1174724 Stop 23 114 651030 1174899 Stop 23 116 659489 1175287 TCP Actuated 24 118 663964 1178354 Stop 7 119 670554 1177685 Stop 7 122 679542 1177842 Stop 8 124 688406 1180397 TCP Actuated 8 126 692705 1179516 Actuated 8 128 691596 1166188 Stop 25 132 687820 1135657 Stop 38 134 683872 1118095 Stop 44 TCP No 136 609045 1192344 4 Control 137 609085 1187166 Stop 4 138 609064 1181865 Stop 4 140 609089 1167936 Stop 15 142 616749 1175860 Stop 22 143 616895 1167915 Stop 22 R.E. Ginna Nuclear Power Plant K111 KLD Engineering, P.C.
| |
| Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 1
| |
| | |
| X Y Coordinate Coordinate Control Grid Map Node (ft) (ft) Type Number 145 617236 1160741 Stop 22 146 618646 1153607 Stop 35 147 618688 1149558 Stop 35 149 615919 1144584 Stop 35 152 609462 1141831 Actuated 35 153 602088 1141718 Actuated 34 154 598825 1141255 Stop 34 156 593600 1141798 Actuated 34 157 591197 1141846 TCP Actuated 34 158 585152 1142080 Actuated 33 159 581954 1141697 Actuated 33 163 573627 1139325 Actuated 32 164 570127 1140466 Actuated 32 165 569124 1141500 Actuated 32 166 568639 1141493 Actuated 32 167 567778 1141266 Actuated 32 192 656567 1146828 TCP Actuated 37 193 656877 1143663 Stop 37 199 658542 1145878 Pretimed 37 206 669757 1127247 Stop 43 209 626813 1193274 Stop 5 216 659715 1195574 Stop 7 TCP No 224 692182 1189620 8 Control 227 605830 1182010 Stop 4 230 602425 1181938 Stop 4 231 602485 1174513 TCP Actuated 15 232 602494 1174112 TCP Actuated 15 233 602498 1173647 TCP Actuated 15 234 602328 1168409 Stop 15 236 602255 1160322 Stop 21 237 602156 1152234 Stop 34 238 602144 1149683 TCP Actuated 34 242 597394 1181862 Stop 4 243 597430 1178895 Actuated 4 244 597394 1176528 Actuated 14 246 597420 1174305 TCP Actuated 14 248 597418 1173507 Actuated 14 R.E. Ginna Nuclear Power Plant K112 KLD Engineering, P.C.
| |
| Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 1
| |
| | |
| X Y Coordinate Coordinate Control Grid Map Node (ft) (ft) Type Number 249 597414 1172173 TCP Actuated 14 250 597441 1167808 Actuated 14 TCP No 251 593563 1190316 4 Control 256 594907 1181882 TCP Actuated 4 258 594946 1178900 Actuated 4 261 594522 1174262 Actuated 14 262 594444 1173054 TCP Actuated 14 263 594428 1172709 TCP Actuated 14 264 594417 1171534 Actuated 14 266 594367 1166792 Actuated 14 267 594187 1160482 Actuated 20 269 593845 1152550 TCP Actuated 34 270 593290 1149909 Stop 34 271 591326 1145642 Actuated 34 272 591146 1140607 Actuated 34 273 590952 1133715 Actuated 40 274 590922 1132461 Actuated 40 275 590862 1130693 Actuated 40 276 590832 1130103 Actuated 40 277 590821 1123046 Actuated 40 278 590650 1119457 Actuated 40 281 593522 1133647 Actuated 40 282 593499 1131739 Actuated 40 283 593252 1129474 Actuated 40 285 593410 1123055 Actuated 40 286 593392 1119158 Actuated 40 289 590076 1178303 Actuated 4 290 590065 1173023 Actuated 14 291 590065 1172530 Actuated 14 292 590068 1172003 Actuated 14 293 590048 1171508 Actuated 14 294 590048 1170915 Actuated 14 295 586151 1178376 Actuated 3 297 586150 1172516 Actuated 13 298 586192 1171127 Actuated 13 299 586231 1170319 Actuated 13 302 584409 1180697 Stop 3 R.E. Ginna Nuclear Power Plant K113 KLD Engineering, P.C.
| |
| Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 1
| |
| | |
| X Y Coordinate Coordinate Control Grid Map Node (ft) (ft) Type Number 303 584395 1178368 Stop 3 306 580526 1178282 Stop 3 312 573473 1178417 Stop 3 314 571683 1172587 TCP Actuated 12 315 571733 1171866 TCP Actuated 12 316 572295 1169393 Actuated 12 317 574710 1163572 TCP Actuated 18 318 575112 1160886 Actuated 18 321 574072 1150461 Actuated 29 324 565428 1151913 Actuated 28 326 564057 1151858 Actuated 28 327 562524 1151772 Actuated 28 328 557495 1151640 Actuated 28 330 564676 1151875 Actuated 28 331 564663 1152130 Yield 28 TCP No 332 571899 1181931 3 Control 335 599247 1160377 Stop 21 336 599013 1152348 Stop 34 337 598915 1149773 TCP Actuated 34 340 619119 1175668 Stop 22 348 581241 1180278 Stop 3 352 606566 1174901 Stop 15 354 608552 1175419 Stop 15 355 609092 1175451 Stop 15 356 605928 1174766 Stop 15 358 592364 1171258 Actuated 14 359 588729 1170782 Actuated 14 360 585280 1170084 Actuated 13 361 584094 1169658 Actuated 13 362 582588 1169064 Actuated 13 363 579877 1168765 Actuated 13 364 577898 1168740 Actuated 13 365 576837 1168991 Actuated 12 367 575113 1164635 Actuated 18 368 574959 1164190 Actuated 18 372 590894 1165514 Stop 20 373 585750 1162139 Stop 19 R.E. Ginna Nuclear Power Plant K114 KLD Engineering, P.C.
| |
| Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 1
| |
| | |
| X Y Coordinate Coordinate Control Grid Map Node (ft) (ft) Type Number 374 583725 1160793 Stop 19 375 582462 1160761 TCP Actuated 19 377 573609 1160921 Actuated 18 381 565508 1159024 Actuated 17 382 564675 1159016 TCP Actuated 17 383 564099 1158984 Actuated 17 384 563699 1158974 Actuated 17 385 562410 1158935 Actuated 17 386 560413 1158861 Actuated 17 387 559588 1158839 Actuated 17 388 557584 1158765 Actuated 17 389 555378 1158750 Actuated 16 390 553826 1158678 Actuated 16 391 553088 1158697 Actuated 16 392 551372 1158617 Actuated 16 396 585739 1160716 Stop 19 398 590789 1160667 Stop 20 404 610251 1160716 Stop 22 406 610472 1153347 Stop 35 411 582179 1150255 Actuated 30 412 579607 1150284 Actuated 30 414 577076 1150371 Actuated 29 415 575085 1150396 Actuated 29 416 582325 1173968 Actuated 13 417 582470 1172479 Actuated 13 418 582494 1172178 Actuated 13 419 582617 1171218 Actuated 13 423 582077 1146207 Actuated 30 424 582007 1143985 Actuated 33 425 581916 1138501 Actuated 33 426 577612 1142902 Actuated 33 428 576900 1141056 Actuated 32 429 577053 1140776 Actuated 32 431 579069 1137721 Actuated 33 432 581320 1138308 Actuated 33 434 579726 1155484 Stop 30 435 576760 1143476 Actuated 32 438 567599 1144727 Actuated 32 R.E. Ginna Nuclear Power Plant K115 KLD Engineering, P.C.
| |
| Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 1
| |
| | |
| X Y Coordinate Coordinate Control Grid Map Node (ft) (ft) Type Number 440 565722 1144668 Actuated 31 441 564987 1144628 Actuated 31 442 564756 1144894 Actuated 31 444 568000 1148933 Stop 29 445 566182 1148894 Actuated 28 446 565115 1148908 Actuated 28 447 564730 1148927 Actuated 28 448 563263 1148958 Actuated 28 449 561398 1149015 Actuated 28 450 561889 1150194 Actuated 28 451 561316 1148780 Actuated 28 452 560974 1147918 Actuated 28 453 560827 1147557 Actuated 28 456 562924 1152743 Actuated 28 457 562785 1152351 Actuated 28 458 560837 1154361 Actuated 28 459 559712 1157073 Actuated 17 460 557974 1152845 Actuated 28 461 560230 1152897 Actuated 28 462 561909 1157092 Stop 17 463 563550 1163210 Stop 17 464 563787 1163138 Yield 17 467 561585 1163196 Actuated 17 469 559471 1163093 Actuated 17 470 556871 1163051 Actuated 17 471 555385 1163017 Actuated 16 472 553297 1162965 Actuated 16 475 563430 1177483 Actuated 2 476 562707 1176142 Stop 11 477 560584 1173305 Stop 11 478 559792 1171702 Actuated 11 479 559282 1170088 Actuated 11 480 559302 1168680 Actuated 11 481 559393 1166237 Actuated 11 482 559374 1165837 Actuated 17 483 559576 1160102 Actuated 17 484 555440 1160766 Actuated 16 485 558743 1160992 Actuated 17 R.E. Ginna Nuclear Power Plant K116 KLD Engineering, P.C.
| |
| Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 1
| |
| | |
| X Y Coordinate Coordinate Control Grid Map Node (ft) (ft) Type Number 486 557523 1160931 Stop 17 490 561079 1169053 Actuated 11 491 560519 1169046 Actuated 11 492 559950 1168963 Actuated 11 493 557836 1168174 Actuated 11 494 557124 1167872 Actuated 11 495 555274 1167198 Actuated 10 496 553190 1166667 Actuated 10 498 562670 1171883 Yield 11 500 554422 1171626 Actuated 10 501 553018 1171575 Actuated 10 504 555288 1166774 Actuated 10 505 555293 1166329 Actuated 10 506 555274 1165999 Actuated 16 508 555378 1163615 Actuated 16 509 553274 1165170 Actuated 16 510 553230 1165647 Actuated 16 511 553242 1165969 Actuated 16 514 549633 1171500 Actuated 10 520 557979 1181644 Stop 2 525 550098 1185305 Actuated 1 527 547786 1185247 Actuated 1 528 547135 1185119 Actuated 1 530 549447 1178678 Actuated 1 532 549403 1177089 Stop 1 534 549552 1182108 Actuated 1 536 567842 1146475 Actuated 29 540 578582 1136955 Actuated 33 541 577996 1136046 Actuated 33 543 575477 1133864 Actuated 39 546 575706 1136925 Actuated 32 552 574649 1134167 Actuated 39 553 573752 1134675 Actuated 32 555 580513 1131738 Actuated 39 559 576847 1133227 Actuated 39 560 578326 1132627 Actuated 39 561 579922 1131962 Actuated 39 562 583801 1131545 Actuated 39 R.E. Ginna Nuclear Power Plant K117 KLD Engineering, P.C.
| |
| Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 1
| |
| | |
| X Y Coordinate Coordinate Control Grid Map Node (ft) (ft) Type Number 563 584509 1131516 Actuated 39 564 585578 1131212 Actuated 39 570 623358 1117346 Actuated 41 571 613714 1117488 Actuated 41 572 612337 1117489 Actuated 41 574 604102 1117616 Stop 40 575 602808 1117590 Actuated 40 576 600016 1117623 Actuated 40 579 591426 1119355 Actuated 40 580 590174 1119560 Actuated 40 581 589257 1119862 Actuated 40 582 585724 1121226 Actuated 39 583 581383 1122612 Actuated 39 586 576895 1123882 Actuated 39 590 585269 1146104 Stop 30 594 585193 1134288 Actuated 39 598 601497 1133680 Stop 40 599 627875 1136199 Stop 35 600 614883 1128276 Stop 41 602 609400 1128907 Stop 41 603 602735 1128414 Stop 40 604 601174 1128344 Actuated 40 606 585395 1123093 Actuated 39 608 598316 1123064 Actuated 40 610 601457 1123064 Stop 40 615 614638 1140689 Stop 35 621 604071 1128378 Stop 40 623 614903 1125518 Stop 41 628 623384 1115867 Stop 41 631 630103 1128258 Stop 41 632 645258 1126868 Stop 42 637 641913 1181520 Stop 6 638 651064 1181675 Stop 6 640 660378 1193531 Stop 7 644 670270 1166181 Stop 24 649 665142 1149639 Stop 37 654 641886 1162548 Stop 23 659 642766 1145036 Stop 36 R.E. Ginna Nuclear Power Plant K118 KLD Engineering, P.C.
| |
| Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 1
| |
| | |
| X Y Coordinate Coordinate Control Grid Map Node (ft) (ft) Type Number 674 700828 1176773 Stop 9 675 700890 1175986 Stop 26 677 703221 1175427 Stop 26 686 676711 1155365 Stop 38 687 676822 1148021 Stop 38 695 681341 1146972 Stop 38 699 695843 1166307 Stop 26 702 548936 1171452 Actuated 10 704 549565 1174358 Actuated 10 705 549588 1173495 Actuated 10 708 548944 1170686 Actuated 10 709 548970 1170207 Actuated 10 710 549001 1168987 Actuated 10 711 549062 1166187 Actuated 16 712 549084 1165320 Actuated 16 713 549106 1164781 Actuated 16 717 552429 1166623 Actuated 10 718 551753 1166575 Actuated 10 719 551138 1166500 Actuated 10 723 551111 1165265 Actuated 16 741 564633 1144600 Actuated 31 742 561604 1144516 Actuated 31 748 598838 1174448 Stop 15 TCP No 749 603749 1174559 15 Control 750 602506 1175022 Stop 15 751 586150 1172154 Actuated 13 758 598809 1176644 Actuated 15 760 602465 1176667 Stop 15 766 590956 1170995 Actuated 14 770 594383 1170382 Actuated 14 772 632832 1181174 Stop 6 776 655428 1175804 Stop 24 777 655470 1181520 Stop 7 784 623289 1138758 Stop 35 786 623291 1128252 Actuated 41 789 648013 1181788 Stop 6 790 660110 1194332 TCP Actuated 7 R.E. Ginna Nuclear Power Plant K119 KLD Engineering, P.C.
| |
| Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 1
| |
| | |
| X Y Coordinate Coordinate Control Grid Map Node (ft) (ft) Type Number 793 675047 1180095 Stop 8 794 672849 1166191 Stop 25 796 655648 1146833 Stop 37 798 654310 1150687 Stop 37 804 563557 1173446 Yield 11 805 563321 1173428 Yield 11 807 564022 1176172 Yield 11 810 564159 1177350 Yield 2 817 569764 1141140 Actuated 32 830 562963 1146362 Actuated 28 831 562320 1147126 Actuated 28 832 561639 1147349 Actuated 28 833 559994 1147865 Actuated 28 836 560630 1147118 Actuated 28 837 560462 1146732 Actuated 28 838 559529 1144444 Actuated 31 842 563010 1140853 Actuated 31 844 572330 1135806 Actuated 32 845 570901 1137141 Actuated 32 846 570083 1138247 Actuated 32 847 568471 1140101 Actuated 32 848 568030 1140849 Actuated 32 865 559135 1152861 Actuated 28 867 559637 1156893 Actuated 17 883 595825 1174319 Actuated 14 903 628841 1169935 Stop 22 905 625427 1166061 Stop 22 907 623163 1136275 Stop 35 908 637415 1133485 Stop 42 911 589679 1141917 Actuated 34 914 588624 1141967 Actuated 34 918 583819 1142171 Actuated 33 929 647037 1116917 Actuated 42 931 643508 1116825 Actuated 42 933 631445 1119403 Stop 42 938 590664 1120048 Actuated 40 945 593415 1124166 Actuated 40 947 590780 1127199 Actuated 40 R.E. Ginna Nuclear Power Plant K120 KLD Engineering, P.C.
| |
| Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 1
| |
| | |
| X Y Coordinate Coordinate Control Grid Map Node (ft) (ft) Type Number 954 625385 1193227 Stop 5 960 580926 1134963 Actuated 33 966 576859 1141759 Actuated 32 968 577326 1142469 Actuated 32 978 574072 1164757 Actuated 18 982 610233 1147502 Stop 35 984 608318 1141784 Stop 34 999 589765 1155300 Stop 34 1008 558588 1154349 Actuated 28 1009 560575 1154084 Stop 28 1010 558850 1155037 Actuated 28 1012 563779 1157176 Stop 17 1015 554591 1167021 Actuated 10 TCP No 1021 604143 1149677 34 Control 1
| |
| Coordinates are in the North American Datum of 1983 Central New York Plane Zone R.E. Ginna Nuclear Power Plant K121 KLD Engineering, P.C.
| |
| Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 1
| |
| | |
| APPENDIX L ERPA Boundaries
| |
| | |
| L. ERPA BOUNDARIES ERPA M1 County: Monroe Defined as the area within the following boundary: The section of the Town of Webster bounded on the north by Lake Ontario, on the east by the Monroe Wayne County Line, to Route 104 on the south; to Salt Road north to Schlegel Road west to Route 250, north to Lake Ontario.
| |
| ERPA M2 County: Monroe Defined as the area within the following boundary: The section of the Town of Webster and the Town of Penfield bounded on the north by Route 104, on the east by the MonroeWayne County Line, on the south by Plank Road and on the west by Salt Road.
| |
| ERPA M3 County: Monroe Defined as the area within the following boundary: The section of the Town of Webster bounded on the north by Schlegel Road, on the east by Salt Road, on the south by Route 104 and on the west by Route 250.
| |
| ERPA M4 County: Monroe Defined as the area within the following boundary: The section of the town of Webster and the Town of Penfield bounded on the north by Route 104, on the east by Salt Road, on the south by Plank Road, and on the west by both Jackson and Holt Roads.
| |
| ERPA M5 County: Monroe Defined as the area within the following boundary: The section of the Town of Penfield bounded on the north by Plank Road, on the east by the MonroeWayne County Line, on the south by Sweets Corners Road, and on the west by Route 250, Penfield Center Road and Jackson Road to Plank Road.
| |
| ERPA M6 County: Monroe Defined as the area within the following boundary: The section of the Town of Webster bounded on the north by Lake Ontario, on the east by Route 250, on the south by Route 104, and on the west by Hard, Klem, and Whiting Roads.
| |
| ERPA M7 County: Monroe Defined as the area within the following boundary: The section of the Town of Webster and the Town of Penfield bounded on the north by Route 104, on the east by Plank Road, and on the west by Hatch Road to Ridge Road to Gravel Road.
| |
| R.E. Ginna Nuclear Power Plant L1 KLD Engineering, P.C.
| |
| Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 1
| |
| | |
| ERPA M8 County: Monroe Defined as the area within the following boundary: The section of the Town of Webster bounded on the north by Lake Ontario, on the east by Whiting Road, on the south by Klem Road, and on the west by Bay Road.
| |
| ERPA M9 County: Monroe Defined as the area within the following boundary: The section of the Town of Webster bounded on the north by Klem Road, on the east by Hard Road, on the south by Route 104, and on the west by Maple Drive.
| |
| ERPA W1 County: Wayne Defined as the area within the following boundary: The section of the Town of Ontario north of Berg Road and Kenyon Road.
| |
| ERPA W2 County: Wayne Defined as the area within the following boundary: The section of the Town of Ontario south of Berg Road and Kenyon Road.
| |
| ERPA W3 County: Wayne Defined as the area within the following boundary: The northwest section of the Town of Williamson west of Salmon Creek Road and north of Old Ridge Road.
| |
| ERPA W4 County: Wayne Defined as the area within the following boundary: The northeast section of the Town of Williamson east of Salmon Creek Road and north of the Ontario Midland Railroad (along Route 104), and the Town of Sodus west of North Centenary Road and north of the Ontario Midland Railroad (along Route 104).
| |
| ERPA W5 County: Wayne Defined as the area within the following boundary: The Town of Williamson south of the Ontario Midland Railroad (along Route 104), and a small part of the Town of Sodus south of the Ontario Midland Railroad and west of Richardson Road.
| |
| ERPA W6 County: Wayne Defined as the area within the following boundary: The northwest portion of the Town of Marion north of WalworthMarion Road and west of MarionEast Williamson Road.
| |
| ERPA W7 County: Wayne Defined as the area within the following boundary: All the Town of Walworth north of Route 441 and PenfieldWalworth Road including the Hamlet of Walworth.
| |
| R.E. Ginna Nuclear Power Plant L2 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 1, Region 3; a summer, 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 1 Hours 45 Minutes 2:10 3:10 2 Hours 45 Minutes 2:15 3:10 3 Hours 45 Minutes (Base) 2:15 3:55 As discussed in Section 7.3, traffic congestion persists within the EPZ for about 3 hours. As such, the ETE for the 100th percentiles are affected by differences in trip generation time greater than 3 hours. The 90th percentile ETE are not sensitive to truncating the tail of the mobilization time distribution.
| |
| R.E. Ginna 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 1, Region 3; a summer, 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 increases the ETE by 5 minutes for the 90th percentile - not a significant change. Note, the telephone survey results presented in Appendix F indicate that 25% of households would elect to evacuate if advised to shelter, only 5% off from the base assumption of 20% noncompliance suggested in NUREG/CR7002.
| |
| 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 2:15 3:55 20 (Base) 19,524 2:15 3:55 25 (Survey) 24,405 2:15 3:55 60 58,572 2:20 3:55 R.E. Ginna 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 EPZ. As population in the EPZ 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 EPZ, 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 change in population within the EPZ was treated parametrically. The percent population change was varied between +/-30%. Changes in population were applied to permanent residents only (as per federal guidance), in both the EPZ area and 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 1).
| |
| 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.
| |
| Those percent population changes which result in ETE changes greater than 30 minutes or 25%
| |
| are highlighted in red below - a 51% increase or 87% decrease in the EPZ population. CENG will have to estimate the EPZ population on an annual basis. If the EPZ population increases by 51%
| |
| or more, or decreases by 87% or more, an updated ETE analysis will be needed.
| |
| R.E. Ginna Nuclear Power Plant M3 KLD Engineering, P.C.
| |
| Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 1
| |
| | |
| Table M3. ETE Variation with Population Change Population Change Population Change Resident &
| |
| Shadow Base 10% 25% 51% Base 10% 25% 87%
| |
| Population 79,884 87,872 99,855 120,625 79,884 71,896 59,913 10,385 ETE for 90th Percentile Population Change Population Change Region Base 10% 25% 51% Base 10% 25% 87%
| |
| 2MILE 1:50 1:50 1:50 1:50 1:50 1:50 1:50 1:35 5MILE 2:00 2:00 2:00 2:00 2:00 1:50 1:50 1:40 FULL EPZ 2:15 2:15 2:30 2:45 2:15 2:10 2:00 1:45 th ETE for 100 Percentile Population Change Population Change Region Base 10% 25% 51% Base 10% 25% 87%
| |
| 2MILE 3:45 3:45 3:45 3:45 3:45 3:45 3:45 3:45 5MILE 3:50 3:50 3:50 3:50 3:50 3:50 3:50 3:50 FULL EPZ 3:55 3:55 3:55 4:10 3:55 3:55 3:55 3:55 R.E. Ginna 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 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 large employers, and special events should be identified. Section 3
| |
| : c. Discussion should be presented on use of traffic control Yes Section 1.3, Section 2.2, 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 R.E. Ginna 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 Sections 2 and 3 described. Section 5, Appendix F 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 considered for each ETE calculation by downwind direction in each sector.
| |
| R.E. Ginna 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 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 Section 3, Section 8, Appendix E population groups, including permanent residents of the EPZ, transients, special facilities, and schools.
| |
| 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.
| |
| 2.1.1 Permanent Residents with Vehicles
| |
| : a. The persons per vehicle value should be between 1 and 2 Yes 1.92 persons per vehicle - Table 13 or justification should be provided for other values.
| |
| : b. Major employers should be listed. Yes Section 3.4, Appendix E 2.1.2 Transient Population R.E. Ginna Nuclear Power Plant N3 KLD Engineering, P.C.
| |
| Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 1
| |
| | |
| NRC Review Criteria Criterion Addressed Comments in ETE Analysis
| |
| : a. A list of facilities which attract transient populations Yes Sections 3.3, 3.4, Appendix E should be included, and peak and average attendance for these facilities should be listed. The source of information used to develop attendance values should be provided.
| |
| : b. The average population during the season should be used, Yes Tables 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.
| |
| 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, Table 810 residents should be used in the analysis.
| |
| R.E. Ginna Nuclear Power Plant N4 KLD Engineering, P.C.
| |
| Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 1
| |
| | |
| NRC Review Criteria Criterion Addressed Comments in ETE Analysis
| |
| : d. The methodology used to determine the number of Yes Section 8.5 people with disabilities and those with access and functional needs who may need assistance and do not reside in special facilities should be provided. Data from local/county registration programs should be used in the estimate, but should not be the only set of data.
| |
| : e. Capacities should be provided for all types of Yes Section 2.3 - Assumption 10 transportation resources. Bus seating capacity of 50% Sections 3.5, 8.1, 8.2, 8.3 should be used or justification should be provided for higher values.
| |
| : f. An estimate of this population should be provided and Yes Table 81 - transit dependents information should be provided that the existing Section 8.5 - special needs registration programs were used in developing the estimate.
| |
| : 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 evacuation should be provided and the quantification of resources should be detailed enough to assure double counting has not occurred.
| |
| 2.3 Special Facility Residents
| |
| : a. A list of special facilities, including the type of facility, Yes Table E3, Table 84 location, and average population should be provided.
| |
| 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 data was obtained.
| |
| R.E. Ginna Nuclear Power Plant N5 KLD Engineering, P.C.
| |
| Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 1
| |
| | |
| NRC Review Criteria Criterion Addressed Comments in ETE Analysis
| |
| : c. The number of wheelchair and bedbound individuals Yes Section 3.5, Table E3, Table 84 should be provided.
| |
| : d. An estimate of the number and capacity of vehicles Yes Section 8.3 needed to support the evacuation of the facility should be Tables 84, 85 provided.
| |
| : e. The logistics for mobilizing specially trained staff (e.g., Yes Section 3.5, Section 8.4 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, Table E2 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.
| |
| : 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 Figure 81 Section 8.4, page 89 Tables 87 through 89 2.5.1 Special Events R.E. Ginna Nuclear Power Plant N6 KLD Engineering, P.C.
| |
| Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 1
| |
| | |
| NRC Review Criteria Criterion Addressed Comments in ETE Analysis
| |
| : 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 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
| |
| : c. The loading of the shadow evacuation onto the roadway Yes Section 5 - Table 59 (footnote) 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 is based on the average daytime traffic. Values may be Table 36 reduced for nighttime scenarios.
| |
| Section 6 Table 63 R.E. Ginna Nuclear Power Plant N7 KLD Engineering, P.C.
| |
| Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 1
| |
| | |
| NRC Review Criteria Criterion Addressed Comments in ETE Analysis
| |
| : b. Pass through traffic is assumed to have stopped entering Yes Section 2.3 - Assumption 5 the EPZ about two hours after the initial notification. Section 3.6 2.6 Summary of Demand Estimation
| |
| : a. A summary table should be provided that identifies the Yes total populations and total vehicles used in analysis for Section 3.8 permanent residents, transients, transit dependent Tables 37, 38 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.
| |
| : 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.
| |
| R.E. Ginna Nuclear Power Plant N8 KLD Engineering, P.C.
| |
| Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 1
| |
| | |
| NRC Review Criteria Criterion Addressed Comments in ETE Analysis
| |
| : e. A legible map of the roadway system that identifies node Yes Appendix K numbers and segments used to develop the ETE should be provided and should be similar to Figure 31, Roadway Network Identifying Nodes and Segments, of NUREG/CR 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.
| |
| : 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.
| |
| R.E. Ginna Nuclear Power Plant N9 KLD Engineering, P.C.
| |
| Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 1
| |
| | |
| NRC Review Criteria Criterion Addressed Comments in ETE Analysis
| |
| : 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, Appendix F Section F.3.3 streets and driveways, when applicable.
| |
| 4.0 Development of Evacuation Times 4.1 Trip Generation Time
| |
| : a. The process used to develop trip generation times should Yes Section 5 be identified.
| |
| : b. When telephone surveys are used, the scope of the Yes Appendix F survey, area of survey, number of participants, and statistical relevance should be provided.
| |
| : c. Data obtained from telephone surveys should be Yes Appendix F summarized.
| |
| : d. The trip generation time for each population group should Yes Section 5, Appendix F be developed from site specific information.
| |
| 4.1.1 Permanent Residents and Transient Population R.E. Ginna Nuclear Power Plant N10 KLD Engineering, P.C.
| |
| Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 1
| |
| | |
| NRC Review Criteria Criterion Addressed Comments in ETE Analysis
| |
| : 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 used to notify transients. The trip generation time Section 5.4.3 Waterways 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.
| |
| : 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 R.E. Ginna Nuclear Power Plant N11 KLD Engineering, P.C.
| |
| Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 1
| |
| | |
| NRC Review Criteria Criterion Addressed Comments in ETE Analysis
| |
| : a. If available, existing plans and bus routes should be used Yes Section 8.3, Table 810 in the ETE analysis. If new plans should be developed with the ETE, they have been agreed upon by the responsible authorities.
| |
| : b. Discussion should be included on the means of evacuating Yes Sections 8.4 and 8.5 ambulatory and nonambulatory residents.
| |
| : c. The number, location, and availability of buses, and other Yes Sections 8.4 and 8.5, 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 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 Figures 82 and 83
| |
| : 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 8.4, 8.5 return trips, if necessary. Figure 81 Tables 811 through 813 R.E. Ginna Nuclear Power Plant N12 KLD Engineering, P.C.
| |
| Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 1
| |
| | |
| NRC Review Criteria Criterion Addressed Comments in ETE Analysis 4.1.3 Special Facilities
| |
| : a. Information on evacuation logistics and mobilization times Yes Section 8.4, Tables 814 through 816 should be provided.
| |
| : b. Discussion should be provided on the inbound and Yes Section 8.4 outbound speeds.
| |
| : c. The number of wheelchair and bedbounds individuals Yes Section 8.3, 8.4, Table 84 should be provided, and the logistics of evacuating these residents should be discussed.
| |
| : d. Time for loading of residents should be provided Yes Sections 8.4,
| |
| : e. Information should be provided that indicates whether Yes Section 8.4, Table 84 the evacuation can be completed in a single trip or if additional trips should be needed.
| |
| : f. If return trips should be needed, the destination of Yes Sections 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. Tables 814 through 816.
| |
| time elements for the return trips.
| |
| 4.1.4 Schools
| |
| : a. Information on evacuation logistics and mobilization time Yes Section 8.4 should be provided.
| |
| R.E. Ginna Nuclear Power Plant N13 KLD Engineering, P.C.
| |
| Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 1
| |
| | |
| NRC Review Criteria Criterion Addressed Comments in ETE Analysis
| |
| : b. Discussion should be provided on the inbound and Yes School bus speeds are presented in Tables outbound speeds. 87 through 89.
| |
| Section 8.4 Outbound speeds are defined as the minimum of the evacuation route speed and the State school bus speed limit. Inbound speeds are limited to the State school bus speed limit.
| |
| : c. Time for loading of students should be provided. Yes Section 8.4 Tables 87 through 89
| |
| : 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.
| |
| : e. If return trips are needed, the destination of school buses Yes Table 83 Destinations are the Receiving should be provided. Location and Reception Centers
| |
| : f. If used, reception centers should be identified. Discussion Yes Section 8 Introduction. Table 83. Students should be provided on whether students are expected to are evacuated to receiving locations or pass through the reception center prior to being reception centers where they will be evacuated to their final destination. picked up by parents or guardians.
| |
| : g. Supporting information should be provided to quantify the Yes Tables 87, 88 and 89 provide time time elements for the return trips. needed to arrive at pickup points/reception centers, which can be used to compute a second wave evacuation 4.2 ETE Modeling R.E. Ginna Nuclear Power Plant N14 KLD Engineering, P.C.
| |
| Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 1
| |
| | |
| NRC Review Criteria Criterion Addressed Comments in ETE Analysis
| |
| : a. General information about the model should be provided Yes DYNEV II (Ver. 4.0.8.0). 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.
| |
| 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.
| |
| R.E. Ginna Nuclear Power Plant N15 KLD Engineering, P.C.
| |
| Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 1
| |
| | |
| NRC Review Criteria Criterion Addressed Comments in ETE Analysis
| |
| : 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.
| |
| : c. Color coded roadway maps should be provided for various Yes Figures 73 through 77 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 R.E. Ginna Nuclear Power Plant N16 KLD Engineering, P.C.
| |
| Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 1
| |
| | |
| NRC Review Criteria Criterion Addressed Comments in ETE Analysis
| |
| : b. The ETE for 100% of the general public should include all Yes Section 5.4 - truncating survey data to members of the general public. Any reductions or eliminate statistical outliers truncated data should be explained. Table 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 Sections 8.4 through 8.6 special facilities, transit dependent, and school Tables 87 through 89 populations.
| |
| Tables 811 through 813 Tables 814 through 816 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 Section 9, 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 Section 13 enhancements to local authorities should be provided.
| |
| 5.3 State and Local Review R.E. Ginna Nuclear Power Plant N17 KLD Engineering, P.C.
| |
| Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 1
| |
| | |
| NRC Review Criteria Criterion Addressed Comments in ETE Analysis
| |
| : 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 determined after review that may affect the ETE. with 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.
| |
| 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 Sections 8.4 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.
| |
| Technical Reviewer _______________________________ Date _________________________
| |
| Supervisory Review _______________________________ Date _________________________
| |
| R.E. Ginna Nuclear Power Plant N18 KLD Engineering, P.C.
| |
| Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 1}}
| |
