ML12355A710

Final Report Kld TR-488, Revision 1, Development of Evacuation Time Estimates, Enclosure to AEP-NRC-2012-78

ML12355A710
Person / Time
Site:	Cook
Issue date:	11/30/2012
From:	KLD Engineering, PC
To:	Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation, American Electric Power
References
AEP-NRC-2012-78 KLD TR-488, Rev. 1
Download: ML12355A710 (78)

Text

Enclosure to AEP-NRC-2012-78 DONALD C. COOK NUCLEAR PLANT EVACUATION TIME ESTIMATE (ETE) ANALYSIS KLD Donald C. Cook Nuclear Plant Development of Evacuation Time Estimates Work performed for American Electric Power, by: KLD Engineering, P.C.43 Corporate Drive Hauppauge, NY 11788 mailto:kweinischLkldassociates.com November 2012 Final Report, Rev. 1 KLD TR -488 SIGNATURE LIST/Donald C. Cook Nuclear Plant Project Lead, Emergency Preparedness E Date I State of Michigan Radiological Emergency Preparedness Unit Date J Date Berrien County Sheriff's Department Emergency Management

/ Homeland Security Donald C Cook Nuclear Plant Evacuation Time Estimate KLD Engineering, P.C.Rev. 1 Table of Contents 1 INTRODUCTION

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

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

1-1 1.2 The Donald C. Cook Nuclear Plant Location ...............................................................................

1-3 1.3 Prelim inary Activities

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

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

1-9 2 STUDY ESTIM ATES AND ASSUM PTIONS .............................................................................................

2-1 2.1 Data Estim ates ...........................................................................................................................

2-1 2.2 Study M ethodological Assum ptions ..........................................................................................

2-2 2.3 Study Assum ptions .....................................................................................................................

2-5 3 DEM AND ESTIM ATION .......................................................................................................................

3-1 3.1 Perm anent Residents

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

3-2 3.2 Shadow Population

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

3-7 3.3 Transient Population

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

3-10 3.4 Seasonal Transient Population

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

3-12 3.5 Em ployees ................................................................................................................................

3-15 3.6 M edical Facilities

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

3-19 3.7 Total Dem and in Addition to Perm anent Population

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

3-19 3.8 Special Event ............................................................................................................................

3-19 3.9 Sum m ary of Dem and ...............................................................................................................

3-21 4 ESTIM ATION OF HIGHW AY CAPACITY ................................................................................................

4-1 4.1 Capacity Estim ations on Approaches to Intersections

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

4-2 4.2 Capacity Estim ation along Sections of Highway ........................................................................

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

4-6 4.3.1 Two-Lane Roads .................................................................................................................

4-6 4.3.2 M ulti-Lane Highway ...........................................................................................................

4-6 4.3.3 Freeways ............................................................................................................................

4-7 4.3.4 Intersections

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

4-8 4.4 Sim ulation and Capacity Estim ation ..........................................................................................

4-8 5 ESTIM ATION OF TRIP GENERATION TIM E ..........................................................................................

5-1 5.1 Background

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

5-1 5.2 Fundam ental Considerations

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

5-3 5.3 Estim ated Tim e Distributions of Activities Preceding Event 5 ...................................................

5-6 5.4 Calculation of Trip Generation Tim e Distribution

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

5-12 5.4.1 Statistical Outliers ............................................................................................................

5-13 5.4.2 Staged Evacuation Trip Generation

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

5-17 6 DEM AND ESTIM ATION FOR EVACUATION SCENARIOS

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

6-1 7 GENERAL POPULATION EVACUATION TIM E ESTIM ATES (ETE) ..........................................................

7-1 7.1 Voluntary Evacuation and Shadow Evacuation

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

7-1 7.2 Staged Evacuation

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

7-1 7.3 Patterns of Traffic Congestion during Evacuation

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

7-2 Donald C. Cook Nuclear Plant i KLD Engineering, P.C.Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 1 7.4 Evacuation Rates ........................................................................................................................

7-3 7.5 Evacuation Tim e Estim ates (ETE) Results ...................................................................................

7-3 7.6 Staged Evacuation Results .........................................................................................................

7-5 7.7 Guidance on Using ETE Tables ...................................................................................................

7-6 8 TRANSIT-DEPENDENT AND SPECIAL FACILITY EVACUATION TIME ESTIMATES

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

8-1 8.1 Transit Dependent People Dem and Estim ate ............................................................................

8-2 8.2 School Population -Transit Dem and .........................................................................................

8-4 8.3 Special Facility Dem and .............................................................................................................

8-4 8.4 Evacuation Tim e Estim ates for Transit Dependent People .......................................................

8-5 8.5 Special Needs Population

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

8-10 9 TRAFFIC M ANAGEM ENT STRATEGY ..............................................................................................

9-i 10 EVACUATION ROUTES..................................................................................................................

10-i 11 SURVEILLANCE OF EVACUATION OPERATIONS

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

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

12-i 13 RECOM M ENDATIONS

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

13-1 A. GLOSSARY OF TRAFFIC ENGINEERING TERM S ...............................................................................

A-1 B. DYNAM IC TRAFFIC ASSIGNM ENT AND DISTRIBUTION M ODEL .....................................................

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

C-1 C.1 M ethodology

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

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

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

C-5 C.1.3 Lane Assignm ent ...............................................................................................................

C-13 C.2 Im plem entation ........................................................................................................................

C-13 C.2.1 Com putational Procedure

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

C-13 C.2.2 Interfacing w ith Dynam ic Traffic Assignm ent (DTRAD) ..............................................

C-16 D. DETAILED DESCRIPTION OF STUDY.PROCEDURE

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

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

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

F-1 F.1 Introduction

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

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

F-2 F.3 Survey Results ............................................................................................................................

F-3 F.3.1 Household Dem ographic Results ...........................................................................................

F-3 F.3.2 Evacuation Response .............................................................................................................

F-8 F.3.3 Tim e Distribution Results ................................................................................................

F-10 F.4 Conclusions

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

F-13 G. TRAFFIC M ANAGEM ENT PLAN ..........................................................................................................

G-1 G.i Traffic Control Points ................................................................................................................

G-I G.2 Access Control Points ............................................................................

G-I H EVACUATION REGIONS .....................................................................................................................

H-i Donald C. Cook Nuclear Plant ii KLD Engineering, P.C.Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 1 J. REPRESENTATIVE INPUTS TO AND OUTPUTS FROM THE DYNEV II SYSTEM .....................................

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

K-1 L. PROTECTIVE ACTION AREA BOUNDARIES

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

L-1 M .EVACUATIO N SENSITIVITY STUDIES .........................................................................................

... M -1 M.1 Effect of Changes in Trip Generation Times ........................................................................

M-1 M.2 Effect of Changes in the Number of People in the Shadow Region Who Relocate .................

M-2 M.3 Effect of Changes in EPZ Resident Population

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

M-3 M .4 Snow Road Closure Sensitive Analysis .....................................................................................

M -5 N .ETE CRITERIA CH ECKLIST ...................................................................................................................

N -1 Note: Appendix I intentionally skipped Donald C. Cook Nuclear Plant iii KLD Engineering, P.C.Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. I List of Figures Figure 1-1. DCCN P Location ......................................................................................................................

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

1-7 Figure 2-1. Voluntary Evacuation M ethodology

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

2-4 Figure 3-1. D CC N P EPZ ..............................................................................................................................

3-3 Figure 3-2. Perm anent Resident Population by Sector .............................................................................

3-5 Figure 3-3. Perm anent Resident Vehicles by Sector .................................................................................

3-6 Figure 3-4. Shadow Population by Sector .................................................................................................

3-8 Figure 3-5. Shadow Vehicles by Sector .....................................................................................................

3-9 Figure 3-6. Transient Population by Sector .............................................................................................

3-13 Figure 3-7. Transient Vehicles by Sector .................................................................................................

3-14 Figure 3-8. Em ployee Population by Sector ............................................................................................

3-17 Figure 3-9. Em ployee Vehicles by Sector ................................................................................................

3-18 Figure 4-1. Fundam ental Diagram s ...........................................................................................................

4-9 Figure 5-1. Events and Activities Preceding the Evacuation Trip ..............................................................

5-5 Figure 5-2. Evacuation M obilization Activities

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

5-11 Figure 5-3. Comparison of Data Distribution and Normal Distribution

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

5-15 Figure 5-4. Comparison of Trip Generation Distributions

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

5-19 Figure 5-5. Comparison of Staged and Unstaged Trip Generation Distributions in the 2 to 5 Mile Region.................................................................................................................................................................

5 -2 1 Figure 6-1. EPZ Protective Action Areas ....................................................................................................

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

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

7-14 Figure 7-2. Donald C. Cook Nuclear Plant Shadow Region .....................................................................

7-15 Figure 7-3. Congestion Patterns at 45 Minutes after the Advisory to Evacuate ....................................

7-16 Figure 7-4. Congestion Patterns at 1 Hour 30 Minutes after the Advisory to Evacuate .........................

7-17 Figure 7-5. Congestion Patterns at 2 Hours after the Advisory to Evacuate ..........................................

7-18 Figure 7-6. Congestion Patterns at 2 Hours 30 Minutes after the Advisory to Evacuate .......................

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

7-20 Figure 7-8. Congestion Patterns at 3 Hours 30 Minutes after the Advisory to Evacuate .......................

7-21 Figure 7-9. Evacuation Time Estimates

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

7-22 Figure 7-10. Evacuation Time Estimates

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

7-22 Figure 7-11. Evacuation Time Estimates

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

7-23 Figure 7-12. Evacuation Time Estimates

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

7-23 Figure 7-13. Evacuation Time Estimates

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

7-24 Figure 7-14. Evacuation Time Estimates

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

7-24 Figure 7-15. Evacuation Time Estimates

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

7-25 Figure 7-16. Evacuation Time Estimates

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

7-25 Figure 7-17. Evacuation Time Estimates

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

7-26 Figure 7-18. Evacuation Time Estimates

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

7-26 Figure 7-19. Evacuation Time Estimates

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

7-27 Figure 7-20. Evacuation Time Estimates

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

7-27 Figure 7-21. Evacuation Time Estimates

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

7-28 Figure 7-22. Evacuation Time Estimates

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

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

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

8-12 Figure 8-2. Transit-Dependent Bus Routes .............................................................................................

8-13 Figure 10-1. Reception Centers ...............................................................................................................

10-2 Donald C. Cook Nuclear Plant iv KILD Engineering, P.C.Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 1 Figure 10-2. Northern Evacuation Route Map .........................................................................................

10-3 Figure B-1. Flow Diagram of Simulation-DTRAD Interface

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

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

C-4 Figure C-2. Fundam ental D iagram s ...........................................................................................................

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

C-7 Figure C-4. Flow of Simulation Processing (See Glossary:

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

C-15 Figure D-1. Flow Diagram of Activities

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

D-5 Figure E-1. Schools w ithin the EPZ ............................................................................................................

E-9 Figure E-2. Medical Facilities within the EPZ .....................................................................................

E-iO Figure E-3. Major Employers within the EPZ ........................................................................................

E-11 Figure E-4. Major Employers within PAA 2 and 4 ..............................................................................

E-12 Figure E-5. Major Employers within PAA 1 and 3 ..............................................................................

E-13 Figure E-6. Recreational Areas within the EPZ ...................................................................................

E-14 Figure E-7. Lodging Facilities within the EPZ ........................................................................................

E-15 Figure F-1. Household Size in the EPZ .......................................................................................................

F-3 Figure F-2. Household Vehicle Availability

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

F-4 Figure F-3. Vehicle Availability

-i to 5 Person Households

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

F-5 Figure F-4. Vehicle Availability

-6 to 9+ Person Households

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

F-5 Figure F-5. Household Ridesharing Preference

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

F-6 Figure F-6. Commuters in Households in the EPZ .....................................................................................

F-7 Figure F-7. Modes of Travel in the EPZ .....................................................................................................

F-8 Figure F-8. Number of Vehicles Used for Evacuation

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

F-9 Figure F-9. Households Evacuating with Pets ...........................................................................................

F-9 Figure F-iO. Time Required to Prepare to Leave Work/School

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

F-11 Figure F-1i. Work to Home Travel Time ..............................................................................................

F-11 Figure F-12. Time to Prepare Home for Evacuation

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

F-12 Figure F-13. Time to Clear Driveway of 6"-8" of Snow ......................................................................

F-13 Figure G-1. Egress/Traffic Control Points .................................................................................................

G-3 Figure G-2. Schematic of TCP at St. Joseph Valley Pkwy and US-12 .........................................................

G-4 Figure G-3. Schematic of TCP at US-12 and Cleveland Ave ......................................................................

G-5 Figu re H -1. Regio n R0 1 .............................................................................................................................

H -3 Figure H -2. Regio n R02 ..............................................................................................................................

H -4 Figure H -3. Regio n R03. .............................................................................................................................

H -5 Figure H -4 .Regio n R04 ...........................................

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

H -6 Figure H -5. Regio n R05 .............................................................................................................................

H -7 Figu re H -6. Regio n R06 .............................................................................................................................

H -8 Figure H -7 .Regio n R07 .............................................................................................................................

H -9 Figure H -8 .Regio n R 08 ...........................................................................................................................

H -10 Figure H -9. Regio n R09 ...........................................................................................................................

H -11 Figure H -IO .Region R iO ........................................................................................................................

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

Summer, Midweek, Midday, Good Weather (Scenario

1) ..............

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

Summer, Midweek, Midday, Rain (Scenario

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

J-9 Figure J-3. ETE and Trip Generation:

Summer, Weekend, Midday, Good Weather (Scenario

3) ...... J-1O Figure J-4. ETE and Trip Generation:

Summer, Weekend, Midday, Rain (Scenario

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

J-10 Figure J-5. ETE and Trip Generation:

Summer, Midweek, Weekend, Evening, Good Weather (S ce n a rio 5 ) ..............................................................................................................................................

J-1 1 Figure J-6. ETE and Trip Generation:

Winter, Midweek, Midday, Good Weather (Scenario

6) ....... J-11 Donald C. Cook Nuclear Plant v KLD Engineering, P.C.Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 1 Figure J-7. ETE and Trip Generation:

Winter, Midweek, Midday, Rain (Scenario

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

J-12 Figure J-8. ETE and Trip Generation:

Winter, Midweek, Midday, Snow (Scenario

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

J-12 Figure J-9. ETE and Trip Generation:

Winter, Weekend, Midday, Good Weather (Scenario

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

J-13 Figure J-10. ETE and Trip Generation:

Winter, Weekend, Midday, Rain (Scenario

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

J-13 Figure J-11. ETE and Trip Generation:

Winter, Weekend, Midday, Snow (Scenario

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

J-14 Figure J-12. ETE and Trip Generation:

Winter, Midweek, Weekend, Evening, Good Weather (Sce n a rio 12 ) ..............................................................................

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

J-14 Figure J-13. ETE and Trip Generation:

Summer, Weekend, Evening, Good Weather, Special Event (Sce n a rio 13 ) .......................................................................................................................

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

J-1 5 Figure J-14. ETE and Trip Generation:

Summer, Midweek, Midday, Good Weather, Roadway Impact J-1S Figure K-1. D.C. Cook Link-Node Analysis Netw ork ................................................................................

K-2 Figure K-2. Link-Node Analysis Netw ork- Grid 1 ....................................................................................

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

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

K-5 Figure K-5. Link-Node Analysis Netw ork -Grid 4 ............

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

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

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

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

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

K-9 Figure K-9. Link-Node Analysis Netw ork -Grid 8 ........................................

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

K-10 Figure K-10. Link-Node Analysis Network- Grid 9 ............................................................................

K-11 Figure K-11. Link-Node Analysis Netw ork- Grid 10 ...............

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

K-12 Figure K-12. Link-Node Analysis Netw ork- Grid 11 ...............................................................................

K-13 Figure K-13. Link-Node Analysis Netw ork- Grid 12 ...............................................................................

K-14 Figure K-14. Link-Node Analysis Network- Grid 13 ..........................................................................

K-15 Figure K-15. Link-Node Analysis Netw ork- Grid 14 ...............................................................................

K-16 Figure K-16. Link-Node Analysis Network -Grid 15 ...............................................................................

K-17 Figure K-17. Link-Node Analysis Network -Grid 16 ..........................................................................

K-18 Figure K-18. Link-Node Analysis Network -Grid 17 ............................

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

K-19 Figure K719. Link-Node Analysis Network -Grid 18 ...............................................................................

K-20 Figure K-20. Link-Node Analysis Network -Grid 19 ...........................................................................

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

K-22 Figure K-22. Link-Node Analysis Network -Grid 21 .......................................

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

..... K-23 Figure K-23. Link-Node Analysis Network -Grid 22 ...............................

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

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

K-25 Figure K-25. Link-Node Analysis Network- Grid 24 ............................................................................

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

K-27 Figure K-27. Link-Node Analysis Network -Grid 26 ..........................................

K-28 Figure K-28. Link-Node Analysis Network -Grid 27 ...............................................................................

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

K-30 Figure K-30. Link-Node Analysis Network -Grid 29 ......................................................................

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

K-32 Figure K-32. Link-Node Analysis Network- Grid 31 .....................................

K-33 Figure K-33. Link-Node Analysis Network -Grid 32 ..........................................

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

K-35 Figure K-35. Link-Node Analysis Network -Grid 34 .............................................................................

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

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

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

1-1 Table 1-2. Highw ay Characteristics

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

1-5 Table 1-3. ETE Study Com parisons ..........................................................................................................

1-10 Table 2-1. Evacuation Scenario Definitions

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

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

2-3 Table 2-2. M odel Adjustm ent for Adverse W eather .................................................................................

2-7 Table 3-1. EPZ Permanent Resident Population

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

• .3-4 Table 3-2. Permanent Resident Population and Vehicles by PAA ............................................................

3-4 Table 3-3. Shadow Population and Vehicles by Sector .............................................................................

3-7 Table 3-4. Summary of Transients and Transient Vehicles .....................................................................

3-12 Table 3-5. Summary of Non-EPZ Employees and Employee Vehicles .....................................................

3-16 Table 3-6. DCCN P EPZ External Traffic ....................................................................................................

3-20 Table 3-7. Sum m ary of Population Dem and ...........................................................................................

3-22 Table 3-8. Sum m ary of Vehicle Dem and .................................................................................................

3-22 Table 5-1. Event Sequence for Evacuation Activities

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

5-3 Table 5-2. Tim e Distribution for Notifying the Public ...............................................................................

5-6 Table 5-3. Time Distribution for Employees to Prepare to Leave Work ..............................................

5-7 Table 5-4. Time Distribution for Commuters to Travel Home ..................................................................

5-8 Table 5-5. Time Distribution for Population to Prepare to Evacuate .......................................................

5-9 Table 5-6. Time Distribution for Population to Clear 6"-8" of Snow ......................................................

5-10 Table 5-7. M apping Distributions to Events ............................................................................................

5-12 Table 5-8. Description of the Distributions

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

5-13 Table 5-9. Trip Generation Histograms for the EPZ Population for Unstaged Evacuation

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

5-20 Table 5-10. Trip Generation Histograms for the EPZ Population for Staged Evacuation

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

5-22 Table 6-1. Description of Evacuation Regions ...........................................................................................

6-3 Table 6-2. Evacuation Scenario Definitions

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

6-5 Table 6-3. Percent of Population Groups Evacuating for Various Scenarios

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

6-6 Table 6-4. Vehicle Estim ates by Scenario ..................................................................................................

6-7 Table 7-1. Time to Clear the Indicated Area of 90 Percent of the Affected Population

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

7-9 Table 7-2. Time to Clear the Indicated Area of 100 Percent of the Affected Population

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

7-10 Table 7-3. Time to Clear 90 Percent of the 2-Mile Area within the Indicated Region ............................

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

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

7-13 Table 8-1. Transit-Dependent Population Estim ates ..............................................................................

8-14 Table 8-2. School Population Dem and Estim ates ...................................................................................

8-15 Table 8-3. School Reception Centers ......................................................................................................

8-16 Table 8-4. Special Facility Transit Dem and .............................................................................................

8-17 Table 8-5. Sum m ary of Transportation Resources

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

8-18 Table 8-6. Bus Route Descriptions

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

8-19 Table 8-7. School Evacuation Time Estimates

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

8-21 Table 8-8. School Evacuation Tim e Estimates

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

8 -23 Table 8-9. School Evacuation Time Estimates

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

8-25 Table 8-10. Summary of Transit-Dependent Bus Routes ........................................................................

8-27 Table 8-11. Transit-Dependent Evacuation Time Estimates

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

8-28 Table 8-12. Transit-Dependent Evacuation Time Estimates

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

8-29 Table 8-13. Transit Dependent Evacuation Time Estimates

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

8-30 Donald C. Cook Nuclear Plant vii KLD Engineering, P.C.Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 1 Table 8-14. Medical Facilities Single-Wave Evacuation Time Estimates

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

8-31 Table 8-15. Medical Facilities Singe-Wave Evacuation Time Estimates

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

8-32 Table 8-16. Medical Facilities Single-Wave Evacuation Time Estimates -Snow ....................................

8-33 Table 8-17. Medical Facilities Second-Wave Evacuation Time Estimate -Good Weather ....................

8-34 Table 8-18. Medical Facilities Second-Wave Evacuation Time Estimates

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

8-35 Table 8-19. Medical Facilities Second-Wave Evacuation Time Estimate -Snow ..................................

8-36 Table 8-20. Homebound Special Needs Persons Single-Wave Evacuation Time Estimates

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

8-37 Table 8-21. Homebound Special Needs Persons Second-Wave Evacuation Time Estimates

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

8-38 Table 12-1. Estimated Number of Telephone Calls Required for Confirmation of Evacuation

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

12-2 Table A-1. Glossary of Traffic Engineering Terms ...............................................................................

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

C-2 Table C-2. Input Requirem ents for the DYNEV II M odel ...........................................................................

C-3 T ab le C -3 .G lossary ....................................................................................................................................

C -8 Table E-1. Schools w ithin the EPZ .............................................................................................................

E-2 Table E-2. M edical Facilities w ithin the EPZ ..............................................................................................

E-4 Table E-3. M ajor Em ployers w ithin the EPZ ..............................................................................................

E-5 Table E-4. Recreational Areas W ithin the EPZ ...........................................................................................

E-7 Table E-5. Lodging Facilities w ithin the EPZ ..............................................................................................

E-8 Table F-1. D.C. Cook Telephone Survey Sam pling Plan .............................................................................

F-2 Table H-1. Percent of Protective Action Area Population Evacuating for Each Region ...........................

H-2 Table J-1. Characteristics of the Ten Highest Volume Signalized Intersections

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

J-2 Table J-2. Sam ple Sim ulation M odel Input ........................................................................................

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

J-5 Table J-4. Average Speed (mph) and Travel Time (min) for Major Evacuation Routes With the EPZ (Regio n R03, Scenario 1) ............................................................................................................................

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

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

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

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

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

K-96 Table M-1. Evacuation Time Estimates for Trip Generation Sensitivity Study ..................................

M-1 Table M-2. Evacuation Time Estimates for Shadow Sensitivity Study ...................................................

M-2 Table M -3. ETE Variation w ith Population Change .................................................................................

M -4 Table M -4. Snow Road Closure Sensitivity Analysis .................................................................................

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

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

N-1 Donald C. Cook Nuclear Plant viii 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 Donald C. Cook Nuclear Plant (DCCNP) located in Berrien County, Michigan.

ETE are part of the required planning basis and provide American Electric Power (AEP) and State and local governments with site-specific information needed for Protective Action decision-making.

In the performance of this effort, guidance is provided by documents published by Federal Governmental agencies.

Most important of these are:* Criteria for Development of Evacuation Time Estimate Studies, NUREG/CR-7002, November 2011.* Criteria for Preparation and Evaluation of Radiological Emergency Response Plans and Preparedness in Support of Nuclear Power Plants, NUREG-0654/FEMA-REP-1, Rev. 1, November 1980.* Development of Evacuation Time Estimates for Nuclear Power Plants, NUREG/CR-6863, January 2005.* 10CFR5O, Appendix E -"Emergency Planning and Preparedness for Production and Utilization Facilities" Overview of Proiect Activities This project began in May, 2011 and extended over a period of 18 months. The major activities performed are briefly described in chronological sequence: " Attended "kick-off" meetings with AEP 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 DCCNP, 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 the county.Donald C. Cook Nuclear Plant ES-1 KLD Engineering, P.C.Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. I Telephone calls to specific facilities supplemented the data provided.* The traffic demand and trip-generation rates of evacuating vehicles were estimated from the gathered data. The trip generation rates reflected the estimated mobilization time (i.e., the time required by evacuees to prepare for the evacuation trip) computed using the results of the telephone survey of EPZ residents.

• Following federal guidelines, the EPZ is subdivided into 5 Protective Action Areas (PAA).These PAA are then grouped within circular areas or "keyhole" configurations (circles plus radial sectors) that define a total of 10 Evacuation Regions." The time-varying external circumstances are represented as Evacuation Scenarios, each described in terms of the following factors: (1) Season (Summer, Winter); (2) Day of Week (Midweek, Weekend);

(3) Time of Day (Midday, Evening);

and (4) Weather (Good, Rain, Snow). One special event scenario involving a 4 th of July firework show at Silver Beach was considered.

One roadway impact scenario was considered wherein a single lane was closed on Interstate 94 eastbound for the duration of the evacuation." Staged evacuation was considered for those regions where the 2 mile radius and sectors downwind to 5 miles were evacuated.

• As per NUREG/CR-7002, the Planning Basis for the calculation of ETE is: " A rapidly escalating accident at DCCNP 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 ride-share with relatives, friends or neighbors, or be evacuated by buses provided as specified in the county evacuation plans. Those in special facilities will likewise be evacuated with public transit, as needed: bus, van, or ambulance, as required.

Separate ETE are calculated for the transit-dependent evacuees, for homebound special needs population, and for those evacuated from special facilities.

Computation of ETE A total of 140 ETE were computed for the evacuation of the general public. Each ETE quantifies the aggregate evacuation time estimated for the population within one of the 10 Evacuation Donald C. Cook Nuclear Plant ES-2 KILD Engineering.

P.C.Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 1 Regions to evacuate from that Region, under the circumstances defined for one of the 14 Evacuation Scenarios (10 x 14 = 140). Separate ETE are calculated for transit-dependent evacuees, including schoolchildren for applicable scenarios.

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

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

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

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

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

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

As per federal guidance, 20% of people beyond 2 miles will evacuate (non-complian'ce) even though they are advised to shelter-in-place.

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

• The evacuation trips are generated at locations called "zonal centroids" located within the EPZ and Shadow Region. The trip generation rates vary over time reflecting the mobilization process, and from one location (centroid) to another depending on population density and on whether a centroid is within, or outside, the impacted area.* The evacuation model computes the routing patterns for evacuating vehicles that are compliant with federal guidelines (outbound relative to the location of the plant), and 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 has been identified as the value that should be considered when making protective action decisions because the 100th percentile ETE are prolonged by those relatively few people who take longer to mobilize.

This is referred to as the "evacuation tail" in Section 4.0 of NUREG/CR-7002.

The use of a public outreach (information) program to emphasize the need for evacuees to Donald C. Cook Nuclear Plant ES-3 KLD Engineering, P.C.Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 1 minimize the time needed to prepare to evacuate (secure the home, assemble needed clothes, medicines, etc.) should also be considered.

Traffic Management This study references the comprehensive traffic management plans provided by Berrien County, and identifies critical intersections.

Selected Results A compilation of selected information is presented on the following pages in the form of Figures and Tables extracted from the body of the report; these are described below.* Figure 6-1 displays a map of the DCCNP EPZ showing the layout of the 5 PAA that comprise, in aggregate, the EPZ." Table 3-1 presents the estimates of permanent resident population in each PAA based on the 2010 Census data.* Table 6-1 defines each of the 10 Evacuation Regions in terms of their respective groups of PAA.* Table 6-2 lists the 14 Evacuation Scenarios." Tables 7-1 and 7-2 are compilations of ETE. These data are the times needed to clear the indicated regions of 90 and 100 percent of the population occupying these regions, respectively.

These computed ETE include consideration of mobilization time and of estimated voluntary evacuations from other regions within the EPZ and from the Shadow Region.* Tables 7-3 and 7-4 present ETE for the 2-mile region for un-staged and staged evacuations for the 90th and 1 0 0 th percentiles, respectively." Table 8-7 presents ETE for the schoolchildren in good weather.* Table 8-11 presents ETE for the transit-dependent population in good weather." Figure H-5 presents an example of an Evacuation Region (Region R05) to be evacuated under the ,circumstances defined in Table 6-1. Maps of all regions are provided in Appendix H.Conclusions

• General population ETE were computed for 140 unique cases -a combination of 10 unique Evacuation Regions and 14 unique Evacuation Scenarios.

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

These ETE range from 2:00 (hr:min) to 2:50 at the 9 0 th percentile." Inspection of Table 7-1 and Table 7-2 indicates that the ETE for the 100th percentile are significantly longer than those for the 9 0 th percentile.

This is the result of the long tail of the evacuation curve caused by those evacuees who take longer to mobilize.

See Figure 7-9.* Inspection of Table 7-3 and Table 7-4 indicates that a staged evacuation provides no benefits to evacuees from within the 2 mile region and unnecessarily delays the evacuation of those beyond 2 miles (compare Regions R02, R04 and R05 with Regions Donald C. Cook Nuclear Plant ES-4 KLD Engineering, P.C.Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 1 R10, R08 and R09, respectively, in Tables 7-1 and 7-2). See Section 7.6 for additional discussion.

• Comparison of Scenarios 5 (summer, midweek/weekend, evening) and 13 (summer, weekend, evening) in Table 7-2 indicates that the special event does not materially affect the ETE. See Section 7.5 for additional discussion.

• Comparison of Scenarios 1 and 14 in Table 7-1 indicates that the roadway closure -one lane eastbound on 1-94 from the plant to the interchange with Interstate 196 (Exit 34) -does not have a material impact on 90th percentile ETE. The closure of 1-94 has the largest impact for the full EPZ (Region R03) and for keyhole regions extending to the EPZ boundary (Regions R06 and R07), with up to 15 minute increases in the 9 0 th percentile ETE. See Section 7.5 for additional discussion.

• St Joseph and Benton Harbor are the two most congested areas during an evacuation.

The last location in the EPZ to exhibit traffic congestion is just north of Benton Harbor;this is the result of a lane drop along Route 63 northbound.

All congestion within the EPZ clears by 2 hours2.314815e-5 days <br />5.555556e-4 hours <br />3.306878e-6 weeks <br />7.61e-7 months <br /> and 40 minutes after the Advisory to Evacuate.

See Section 7.3 and Figures 7-3 through 7-8." Separate ETE were computed for schools, medical facilities, transit-dependent persons, and homebound special needs persons. The average single-wave ETE for schools are comparable to the general population ETE at the 90th percentile.

Second-wave ETE for medical facilities, transit dependent persons, and homebound special needs all exceed the 100th percentile ETE for the general population.

See Section 8." Table 8-5 indicates that there are enough vans, wheelchair vans and ambulances available to evacuate the transit-dependent population within the EPZ in a single wave;however, there are not enough buses and wheelchair buses to evacuate the transit-dependent population within a single wave. The second-wave ETE for transit-dependent buses exceed the general population ETE at the 90th percentile.

See Sections 8.4 and 8.5." The general population ETE at the 90th percentile is insensitive to reductions in the base trip generation time of 4% hours due to the traffic congestion within the EPZ. See Table M-1." The general population ETE is insensitive (tripling the shadow evacuation percentage does not increase the 9 0 th percentile ETE) to the voluntary evacuation of vehicles in the Shadow Region. See Table M-2.* Population change within the EPZ of +/-30% does not affect ETE. Therefore, it is unlikely that AEP will have to update the ETE study for DCCNP prior to the release of 2020 Census data. See Section M.3." The effect on ETE from closing 1-94 Eastbound between exits 23 and 28 during a winter snow scenario has a significant effect on the 90th percentile ETE with increases up to 1 hour1.157407e-5 days <br />2.777778e-4 hours <br />1.653439e-6 weeks <br />3.805e-7 months <br /> and 25 minutes, and up to 30 minute increases for the 1 0 0 th percentile ETE. See Section M.4.Donald C. Cook Nuclear Plant ES-5 KLD Engineering, P.C.Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 1 Figure 6-1. DCCNP EPZ Protective Action Areas ES-6 KLD Engineering, P.C.Donald C. Cook Nuclear Plant Evacuation Time Estimate ES-6 KLD Engineering, P.C.Rev. 1 Table 3-1. EPZ Permanent Resident Population 1 2,309 2,239 2 13,721 14,350 3 6,395 6,079 4 31,812 30,819 5 15,760 14,371 EPZ Population Growth: -3.06%ES-7 KID Engineering, P.C.Donald C. Cook Nuclear Plant Evacuation Time Estimate ES-7 KLD Engineering, P.C.Rev. 1 Table 6-1. Description of Evacuation Regions WNW, NW, NNW, N, NN:, NE ENE, E, ESE, SE, SSE~ Refer to Region R01 R05 S, SSW, SW WSW, W1 Refer to Region R02 R06 NW, NNW, N, NNE, INE,0NE, ENE E, ESE, SE, SSE Refer to Region R02 R07 S, SSW, SW WSW, W, WNW Refer to Region R03 WNW, NW, NNW, N, NNE, NE S, SSW, SW WSW, W ES-8 KLD Engineering, P.C.Donald C. Cook Nuclear Plant Evacuation Time Estimate ES-8 KLD Engineering, P.C.Rev. 1 Table 6-2. Evacuation Scenario Definitions i I .Da of Time of 1 Summer Midweek Midday Good None 2 Summer Midweek Midday Rain None 3 Summer Weekend Midday Good None 4 Summer Weekend Midday Rain None 5 Summer Midweek, 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 12 Winter Midweek, Evening Good None Weekend Eeig Go Silver Beach 13 Summer Weekend Evening Good Firer Sh Fireworks Show Roadway Impact -Single 14 Summer Midweek Midday Good Lane Closure on 1-94 Eastbound 1 Winter assumes that school is in session (also applies to spring and autumn). Summer assumes that school is not in session.ES-9 KID Engineering, P.C.Donald C. Cook Nuclear Plant Evacuation Time Estimate ES-9 KLD Engineering, P.C.Rev. 1

• 0 0 Table 7-1. Time to Clear the Indicated Area of 90 Percent of the Affected Population Summer Summer Summer Winter Winter Winter Summer Summer Midweek Midweek Midweek Weekend Weekend Midweek Weekend Weekend Weekend Midweek Weekend Weekend Midday Midday Evening Midday Midday Evening Evening Midday Region Good Good R Good Good R Good Good Special Roadway Wahr Rain Wahr Rain Wahr eter Rain Snow God Rain Snow Weather Weather eather Weather Weather Weather Event Impact Entire 2-Mile Region, 5-Mile Region, and EPZ R0. 2:00 2:05 2:00 2:10 2:0012:00 2:05 2:10 2:05 2:052:101200 2:00 2:05 R02 2:10 2:10 2:05 2:10 2:05 2:10 2:15 2:35 2:10 2:15 2:30 2:10 2:05 2:10 R03 2:25 2:30 2:20 2:25 2:15 2:25 2:30 2:50 2:15 2:25 2:45 2:15 2:25 2:40 2-Mile Region and Keyhole to 5 Miles R04 2:05 2:0 00 2:05 2:00 2:05 1 2:05 2:15 2:05 2:05 2:15 2:05 .2:00 2:05 R0S 2:00 2:10 2:00 2:00 2:0 2:152:15 2:05 2:05 2:25 2:05 2:00 2:10 S-Mile Region and Keyhole to EPZ Boundary R06 2:15 2:20 2:05 2:10 2:10 2:15 2:20 2:45 2:10 2:15 2:35 2:10 2:10 2:15 R07 2:25 2:35 2:20 2:25 2:15 2:20 1 2:301 2:50 2:15 2:25 2:40 2:15 2:25 2:40 Staged Evacuation Mile Region and Keyhole to 5 Miles ROB 2:25 2:25 2:25 2:25 2:30 2:25 2:25 2:35 2:25 2:25 2:30 2:30 2:30 2:25 R09 2:35 2:40 2:35 2:35 2:40 2:40 2:40 2:45 2:40 2:40 2:50 2:40 2:40 2:35 RIO 2:40 2:40 2:35 2:40 2:40 2:40 2:40 2:45 2:40 2:40 2:50 2:40 2:40 2:40 Donald C. Cook Nuclear Plant Evacuation Time Estimate ES-10 KLD Engineering, P.C.Rev. 1 Table 7-2. Time to Clear the Indicated Area of 100 Percent of the Affected Population Summer Summer Summer Winter Winter Winter Summer Summer Midweek Weekend Midweek Midweek Weekend Midweek Weekend Midweek Weekend Weekend Scenario:

(1) (2) (3) (7 ] a( (11) (12) (13) (14)Midday Midday Evening Midday Midday Evening Evening Midday Region Good Rain Good Good Good Good i Good Special Roadway Weather Weather Weather Weather Weathe Rain Snow eather Impact Entire 2-Mile Region, 5-Mile Region, and EPZ R01 4:30 4:35 4:30 4:30 4:30 4:35 4:35 5:00 f4:30 4:30 5:00 4:35 4:30 4:30 R02 4:35 4:40 4:35 4:40 4:35 4:40 4:40 5:05 4:35 4:35 5:05 4:40 4:35 4:40 R03 4:45 4:55 4:40 4:40 4:40 4:45 4:45 5:15 4: 4:40 5:10 4:45 4:40 4:50 2-Mile Region and Keyhole to 5 Miles R04 4:35 4:35 4:35 4:35 4:35 4:35 4:35 5:05 4:35 4:35 5:05 4:35 4:35 4:40 R__ 4:35 4:35 4:35 4:35 4:35 4:35 4:35 J 5:05 354:35 4:35 5:05 4:35 4:35 4:35 5-Mile Region and Keyhole to EPZ Boundary R06 4:40 4:50 4:40 4:40 4:40 4:45 4:45 5:10 4:40 4:40 5:10 4:40 4:40 4:40 R07 4:45 4:55 4:40 4:40 4:40 4:45 4:45 1 5:15 4:40 4:40 5:10 4:40 4:40 4:45 Staged Evacuation Mile Region and Keyhole to 5 Miles ROB 4:40 4:40 4:35 4:35 4:35 4:35 4:3 5:05 4:35 4:35 S05 4:35 4:35 4:40 R09 4:35 4:35 4:35 4:35 4:35 4:35 4:35 5:05 4:35 4:35 5:05 4:35 4:35 4:40 RiO 4:40 4:40 4:35 4:35 4:35 4:40 4:40 5:05 4:35 4:35 5:05 4:35 4:35 4:40 Donald C. Cook Nuclear Plant ES-11 KLD Engineering, P.C.Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 1 Table 7-3. Time to Clear 90 Percent of the 2-Mile Region Summer Summer Summer Winter Winter Winter Summer Summer Midweek Weekend MdekMidweek Weekend MdekWeekend Midweek Weekend Weekend Midday Midday Evening Midday Midday Evening Evening Midday Region Good Ran Go Rain Goo Goo Rain Sno Good Ran Sow Go Special Roadwa Weather Weather Weather IWeather Rai Sno Weather Ri Snw Weather Event Impact Unstaged Evacuation Mile Ring R03.1 2:00 2:05 [2:00 2:10 2:00 1 200 1 2:05 12:10 1{2:00[1 2:05 2:10 2:00 ] 2:00 2:05 Unstaged Evacuation

-Keyhole to 5-Miles R02 2:05 2:05 2:00 2:10 2:00 2:05 2:10 2:15 2:05 2:10 2:15 2:00 2:00 2:05 R04 2:05 2:05 2:00 2:05 2:00 2:5 2:05 2:15 2:00 2:05 2:10 2:00 2:00 2:05 ROS 2:05 2:05 2:00 2:10 2:00 2:05 2:10 2:15 2:05 2:10 2:15 2:00 2:00 2:05 Staged Evacuation Mile Region and Keyhole to S-Miles RQ8 2:00 2:05 2:00 2:10 2:00 2:00 2:0512:10 2:00 12:05 2:10 2:00 2:00 2:05 R09 2:00 2:05 2:00 2:10 2:002:00 2:0 2:05 2:10 2:00 2:05 2:10 2:00 2:00 2:05 R10 2:00 2:05 2:00 2:10 2:00 2:00 2:05 1 2:10 2:00 2:05 2:10 2:00 2:00 2:05 ES-12 KLD Engineering, P.C.Donald C. Cook Nuclear Plant Evacuation Time Estimate ES-12 KLD Engineering, P.C.Rev. 1 Table 7-4. Time to Clear 100 Percent of the 2-Mile Region Summer Summer Summer Winter Winter Winter Summer Summer Midweek Weekend Midweek Midweek Weekend Midweek Weekend Midweek Weekend Weekend S l] Ill {] [] Jl] llS A!! i! [~] Midday Midday Evening Midday Midday Evening Evening Midday Region Good Rain Good Rain Good Good I Good i Good Special Roadway Weather Weather Weather Weather Rain Snow Weather Rain Snow Weather Event Impact Unstaged Evacuation Mile Ring and 5-Mile Ring ROl 4:30 4:30 4:30 1 4 4:35 4:35 5:00 [ 4:30 I4:30 5:00 4:30 4:30 4:30 Unstaged Evacuation

-Keyhole to 5-Miles R02 4:30 4:30 4:30 4:30 4:30 4:35 4:35 5:00 4:30 4:30 5:00 4:30 4:30 4:30 R04 4:30 4:30 4:30 4:30 4:30 4:35 4:35 5:00 4:30 4:30 5:00 4:30 4:30 4:30 ROS 4:30 4:30 4:30 4:30 4:30 4:35 4:35 5:00 4:30 4:30 5:00 4:30 4:30 4:30 Staged Evacuation Mile Region and Keyhole to 5-Miles Ros 4:30 4:30 4:30 4:30 4:30 4:35 4:35 5:00 4:30 430 5:00 4:30 4:30 4:30 R09 4:30 4:30 4:30 4:30 4:30 4:35 4:35 5:00 4:30 4:30 5:00 4:30 4:30 4:30 RIO 4:30 4:30 4:30 4:30 4:30 4:35 4:35 5:00 4:30 4:30 5:00 4:30 4:30 4:30 Donald C. Cook Nuclear Plant ES-13 KLD Engineering, P.C.Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 1 Table 8-7. School Evacuation Time Estimates

-Good Weather Alternative Education Center 1, 2 Andrews Academy' 90 15 1.6 52.4 2 Andrews University' 90 15 2.4 52.4 3 Bridgman Elementary School 90 15 11.7 50.7 14 Bridgman High School 90 15 11.8 44.3 16 Brookview School 90 15 2.2 29.3 5 Brown Elementary 90 15 3.7 9.2 25 Chikaming Elementary School 90 15 6.6 55.0 8 Christ Lutheran School' 90 15 12.0 31.1 24 E. P. Clark Elementary 90 15 4.5 19.1 15 F.C. Reed Middle School 90 15 11.3 48.9 14 Fair Plain Middle School 90 15 1.1 28.7 3 Fairplain West 90 15 1.8 28.3 4 Gifted and Talented Academy 90 15 2.2 31.6 5 Grace Lutheran School 90 15 4.7 20.5 14 Great Lakes Montessori School 90 15 3.4 16.5 13 Hollywood Elementary' 90 15 8.7 29.2 18 Lake Michigan Catholic 90 15 3.4 21.2 10 Lakeshore Middle School' 90 15 11.3 30.2 23 Lakeshore Roosevelt Elementary' 90 15 11.3 30.2 23 Lakeshore High School' 90 15 10.8 30.0 22 Lighthouse Education Center' 90 15 9.5 52.4 11 0.0 0.0 4.3 4.8 0.2 12.3 3.6 0.0 10.2 3.9 0.2 0.2 0.2 10.2 10.2 0.0 12.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0 0 5 6 1 14 4 0 12 5 1 1 12 0 14 0 0 0 0 Donald C. Cook Nuclear Plant Evacuation Time Estimate ES-14 KLD Engineering, P.C.Rev. 1 0 Lincoln Elementary 90 15 1.3 11.2 7 Michigan Lutheran High School 90 15 4.7 12.3 23 North Lincoln School 90 15 4.5 13.0 21 River School 90 15 3.8 39.9 6 River Valley High School 90 15 4.6 41.2 7 River Valley Middle School 90 15 4.6 41.2 7 St Joseph's High School 90 15 1.5 6.8 14 St. Paul's Lutheran School 1 90 15 12.0 30.2 24 Stewart Elementary' 90 15 13.4 33.5 24 Trinity Lutheran School 90 15 6.7 55.0 8 Trinity Lutheran School 90 15 0.2 30.3 1 Upton Middle School 90 15 4.4 19.7 14 12.3 12.3 10.2 3.3 3.6 3.6 12.3 0.0 0.0 3.6 12.3 10.2 14 14 12 4 4 4 14 0 0 4 14 12 Maximum for EF Average for 1. Host School is within the EPZ 2. The Host School for Alternative Education Center is located within the same building.Donald C. Cook Nuclear Plant Evacuation Time Estimate ES-15 KLD Engineering, P.C.Rev. 1 Table 8-11. Transit-Dependent Evacuation Time Estimates

-Good Weather Donald C. Cook Nuclear Plant Evacuation Time Estimate ES-16 KILD Engineering, P.C.Rev. 1 Figure H-5. Region ROS ES-17 KLD Engineering, P.C.Donald C. Cook Nuclear Plant Evacuation Time Estimate ES-17 KLD Engineering, P.C.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 D.C. Cook Nuclear Plant, located in Berrien County, Michigan.

ETE provide State and local governments with site-specific information needed for Protective Action decision-making.

In the performance of this effort, guidance is provided by documents published by Federal Government agencies.

Most important of these are: 0 Criteria for Development of Evacuation Time Estimate Studies, NUREG/CR-7002, November 2011.* 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 1980.0 Development of Evacuation Time Estimates for Nuclear Power Plants, NUREG/CR-6863, January 2005.The work effort reported herein was supported and guided by local stakeholders who contributed suggestions, critiques, and the local knowledge base required.

Table 1-1 presents a summary of stakeholders and interactions.

Table 1-1. Stakeholder Interaction Stkhle Natur of Stkhle Interaction American Electric Power (AEP) emergency Meetings to define data requirements and set up planning personnel contacts with local government agencies Obtain County Radiological Emergency Plans for D.C. Cook and special facility data Michigan Emergency Management and Homeland Obtain State of Michigan Radiological Emergency Security Division of the Michigan State Police Preparedness Plans for D.C. Cook Local and State Police Agencies Obtain existing 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 AEP.b. Attended meetings with emergency planners from Berrien County Emergency Management and Homeland Security and the Michigan Emergency Management Donald C. Cook Nuclear Plant 1-1 KLD Engineering, P.C.Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 1 and Homeland Security Division of the Michigan State Police to identify issues to be addressed and resources available.

c. Conducted a detailed field survey of the highway system and of area traffic conditions within the Emergency Planning Zone (EPZ) and Shadow Region.d. Obtained demographic data from census, state and local agencies.e. Conducted a random sample telephone survey of EPZ residents.

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

2. Estimated distributions of Trip Generation times representing the time required by various population groups (permanent residents, employees, and transients) to prepare (mobilize) for the evacuation trip. These estimates are primarily based upon the random sample telephone survey.3. Defined Evacuation Scenarios.

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

4. Reviewed the existing traffic management plan to be implemented by local and state police in the event of an incident at the plant. Traffic control is applied at specified Traffic Control Points (TCP) located within the EPZ.5. Used existing Protective Action Areas (PAA) to define Evacuation Areas or Regions. The EPZ is partitioned into 5 PAA along jurisdictional and geographic boundaries. "Regions" are groups of contiguous PAA for which ETE are calculated.

The configurations of these Regions reflect wind direction and the radial extent of the impacted area. Each Region, other than those that approximate circular areas, approximates a "key-hole section" within the EPZ as recommended by NUREG/CR-7002.

6. Estimated demand for transit services for persons at "Special Facilities" and for transit-dependent persons at home.7. Prepared the input streams for the DYNEV II system.a. Estimated the evacuation traffic demand, based on the available information derived from Census data, and from data provided by local and state agencies, AEP 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 link-node representation of the evacuation network, which is Highway Capacity Manual (HCM 2010), Transportation Research Board, National Research Council, 2010.Donald C. Cook Nuclear Plant 1-2 KLD Engineering, P.C.Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 1 used as the basis for the computer analysis that calculates the ETE.d. Calculated the evacuating traffic demand for each Region and for each Scenario.e. Specified selected candidate destinations for each "origin" (location of each"source" where evacuation trips are generated over the mobilization time) to support evacuation travel consistent with outbound movement relative to the location of the DCCNP.8. Executed the DYNEV II model to provide the estimates of evacuation routing and ETE for all residents, transients and employees

("general population")

with access to private vehicles.

Generated a complete set of ETE for all specified Regions and Scenarios.

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

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

1.2 The Donald C. Cook Nuclear Plant Location The D.C. Cook Nuclear Plant is located on the eastern bank of Lake Michigan in Bridgman Township, Berrien County, Michigan.

The site is approximately 25 miles northwest of South Bend, Indiana and 55 miles east of Chicago, Illinois.

The Emergency Planning Zone (EPZ) is completely contained within Berrien County. Figure 1-1 displays the area surrounding DCCNP.This map identifies the communities in the area and the major roads.Donald C. Cook Nuclear Plant Evacuation Time Estimate 1-3 KLD Engineering, P.C.Rev. 1 Figure 1-1. DCCNP Location 1-4 KID Engineering, P.C.Donald C. Cook Nuclear Plant Evacuation Time Estimate 1-4 KLD Engineering, P.C.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 1-2: Table 1-2. Highway Characteristics" Number of lanes

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

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

• Geometrics:

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

Narrow bridges, sharp curves, poor pavement, flood warning signs, inadequate delineations, toll booths, etc.Video and audio recording equipment were used to capture a permanent record of the highway infrastructure.

No attempt was made to meticulously measure such attributes as lane width and shoulder width; estimates of these measures based on visual observation and recorded images were considered appropriate for the purpose of estimating the capacity of highway sections.

For example, Exhibit 15-7 in the HCM indicates that a reduction in lane width from 12 feet (the "base" value) to 10 feet can reduce free flow speed (FFS) by 1.1 mph -not a material difference

-for two-lane highways.

Exhibit 15-30 in the HCM shows little sensitivity for the estimates of Service Volumes at Level of Service (LOS) E (near capacity), with respect to FFS, for two-lane highways.The data from the audio and video recordings were used to create detailed geographical information systems (GIS) shapefiles and databases of the roadway characteristics and of the traffic control devices observed during the road survey; this information was referenced while preparing the input stream for the DYNEV II System.As documented on page 15-5 of the HCM 2010, the capacity of a two-lane highway is 1700 passenger cars per hour in one direction.

For freeway sections, a value of 2250 vehicles per hour per lane is assigned, as per Exhibit 11-17 of the HCM 2010. The road survey has identified several segments which are characterized by adverse geometrics on two-lane highways which are reflected in reduced values for both capacity and speed. These estimates are consistent with the service volumes for LOS E presented in HCM Exhibit 15-30. These links may be Donald C. Cook Nuclear Plant 1-5 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 pre-timed (signal timings are fixed over time and do not change with the traffic volume on competing approaches), or are actuated (signal timings vary over time based on the changing traffic volumes on competing approaches).

Actuated signals require detectors to provide the traffic data used by the signal controller to adjust the signal timings.These detectors are typically magnetic loops in the roadway, or video cameras mounted on the signal masts and pointed toward the intersection approaches.

If detectors were observed on the approaches to a signalized intersection during the road survey, detailed signal timings were not collected as the timings vary with traffic volume. TCPs at locations which have control devices are represented as actuated signals in the DYNEV II system.If no detectors were observed, the signal control at the intersection was considered pre-timed and detailed signal timings were gathered for several signal cycles. These signal timings were input to the DYNEV II system used to compute ETE, as per NUREG/CR-7002 guidance.Figure 1-2 presents the link-node analysis network that was constructed to model the evacuation roadway network in the EPZ and Shadow Region. The directional arrows on the links and the node numbers have been removed from Figure 1-2 to clarify the figure. The detailed figures provided in Appendix K depict the analysis network with directional arrows shown and node numbers provided.

The observations made during the field survey were used to calibrate the analysis network.Telephone Survey A telephone survey was undertaken to gather information needed for the evacuation study.Appendix F presents the survey instrument, the procedures used and tabulations of data compiled from the survey returns.These data were utilized to develop estimates of vehicle occupancy to estimate the number of evacuating vehicles during an evacuation and to estimate elements of the mobilization process.This database wasalso referenced to estimate the number of transit-dependent residents.

Developing the Evacuation Time Estimates The overall study procedure is outlined in Appendix D. Demographic data were obtained from several sources, as detailed later in this report. These data were analyzed and converted into vehicle demand data. The vehicle demand was loaded onto appropriate "source" links of the analysis network using GIS mapping software.

The DYNEV II system was then used to compute ETE for all Regions and Scenarios.

Analytical Tools The DYNEV II System that was employed for this study is comprised of several integrated computer models. One of these is the DYNEV (DYnamic Network EVacuation) macroscopic simulation model, a new version of the IDYNEV model that was developed by KLD under contract with the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA).Donald C. Cook Nuclear Plant 1-6 KLD Engineering, P.C.Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 1 Figure 1-2. DCCNP Link-Node Analysis Network 1-7 KLD Engineering, P.C.Donald C. Cook Nuclear Plant Evacuation Time Estimate 1-7 KLD Engineering, P.C.Rev. 1 DYNEV II consists of four sub-models: " A macroscopic traffic simulation model (for details, see Appendix C).* A Trip Distribution (TD), model that assigns a set of candidate destination (D) nodes for each "origin" (0) located within the analysis network, where evacuation trips are"generated" over time. This establishes a set of O-D tables.* A Dynamic Traffic Assignment (DTA), model which assigns trips to paths of travel (routes) which satisfy the O-D tables, over time. The TD and DTA models are integrated to form the DTRAD (Dynamic Traffic Assignment and Distribution) model, as described in Appendix B.* A Myopic Traffic Diversion model which diverts traffic to avoid intense, local congestion, if possible.Another software product developed by KLD, named UNITES (UNIfied Transportation Engineering System) was used to expedite data entry and to automate the production of output tables.The dynamics of traffic flow over the network are graphically animated using the software product, EVAN (EVacuation ANimator), developed by KLD. EVAN is GIS based, and displays statistics such as Level of Service (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, I-DYNEV, the following references are suggested:

• NUREG/CR-4873

-Benchmark Study of the I-DYNEV Evacuation Time Estimate Computer Code" NUREG/CR-4874

-The Sensitivity of Evacuation Time Estimates to Changes in Input Parameters for the I-DYNEV Computer Code The evacuation analysis procedures are based upon the need to: " Route traffic along paths of travel that will expedite their travel from their respective points of origin to points outside the EPZ.* Restrict movement toward the plant to the extent practicable, and disperse traffic demand so as to avoid focusing demand on a limited number of highways.* Move traffic in directions that are generally outbound, relative to the location of the DCCNP.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 Donald C. Cook Nuclear Plant 1-8 KLD Engineering, P.C.Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 1 are designed to represent the behavioral responses of evacuees.

The effects of these countermeasures may then be tested with the model.1.4 Comparison with Prior ETE Study Table 1-3 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: 0 0 0 A decrease in permanent resident population.

Vehicle occupancy and Trip-generation rates are based on the results of a telephone survey of EPZ residents.

Voluntary and shadow evacuations are considered.

The highway representation is far more detailed.A significant decrease in transient population (approximately 55% less). Transient population peaks during summer weekends, which explains why ETE have dropped by 1 hour1.157407e-5 days <br />2.777778e-4 hours <br />1.653439e-6 weeks <br />3.805e-7 months <br /> and 20 minutes for summer weekend scenarios in this study versus the previous study.Donald C. Cook Nuclear Plant Evacuation Time Estimate 1-9 KLD Engineering, P.C.Rev. 1 Table 1-3. ETE Study Comparisons To-ic Prvou. Std Curn -td Resident Population Basis ArcGIS Software using 2000 US Census blocks; population extrapolated to 2003.Population

= 80,361 ArcGIS Software using 2010 US Census blocks; area ratio method used.Population

= 67,858 Berrien County household size of 2.21.Based on the assumption that each 2.47 persons/household, 1.32 Resident Population household would use one vehicle for an evacuating vehicles/household Vehicle Occupancy evacuation the vehicle occupancy was yielding:

1.87 persons/vehicle.

2.21 persons/vehicle.

The Cornerstone Alliance provided the Employee estimates based on employee population information.

information provided about major Vehicle estimates were based on the employers in EPZ. 1.03 employees per Employee assumption that an average of one vehicle based on telephone survey Population person would occupy evacuating results.vehicles.Employees

= 8,314 Employees

= 2,427 Voluntary evacuation from 20 percent of the population within the within EPZ in areas Not considered.

EPZ, but not within the Evacuation outside region to be Region (see Figure 2-1)evacuated 20% of people outside of the EPZ Shadow Evacuation Not considered.

within the Shadow Region (see Figure 7-2)Network Size N/A 1,462 Links; 819 Nodes Field surveys conducted in May, 2011.Major intersections were video Roadway Geometric Field surveys conducted.

archived.

GIS shape-files of signal Data Road capacities based on 2000 HCM. locations and roadway characteristics created during road survey.Road capacities based on 2010 HCM Direct evacuation to designated Direct evacuation to designated Reception Center/Host School. Reception Center/Host School Transit-Dependent population estimated using population estimates and results of telephone survey.Transit- Dependent Berrien County emergency Homebound special needs population Population was provided by Berrien County Special Needs Population

= 176 Emergency Management Transit-Dependent population

= 2,206 Special Needs Population

= 162 Donald C. Cook Nuclear Plant Evacuation Time Estimate 1-10 KLD Engineering, P.C.Rev. 1 To-ic Prviu ET Std urn td Transient Population Transient estimates based on information from the Cornerstone Alliance and the Southwest Michigan Tourist Council.Transients

= 18,125 Transient estimates based upon information provided about transient attractions in EPZ, supplemented by observations of the facilities during the road survey and from aerial photography.

Transients

= 11,766 School population based on School population based on information provided by Berrien information provided by Berrien School Population County. County.School enrollment

= 9,188 School enrollment

= 13,776 Special facility population based on Special facility population based on information provided by each county information provided by each county within the EPZ. within the EPZ.Special Facilities Special Facility Population

= 582 Current census = 639 Population Ambulatory residents

= 258 Ambulatory residents

= 463 Wheel-chair bound residents

= 255 Wheel-chair bound residents

= 169 Residents requiring ambulance

= 69 Residents requiring ambulance

= 7 50 percent of transit-dependent Ridesharing Not considered persons will evacuate with a neighbor or friend.Based on residential telephone survey of specific pre-trip mobilization activities:

Residents with commuters returning leave between 30 and 270 minutes.Trip Generation for N/A Residents without commuters Evacuation returning leave between 15 and 240 minutes.Employees and transients leave between 15 and 90 minutes.All times measured from the Advisory to Evacuate.Normal, Rain, or Snow. The capacity Normal, Rain, or Snow. The capacity and free flow speed of all links in the and free flow speed of all links in the network are reduced by 20% in the network are reduced by 10% in the event of rain and 25% for snow event of rain and 20% for snow.Traffic Software Integrated System Modeling (TSIS) DYNEV II System- Version 4.0.0.0 Special Events Venetian Festival Fourth of July Fireworks at Silver Beach 1-11 KLD Engineering, P.C.Donald C. Cook Nuclear Plant Evacuation Time Estimate 1-11 KLD Engineering, P.C.Rev. 1 To-ic Prviu ET Std urn td Evacuation Cases 7 Regions (single sector wind direction used) and 16 Scenarios producing 112 unique cases.10 Regions (central sector wind direction and each adjacent sector technique used) and 14 Scenarios producing 140 unique cases.ETE reported for 1 0 0 th percentile ETE reported for 9 0 th and 1 0 0 th Estimates Reporting population.

Results presented by percentile population.

Results Region and Scenario.

presented by Region and Scenario.Winter Weekday Midday, Winter Weekday Midday, Evacuation Time Good Weather: 4:50 Good Weather: 4:45 Estimates for the entire EPZ, 1 0 0 th percentile Summer Weekend, Midday, Summer Weekend, Midday, Good Weather: 6:00 Good Weather: 4:40 1-12 KID Engineering, P.C.Donald C. Cook Nuclear Plant Evacuation Time Estimate 1-12 KLD Engineering, P.C.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 obtained from the U.S. Census Bureau, Center for Economic Studies and surveys of major employers in the EPZ.3. Population estimates at special facilities are based on available data from county emergency management offices and from phone calls to specific facilities.

4. Roadway capacity estimates are based on field surveys and the application of the Highway Capacity Manual 2010.5. Population mobilization times are based on a statistical analysis of data acquired from a random sample telephone survey of EPZ residents (see Section 5 and Appendix F).6. The relationship between resident population and evacuating vehicles is developed from the telephone survey. Average values of 2.47 persons per household and 1.32 evacuating vehicles per household are used. The relationship between persons and vehicles for transients and employees is as follows: a. Employees:

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

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

c. Special Events: Assumed transients attending the 4th of July Fireworks at Silver Beach travel in vehicles with an occupancy of 3 transients per vehicle (as per discussions with local police).Donald C. Cook Nuclear Plant 2-1 KILD Engineering, P.C.Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 1 2.2 Study Methodological Assumptions

1. ETE are presented for the evacuation of the 9 0 th and 1 0 0 th percentiles of population for each Region and for each Scenario.

The percentile ETE is defined as the elapsed time from the Advisory to Evacuate issued to a specific Region of the EPZ, to the time that Region is clear of the indicated percentile of evacuees.

A Region is defined as a group of PAA that is issued an Advisory to Evacuate.

A scenario is a combination of circumstances, including time of day, day of week, season, and weather conditions.

2. The ETE are computed and presented in tabular format and graphically, in a format compliant with NUREG/CR-7002.

3. Evacuation movements (paths of travel) are generally outbound relative to the plant to the extent permitted by the highway network. All major evacuation routes are used in the analysis.4. Regions are defined by the underlying "keyhole" or circular configurations as specified in Section 1.4 of NUREG/CR-7002.

These Regions, as defined, display irregular boundaries reflecting the geography of the PAA included within these underlying configurations.

5. As indicated in Figure 2-2 of NUREG/CR-7002, 100% of people within the impacted"keyhole" evacuate.

20% of those people within the EPZ, not within the impacted keyhole, will voluntarily evacuate.

20% of those people within the Shadow Region will voluntarily evacuate.

See Figure 2-1 for a graphical representation of these evacuation percentages.

Sensitivity studies explore the effect on ETE of increasing the percentage of voluntary evacuees in the Shadow Region (see Appendix M).6. A total of 14 "Scenarios" representing different temporal variations (season, time of day, day of week) and weather conditions are considered.

These Scenarios are outlined in Table 2-1.7. Scenario 14 considers the closure of a single lane eastbound on Interstate-94 from the interchange nearest to the plant to the end of the analysis-network after the interchange with 1-196.8. The models of the I-DYNEV System were recognized as state of the art by the Atomic Safety & Licensing Board (ASLB) in past hearings. (Sources:

Atomic Safety & Licensing Board Hearings on Seabrook and Shoreham; Urbanik 1). 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 I-DYNEV Evacuation Time Estimate Computer Code, NUREG/CR-4873, Nuclear Regulatory Commission, June, 1988.Donald C. Cook Nuclear Plant 2-2 KLD Engineering, P.C.Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 1 Table 2-1. Evacuation Scenario Definitions Day of Tim of Scnai Seaon Wee Day Wete Speia 1 Summer Midweek Midday Good None 2 Summer Midweek Midday Rain None 3 Summer Weekend Midday Good None 4 Summer Weekend Midday Rain None 5 Summer Midweek, 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 12 Winter Midweek, Evening Good None Weekend Eeig Go Silver Beach Fireworks 13 Summer Weekend Evening Good Show Show Roadway Impact -Single 14 Summer Midweek Midday Good Lane Closure on 1-94 Eastbound 2 Winter assumes that school is in session (also applies to spring and autumn). Summer assumes that school is not in session.2-3 KLD Engineering, P.C.Donald C. Cook Nuclear Plant Evacuation Time Estimate 2-3 KLD Engineering, P.C.Rev. I 2-Mile ~ ~ ~ ~ i Rein5 MilReionIP Keyhofe: 2-M, & 5 MIs Dowmid Keyhole: 5-Mile Region & 10 Mles Downwind Staged Evacuation:

2-Mile Region & 5 Miles Downwind L lI I I* Plant Location 0 Region to be Evacuate:

100% Evacuaton

[32D% Shadow Evacuatio 0 Shefter thnEau at Figure 2-1. Voluntary Evacuation Methodology 2-4 KLD Engineering, P.C.Donald C. Cook Nuclear Plant Evacuation Time Estimate 2-4 KLD Engineering, P.C.Rev. 1 2.3 Study Assumptions

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

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

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

c. ETE are measured relative to the Advisory to Evacuate.2. It is assumed that everyone within the group of PAA forming a Region that is issued an Advisory to Evacuate will, in fact, respond and evacuate in general accord with the planned routes.3. Fifty-eight percent of the households in the EPZ have at least 1 commuter; 48 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 28 percent (58%x 48% = 28%) of EPZ households will await the return of a commuter, prior to beginning their evacuation trip.4. The ETE will also include consideration of "through" (External-External) trips during the time that such traffic is permitted to enter the evacuated Region. "Normal" traffic flow is assumed to be present within the EPZ at the start of the emergency.

5. Access Control Points (ACP) will be staffed within approximately 120 minutes following the siren notifications, to divert traffic attempting to enter the EPZ. Earlier activation of ACP locations could delay returning commuters.

It is assumed that no through traffic will enter the EPZ after this 120 minute time period.6. Traffic Control Points (TCP) within the EPZ will be staffed over time, beginning at the Advisory to Evacuate.

Their number and location will depend on the Region to be evacuated and resources available.

The objectives of these TCP are: a. Facilitate the movements of all (mostly evacuating) vehicles at the location.b. Discourage inadvertent vehicle movements towards the plant.c. Provide assurance and guidance to any traveler who is unsure of the appropriate actions or routing.d. Act as local surveillance and communications center.e. Provide information to the emergency operations center (EOC) as needed, based on direct observation or on information provided by travelers.

In calculating ETE, it is assumed that evacuees will drive safely, travel in directions identified in the plan, and obey all control devices and traffic guides.Donald C. Cook Nuclear Plant 2-5 KLD Engineering, P.C.Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 1

7. Buses.will be used to transport those without access to private vehicles: a. If schools are in session, transport (buses) will evacuate students directly to the designated host schools.b. It is assumed parents will pick up children at day care centers prior to evacuation.

c. Buses, wheelchair vans and ambulances will evacuate patients at medical facilities and at any senior facilities within the EPZ, as needed.d. Transit-dependent general population will be evacuated to reception centers.e. Schoolchildren, if school is in session, are given priority in assigning transit vehicles.f. Bus mobilization time is considered in ETE calculations.

g. Analysis of the number of required round-trips

("waves")

of evacuating transit vehicles is presented.

h. Transport of transit-dependent evacuees from reception centers to congregate care centers is not considered in this study.8. Provisions are made for evacuating the transit-dependent portion of the general population to reception centers.by bus, based on the assumption that some of these people will ride-share with family, neighbors, and friends, thus reducing the demand for buses. We assume that the percentage of people who rideshare is 50 percent. This assumption is based upon reported experience for other emergencies 3 , and on guidance in Section 2.2 of NUREG/CR-7002.

9. Two types of adverse weather scenarios are considered.

Rain may occur for either winter or summer scenarios; snow occurs in winter scenarios only. It is assumed that the rain or snow begins earlier or at about the same time the evacuation advisory is issued.No weather-related reduction in the number of transients who may be present in the EPZ is assumed. It is assumed that roads are passable and that the appropriate agencies are plowing the roads as they would normally when snowing.Adverse weather scenarios affect roadway capacity and the free flow highway speeds.The factors applied for the ETE study are based on recent research on the effects of weather on roadway operations 4; the factors are shown in Table 2-2.Institute for Environmental Studies, University of Toronto, THE MISSISSAUGA EVACUATION FINAL REPORT, June 1981. The report indicates that 6,600 people of a transit-dependent population of 8,600 people shared rides with other residents; a ride share rate of 76% (Page 5-10).4 Agarwal, M. et. al. Impacts of Weather on Urban Freeway Traffic Flow Characteristics and Facility Capacity, Proceedings of the 2005 Mid-Continent Transportation Research Symposium, August, 2005. The results of this paper are included as Exhibit 10-15 in the HCM 2010.Donald C. Cook Nuclear Plant 2-6 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 transit-dependent general population are assumed to transport 30 people per bus.Table 2-2. Model Adjustment for Adverse Weather Scnai .Capacity0*

Sped Moiizto Tim fo Genra Poplaio Rain 90% 90% No Effect Clear driveway before leaving hory (See Figure F-13)*Adverse weather capacity and speed values are given as a percentage of good weather conditions.

Roads are assumed to be passable.Ne 2-7 KLD Engineering, P.C.Donald C. Cook Nuclear Plant Evacuation Time Estimate 2-7 KLD Engineering, P.C.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 double-counting of vehicles.Appendix E presents much of the source material for the population estimates.

Our primary source of population data, the 2010 Census, however, is not adequate for directly estimating some transient groups.Throughout the year, vacationers and tourists enter the EPZ. These non-residents may dwell within the EPZ for a short period (e.g. a few days or one or two weeks), or may enter and leave within one day. Estimates of the size of these population components must be obtained, so that the associated number of evacuating vehicles can be ascertained.

The potential for double-counting people and vehicles must be addressed.

For example: " A resident who works and shops within the EPZ could be counted as a resident, again as an employee and once again as a shopper." A visitor who stays at a hotel and spends time at a park, then goes shopping could be counted three times.Furthermore, the number of vehicles at a location depends on time of day. For example, motel parking lots may be full at dawn and empty at noon. Similarly, parking lots at area parks, which are full at noon, may be almost empty at dawn. Estimating counts of vehicles by simply adding up the capacities of different types of parking facilities will tend to overestimate the number of transients and can lead to ETE that are too conservative.

Analysis of the population characteristics of the DCCNP 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.* Seasonal Transients

-people who reside outside of the EPZ and enter the area and stay in accommodations other than hotels.* Employees

-people who reside outside of the EPZ and commute to businesses within the EPZ on a daily basis.Estimates of the population and number of evacuating vehicles for each of the population groups are presented for each PAA and by polar coordinate representation (population rose).The DCCNP EPZ has been subdivided into 5 PAA. The EPZ is shown in Figure 3-1.Donald C. Cook Nuclear Plant 3-1 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 (2.47 persons/household

-See Figure F-i) and the number of evacuating vehicles per household (1.32 vehicles/household

-See Figure F-8) were adapted from the telephone survey results.Population estimates are based upon Census 2010 data, Table 3-1 provides the permanent resident population within the EPZ, by PAA.The year 2010 permanent resident population is divided by the average household size and then multiplied by the average number of evacuating vehicles per household in order to estimate number of vehicles.

Permanent resident population and vehicle estimates are presented in Table 3-2. Figure 3-2 and Figure 3-3 present the permanent resident population and permanent resident vehicle estimates by sector and distance from DCCNP. This "rose" was constructed using GIS software.It can be argued that this estimate of permanent residents overstates, somewhat, the number of evacuating vehicles, especially during the summer. It is certainly reasonable to assert that some portion of the population would be on vacation during the summer and would travel elsewhere.

A rough estimate of this reduction can be obtained as follows:* Assume 50 percent of all households vacation for a two-week period over the summer.* Assume these vacations, in aggregate, are uniformly dispersed over 10 weeks, i.e. 10 percent of the population is on vacation during each two-week interval." Assume half of these vacationers leave the area.On this basis, the permanent resident population would be reduced by 5 percent in the summer and by a lesser amount in the off-season.

Given the uncertainty in this estimate, we elected to apply no reductions in permanent resident population for the summer scenarios to account for residents who may be out of the area.Donald C. Cook Nuclear Plant 3-2 KLD Engineering, P.C.Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 1 Figure 3-1. DCCNP EPZ Donald C. Cook Nuclear Plant Evacuation Time Estimate 3-3 KLD Engineering, P.C.Rev. 1 Table 3-1. EPZ Permanent Resident Population 2000 201 PA Pouato Poplaio 1 2,309 2,239 2 13,721 14,350 3 6,395 6,079 4 31,812 30,819 5 15,760 14,371 EPZ Population Growth: -3.06%Table 3-2. Permanent Resident Population and Vehicles by PAA-701 A 201 Pouato ReietVhce 1 2,239 1,199 2 14,350 7,666 3 6,079 3,250 4 30,819 16,470 5 14,371 7,684-I Donald C. Cook Nuclear Plant Evacuation Time Estimate 3-4 KLD Engineering, P.C.Rev. 1 NNW E-s--N S'\ 0 7 --NNE 703 WNW "'0 0 w z~10 0 0 00 EI1X WSW I0 Sw 266Rn u Resident Population ENE E ESE 4,728 10 Mile to EPZ Boundary SSW 28~s 2,993 S Miles Subtotal by Ring Cumulative Total 0-1 108 108 1-2 712 820 2 -3 3,322 4,142 3-4 5,083 9,225 4-5 6,225 15,450 5-6 5,959 21,409 6 -7 6,316 27,725 7-8 7,218 34,943 8-9 6,693 41,636 9- 10 11,190 52,826 10- EPZ 15,032 67,858 Total: 67,858 W E Inset 0- 2 Miles S Figure 3-2. Permanent Resident Population by Sector 3-5 KLD Engineering, P.C.Donald C. Cook Nuclear Plant Evacuation Time Estimate 3-5 KLD Engineering, P.C.Rev. 1 N NNW w---F--iNNE" l- 0 ' -WNWW WSW E-5--1 ENE 307 286 D E 152 181 3.073: ,9 296 831 ESE SE 10 Mile to EPZ Boundary SSW 1 603 I'- --J- --SSE S 1 N 1l,784-1 Resident Vehicles Miles Subtotal by Ring Cumulative Total 0-1 57 57 1-2 381 438 2-3 1,779 2,217 3-4 2,716 4,933 4- 5 3,325 8,258 5-6 3,188 112446 6 -7 3,376 14,822 7 -8 3,855 18,677 8-9 3,573 22,250 9-10 5,975 28,225 10 -EPZ 8,044 36,269 Total: 36,269 W Inset 0 -2 Miles S Figure 3-3. Permanent Resident Vehicles by Sector Donald C. Cook Nuclear Plant Evacuation Time Estimate 3-6 KLD Engineering, P.C.3-6 KLD Engineering, P.C.Rev. I 3.2 Shadow Population A proportion of the population living outside the evacuation area extending to 15 miles radially from the DCCNP (in the Shadow Region) may elect to evacuate without having been instructed to do so. Based upon NUREG/CR-7002 guidance, it is assumed that 20 percent of the permanent resident population, based on U.S. Census Bureau data, in this Shadow Region will elect to evacuate.

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

Table 3-3 presents estimates of the shadow population and vehicles, by sector.Table 3-3. Shadow Population and Vehicles by Sector Seco Poult io Evcatn Vehcle N NNE 6,187 3,307 NE 11,738 6,279 ENE 1,804 966 E 2,734 1,459 ESE 2,854 1,527 SE 6,059 3,237 SSE 1,620 864 S 938 504 SSW 2,377 1,271 SW 594 322 WSW W WNW NW N NW Donald C. Cook Nuclear Plant Evacuation Time Estimate 3-7 KLD Engineering, P.C.Rev. 1 N NNW 0I NNE F6,183 WNW w WSW ENE E ESE SSW -L i -SSE F2,377 S 1,620 EPZ Boundary toll Miles Shadow Population Miles Subtotal by Ring Cumulative Total EPZ -11 4,926 4,926 11- 12 8,431 13,357 12- 13 8,793 22,150 13- 14. 7,079 29,229 14- 15 7,676 36,905 Total: 36,905 Figure 3-4. Shadow Population by Sector Donald C. Cook Nuclear Plant Evacuation Time Estimate 3-8 KLD Engineering, P.C.Rev. 1 N NNW LII NNE WNW w WSW ENE 282:93 E 736 272 F1,459 431 ESE 1.527 SE* .. EPZ Boundary to 11 Miles SSW ----.-L.jj_-----

SSE 1s271 S F504 Shadow Vehicles Miles Subtotal by Ring Cumulative Total EPZ- 11 2,643 2,643 11-12 4,504 7,147 12- 13 4,696 11,843 13- 14 3,780 15,623 14-15 4,113 19,736 Total: 19,736 Figure 3-5. Shadow Vehicles by Sector Donald C. Cook Nuclear Plant Evacuation Time Estimate 3-9 KLD Engineering, P.C.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 camping facilities, hotels and motels. The DCCNP EPZ has a number of areas and facilities that attract transients, including:

• Lodging Facilities

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

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

A total of 3,023 transients in 1,374 vehicles are assigned to lodging facilities in the EPZ.Surveys of the parks and recreational areas within the EPZ were conducted to determine the number of transients visiting each of those places on a typical day and to determine peak season. A total of 3,657 transients and 1,644 vehicles have been assigned to parks and recreational areas within the EPZ.A survey of Weko Beach Campground in the EPZ was conducted to determine the number of campsites, peak occupancy, and the number of vehicles and people per campsite.

This data was used to estimate the number of evacuating vehicles for transients at this facility.

A total of 877 transients and 392 vehicles are assigned to this campground.

There are five golf courses within the EPZ. Surveys of golf courses were conducted to determine the number of golfers and vehicles at each facility on a typical peak day, and the number of golfers that travel from outside the area. A total of 468 transients and 240 vehicles are assigned to golf courses within the EPZ.Surveys of the two marinas in the EPZ were conducted to determine the number of boat slips, peak occupancy, and number of vehicles per boater. This data was used to estimate the number of evacuating vehicles for transients at each of these facilities.

A total of 190 transients and 95 vehicles are assigned to marinas within the EPZ.Appendix E summarizes the transient data that was estimated for the EPZ. Table E-4 presents the number of transients visiting recreational areas, while Table E-5 presents the number of transients at lodging facilities within the EPZ.Seasonal Transient Population The DC Cook EPZ has a secondary category of transient population which is seasonal residents.

This population enters the area during the summer months and may stay considerably longer Donald C. Cook Nuclear Plant 3-10 KLD Engineering, P.C.Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 1 (several weeks or the entire season) than the average transient using a hotel or motel. The seasonal population use other lodging facilities such as condos, beach houses and summer rentals that otherwise would not be captured in a typical lodging population.

The methodology behind calculating the seasonal population involves using 2010 Census Block data. Each Census Block includes information regarding the number of vacant and occupied households.

Using this Census data, an average vacant household percentage was calculated for the entire EPZ (17%).It is assumed that seasonal residents will be renting homes near the Lake Michigan shoreline.

Using only those Census blocks that are within one mile of the shoreline, the number of seasonal homes will be calculated.

It is further assumed that 17% of the vacant homes within these Census blocks are not rental homes (average number of vacant households within the Palisades EPZ). To determine the seasonal population, the remaining households from the analysis are considered to be seasonal households.

An average household size of 2.47 persons per household is used to determine the seasonal transient population, and 1.32 evacuating vehicles per seasonal household is used to determine the number of seasonal transient vehicles.

These numbers are adapted from the telephone survey results (see Appendix F).It is estimated that there is an additional seasonal population of 3,551 transients and 1,899 transient vehicles within the EPZ. These numbers are included with the transient population in Table 3-4 as well as Figure 3-6 and Figure 3-7.Table 3-4 presents transient population and transient vehicle estimates by PAA. Figure 3-6 and Figure 3-7 present these data by sector and distance from the plant.3-11 KLD Engineering, P.C.Donald C. Cook Nuclear Plant Evacuation Time Estimate 3-11 KLD Engineering, P.C.Rev. I 3.4 Seasonal Transient Population The DC Cook EPZ has a secondary category of transient population which is seasonal residents.

This population enters the area during the summer months and may stay considerably longer (several weeks or the entire season) than the average transient using a hotel or motel. The seasonal population use other lodging facilities such as condos, beach houses and summer rentals that otherwise would not be captured in a typical lodging population.

The methodology behind calculating the seasonal population involves using 2010 Census Block data. Each Census Block includes information regarding the number of vacant and occupied households.

Using this Census data, an average vacant household percentage was calculated for the entire EPZ (17%).It is assumed that seasonal residents will be renting homes near the Lake Michigan shoreline.

Using only those Census blocks that are within one mile of the shoreline, the number of seasonal homes will be calculated.

It is further assumed that 17% of the vacant homes within these Census blocks are not rental homes (average number of vacant households within the Palisades EPZ). To determine the seasonal population, the remaining households from the analysis are considered to be seasonal households.

An average household size of 2.47 persons per household is used to determine the seasonal transient population, and 1.32 evacuating vehicles per seasonal household is used to determine the number of seasonal transient vehicles.

These numbers are adapted from the telephone survey results (see Appendix F).It is estimated that there is an additional seasonal population of 3,551 transients and 1,899 transient vehicles within the EPZ. These numbers are included with the transient population in Table 3-4 as well as Figure 3-6 and Figure 3-7.Table 3-4. Summary of Transients and Transient Vehicles Trnsen 1 1 1,055 534 2 1,336 627 3 1,881 902 4 3,551 1,541 5 3,943 2,040 Donald C. Cook Nuclear Plant 3-12 KLD Engineering, P.C.Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 1 NNW w---N 0NNE 0-~1.297 'WNW W WSW ,-I --] 'ENE t. =0 E 0' ESE 0,*, 1.121 SSW -4,496 0 S F 92--F161T N Transient Population Miles Subtotal by Ring Cumulative Total 0-1 128 128 1-2 98 226 2 -3 1,849 2,075 3-4 508 2,583 4-5 745 3,328 5-6 ,1i00 4,428 6-7 591 5,019 7-8 650 5,669 8-9 739 6,408 9-10 698 7,106 10- EPZ 4,660 11,766 Totai: 11,766 EPZ Boundary 0 E W Inset 0 -2 Miles S Figure 3-6. Transient Population by Sector 3-13 KLD Engineering, P.C.Donald C. Cook Nuclear Plant Evacuation Time Estimate 3-13 KLD Engineering, P.C.Rev. 1 N NNW 6 NNE E ---C .-0 463 WNW~0 I-WS 0 SSW -0 o 2,267 S F 47--F-90-N Transient Vehicles Miles Subtotal by Ring Cumulative Total 0-1 68 68 1-2 51 119 2-3 887 1,006 3-4 305 1,311 4-5 280 1,591 5-6 555 2,146 6-7 314 2,460 7-8 368 2,828 8-9 378 3,206 9-10 348 3,554 10 -EPZ 2,090 5,644 Total: 5,644 W E Inset 0 -2 Miles S Figure 3-7. Transient Vehicles by Sector 3-14 KID Engineering, P.C.Donald C. Cook Nuclear Plant Evacuation Time Estimate 3-14 KLD Engineering, P.C.Rev. 1 3.5 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.

Year 2009 Longitudinal Employer-Household Dynamics 1 Origin-Destination Employment Statistics provided by the U.S. Census Bureau was used to estimate the number of employees commuting into the EPZ for those employers who did not provide data.In Table E-3, the Employees (Max Shift) are multiplied by the percent Non-EPZ factor to determine the number of employees who are not residents of the EPZ. A vehicle occupancy of 1.04 employees per vehicle obtained from the telephone survey (See Figure F-7) was used to determine the number of evacuating employee vehicles for all major employers.

Table 3-5 presents non-EPZ Resident employee and vehicle estimates by PAA. Figure 3-8 and Figure 3-9 present these data by sector.U.S. Census Bureau, OnTheMap Application and LEHD Origin-Destination Employment Statistics (Beginning of Quarter Employment, 2 Quarter of 2009). Analysis Generation Date: 9/22/2011 Donald C. Cook Nuclear Plant Evacuation Time Estimate 3-15 KLD Engineering, P.C.Rev. 1 Table 3-5. Summary of Non-EPZ Employees and Employee Vehicles Employee PAA Employees Vehicles 1 307 295 2 282 272 3 193 185 4 1,645 1,582 5 3-16 KLD Engineering, P.C.Donald C. Cook Nuclear Plant Evacuation Time Estimate 3-16 KLD Engineering, P.C.Rev. 1 NNW W- -N NNE 0 WNW'0 I-w WSW 0=-5-- %I ENE 55 E o'W*-o ESE 0, SSW

• 0 193 F2 52-0,--SE 10 Mile to EPZ Boundary N 0 Employees Miles Subtotal by Ring Cumulative Total 0-1 252 252 1-2 55 307 2-3 197 504 3-4 27 531 4-5 60 591 5-6 191 782 6-7 119 901 7-8 435 1,336 8-9 378 1,714 9 -10 302 2,016 10 -EPZ 411 2,427 Total: 2,427 W Inset ~ *0 -2Miles S Figure 3-8. Employee Population by Sector 3-17 KLD Engineering, P.C.Donald C. Cook Nuclear Plant Evacuation Time Estimate 3-17 KLD Engineering, P.C.Rev. 1 N NNW"- 0 NNE 0 WNW WI, 10 w WSW 0 z----1:o ENE F53-E olyj' ESE 0E-0 SSW Eno--I 0 S F185]242--j" SE I -SE 10 Mile to EPZ Boundary N 0 R00 0 0 5 0 Employee Vehicles Miles Subtotal by Ring Cumulative Total 0-1 242 242 1-2 53 295 2-3 189 484 3-4 26 510 4-5, 58 568 5-6 184 752 6-7 114 866 7-8 418 1,284 8-9 364 1,648 9-10 290 1,938 10 -_EPZ 396 2,334 Total: 2,§734 W Inset 0 -2 Miles S Figure 3-9. Employee Vehicles by Sector 3-18 KLD Engineering, P.C.Donald C. Cook Nuclear Plant Evacuation Time Estimate 3-18 KLD Engineering, P.C.Rev. I 3.6 Medical Facilities Data were provided by Berrien County for each of the medical facilities within the EPZ. Chapter 8 details the evacuation of medical facilities and their patients.

The number and type of evacuating vehicles that need to be provided depend on the patients' state of health. It is estimated that buses can transport up to 30 people; wheelchair vans, up to 4 people;wheelchair buses up to 15 people; and ambulances, up to 2 people.3.7 Total Demand in Addition to Permanent Population Vehicles will be traveling through the EPZ (external-external trips) at the time of an accident.After the Advisory to Evacuate is announced, these through-travelers will also evacuate.

These through vehicles are assumed to traverse the EPZ along Interstate-94 and Interstate-196 which merges with 1-94 in the northern portion of the study area. It is assumed that this traffic will continue to enter the EPZ during the first 120 minutes following the Advisory to Evacuate.Average Annual Daily Traffic (AADT) data was obtained from Federal Highway Administration to estimate the number of vehicles per hour on the aforementioned routes. The AADT was multiplied by the K-Factor, which is the proportion of the AADT on a roadway segment or link during the design hour, resulting in the design hour volume (DHV). The design hour is usually the 3 0 th highest hourly traffic volume of the year, measured in vehicles per hour (vph). The DHV is then multiplied by the D-Factor, which is the proportion of the DHV occurring in the peak direction of travel (also known as the directional split). The resulting values are the directional design hourly volumes (DDHV), and are presented in Table 3-6, for each of the routes considered.

The DDHV is then multiplied by 2 hours2.314815e-5 days <br />5.555556e-4 hours <br />3.306878e-6 weeks <br />7.61e-7 months <br /> (access control points -ACP -are assumed to be activated at 120 minutes after the advisory to evacuate) to estimate the total number of external vehicles loaded on the analysis network. As indicated, there are 10,806 vehicles entering the EPZ as external-external trips prior to the activation of the ACP and the diversion of this traffic.3.8 Special Event One special event is considered for the ETE study -4 th of July Fireworks at Silver Beach in St Joseph. Data were provided by the Berrien County Parks Director.

Attendance at the event is approximately 25,000, where 65% were considered transients, resulting in an additional 16,250 transients.

There are approximately 600 vehicles parked at Silver Beach during the event, with 3 transients per vehicle. Additional transients park their vehicles nearby in St. Joseph and walk to the beach. An additional 4,817 Vehicles were distributed over several links within the town of St Joseph for the special 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.Donald C. Cook Nuclear Plant 3-19 KLD Engineering, P.C.Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 1 Table 3-6. DCCNP EPZ External Traffic 8062 62 1-94 WB 37,928 0.107 0.5 2,029 4,5 8116 116 1-196 SB 21,302 0.107 0.59 1,345 2f,90 Highway Performance Monitoring System (HPMS), Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), Washington, D.C., 2011 2 HCM 2010 Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 1 Donald C. Cook Nuclear Plant Evacuation Time Estimate 3-20 KLD Engineering, P.C.Rev. 1 3.9 Summary of Demand The total population and vehicle demand within the EPZ are provided in Table 3-7 and Table 3-8, respectively.

These summaries include all population groups described in this section, as well as transit-dependent population (schools, households who do not have access to a vehicle and medical facilities) which are described in greater detail in Section 8. A total of 106,053 people and 59,671 vehicles could be in the EPZ at any given time. These totals vary by scenario (see Table 6-3) and region evacuated (see Table H-i).Donald C. Cook Nuclear Plant 3-21 KLD Engineering, P.C.Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 1 0 Table 3-7. Summary of Population Demand 1 2,239 73 1,055 307 84 359 0 0 4,117 2 14,350 466 1,336 282 0 3427 0 0 19,861 3 6,079 198 1,881 193 107 616 0 0 9,074 4 30,819 1002 3,551 1,645 448 5062 0 0 42,527 5 14,371 467 3,943 0 0 4312 0 0 23,093 Shadow 0 0 0 0 0 0 7,381 0 7,381 NOTE: Shadow Population has been reduced to 20%. Refer to Figure 2-1 for additional information.

Table 3-8. Summary of Vehicle Demand 1 1,199 4 534 295 11 12 0 0 2,055 2 7,666 32 627 272 0 132 0 0 8,729 3 3,250 12 902 185 17 26 0 0 4,392 4 16,470 68 1,541 1,582 45 194 0 0 19,900 5 7,684 32 2,040 0 0 86 0 0 9,842 Shadow 0 0 0 0 0 0 3,947 10,806 14,753 NOTE: Buses represented as two passenger vehicles.

Refer to Section 8 for additional information.

Donald C. Cook Nuclear Plant Evacuation Time Estimate 3-22 KLD Engineering, P.C.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 free-flow and high-speed operating conditions; LOS F represents a forced flow condition.

LOS E describes traffic operating at or near capacity.Another concept, closely associated with capacity, is "Service Volume" (SV). Service volume is defined as "The maximum hourly rate at which vehicles, bicycles or persons reasonably can be expected to traverse a point or uniform section of a roadway during an hour under specific assumed conditions while maintaining a designated level of service." This definition is similar to that for capacity.

The major distinction is that values of SV vary from one LOS to another, while capacity is the service volume at the upper bound of LOS E, only.This distinction is illustrated in Exhibit 11-17 of the HCM 2010. As indicated there, the SV varies with Free Flow Speed (FFS), and LOS. The SV is calculated by the DYNEV II simulation model, based on the specified link attributes, FFS, capacity, control device and traffic demand.Other factors also influence capacity.

These include, but are not limited to: " Lane width* Shoulder width* Pavement condition* Horizontal and vertical alignment (curvature and grade)* Percent truck traffic* Control device (and timing, if it is a signal)* Weather conditions (rain, snow, fog, wind speed, ice)These factors are considered during the road survey and in the capacity estimation process;some factors have greater influence on capacity than others. For example, lane and shoulder width have only a limited influence on Base Free Flow Speed (BFFS 1) according to Exhibit 15-7 of the HCM. Consequently, lane and shoulder widths at the narrowest points were observed during the road survey and these observations were recorded, but no detailed measurements of lane or shoulder width were taken. The estimated FFS were measured using the survey vehicle's speedometer and observing local traffic, under free flow conditions.

Capacity is estimated from the procedures of the 2010 HCM. For example, HCM Exhibit 7-1(b) shows the 1 A very rough estimate of BFFS might be taken as the posted speed limit plus 10 mph (HCM 2010 Page 15-15)Donald C. Cook Nuclear Plant 4-1 KLD Engineering, P.C.Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 1 sensitivity of Service Volume at the upper bound of LOS D to grade (capacity is the Service Volume at the upper bound of LOS E).As discussed in Section 2.3, it is necessary to adjust capacity figures to represent the prevailing conditions during inclement weather. Based on limited empirical data, weather conditions such as rain reduce the values of free speed and of highway capacity by approximately 10 percent. Over the last decade new studies have been made on the effects of rain on traffic capacity.

These studies indicate a range of effects between 5 and 20 percent depending on wind speed and precipitation rates. As indicated in Section 2.3, we employ a reduction in free speed and in highway capacity of 10 percent and 20 percent for rain and snow, respectively.

Since congestion arising from evacuation may be significant, estimates of roadway capacity must be determined with great care. Because of its importance, a brief discussion of the major factors that influence highway capacity is presented in this section.Rural highways generally consist of: (1) one or more uniform sections with limited access (driveways, parking areas) characterized by "uninterrupted" flow; and (2) approaches to at-grade intersections where flow can be "interrupted" by a control device or by turning or crossing traffic at the intersection.

Due to these differences, separate estimates of capacity must be made for each section. Often, the approach to the intersection is widened by the addition of one or more lanes (turn pockets or turn bays), to compensate for the lower capacity of the approach due to the factors there that can interrupt the flow of traffic. These additional lanes are recorded during the field survey and later entered as input to the DYNEV II system.4.1 Capacity Estimations on Approaches to Intersections At-grade intersections are apt to become the first bottleneck locations under local heavy traffic volume conditions.

This characteristic reflects the need to allocate access time to the respective competing traffic streams by exerting some form of control. During evacuation, control at critical intersections will often be provided by traffic control personnel assigned for that purpose, whose directions may supersede traffic control devices.The per-lane capacity of an approach to a signalized intersection can be expressed (simplistically) in the following form: Qca~m= 3600) (G Lm = 3600)Qcap,rn = hrnM- X x C )m \ M )r X Pm where: Qcap,m r Capacity of a single lane of traffic on an approach, which executes movement, m, upon entering the intersection; vehicles per hour (vph)Donald C. Cook Nuclear Plant 4-2 KLD Engineering.

P.C.Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 1 hm Mean queue discharge headway of vehicles on this lane that are executing movement, m; seconds per vehicle G Mean duration of GREEN time servicing vehicles that are executing movement, m, for each signal cycle; seconds L = Mean "lost time" for each signal phase servicing movement, m; seconds C = Duration of each signal cycle; seconds Pm = Proportion of GREEN time allocated for vehicles executing movement, m, from this lane. This value is specified as part of the control treatment.

m The movement executed by vehicles after they enter the intersection:

through, left-turn, right-turn, and diagonal.The turn-movement-specific mean discharge headway hm, depends in a complex way upon many factors: roadway geometrics, turn percentages, the extent of conflicting traffic streams, the control treatment, and others. A primary factor is the value of "saturation queue discharge headway", hsat, which applies to through vehicles that are not impeded by other conflicting traffic streams. This value, itself, depends upon many factors including motorist behavior.Formally, we can write, hm = fm (hsat, F, F2,...)where: hst= Saturation discharge headway for through vehicles; seconds per vehicle FF2= The various known factors influencing hm fN() = Complex function relating hm to the known (or estimated) values of hsat, F 1 , F 2 ,...The estimation of hm for specified values of hsat, F 1 , F 2 , ... is undertaken within the DYNEV II simulation model by a mathematical model 2.The resulting values for hm always satisfy the condition:

hm _ hsat That is, the turn-movement-specific discharge headways are always greater than, or equal to 2 Lieberman, E., "Determining Lateral Deployment of Traffic on an Approach to an Intersection", McShane, W. &Lieberman, E., "Service Rates of Mixed Traffic on the far Left Lane of an Approach".

Both papers appear in Transportation Research Record 772, 1980. Lieberman, E., Xin, W., "Macroscopic Traffic Modeling For Large-Scale Evacuation Planning", to be presented at the TRB 2012 Annual Meeting, January 22-26, 2012 Donald C. Cook Nuclear Plant 4-3 KLD Engineering, P.C.Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 1 the saturation discharge headway for through vehicles.

These headways (or its inverse equivalent, "saturation flow rate"), may be determined by observation or using the procedures of the HCM 2010.The above discussion is necessarily brief given the scope of this ETE report and the complexity of the subject of intersection capacity.

In fact, Chapters 18, 19 and 20 in the HCM 2010 address this topic. The factors, F 1 , F 2 ,..., influencing saturation flow rate are identified in equation (18-5)of the HCM 2010.The traffic signals within the EPZ and Shadow Region are modeled using representative phasing plans and phase durations obtained as part of the field data collection.

Traffic responsive signal installations allow the proportion of green time allocated (Pm) for each approach to each intersection to be determined by the expected traffic volumes on each approach during evacuation circumstances.

The amount of green time (G) allocated is subject to maximum and minimum phase duration constraints; 2 seconds of yellow time are indicated for each signal phase and 1 second of all-red time is assigned between signal phases, typically.

If a signal is pre-timed, the yellow and all-red times observed during the road survey are used. A lost time (L) of 2.0 seconds is used for each signal phase in the analysis.4.2 Capacity Estimation along Sections of Highway The capacity of highway sections -- as distinct from approaches to intersections

-- is a function of roadway geometrics, traffic composition (e.g. percent heavy trucks and buses in the traffic stream) and, of course, motorist behavior.

There is a fundamental relationship which relates service volume (i.e. the number of vehicles serviced within a uniform highway section in a given time period) to traffic density. The top curve in Figure 4-1 illustrates this relationship.

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

The value of VF can be expressed as: VF = R x Capacity where: R = Reduction factor which is less than unity Donald C. Cook Nuclear Plant 4-4 KILD 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 fall-off in the service flow rate when congestion occurs at "bottlenecks" or "choke points" on a freeway system. Zhang and Levinson 3 describe a research program that collected data from a computer-based surveillance system (loop detectors) installed on the Interstate Highway System, at 27 active bottlenecks in the twin cities metro area in Minnesota over a 7-week period. When flow breakdown occurs, queues are formed which discharge at lower flow rates than the maximum capacity prior to observed breakdown.

These queue discharge flow (QDF) rates vary from one location to the next and also vary by day of week and time of day based upon local circumstances.

The cited reference presents a mean QDF of 2,016 passenger cars per hour per lane (pcphpl).

This figure compares with the nominal capacity estimate of 2,250 pcphpl estimated for the ETE and indicated in Appendix K for freeway links. The ratio of these two numbers is 0.896 which translates into a capacity reduction factor of 0.90.Since the principal objective of evacuation time estimate analyses is to develop a "realistic" estimate of evacuation times, use of the representative value for this capacity reduction factor (R=0.90) is justified.

This factor is applied only when flow breaks down, as determined by the simulation model.Rural roads, like freeways, are classified as "uninterrupted flow" facilities. (This is in contrast with urban street systems which have closely spaced signalized intersections and are classified as "interrupted flow" facilities.)

As such, traffic flow along rural roads is subject to the same effects as freeways in the event traffic demand exceeds the nominal capacity, resulting in queuing and lower QDF rates. As a practical matter, rural roads rarely break down at locations away from intersections.

Any breakdowns on rural roads are generally experienced at intersections where other model logic applies, or at lane drops which reduce capacity there.Therefore, the application of a factor of 0.90 is appropriate on rural roads, but rarely, if ever, activated.

The estimated value of capacity is based primarily upon the type of facility and on roadway geometrics.

Sections of roadway with adverse geometrics are characterized by lower free-flow speeds and lane capacity.

Exhibit 15-30 in the Highway Capacity Manual was referenced to estimate saturation flow rates. The impact of narrow lanes and shoulders on free-flow speed and on capacity is not material, particularly when flow is predominantly in one direction as is the case during an evacuation.

The procedure used here was to estimate "section" capacity, VE, based on observations made traveling over each section of the evacuation network, based on the posted speed limits and travel behavior of other motorists and by reference to the 2010 HCM. The DYNEV II simulation model determines for each highway section, represented as a network link, whether its capacity would be limited by the "section-specific" service volume, VE, or by the intersection-specific capacity.

For each link, the model selects the lower value of capacity.3 Lei Zhang and David Levinson, "Some Properties of Flows at Freeway Bottlenecks," Transportation Research Record 1883, 2004.Donald C. Cook Nuclear Plant 4-5 KLD Engineering, P.C.Evacuation Time Estimate -Rev. 1 4.3 Application to the DCCNP Study Area As part of the development of the link-node analysis network for the study area, an estimate of roadway capacity is required.

The source material for the capacity estimates presented herein is contained in: 2010 Highway Capacity Manual (HCM)Transportation Research Board National Research Council Washington, D.C.The highway system in the study area consists primarily of three categories of roads and, of course, intersections:

• Two-Lane roads: Local, State* Multi-Lane Highways (at-grade)

• Freeways Each of these classifications will be discussed.

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

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

• Most sections of two-lane roads within the EPZ are classified as "Class I", with "level terrain";

some are "rolling terrain"." "Class II" highways are mostly those within urban and suburban centers.4.3.2 Multi-Lane Highway Ref: HCM Chapter 14 Exhibit 14-2 of the HCM 2010 presents a set of curves that indicate a per-lane capacity ranging from approximately 1900 to 2200 pc/h, for free-speeds of 45 to 60 mph, respectively.

Based on observation, the multi-lane highways outside of urban areas within the EPZ service traffic with free-speeds in this range. The actual time-varying speeds computed by the simulation model reflect the demand: capacity relationship and the impact of control at intersections.

A Donald C. Cook Nuclear Plant 4-6 KLD Engineering, P.C.Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 1 conservative estimate of per-lane capacity of 1900 pc/h is adopted for this study for multi-lane highways outside of urban areas, as shown in Appendix K.4.3.3 Freeways Ref: HCM Chapters 10, 11, 12, 13 Chapter 10 of the HCM 2010 describes a procedure for integrating the results obtained in Chapters 11, 12 and 13, which compute capacity and LOS for freeway components.

Chapter 10 also presents a discussion of simulation models. The DYNEV II simulation model automatically performs this integration process.Chapter 11 of the HCM 2010 presents procedures for estimating capacity and LOS for "Basic Freeway Segments".

Exhibit 11-17 of the HCM 2010 presents capacity vs. free speed estimates, which are provided below.Free Speed (mph): 55 60 65 70+Per-Lane Capacity (pc/h): 2250 2300 2350 2400 The inputs to the simulation model are highway geometrics, free-speeds and capacity based on field observations.

The simulation logic calculates actual time-varying speeds based on demand: capacity relationships.

A conservative estimate of per-lane 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 on-ramp or immediately upstream of an off-ramp; the capacity of the ramp roadway; and the maximum flow rate entering the ramp influence area. In most cases, the freeway capacity is the controlling factor. Values of this merge area capacity are presented in Exhibit 13-8 of the HCM 2010, and depend on the number of freeway lanes and on the freeway free speed. Ramp capacity is presented in Exhibit 13-10 and is a function of the ramp free flow speed. The DYNEV II simulation model logic simulates the merging operations of the ramp and freeway traffic in accord with the procedures in Chapter 13 of the HCM 2010. If congestion results from an excess of demand relative to capacity, then the model allocates service appropriately to the two entering traffic streams and produces LOS F conditions (The HCM does not address LOS F explicitly).

Donald C. Cook Nuclear Plant 4-7 KILD 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 (un-signalized intersections) and Chapter 21 (roundabouts).

The complexity of these computations is indicated by the aggregate length of these chapters.

The DYNEV II simulation logic is likewise complex.The simulation model explicitly models intersections:

Stop/yield controlled intersections (both 2-way and all-way) and traffic signal controlled intersections.

Where intersections are controlled by fixed time controllers, traffic signal timings are set to reflect average (non-evacuation) traffic conditions.

Actuated traffic signal settings respond to the time-varying demands of evacuation traffic to adjust the relative capacities of the competing intersection approaches.

The model is also capable of modeling the presence of manned traffic control. At specific locations where it is advisable or where existing plans call for overriding existing traffic control to implement manned control, the model will use actuated signal timings that reflect the presence of traffic guides. At locations where a special traffic control strategy (continuous left-turns, contra-flow lanes) is used, the strategy is modeled explicitly.

Where applicable, the location and type of traffic control for nodes in the evacuation network are noted in Appendix K. The characteristics of the ten highest volume intersections are detailed in Appendix J.4.4 Simulation and Capacity Estimation Chapter 6 of the HCM is entitled, "HCM and Alternative Analysis Tools." The chapter discusses the use of alternative tools such as simulation modeling to evaluate the operational performance of highway networks.

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

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

The DYNEV II simulation model includes some HCM 2010 procedures only for the purpose of estimating capacity.All simulation models must be calibrated properly with field observations that quantify the performance parameters applicable to the analysis network. Two of the most important of these are: (1) Free flow speed (FFS); and (2) saturation headway, hsat. The first of these is Donald C. Cook Nuclear Plant 4-8 KLD Engineering, P.C.Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 1 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....- QS Speed, Vf Rvc -I rIuw.I~~egI1IIes I I mph: Free Forced: I ~ I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I* S Density, vpm-p Density, vpm kf I!kopt Figure 4-1. Fundamental Diagrams Donald C. Cook Nuclear Plant Evacuation Time Estimate 4-9 KILD Engineering, P.C.Rev. 1