Text

Evacuation Time Estimate Report
	ML22278B020
Person / Time
Site:	Fermi
Issue date:	10/05/2022
From:	Frank E; DTE Electric Company
To:	; Document Control Desk, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
References
	NRC-22-0041
	Download: ML22278B020 (374)
	v • d • e

DTE Electric Company 6400 N. Dixie Highway Newport, MI 48166 DTE October 5, 2022 10 CFR 50 Appendix E NRC-22-0041 10 CFR 50.4 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Attention: Document Control Desk Washington, DC 20555-0001 Fermi 2 Power Plant NRC Docket No. 50-341 NRC License No. NPF-43

Subject:

Fermi 2 Evacuation Time Estimate Report Pursuant to 10 CFR Part 50, Appendix E.IV.4, DTE Electric Company, the current licensee for Fermi 2, is transmitting an Evacuation Time Estimate (ETE) analysis for Fermi 2. The analysis was prepared using 2020 data from the U.S. Census Bureau. The enclosure to this letter provides the ETE Report.

No new commitments are being made in this submittal.

Should you have any questions or require additional information, please contact me at (734) 586-4055.

Sincerely, Eric Frank Manager - Nuclear Licensing

Enclosure:

Evacuation Time Estimate Analysis cc: NRC Project Manager NRC Resident Office Regional Administrator, Region III Theodore R. (T.R.) Wentworth II Manager - Radiological Protection Section Materials Management Division David Asselin Supervisor - Radiological Protection Section Radiological Emergency Preparedness Unit - Materials Management Division

Enclosure to NRC-22-0041 Fermi 2 NRC Docket No. 50-341 Operating License No. NPF-43 Fermi 2 Evacuation Time Estimate Report

Enclosure to NRC-22-0041 Page 1 of 372 ENGINEERING, P.C.

Fermi 2 Nuclear Power Plant Development of Evacuation Time Estimates Wayne County i

i i

i

\

c\

\\i I

~

/ l\

6

\

Lake Erie

\

7 Legend GJ Ferm i 2 PAA I

Da te: 6/8/20U

\..---=... 2, s, 10 M ile Rings eop\'fli llt: ESFi1:D"ma nd Maps2020 KLD'E ngine e, in~. DTE Ener~y 2.5 5 M iles

~ vw.ceosus.~

Work performed for DTE Energy, by:

KLD Engineering, P.C.

1601 Veterans Memorial Highway, Suite 340 Islandia, NY 11749 email: kweinisch@kldcompanies.com August 15, 2022 Final Report, Rev. 0 KLD TR - 1264

Enclosure to NRC-22-0041 Page 2 of 372 Table of Contents 1 INTRODUCTION .................................................................................................................................. 11 1.1 Overview of the ETE Process...................................................................................................... 11 1.2 The Fermi 2 Location .................................................................................................................. 13 1.3 Preliminary Activities ................................................................................................................. 13 1.4 Comparison with Prior ETE Study .............................................................................................. 16 2 STUDY ESTIMATES AND ASSUMPTIONS............................................................................................. 21 2.1 Data Estimate Assumptions ....................................................................................................... 21 2.2 Methodological Assumptions .................................................................................................... 22 2.3 Assumptions on Mobilization Times .......................................................................................... 23 2.4 Transit Dependent Assumptions ................................................................................................ 24 2.5 Access Control Assumptions ...................................................................................................... 25 2.6 Scenarios and Regions ............................................................................................................... 25 3 DEMAND ESTIMATION ....................................................................................................................... 31 3.1 Permanent Residents ................................................................................................................. 32 3.2 Shadow Population .................................................................................................................... 32 3.3 Transient Population .................................................................................................................. 33 3.4 Employees .................................................................................................................................. 33 3.5 Medical Facilities ........................................................................................................................ 34 3.6 Transit Dependent Population ................................................................................................... 34 3.7 School, PreSchool, and Licensed Day Care Center Population Demand .................................. 36 3.8 Access and/or Functional Needs Population ............................................................................. 37 3.9 Correctional Facilities ................................................................................................................. 37 3.10 Special Event .............................................................................................................................. 37 3.11 External Traffic ........................................................................................................................... 38 3.12 Background Traffic ..................................................................................................................... 38 3.13 Summary of Demand ................................................................................................................. 39 4 ESTIMATION OF HIGHWAY CAPACITY................................................................................................ 41 4.1 Capacity Estimations on Approaches to Intersections .............................................................. 42 4.2 Capacity Estimation along Sections of Highway ........................................................................ 44 4.3 Application to the Fermi 2 Study Area ....................................................................................... 46 4.3.1 TwoLane Roads ..................................................................................................................... 46 4.3.2 Multilane Highway ................................................................................................................. 46 4.3.3 Freeways ................................................................................................................................ 47 4.3.4 Intersections .......................................................................................................................... 48 4.4 Simulation and Capacity Estimation .......................................................................................... 48 4.5 Boundary Conditions .................................................................................................................. 49 5 ESTIMATION OF TRIP GENERATION TIME .......................................................................................... 51 5.1 Background ................................................................................................................................ 51 5.2 Fundamental Considerations ..................................................................................................... 53 5.3 Estimated Time Distributions of Activities Preceding Event 5 ................................................... 54 5.4 Calculation of Trip Generation Time Distribution ...................................................................... 55 5.4.1 Statistical Outliers .................................................................................................................. 55 Fermi 2 Nuclear Power Plant i KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

Enclosure to NRC-22-0041 Page 3 of 372 5.4.2 Staged Evacuation Trip Generation ....................................................................................... 58 5.4.3 Trip Generation for Waterways and Recreational Areas ....................................................... 59 6 EVACUATION CASES ........................................................................................................................... 61 7 GENERAL POPULATION EVACUATION TIME ESTIMATES ................................................................... 71 7.1 Voluntary Evacuation and Shadow Evacuation ......................................................................... 71 7.2 Staged Evacuation ...................................................................................................................... 72 7.3 Patterns of Traffic Congestion during Evacuation ..................................................................... 72 7.4 Evacuation Rates ........................................................................................................................ 74 7.5 ETE Results ................................................................................................................................. 74 7.6 Staged Evacuation Results ......................................................................................................... 76 7.7 Guidance on Using ETE Tables ................................................................................................... 76 8 TRANSITDEPENDENT AND SPECIAL FACILITY EVACUATION TIME ESTIMATES ................................. 81 8.1 ETE for Schools, PreSchools, and Licensed Day Care Centers, Transit Dependent People, Medical Facilities and Correctional Facilities ............................................. 82 8.2 ETE for Access and/or Functional Needs Population ................................................................. 88 9 TRAFFIC MANAGEMENT STRATEGY ................................................................................................... 91 9.1 Assumptions ............................................................................................................................... 92 9.2 Additional Considerations .......................................................................................................... 92 10 EVACUATION ROUTES AND RECEPTION CENTERS/Host Schools ................................................. 101 10.1 Evacuation Routes.................................................................................................................... 101 10.2 Reception Centers/Host Schools.............................................................................................. 102 List of Appendices A. GLOSSARY OF TRAFFIC ENGINEERING TERMS .................................................................................. A1 B. DYNAMIC TRAFFIC ASSIGNMENT AND DISTRIBUTION MODEL ......................................................... B1 B.1 Overview of Integrated Distribution and Assignment Model .................................................... B1 B.2 Interfacing the DYNEV Simulation Model with DTRAD .............................................................. B2 B.2.1 DTRAD Description ................................................................................................................. B2 B.2.2 Network Equilibrium .............................................................................................................. B4 C. DYNEV TRAFFIC SIMULATION MODEL ............................................................................................... C1 C.1 Methodology .............................................................................................................................. C2 C.1.1 The Fundamental Diagram..................................................................................................... C2 C.1.2 The Simulation Model ............................................................................................................ C2 C.1.3 Lane Assignment .................................................................................................................... C6 C.2 Implementation ......................................................................................................................... C6 C.2.1 Computational Procedure ...................................................................................................... C6 C.2.2 Interfacing with Dynamic Traffic Assignment (DTRAD) ......................................................... C7 D. DETAILED DESCRIPTION OF STUDY PROCEDURE .............................................................................. D1 E. SPECIAL FACILITY DATA ...................................................................................................................... E1 Fermi 2 Nuclear Power Plant ii KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

Enclosure to NRC-22-0041 Page 4 of 372 F. DEMOGRAPHIC SURVEY ..................................................................................................................... F1 F.1 Introduction ............................................................................................................................... F1 F.2 Survey Instrument and Sampling Plan ....................................................................................... F1 F.3 Survey Results ............................................................................................................................ F2 F.3.1 Household Demographic Results ........................................................................................... F2 F.3.2 Evacuation Response ............................................................................................................. F3 F.3.3 Time Distribution Results ....................................................................................................... F4 G. TRAFFIC MANAGEMENT PLAN .......................................................................................................... G1 G.1 Manual Traffic Control .............................................................................................................. G1 G.2 Analysis of Key ACP Locations ................................................................................................... G1 H. EVACUATION REGIONS ..................................................................................................................... H1 J. REPRESENTATIVE INPUTS TO AND OUTPUTS FROM THE DYNEV II SYSTEM ..................................... J1 K. EVACUATION ROADWAY NETWORK .................................................................................................. K1 L. Protective action Area BOUNDARIES ................................................................................................. L1 M. EVACUATION SENSITIVITY STUDIES ............................................................................................. M1 M.1 Effect of Changes in Trip Generation Times ............................................................................ M1 M.2 Effect of Changes in the Number of People in the Shadow Region Who Relocate ................. M1 M.3 Effect of Changes in Permanent Resident Population ............................................................. M2 M.4 Enhancements in Evacuation Time .......................................................................................... M3 N. ETE CRITERIA CHECKLIST ................................................................................................................... N1 Note: Appendix I intentionally skipped Fermi 2 Nuclear Power Plant iii KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

Enclosure to NRC-22-0041 Page 5 of 372 List of Figures Figure 11. Fermi 2 Location ................................................................................................................... 111 Figure 12. Fermi 2 LinkNode Analysis Network ..................................................................................... 112 Figure 21. Voluntary Evacuation Methodology ....................................................................................... 29 Figure 31. PAAs Comprising the Fermi 2 EPZ .......................................................................................... 319 Figure 32. Permanent Resident Population by Sector ............................................................................ 320 Figure 33. Permanent Resident Vehicles by Sector ................................................................................ 321 Figure 34. Shadow Population by Sector ............................................................................................... 322 Figure 35. Shadow Vehicles by Sector .................................................................................................... 323 Figure 36. Transient Population by Sector.............................................................................................. 324 Figure 37. Transient Vehicles by Sector .................................................................................................. 325 Figure 38. Employee Population by Sector ............................................................................................. 326 Figure 39. Employee Vehicles by Sector ................................................................................................. 327 Figure 41. Fundamental Diagrams .......................................................................................................... 410 Figure 51. Events and Activities Preceding the Evacuation Trip ............................................................ 517 Figure 52. Time Distributions for Evacuation Mobilization Activities.................................................... 518 Figure 53. Comparison of Data Distribution and Normal Distribution....................................................... 519 Figure 54. Comparison of Trip Generation Distributions....................................................................... 520 Figure 55. Comparison of Staged and Unstaged Trip Generation Distributions in the 2 to 5Mile Region .................................................................................................................................... 521 Figure 61. PAAs Comprising the Fermi 2 EPZ ............................................................................................ 68 Figure 71. Voluntary Evacuation Methodology ...................................................................................... 714 Figure 72. Fermi 2 Nuclear Power Plant Shadow Region ....................................................................... 715 Figure 73. Congestion Patterns at 30 Minutes after the ATE ................................................................. 716 Figure 74. Congestion Patterns at 1 Hour after the ATE ........................................................................ 717 Figure 75. Congestion Patterns at 1 Hour and 30 Minutes after the ATE .............................................. 718 Figure 76. Congestion Patterns at 2 Hours after the ATE ....................................................................... 719 Figure 77. Congestion Patterns at 2 Hours and 30 Minutes after the ATE............................................. 720 Figure 78. Congestion Patterns at 3 Hours and 15 Minutes after the ATE............................................. 721 Figure 79. Evacuation Time Estimates - Scenario 1 for Region R03....................................................... 722 Figure 710. Evacuation Time Estimates - Scenario 2 for Region R03..................................................... 722 Figure 711. Evacuation Time Estimates - Scenario 3 for Region R03..................................................... 723 Figure 712. Evacuation Time Estimates - Scenario 4 for Region R03..................................................... 723 Figure 713. Evacuation Time Estimates - Scenario 5 for Region R03..................................................... 724 Figure 714. Evacuation Time Estimates - Scenario 6 for Region R03..................................................... 724 Figure 715. Evacuation Time Estimates - Scenario 7 for Region R03..................................................... 725 Figure 716. Evacuation Time Estimates - Scenario 8 for Region R03..................................................... 725 Figure 717. Evacuation Time Estimates - Scenario 9 for Region R03..................................................... 726 Figure 718. Evacuation Time Estimates - Scenario 10 for Region R03................................................... 726 Figure 719. Evacuation Time Estimates - Scenario 11 for Region R03................................................... 727 Figure 720. Evacuation Time Estimates - Scenario 12 for Region R03................................................... 727 Figure 721. Evacuation Time Estimates - Scenario 13 for Region R03................................................... 728 Figure 722. Evacuation Time Estimates - Scenario 14 for Region R03................................................... 728 Figure 81. Chronology of Transit Evacuation Operations ...................................................................... 834 Figure 101. Evacuation Routes ............................................................................................................. 1010 Figure 102. TransitDependent Bus Routes .......................................................................................... 1011 Fermi 2 Nuclear Power Plant iv KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

Enclosure to NRC-22-0041 Page 6 of 372 Figure 103. General Population Reception Centers/Host Schools ....................................................... 1012 Figure B1. Flow Diagram of SimulationDTRAD Interface........................................................................ B5 Figure C1. Representative Analysis Network ......................................................................................... C12 Figure C2. Fundamental Diagrams ......................................................................................................... C13 Figure C3. A UNIT Problem Configuration with t1 > 0 ............................................................................ C13 Figure C4. Flow of Simulation Processing (See Glossary: Table C3) ..................................................... C14 Figure D1. Flow Diagram of Activities ..................................................................................................... D5 Figure E1. Overview of Schools within the EPZ ........................................................................................ E9 Figure E2. Schools within PAAs 1, 2 and 4 .............................................................................................. E10 Figure E3. Schools within PAAs 3 and 5 .................................................................................................. E11 Figure E4. PreSchools/Licensed Day Care Centers within the EPZ ........................................................ E12 Figure E5. Medical Facilities within the EPZ ........................................................................................... E13 Figure E6. Major Employers within the EPZ............................................................................................ E14 Figure E7. Transient Attractions within the EPZ ..................................................................................... E15 Figure E8. Lodging Facilities within the EPZ ............................................................................................ E16 Figure E9. Correctional Facilities within the EPZ .................................................................................... E17 Figure F1. Household Size in the EPZ ........................................................................................................ F7 Figure F2. Household Vehicle Availability ................................................................................................. F7 Figure F3. Vehicle Availability 1 to 4 Person Households ....................................................................... F8 Figure F4. Vehicle Availability 6 to 8 Person Households ....................................................................... F8 Figure F5. Household Ridesharing Preference ......................................................................................... F9 Figure F6. Commuters in Households in the EPZ ...................................................................................... F9 Figure F7. Modes of Travel in the EPZ .................................................................................................... F10 Figure F8. Impact to Commuters due to COVID19 Pandemic ............................................................... F10 Figure F9. Households with Functional or Transportation Needs .......................................................... F11 Figure F10. Number of Vehicles Used for Evacuation ............................................................................ F11 Figure F11. Percent of Households that Await Returning Commuter Before Leaving ........................... F12 Figure F12. Shelter in Place Characteristics ............................................................................................ F12 Figure F13. Shelter in Place Characteristics - Staged Evacuation .......................................................... F13 Figure F14. Study Area Evacuation Destinations .................................................................................... F13 Figure F15. Time Required to Prepare to Leave Work/College .............................................................. F14 Figure F16. Time to Commute Home from Work/College...................................................................... F14 Figure F17. Time to Prepare Home for Evacuation ................................................................................ F15 Figure F18. Time to Remove 68 of Snow from Driveway ................................................................... F15 Figure G1. Access Control Points for the Fermi 2 EPZ ............................................................................. G4 Figure H1. Region R01.............................................................................................................................. H3 Figure H2. Region R02.............................................................................................................................. H4 Figure H3. Region R03.............................................................................................................................. H5 Figure H4. Region R04.............................................................................................................................. H6 Figure H5. Region R05.............................................................................................................................. H7 Figure H6. Region R06.............................................................................................................................. H8 Figure H7. Region R07.............................................................................................................................. H9 Figure H8. Region R08............................................................................................................................ H10 Figure H9. Region R09............................................................................................................................ H11 Figure H10. Region R10.......................................................................................................................... H12 Figure H11. Region R11.......................................................................................................................... H13 Figure H12. Region R12.......................................................................................................................... H14 Fermi 2 Nuclear Power Plant v KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

Enclosure to NRC-22-0041 Page 7 of 372 Figure H13. Region R13.......................................................................................................................... H15 Figure J1. Network Sources/Origins.......................................................................................................... J6 Figure J2. ETE and Trip Generation: Summer, Midweek, Midday, Good Weather (Scenario 1) .............. J7 Figure J3. ETE and Trip Generation: Summer, Midweek, Midday, Rain/Light Snow (Scenario 2) ............ J7 Figure J4. ETE and Trip Generation: Summer, Weekend, Midday, Good Weather (Scenario 3).............. J8 Figure J5. ETE and Trip Generation: Summer, Weekend, Midday, Rain/Light Snow (Scenario 4) ........... J8 Figure J6. ETE and Trip Generation: Summer, Midweek, Weekend, Evening, Good Weather (Scenario 5) ....................................................................................................................... J9 Figure J7. ETE and Trip Generation: Winter, Midweek, Midday, Good Weather (Scenario 6) ................ J9 Figure J8. ETE and Trip Generation: Winter, Midweek, Midday, Rain/Light Snow (Scenario 7) ............ J10 Figure J9. ETE and Trip Generation: Winter, Midweek, Midday, Heavy Snow (Scenario 8) ................... J10 Figure J10. ETE and Trip Generation: Winter, Weekend, Midday, Good Weather (Scenario 9) ............ J11 Figure J11. ETE and Trip Generation: Winter, Weekend, Midday, Rain/Light Snow (Scenario 10) ........ J11 Figure J12. ETE and Trip Generation: Winter, Weekend, Midday, Heavy Snow (Scenario 11) .............. J12 Figure J13. ETE and Trip Generation: Winter, Midweek, Weekend, Evening, Good Weather (Scenario 12) ................................................................................................................... J12 Figure J14. ETE and Trip Generation: Summer, Weekend, Midday, Good Weather, Special Event (Scenario 13) ............................................................................................ J13 Figure J15. ETE and Trip Generation: Summer, Midweek, Midday, Good Weather, Roadway Impact (Scenario 14) ...................................................................................... J13 Figure K1. Fermi 2 LinkNode Analysis Network ....................................................................................... K2 Figure K2. LinkNode Analysis Network - Grid 1 ..................................................................................... K3 Figure K3. LinkNode Analysis Network - Grid 2 ..................................................................................... K4 Figure K4. LinkNode Analysis Network - Grid 3 ..................................................................................... K5 Figure K5. LinkNode Analysis Network - Grid 4 ..................................................................................... K6 Figure K6. LinkNode Analysis Network - Grid 5 ..................................................................................... K7 Figure K7. LinkNode Analysis Network - Grid 6 ..................................................................................... K8 Figure K8. LinkNode Analysis Network - Grid 7 ..................................................................................... K9 Figure K9. LinkNode Analysis Network - Grid 8 ................................................................................... K10 Figure K10. LinkNode Analysis Network - Grid 9 ................................................................................. K11 Figure K11. LinkNode Analysis Network - Grid 10 ............................................................................... K12 Figure K12. LinkNode Analysis Network - Grid 11 ............................................................................... K13 Figure K13. LinkNode Analysis Network - Grid 12 ............................................................................... K14 Figure K14. LinkNode Analysis Network - Grid 13 ............................................................................... K15 Figure K15. LinkNode Analysis Network - Grid 14 ............................................................................... K16 Figure K16. LinkNode Analysis Network - Grid 15 ............................................................................... K17 Figure K17. LinkNode Analysis Network - Grid 16 ............................................................................... K18 Figure K18. LinkNode Analysis Network - Grid 17 ............................................................................... K19 Figure K19. LinkNode Analysis Network - Grid 18 ............................................................................... K20 Figure K20. LinkNode Analysis Network - Grid 19 ............................................................................... K21 Figure K21. LinkNode Analysis Network - Grid 20 ............................................................................... K22 Figure K22. LinkNode Analysis Network - Grid 21 ............................................................................... K23 Figure K23. LinkNode Analysis Network - Grid 22 ............................................................................... K24 Figure K24. LinkNode Analysis Network - Grid 23 ............................................................................... K25 Figure K25. LinkNode Analysis Network - Grid 24 ............................................................................... K26 Figure K26. LinkNode Analysis Network - Grid 25 ............................................................................... K27 Figure K27. LinkNode Analysis Network - Grid 26 ............................................................................... K28 Fermi 2 Nuclear Power Plant vi KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

Enclosure to NRC-22-0041 Page 8 of 372 Figure K28. LinkNode Analysis Network - Grid 27 ............................................................................... K29 Figure K29. LinkNode Analysis Network - Grid 28 ............................................................................... K30 Figure K30. LinkNode Analysis Network - Grid 29 ............................................................................... K31 Figure K31. LinkNode Analysis Network - Grid 30 ............................................................................... K32 Figure K32. LinkNode Analysis Network - Grid 31 ............................................................................... K33 Figure K33. LinkNode Analysis Network - Grid 32 ............................................................................... K34 Figure K34. LinkNode Analysis Network - Grid 33 ............................................................................... K35 Figure K35. LinkNode Analysis Network - Grid 34 ............................................................................... K36 Figure K36. LinkNode Analysis Network - Grid 35 ............................................................................... K37 Figure K37. LinkNode Analysis Network - Grid 36 ............................................................................... K38 Fermi 2 Nuclear Power Plant vii KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

Enclosure to NRC-22-0041 Page 9 of 372 List of Tables Table 11. Stakeholder Interaction ........................................................................................................... 17 Table 12. Highway Characteristics ........................................................................................................... 17 Table 13. ETE Study Comparisons ............................................................................................................ 18 Table 21. Evacuation Scenario Definitions............................................................................................... 27 Table 22. Model Adjustment for Adverse Weather................................................................................. 28 Table 31. EPZ Permanent Resident Population ...................................................................................... 310 Table 32. Permanent Resident Population and Vehicles by PAA ........................................................... 310 Table 33. Shadow Population and Vehicles by Sector ............................................................................ 311 Table 34. Summary of Transients and Transient Vehicles ...................................................................... 311 Table 35. Summary of Employees and Employee Vehicles Commuting into the EPZ ............................ 311 Table 36. Medical Facility Transit Demand ............................................................................................. 312 Table 37. TransitDependent Population Estimates ............................................................................... 313 Table 38. School Population Demand Estimates .................................................................................... 314 Table 39. Access and/or Functional Need Estimates .............................................................................. 316 Table 310. Fermi 2 EPZ External Traffic .................................................................................................. 316 Table 311. Summary of Population Demand .......................................................................................... 317 Table 312. Summary of Vehicle Demand................................................................................................ 318 Table 51. Event Sequence for Evacuation Activities .............................................................................. 511 Table 52. Time Distribution for Notifying the Public ............................................................................. 511 Table 53. Time Distribution for Employees to Prepare to Leave Work ................................................. 512 Table 54. Time Distribution for Commuters to Travel Home ................................................................ 512 Table 55. Time Distribution for Population to Prepare to Leave Home ................................................ 513 Table 56. Time Distribution for Population to Clear 6"8" of Snow ...................................................... 513 Table 57. Mapping Distributions to Events ............................................................................................ 514 Table 58. Description of the Distributions ............................................................................................. 514 Table 59. Trip Generation Histograms for the EPZ Population for UnStaged Evacuation.................... 515 Table 510. Trip Generation Histograms for the EPZ Population for Staged Evacuation ....................... 516 Table 61. Description of Evacuation Regions........................................................................................... 64 Table 62. Evacuation Scenario Definitions............................................................................................... 65 Table 63. Percent of Population Groups Evacuating for Various Scenarios ............................................ 66 Table 64. Vehicle Estimates by Scenario.................................................................................................. 67 Table 71. Time to Clear the Indicated Area of 90 Percent of the Affected Population ............................ 79 Table 72. Time to Clear the Indicated Area of 100 Percent of the Affected Population ........................ 710 Table 73. Time to Clear 90 Percent of the 2Mile Region within the Indicated Region ......................... 711 Table 74. Time to Clear 100 Percent of the 2Mile Region within the Indicated Region ....................... 712 Table 75. Description of Evacuation Regions ......................................................................................... 713 Table 81. Summary of Transportation Resources .................................................................................. 810 Table 82. School, PreSchool, and Licensed Day Care Center Evacuation Time Estimates Good Weather ......................................................................................................................................... 811 Table 83. School, PreSchool, and Licensed Day Care Center Evacuation Time Estimates -

Rain/Light Snow ....................................................................................................................................... 814 Table 84. School, PreSchool, and Licensed Day Care Center Evacuation Time Estimates -

Heavy Snow .............................................................................................................................................. 817 Table 85. School, PreSchool, and Licensed Day Care Center Evacuation Time Estimates -

Second Wave ........................................................................................................................................... 820 Fermi 2 Nuclear Power Plant viii KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

Enclosure to NRC-22-0041 Page 10 of 372 Table 86. TransitDependent Evacuation Time Estimates Good Weather .......................................... 821 Table 87. TransitDependent Evacuation Time Estimates - Rain/Light Snow ....................................... 822 Table 88. Transit Dependent Evacuation Time Estimates - Heavy Snow .............................................. 823 Table 89. Medical Facilities Evacuation Time Estimates Good Weather ............................................. 824 Table 810. Medical Facilities Evacuation Time Estimates - Rain/Light Snow ....................................... 826 Table 811. Medical Facilities Evacuation Time Estimates - Heavy Snow .............................................. 828 Table 812. Medical Facilities Evacuation Time Estimates - Second Wave ............................................ 830 Table 813. Correctional Facilities Evacuation Time Estimates............................................................... 831 Table 814. Correctional Facilities Evacuation Time Estimates - Second Wave ..................................... 831 Table 815. Access and/or Functional Needs Population Evacuation Time Estimates ............................ 832 Table 816. Access and/or Functional Needs Population Evacuation Time Estimates -

Second Wave ........................................................................................................................................... 833 Table 101. Summary of TransitDependent Bus Routes ......................................................................... 103 Table 102. Bus Route Descriptions ......................................................................................................... 104 Table 103. School, PreSchool, and Licensed Day Care Host Schools ..................................................... 108 Table A1. Glossary of Traffic Engineering Terms ..................................................................................... A1 Table C1. Selected Measures of Effectiveness Output by DYNEV II ........................................................ C8 Table C2. Input Requirements for the DYNEV II Model ........................................................................... C9 Table C3. Glossary ..................................................................................................................................C10 Table E1. Schools within the EPZ .............................................................................................................. E2 Table E2. PreSchools/Licensed Day Care Centers within the EPZ ........................................................... E4 Table E3. Medical Facilities within the EPZ............................................................................................... E5 Table E4. Major Employers within the EPZ ............................................................................................... E6 Table E5. Transient Attractions within the EPZ ........................................................................................ E7 Table E6. Lodging Facilities within the EPZ ............................................................................................... E8 Table E7. Correctional Facilities within the EPZ........................................................................................ E8 Table F1. Fermi 2 Nuclear Power Plant Demographic Survey Sampling Plan and Results ....................... F6 Table G1. List of Key Manual Traffic Control Locations ........................................................................... G3 Table G2. ETE with No MTC .................................................................................................................... G3 Table H1. Percent of PAA Population Evacuating for Each Region.......................................................... H2 Table J1. Sample Simulation Model Input ................................................................................................ J2 Table J2. Selected Model Outputs for the Evacuation of the Entire EPZ (Region R03) ............................ J3 Table J3. Average Speed (mph) and Travel Time (min) for Major Evacuation Routes (Region R03, Scenario 1) ............................................................................................................................ J4 Table J4. Simulation Model Outputs at Network Exit Links for Region R03, Scenario 1 .......................... J5 Table K1. Summary of Nodes by the Type of Control ............................................................................... K1 Table M1. Evacuation Time Estimates for Trip Generation Sensitivity Study ........................................ M4 Table M2. Evacuation Time Estimates for Shadow Sensitivity Study ..................................................... M4 Table M3. Evacuation Time Estimates for Variation with Population Change ....................................... M4 Table N1. ETE Review Criteria Checklist ................................................................................................. N1 Fermi 2 Nuclear Power Plant ix KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

Enclosure to NRC-22-0041 Page 11 of 372 EXECUTIVE

SUMMARY

This report describes the analyses undertaken and the results obtained by a study to develop Evacuation Time Estimates (ETE) for the Fermi 2 Nuclear Power Plant (Fermi 2) located in Monroe County, Michigan. ETE are part of the required planning basis and provide DTE Energy and State and local governments with sitespecific information needed for Protective Action decisionmaking.

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

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

Emergency Planning and Preparedness for Production and Utilization Facilities, 10CFR50, Appendix E.

Revision 1 of the Criteria for Development of Evacuation Time Estimate Studies, NUREG/CR7002, February 2021.

FEMA, Radiological Emergency Preparedness Program Manual (FEMA P1028),

December 2019.

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

Project Activities This project began in October 2020 and extended over a period of one year and nine months.

The major activities performed are briefly described in chronological sequence:

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

Accessed the 2020 U.S. Census Bureau data files.

Obtained the estimates of employees who reside outside the EPZ and commute to work within the EPZ from each county.

Studied Geographic Information Systems (GIS) maps of the area in the vicinity of Fermi 2, then conducted a detailed field survey of the highway network to observe any roadway changes relative to the previous ETE study done in 2012.

Updated the 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.

Conducted a randomsample demographic survey of residents within the study area, to gather focused data needed for this ETE study that were not contained within the census database.

Fermi 2 Nuclear Power Plant ES1 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

Enclosure to NRC-22-0041 Page 12 of 372 The data gathered for the 2012 ETE study were reviewed and updated accordingly by the offsite response organizations (OROs). Special facility data was requested from the OROs at the kickoff meeting. If updated information was not provided and data could not be obtained from online sources, the data gathered in the 2012 ETE study was utilized.

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

Following federal guidelines, the existing 7 Protective Action Areas (PAAs), within the EPZ, are grouped within circular areas or keyholes configurations (circles plus radial sectors) that define a total of 16 evacuation regions.

The timevarying external circumstances are represented as evacuation scenarios, each described in terms of the following factors: (1) Season (Summer, Winter); (2) Day of Week (Midweek, Weekend); (3) Time of Day (Midday, Evening); and (4) Weather (Good, Rain/Light Snow, Heavy Snow). One special event scenario involving the Monroe County Fair was considered. One roadway impact scenario was considered wherein a single lane was closed on Interstate 75 southbound for the duration of the evacuation.

Staged evacuation was considered for those regions where the 2mile radius and sectors downwind to 5 miles were evacuated.

As per NUREG/CR7002, Rev. 1, the Planning Basis for the calculation of ETE is:

A rapidly escalating accident at Fermi 2 that quickly assumes the status of a general emergency wherein evacuation is ordered promptly, and no early protective actions have been implemented such that the Advisory to Evacuate (ATE) is virtually coincident with the siren alert While an unlikely accident scenario, this planning basis will yield ETE, measured as the elapsed time from the ATE 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 host schools/reception centers located outside the EPZ. Parents, relatives, and neighbors are advised to not pick up their children at school prior to the arrival of the buses dispatched for that purpose. The ETE for schoolchildren are calculated separately.

Evacuees who do not have access to a private vehicle will either rideshare with relatives, friends or neighbors, or be evacuated by buses provided as specified in the county evacuation plans. Those in special facilities will likewise be evacuated with public transit, as needed: bus, van, or ambulance, as required. Separate ETE are Fermi 2 Nuclear Power Plant ES2 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

Enclosure to NRC-22-0041 Page 13 of 372 calculated for the transitdependent evacuees, for access and/or functional needs population, and for those evacuated from special facilities.

Computation of ETE A total of 182 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 13 evacuation regions to evacuate from that region, under the circumstances defined for one of the 14 evacuation scenarios (13 x 14 = 182). Separate ETE are calculated for transitdependent evacuees, including schoolchildren for applicable scenarios.

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

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

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

The computational procedure is outlined as follows:

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

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

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

The ETE statistics provide the elapsed times for 90 percent and 100 percent, respectively, of the Fermi 2 Nuclear Power Plant ES3 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

Enclosure to NRC-22-0041 Page 14 of 372 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/CR7002, Rev. 1.

Traffic Management This study used the comprehensive existing traffic management plan provided by the OROs.

Refer to Section 9 and Appendix G.

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.

Table 31 presents the estimates of permanent resident population in each PAA based on the 2020 Census data.

Table 61 defines each of the 13 Evacuation Regions in terms of their respective groups of PAAs.

Table 62 lists the 14 evacuation scenarios.

Tables 71 and 72 are compilations of ETE. These data are the times needed to clear the indicated regions of 90 and 100 percent of the population occupying these regions, respectively. These computed ETE include consideration of mobilization time and of estimated voluntary evacuations from other regions within the EPZ and from the Shadow Region.

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

Table 82 presents ETE for the schoolchildren in good weather.

Table 85 presents ETE for the transitdependent population in good weather.

Table 89 present2 ETE for the medical facility population in good weather.

Table 813 present2 ETE for the correctional facility population.

Figure 61 displays a map of the Fermi 2 EPZ showing the layout of the 7 PAAs that comprise, in aggregate, the EPZ.

Figure H10 presents an example of an evacuation region (region R10) to be evacuated under the circumstances defined in Table 61. Maps of all regions are provided in Appendix H.

Conclusions General population ETE were computed for 182 unique cases. Table 71 and Table 72 document these ETE for the 90th and 100th percentiles. These ETE range from 2:05 (hr:min) to 3:55 at the 90th percentile. The 100th percentile ETE range from 4:45 to 5:55.

Inspection of Table 71 and Table 72 indicates that the 100th percentile ETE are significantly longer than those for the 90th percentile. This is the result congestion within the EPZ clearing prior to the completion of trip mobilization. As a result, the 100th Fermi 2 Nuclear Power Plant ES4 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

Enclosure to NRC-22-0041 Page 15 of 372 percentile ETE is dictated by the time needed to mobilize (the evacuation tail) and are there for substantially longer than the 90th percentile ETE. See Section 7.5 and Figures 79 through 722.

Inspection of Table 73 and Table 74 indicates that a staged evacuation provides no benefits to evacuees from within the 2mile region and unnecessarily delays the evacuation of those beyond 2 miles (compare regions R02, R04 and R05 with regions R11, R12 and R13, respectively, in Tables 71 and 72). See Section 7.6 for additional discussion.

Comparison of scenarios 3 (summer, weekend, Midday) and 13 (summer, weekend, Midday) in Table 72 indicates that the special event has no impact on the ETE for the 90th and 100th percentile. See Section 7.5 for additional discussion.

Comparison of scenarios 1 and 14 in Table 71 indicates that the roadway closure - one lane southbound on I75 has no impact on 90th or 100th percentile ETE for all regions.

See Section 7.5 for additional discussion.

Monroe and Rockwood are the two most congested areas during an evacuation. The last location in the EPZ to exhibit traffic congestion is Monroe. All congestion within the EPZ clears by 2 hours2.314815e-5 days 5.555556e-4 hours 3.306878e-6 weeks 7.61e-7 months and 50 minutes after the Advisory to Evacuate. See Section 7.3 and Figure 73 through Figure 78.

Separate ETE were computed for schools, medical facilities, transitdependent persons, access and/or functional needs persons, and correctional facilities. The average single wave ETE for these facilities are within a similar range or lower when compared to the general population ETE at the 90th percentile. See Section 8.

Table 81 indicates the number of buses, vans, wheelchair buses and wheelchair vans needed to evacuate all schools, preschools, licensed day care centers, medical facilities, transitdependent persons, access and/or functional needs persons, and correctional facilities within the EPZ. Since transportation resources were not provided a second wave was calculated for all transit dependent individuals in case there is a shortfall of resources. See Section 8.

An hour reduction in the base trip generation time of 4 hours4.62963e-5 days 0.00111 hours 6.613757e-6 weeks 1.522e-6 months and 45 minutes reduces the general population ETE at the 90th percentile by 10 minutes. An increase in mobilization time by 1 hour1.157407e-5 days 2.777778e-4 hours 1.653439e-6 weeks 3.805e-7 months increases the 90th percentile ETE by 40 minutes. See Table M1.

The general population 90th percentile ETE is relatively insensitive to changes in the number of voluntary evacuees in the Shadow Region (with increases in ETE of 20 minutes at most). See Table M2.

An increase in permanent resident population (EPZ plus Shadow Region) of 28% or greater results in an increase in the longest 90th percentile ETE of 30 minutes, which meets the federal criterion for performing a fully updated ETE study between decennial Censuses. See Section M.3.

Fermi 2 Nuclear Power Plant ES5 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

Enclosure to NRC-22-0041 Page 16 of 372 Table 31. EPZ Permanent Resident Population PAA1 2010 Population 2020 Population 1 3,429 3,375 2 4,746 5,454 3 5,434 5,171 4 38,810 40,147 5 45,406 46,381 6 0 7 345 EPZ TOTAL 97,825 100,873 EPZ Population Growth (20102020): 3.12%

1 PAA boundaries have updated based on the EPZ displayed in the 2022 Fermi 2 Emergency Preparedness Booklet. PAA 6 and 7 were not included in the EPZ in the previous study, therefore, no 2010 population was reported for PAA 6 or 7.

Fermi 2 Nuclear Power Plant ES6 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

Enclosure to NRC-22-0041 Page 17 of 372 Table 61. Description of Evacuation Regions Radial Regions PAA Region Description 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 R01 2Mile Region x x R02 5Mile Region x x x x R03 Full EPZ x x x x x x x Evacuate 2Mile Region and Downwind to 5 Miles PAA Region Wind Direction From: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 R04 S, SSW, SW, WSW x x x W, WNW, NW, NNW, N Refer to Region R01 R05 NNE, NE, ENE x x x E, ESE, SE, SSE Refer to Region R02 Evacuate 2Mile Region and Downwind to the EPZ Boundary PAA Region Wind Direction From: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 R06 S, SSW, SW, WSW x x x x x R07 W, WNW, NW, NNW, N x x x R08 NNE, NE, ENE x x x x x R09 E, ESE, SE x x x x x x R10 SSE x x x x x Staged Evacuation 2Mile Region Evacuates, then Evacuate Downwind to 5 Miles PAA Region Wind Direction From: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 R11 5mile Region x x x x R12 S, SSW, SW, WSW x x x W, WNW, NW, NNW, N Refer to Region R01 R13 NNE, NE, ENE x x x E, ESE, SE, SSE Refer to Region R12 PAA (s) ShelterinPlace until 90%

PAA(s) Evacuate PAA(s) ShelterinPlace ETE for R01, then Evacuate Fermi 2 Nuclear Power Plant ES7 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

Enclosure to NRC-22-0041 Page 18 of 372 Table 62. Evacuation Scenario Definitions Scenario Season2 Day of Week Time of Day Weather Special 1 Summer Midweek Midday Good None 2 Summer Midweek Midday Rain/Light Snow None 3 Summer Weekend Midday Good None 4 Summer Weekend Midday Rain/Light Snow None Midweek, 5 Summer Evening Good None Weekend 6 Winter Midweek Midday Good None 7 Winter Midweek Midday Rain/Light Snow None 8 Winter Midweek Midday Heavy Snow None 9 Winter Weekend Midday Good None 10 Winter Weekend Midday Rain/Light Snow None 11 Winter Weekend Midday Heavy Snow None Midweek, 12 Winter Evening Good None Weekend Special Event - Monroe 13 Summer Weekend Midday Good County Fair Roadway Impact - Lane 14 Summer Midweek Midday Good Closure on I75 SB 2

Winter means that school is in session at normal enrollment levels (also applies to spring and autumn). Summer means that school is in session at summer school enrollment levels (lower than normal enrollment).

Fermi 2 Nuclear Power Plant ES8 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

Enclosure to NRC-22-0041 Table 71. Time to Clear the Indicated Area of 90 Percent of the Affected Population Page 19 of 372 Summer Summer Summer Winter Winter Winter Summer Summer Midweek Midweek Midweek Weekend Midweek Weekend Weekend Midweek Weekend Weekend Scenario: (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9) (10) (11) (12) (13) (14)

Midday Midday Evening Midday Midday Evening Midday Midday Region Good Rain/Light Good Rain/Light Good Good Rain/Light Heavy Good Rain/Light Heavy Good Special Roadway Weather Snow Weather Snow Weather Weather Snow Snow Weather Snow Snow Weather Event Impact Entire 2Mile Region, 5Mile Region, and EPZ R01 2:30 2:30 2:20 2:25 2:25 2:30 2:30 3:15 2:25 2:25 3:10 2:25 2:20 2:30 R02 2:10 2:10 2:05 2:05 2:10 2:10 2:10 2:40 2:05 2:05 2:30 2:10 2:05 2:10 R03 2:35 2:40 2:25 2:35 2:25 2:35 2:40 3:20 2:20 2:30 3:15 2:25 2:25 2:35 2Mile Region and Keyhole to 5 Miles R04 2:05 2:05 2:05 2:05 2:05 2:05 2:05 2:25 2:05 2:05 2:15 2:05 2:05 2:05 R05 2:05 2:05 2:05 2:05 2:05 2:05 2:05 2:25 2:05 2:05 2:15 2:05 2:05 2:05 2Mile Region and Keyhole to EPZ Boundary R06 2:30 2:30 2:20 2:25 2:25 2:30 2:30 3:15 2:25 2:25 3:10 2:25 2:20 2:30 R07 2:30 2:40 2:20 2:30 2:25 2:30 2:35 3:15 2:20 2:30 3:05 2:20 2:20 2:30 R08 2:30 2:40 2:25 2:35 2:25 2:30 2:40 3:20 2:25 2:30 3:10 2:25 2:25 2:30 R09 2:30 2:30 2:20 2:25 2:25 2:30 2:30 3:15 2:20 2:25 3:05 2:25 2:20 2:30 R10 2:30 2:40 2:25 2:35 2:25 2:30 2:40 3:20 2:25 2:30 3:10 2:25 2:25 2:30 Staged Evacuation 2Mile Region and Keyhole to 5 Miles R11 2:50 2:50 2:45 2:50 3:00 2:50 2:50 3:35 2:50 2:50 3:35 3:00 2:45 2:50 R12 3:05 3:05 3:05 3:05 3:05 3:05 3:05 3:55 3:05 3:05 3:50 3:05 3:05 3:05 R13 3:05 3:05 3:05 3:05 3:05 3:05 3:05 3:55 3:05 3:05 3:50 3:05 3:05 3:05 Fermi 2 Nuclear Power Plant ES9 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

Enclosure to NRC-22-0041 Table 72. Time to Clear the Indicated Area of 100 Percent of the Affected Population Page 20 of 372 Summer Summer Summer Winter Winter Winter Summer Summer Midweek Midweek Midweek Weekend Midweek Weekend Weekend Midweek Weekend Weekend Scenario: (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9) (10) (11) (12) (13) (14)

Midday Midday Evening Midday Midday Evening Midday Midday Region Good Rain/Light Good Rain/Light Good Good Rain/Light Heavy Good Rain/Light Heavy Good Special Roadway Weather Snow Weather Snow Weather Weather Snow Snow Weather Snow Snow Weather Event Impact Entire 2Mile Region, 5Mile Region, and EPZ R01 4:45 4:45 4:45 4:45 4:45 4:45 4:45 5:45 4:45 4:45 5:45 4:45 4:45 4:45 R02 4:50 4:50 4:50 4:50 4:50 4:50 4:50 5:50 4:50 4:50 5:50 4:50 4:50 4:50 R03 4:55 4:55 4:55 4:55 4:55 4:55 4:55 5:55 4:55 4:55 5:55 4:55 4:55 4:55 2Mile Region and Keyhole to 5 Miles R04 4:50 4:50 4:50 4:50 4:50 4:50 4:50 5:50 4:50 4:50 5:50 4:50 4:50 4:50 R05 4:50 4:50 4:50 4:50 4:50 4:50 4:50 5:50 4:50 4:50 5:50 4:50 4:50 4:50 2Mile Region and Keyhole to EPZ Boundary R06 4:55 4:55 4:55 4:55 4:55 4:55 4:55 5:55 4:55 4:55 5:55 4:55 4:55 4:55 R07 4:55 4:55 4:55 4:55 4:55 4:55 4:55 5:55 4:55 4:55 5:55 4:55 4:55 4:55 R08 4:55 4:55 4:55 4:55 4:55 4:55 4:55 5:55 4:55 4:55 5:55 4:55 4:55 4:55 R09 4:55 4:55 4:55 4:55 4:55 4:55 4:55 5:55 4:55 4:55 5:55 4:55 4:55 4:55 R10 4:55 4:55 4:55 4:55 4:55 4:55 4:55 5:55 4:55 4:55 5:55 4:55 4:55 4:55 Staged Evacuation 2Mile Region and Keyhole to 5 Miles R11 4:50 4:50 4:50 4:50 4:50 4:50 4:50 5:50 4:50 4:50 5:50 4:50 4:50 4:50 R12 4:50 4:50 4:50 4:50 4:50 4:50 4:50 5:50 4:50 4:50 5:50 4:50 4:50 4:50 R13 4:50 4:50 4:50 4:50 4:50 4:50 4:50 5:50 4:50 4:50 5:50 4:50 4:50 4:50 Fermi 2 Nuclear Power Plant ES10 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

Enclosure to NRC-22-0041 Table 73. Time to Clear 90 Percent of the 2Mile Region Page 21 of 372 Summer Summer Summer Winter Winter Winter Summer Summer Midweek Midweek Midweek Weekend Midweek Weekend Weekend Midweek Weekend Weekend Scenario: (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9) (10) (11) (12) (13) (14)

Midday Midday Evening Midday Midday Evening Midday Midday Region Good Rain/Light Good Rain/Light Good Good Rain/Light Heavy Good Rain/Light Heavy Good Special Roadway Weather Snow Weather Snow Weather Weather Snow Snow Weather Snow Snow Weather Event Impact Unstaged Evacuation 2Mile Region and Keyhole to 5Miles R01 2:30 2:30 2:20 2:25 2:25 2:30 2:30 3:15 2:25 2:25 3:10 2:25 2:20 2:30 R02 2:30 2:30 2:20 2:25 2:25 2:30 2:30 3:15 2:25 2:25 3:10 2:25 2:20 2:30 R04 2:30 2:30 2:20 2:25 2:25 2:30 2:30 3:15 2:25 2:25 3:10 2:25 2:20 2:30 R05 2:30 2:30 2:20 2:25 2:25 2:30 2:30 3:15 2:25 2:25 3:10 2:25 2:20 2:30 Staged Evacuation 2Mile Region and Keyhole to 5Miles R11 2:30 2:30 2:20 2:25 2:25 2:30 2:30 3:15 2:25 2:25 3:10 2:25 2:20 2:30 R12 2:30 2:30 2:20 2:25 2:25 2:30 2:30 3:15 2:25 2:25 3:10 2:25 2:20 2:30 R13 2:30 2:30 2:20 2:25 2:25 2:30 2:30 3:15 2:25 2:25 3:10 2:25 2:20 2:30 Fermi 2 Nuclear Power Plant ES11 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

Enclosure to NRC-22-0041 Table 74. Time to Clear 100 Percent of the 2Mile Region Page 22 of 372 Summer Summer Summer Winter Winter Winter Summer Summer Midweek Midweek Midweek Weekend Midweek Weekend Weekend Midweek Weekend Weekend Scenario: (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9) (10) (11) (12) (13) (14)

Midday Midday Evening Midday Midday Evening Midday Midday Region Good Rain/Light Good Rain/Light Good Good Rain/Light Heavy Good Rain/Light Heavy Good Special Roadway Weather Snow Weather Snow Weather Weather Snow Snow Weather Snow Snow Weather Event Impact Unstaged Evacuation 2Mile Region and Keyhole to 5Miles R01 4:45 4:45 4:45 4:45 4:45 4:45 4:45 5:45 4:45 4:45 5:45 4:45 4:45 4:45 R02 4:45 4:45 4:45 4:45 4:45 4:45 4:45 5:45 4:45 4:45 5:45 4:45 4:45 4:45 R04 4:45 4:45 4:45 4:45 4:45 4:45 4:45 5:45 4:45 4:45 5:45 4:45 4:45 4:45 R05 4:45 4:45 4:45 4:45 4:45 4:45 4:45 5:45 4:45 4:45 5:45 4:45 4:45 4:45 Staged Evacuation 2Mile Region and Keyhole to 5Miles R11 4:45 4:45 4:45 4:45 4:45 4:45 4:45 5:45 4:45 4:45 5:45 4:45 4:45 4:45 R12 4:45 4:45 4:45 4:45 4:45 4:45 4:45 5:45 4:45 4:45 5:45 4:45 4:45 4:45 R13 4:45 4:45 4:45 4:45 4:45 4:45 4:45 5:45 4:45 4:45 5:45 4:45 4:45 4:45 Fermi 2 Nuclear Power Plant ES12 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

Enclosure to NRC-22-0041 Table 82. School, PreSchool, and Licensed Day Care Center Evacuation Time Estimates - Good Weather Page 23 of 372 Travel Time Travel Dist. EPZ from EPZ Driver Loading Dist. To Average Time to Bdry to Bdry to ETA to Mobilization Time EPZ Bdry Speed EPZ Bdry ETE H.S. H.S. H.S.

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

MONROE COUNTY SCHOOLS North Elementary School 90 15 10.8 55.0 12 2:00 6.1 7 2:10 St. Charles Borromeo Catholic Academy 90 15 12.2 50.4 15 2:00 6.6 7 2:10 Niedermeier Elementary School 90 15 9.2 42.6 13 2:00 6.1 7 2:10 Jefferson High School 90 15 9.2 50.5 11 2:00 6.6 7 2:10 Jefferson Middle School 90 15 9.2 50.5 11 2:00 6.6 7 2:10 Sodt Elementary School 90 15 9.2 50.5 11 2:00 6.6 7 2:10 Ritter Elementary School 90 15 7.0 35.5 12 2:00 6.1 7 2:10 Airport Center for Education 90 15 4.4 31.6 8 1:55 14.7 16 2:15 Airport Middle College 90 15 4.4 31.6 8 1:55 14.7 16 2:15 Airport Senior High School 90 15 4.4 31.6 8 1:55 14.7 16 2:15 Wagar Middle School 90 15 4.4 42.4 6 1:55 14.7 16 2:15 Sterling Elementary School 90 15 4.4 42.4 6 1:55 14.7 16 2:15 Eyler Elementary School 90 15 2.6 42.8 4 1:50 16.8 18 2:10 St. Patrick School 90 15 1.4 42.5 2 1:50 14.7 16 2:10 Triumph Academy 90 15 9.2 55.0 10 1:55 13.3 15 2:10 Zion Lutheran School 90 15 6.8 49.1 8 1:55 13.3 15 2:10 Arborwood Elementary School 90 15 5.9 40.8 9 1:55 13.3 15 2:10 Orchard Center High School 90 15 4.8 55.0 5 1:50 13.3 15 2:05 St. Mary Middle School Campus of Monroe 90 15 3.0 53.1 3 1:50 13.6 15 2:05 Catholic Elementary Schools St. Mary's Catholic Center High School 90 15 3.0 53.1 3 1:50 13.6 15 2:05 Trinity Lutheran School 90 15 3.8 46.4 5 1:50 13.3 15 2:05 Monroe Middle School 90 15 3.8 46.4 5 1:50 13.3 15 2:05 St. John's School 90 15 2.4 46.3 3 1:50 13.6 15 2:05 Manor Elementary School 90 15 2.4 19.3 7 1:55 14.4 16 2:15 Holy Ghost Lutheran School 90 15 1.0 29.7 2 1:50 16.5 18 2:10 Waterloo Elementary School 90 15 1.8 23.3 5 1:50 14.4 16 2:10 Fermi 2 Nuclear Power Plant ES13 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

Enclosure to NRC-22-0041 Travel Page 24 of 372 Time Travel Dist. EPZ from EPZ Driver Loading Dist. To Average Time to Bdry to Bdry to ETA to MobilizationTime EPZ Bdry Speed EPZ Bdry ETE H.S. H.S. H.S.

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

Raisinville Elementary School 90 15 0.0 29.7 0 1:45 20.3 22 2:10 Monroe High School 90 15 0.2 22.9 1 1:50 16.1 18 2:10 Custer I Elementary School 90 15 0.3 7.4 2 1:50 13.1 14 2:05 Custer II Elementary School 90 15 0.3 7.4 2 1:50 13.1 14 2:05 WAYNE COUNTY SCHOOLS St. Mary's Rockwood Elementary School 90 15 3.4 55.0 4 1:50 10.0 11 2:05 Chapman Elementary School 90 15 3.7 55.0 4 1:50 10.0 11 2:05 John M. Barnes Elementary School 90 15 3.5 48.7 4 1:50 10.0 11 2:05 River Heights Academy 90 15 3.5 48.7 4 1:50 10.0 11 2:05 Simpson Middle School 90 15 3.5 48.7 4 1:50 10.0 11 2:05 Oscar A. Carlson High School 90 15 3.8 52.3 4 1:50 10.0 11 2:05 Hellen C. Shumate Junior High School 90 15 3.8 52.3 4 1:50 10.0 11 2:05 Ethel Bobcean Elementary School 90 15 1.9 52.8 2 1:50 8.8 10 2:00 Flat Rock Community High School 90 15 1.9 52.8 2 1:50 8.8 10 2:00 Parsons Elementary School 90 15 3.3 47.8 4 1:50 10.0 11 2:05 Champions at Hunter Elementary 90 15 1.7 51.0 2 1:50 10.0 11 2:05 MONROE COUNTY PRESCHOOLS/LICENSED DAY CARE CENTERS St. Charles School Child Care Center 90 15 12.2 50.4 15 2:00 6.6 7 2:10 St. Patrick School Child Care Center 90 15 0.1 39.9 0 1:45 17.0 19 2:05 Carleton Country Day School 90 15 0.1 39.9 0 1:45 17.0 19 2:05 On B.A.S.E. (Triumph Academy Child Care 90 15 9.2 55.0 10 1:55 13.3 15 2:10 Center)

Speckled Frog Learning Center 90 15 5.9 40.8 9 1:55 13.3 15 2:10 Zion Lutheran School 90 15 6.8 49.1 8 1:55 13.3 15 2:10 KidsNCompany Learning Center 90 15 3.0 53.1 3 1:50 13.6 15 2:05 Pathway Child Care and Preschool 90 15 3.1 32.7 6 1:55 14.4 16 2:15 Orchard Head Start 90 15 4.8 55.0 5 1:50 13.3 15 2:05 Oaks Acorn Childrens Village 90 15 2.5 27.4 5 1:50 14.3 16 2:10 Fermi 2 Nuclear Power Plant ES14 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

Enclosure to NRC-22-0041 Travel Page 25 of 372 Time Travel Dist. EPZ from EPZ Driver Loading Dist. To Average Time to Bdry to Bdry to ETA to Mobilization Time EPZ Bdry Speed EPZ Bdry ETE H.S. H.S. H.S.

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

Saint Michael Campus of the Monroe 90 15 1.9 55.0 2 1:50 14.4 16 2:10 Catholic Elementary Schools Riverside Early Learning Center 90 15 1.9 55.0 2 1:50 14.4 16 2:10 Riverside Head Start 90 15 1.9 55.0 2 1:50 14.4 16 2:10 Monroe Family YMCA 90 15 1.9 55.0 2 1:50 14.4 16 2:10 Kiddie Korner Christian Daycare 90 15 1.9 35.2 3 1:50 14.4 16 2:10 Holy Ghost Lutheran Preschool 90 15 1.0 29.7 2 1:50 16.5 18 2:10 WAYNE COUNTY PRESCHOOLS/LICENSED DAY CARE CENTERS Flat Rock Child Care Center 90 15 1.9 52.8 2 1:50 8.8 10 2:00 Maximum for EPZ: 2:00 Maximum: 2:15 Average for EPZ: 1:55 Average: 2:10 Fermi 2 Nuclear Power Plant ES15 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

Enclosure to NRC-22-0041 Table 85. TransitDependent Evacuation Time Estimates - Good Weather Page 26 of 372 OneWave TwoWave Route Travel Route Route Travel Pickup Distance Time Driver Travel Pickup Bus Mobilization Length Speed Time Time ETE to R. C. to R. C. Unload Rest Time Time ETE Route Number (min) (miles) (mph) (min) (min) (hr:min) (miles) (min) (min) (min) (min) (min) (hr:min)

PAA 1 1 105 15.8 54.9 17 30 2:35 13.3 15 5 10 49 30 4:25 PAA 2 1&2 105 22.7 55.0 25 30 2:40 13.3 15 5 10 65 30 4:45 PAA 3 1&2 105 8.1 55.0 9 30 2:25 13.3 15 5 10 33 30 4:00 PAA 4 Route 1 1&2 105 5.6 24.8 14 30 2:30 18.2 20 5 10 34 30 4:10 PAA 4 Route 2 14 105 10.2 44.8 14 30 2:30 12.2 13 5 10 37 30 4:05 PAA 4 Route 3 14 105 5.9 15.3 23 30 2:40 8.7 9 5 10 25 30 4:00 PAA 5 Route 1 14 105 12.5 36.5 21 30 2:40 6.2 7 5 10 39 30 4:15 PAA 5 Route 2 14 105 8.9 28.6 19 30 2:35 6.1 7 5 10 30 30 4:00 PAA 5 Route 3 13 105 7.1 15.4 28 30 2:45 12.4 14 5 10 32 30 4:20 PAA 5 Route 4 13 105 7.5 10.2 44 30 3:00 12.2 13 5 10 32 30 4:30 PAA 7 1 105 0.5 40.0 1 30 2:20 15.2 17 5 10 18 30 3:40 Maximum ETE: 3:00 Maximum ETE: 4:45 Average ETE: 2:40 Average ETE: 4:15 Fermi 2 Nuclear Power Plant ES16 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

Enclosure to NRC-22-0041 Table 89. Medical Facility Evacuation Time Estimates - Good Weather Page 27 of 372 Travel Loading Time to Rate Total EPZ Mobilization (min per Loading Dist. To EPZ Boundary ETE Medical Facility Patient (min) person) People Time (min) Bdry (mi) (min) (hr:min)

Alice Lorraine Care Ambulatory 90 1 17 17 14.7 35 2:25 Center Wheelchair bound 90 5 15 75 14.7 18 3:05 Ambulatory 90 1 2 2 15.6 17 1:50 Fountain View of Wheelchair bound 90 5 100 75 15.6 17 3:05 Monroe Bedridden 90 15 5 30 15.6 17 2:20 Ambulatory 90 1 69 30 16.8 18 2:20 Mercy Memorial Wheelchair bound 90 5 69 75 16.8 18 3:05 Hospital Bedridden 90 15 30 30 16.8 18 2:20 ProMedica Monroe Ambulatory 90 1 19 19 16.4 18 2:10 Skilled Nursing and Wheelchair bound 90 5 67 75 16.4 18 3:05 Rehab Bedridden 90 15 3 30 16.4 18 2:20 The Oasis at Monroe Ambulatory 90 1 60 30 16.8 18 2:20 Rehabilitation and Wheelchair bound 90 5 60 75 16.8 18 3:05 Healthcare Center Bedridden 90 15 6 30 16.8 18 2:20 Norman Towers Ambulatory 90 1 112 30 19.5 21 2:25 Senior Apartments Ambulatory 90 1 105 30 19.6 22 2:25 IHM Senior Living Wheelchair bound 90 5 52 75 19.6 21 3:10 Community Bedridden 90 15 2 30 19.6 22 2:25 Elm House Ambulatory 90 1 15 15 17.7 19 2:05 Ambulatory 90 1 21 21 17.3 58 2:50 Brookdale Monroe Wheelchair bound 90 5 4 20 17.3 61 2:55 Bedridden 90 15 15 30 17.3 54 2:55 Ambulatory 90 1 123 30 17.9 20 2:20 River Park Plaza Wheelchair bound 90 5 25 75 17.9 20 3:05 Ambulatory 90 1 5 5 17.6 71 2:50 Medilodge of Wheelchair bound 90 5 81 75 17.6 24 3:10 Monroe Bedridden 90 15 6 30 17.6 55 2:55 Fermi 2 Nuclear Power Plant ES17 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

Enclosure to NRC-22-0041 Page 28 of 372 Travel Loading Time to Rate Total EPZ Mobilization (min per Loading Dist. To EPZ Boundary ETE Medical Facility Patient (min) person) People Time (min) Bdry (mi) (min) (hr:min)

Wellspring Lutheran Ambulatory 90 1 9 9 18.2 20 2:00 Services Wheelchair bound 90 5 104 75 18.2 20 3:05 Marybrook Ambulatory 90 1 10 10 2.9 15 1:55 Residence Wheelchair bound 90 5 1 5 2.9 14 1:50 Maximum ETE: 3:10 Average ETE: 2:35 Fermi 2 Nuclear Power Plant ES18 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

Enclosure to NRC-22-0041 Table 813. Correctional Facilities Evacuation Time Estimates Page 29 of 372 Travel Loading Time to Rate Total EPZ Mobilization Number (min per Number of Loading Dist. To EPZ Boundary ETE Correctional Facility Weather Conditions (min) of Buses person) Inmates Time (min) Bdry (mi) (min) (hr:min)

Monroe County Good 90 4 2:05 Sheriff's Office and Rain/Light Snow 100 5 1 148 30 3.3 15 2:25 Jail Heavy Snow 110 19 2:40 Monroe County Good 90 10 2:10 Inmate Dormitory Rain/Light Snow 100 2 1 52 30 4.1 35 2:45 Facility Heavy Snow 110 29 2:50 Maximum ETE: 2:50 Average ETE: 2:30 Fermi 2 Nuclear Power Plant ES19 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

Enclosure to NRC-22-0041 Page 30 of 372 w

b-~

~

Wayne \_,__,---1---,--1--- ,

County I /

,'(

/

J L.j i

/ i i

\

Maybee 7~ \

...., ---.,, ---i-- - ,,' 1'\"

\

l.._____,/

\

~,

\

l \iQ. ~. ~

6:

J:'

~

l ':

~\

\

7

\

\.. *,

Legend GJ Fermi2 PAA

, -:::, 2, 5, 10 Mile Rings Date: 6/ 8/ 2022 Cophikti t: ESR1:o*ata and Maps 2020 K;,oi:ngineering, DTE Energy

.www.census.gov I 0 2.5 5

Miles I Figure 61. Fermi 2 EPZ PAAs Fermi 2 Nuclear Power Plant ES20 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

Enclosure to NRC-22-0041 Page 31 of 372 Wayne

~~- w~ ~'

County Legend \. *,

GJ Fermi 2 PAA

~ Evacuate

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

.I~ I 2022

- - W ind Sector Boundary it':ESRIDataandMaps2020 ngineering,OTE .~rgy 2.5 s .

~ - - - - ~ ~ - - - - ~ - www.census.gov ---====------ Miles _

Figure H10. Region R10 Fermi 2 Nuclear Power Plant ES21 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

Enclosure to NRC-22-0041 Page 32 of 372 1 INTRODUCTION This report describes the analyses undertaken and the results obtained by a study to develop Evacuation Time Estimates (ETE) for the Fermi 2 Nuclear Power Plant (Fermi 2), located in Monroe County, Michigan. ETE provide state and local governments with sitespecific information needed for Protective Action decisionmaking.

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

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

Revision 1 of the Criteria for Development of Evacuation Time Estimate Studies, NUREG/CR7002, February 2021.

FEMA, Radiological Emergency Preparedness Program Manual (FEMA P1028),

December 2019.

The work effort reported herein was supported and guided by local stakeholders who contributed suggestions, critiques, and the local knowledge base required. Trip mobilization (also known as trip generation), based on the data collected from the demographic survey, for the permanent residents with commuters increased by 45 minutes. As the mobilization time dictates the 100th percentile ETE, as discussed in Section 7.3, these increases in mobilization are directly correlated with the increases in the 100th percentile ETE (and the 90th percentile ETE for some cases).

The permanent resident population increased by 3%, which could result in more evacuating vehicles, but the permanent resident occupancy per vehicle decreased by approximately 20%, which results in an overall increase of 28% in the number of permanent resident vehicles, which can increase ETE.

The number of employees commuting into the EPZ decreased significantly by about 33%, due to the updated NRCs criteria for major employers from 50 or more employees per shift to 200 or more employees per shift. A decrease in this quickly mobilizing population group can cause the 90th percentile ETE to increase as it will take longer to reach an evacuation of 90% of all vehicles.

Roadway capacity reductions for heavy snow cases have increased from 20% to 25%

based on the new NRC guidance. As a result, roadways process less vehicles than previously assumed during heavy snow cases and ETE increase at the 90th and 100th percentile for these scenarios.

The combination of these various factors explains why the 90th and 100th percentile ETE for the entire EPZ (Region R03) are longer in this study relative to the 2012 ETE study.

Fermi 2 Nuclear Power Plant 11 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

Enclosure to NRC-22-0041 Page 33 of 372 Table 11 presents a summary of stakeholders and interactions.

1.1 Overview of the ETE Process The following outline presents a brief description of the work effort in chronological sequence:

1. Information Gathering:

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

b. Attended a project kickoff meeting with personnel from DTE Energy, Monroe County, Wayne County, and Michigan State Police to discuss methodology, project assumptions and 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 the 2020 Census (See Section 3.1).

e. Conducted a random sample demographic 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 online demographic 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 and access control is applied at specified Access Control Points (ACP) located within the EPZ.

5. Used existing PAA to define evacuation regions. The EPZ is partitioned into 7 PAA along jurisdictional and geographic boundaries. Regions are groups of contiguous PAA for which ETE are calculated. The configurations of these Regions reflect wind direction and the radial extent of the impacted area. Each Region, other than those that approximate circular areas, approximates a keyhole section within the EPZ as recommended by NUREG/CR7002 Rev.1.

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, which computes ETE (see Appendices B and C).

Fermi 2 Nuclear Power Plant 12 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

Enclosure to NRC-22-0041 Page 34 of 372

a. Estimated the evacuation traffic demand, based on the available information derived from Census data, and from data provided by local and state agencies, Talen Energy and from the demographic survey.

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

c. Applied the procedures specified in the 2016 Highway Capacity Manual (HCM1) to the data acquired during the field survey, to estimate the capacity of all highway segments comprising the evacuation routes.

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 Fermi 2.

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

9. Documented ETE in formats in accordance with NUREG/CR7002, Rev. 1.

10. Calculated the ETE for all transit activities including those for special facilities (i.e.,

schools, medical facilities, and correctional), for the transitdependent population and for access and/or functional needs population.

1.2 The Fermi 2 Location Fermi 2 is located along the western shore of Lake Erie in Frenchtown Charter Township, Monroe County, Michigan. The site is approximately 25 miles northeast of Toledo, OH and 25 miles southwest of Detroit, MI. The EPZ consists of parts of Monroe and Wayne Counties.

Figure 11 displays the area surrounding Fermi 2. This map identifies the communities in the area and the major roads.

1.3 Preliminary Activities These activities are described below.

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

Video and audio recording equipment were used to capture a permanent record of the highway 1

Highway Capacity Manual (HCM 2016), Transportation Research Board, National Research Council, 2016.

Fermi 2 Nuclear Power Plant 13 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

Enclosure to NRC-22-0041 Page 35 of 372 infrastructure. No attempt was made to meticulously measure such attributes as lane width and shoulder width; estimates of these measures based on visual observation and recorded images were considered appropriate for the purpose of estimating the capacity of highway sections. For example, Exhibit 157 in the HCM 2016 indicates that a reduction in lane width from 12 feet (the base value) to 10 feet can reduce free flow speed (FFS) by 1.1 mph - not a material difference - for twolane highways. Exhibit 1546 in the HCM 2016 shows little sensitivity for the estimates of Service Volumes at Level of Service (LOS) E (near capacity), with respect to FFS, for twolane highways.

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

As documented on page 156 of the HCM 2016, the capacity of a twolane highway is 1,700 passenger cars per hour in one direction. For freeway sections, a value of 2,250 vehicles per hour per lane is assigned, as per Exhibit 1237 of the HCM 2016. The road survey identified several segments which are characterized by adverse geometrics on twolane highways which are reflected in reduced values for both capacity and speed. These estimates are consistent with the service volumes for LOS E presented in HCM Exhibit 1546. These links may be identified by reviewing Appendix K. Link capacity is an input to DYNEV II which computes the ETE. Further discussion of roadway capacity is provided in Section 4 of this report.

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

These detectors are typically magnetic loops in the roadway, or video cameras mounted on the signal masts and pointed toward the intersection approaches. If detectors were observed on the approaches to a signalized intersection during the road survey, detailed signal timings were not collected as the timings vary with traffic volume. ACPs at locations which have control devices are represented as actuated signals in the DYNEV II system.

If no detectors were observed, the signal control at the intersection was considered pretimed, and detailed signal timings were gathered for several signal cycles. These signal timings were input to the DYNEV II system used to compute ETE, as per NUREG/CR7002 Rev. 1 guidance.

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

Demographic Survey A demographic survey was undertaken to gather information needed for the evacuation study.

Fermi 2 Nuclear Power Plant 14 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

Enclosure to NRC-22-0041 Page 36 of 372 Appendix F presents the survey instrument, the procedures used, and tabulations of data compiled from the survey responses.

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.

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

Fermi 2 Nuclear Power Plant 15 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

Enclosure to NRC-22-0041 Page 37 of 372 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).

DYNEV II consists of four submodels:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

NUREG/CR4873 - Benchmark Study of the IDYNEV Evacuation Time Estimate Computer Code.

NUREG/CR4874 - The Sensitivity of Evacuation Time Estimates to Changes in Input Parameters for the IDYNEV Computer Code.

The evacuation analysis procedures are based upon the need to:

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

Fermi 2 Nuclear Power Plant 16 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

Enclosure to NRC-22-0041 Page 38 of 372 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 plant.

DYNEV II provides a detailed description of traffic operations on the evacuation network. This description enables the analyst to identify bottlenecks and to develop countermeasures that are designed to represent the behavioral responses of evacuees. The effects of these countermeasures may then be tested with the model.

1.4 Comparison with Prior ETE Study Table 13 presents a comparison of the present ETE study with the previous ETE study (KLD TR 532, dated December 2012). The 90th percentile ETE for the entire EPZ increased by 30 minutes for a winter midweek midday scenario and by 25 minutes for a summer weekend midday scenario when compared with the 2012 study. The 100th percentile ETE increased by 45 minutes for both a winter midweek midday scenario and for a summer weekend midday scenario. 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:

Trip mobilization (also known as trip generation), based on the data collected from the demographic survey, for the permanent residents with commuters increased by 45 minutes. As the mobilization time dictates the 100th percentile ETE, as discussed in Section 7.3, these increases in mobilization are directly correlated with the increases in the 100th percentile ETE (and the 90th percentile ETE for some cases).

The permanent resident population increased by 3%, which could result in more evacuating vehicles, but the permanent resident occupancy per vehicle decreased by approximately 20%, which results in an overall increase of 28% in the number of permanent resident vehicles, which can increase ETE.

The number of employees commuting into the EPZ decreased significantly by about 33%, due to the updated NRCs criteria for major employers from 50 or more employees per shift to 200 or more employees per shift. A decrease in this quickly mobilizing population group can cause the 90th percentile ETE to increase as it will take longer to reach an evacuation of 90% of all vehicles.

Roadway capacity reductions for heavy snow cases have increased from 20% to 25%

based on the new NRC guidance. As a result, roadways process less vehicles than previously assumed during heavy snow cases and ETE increase at the 90th and 100th percentile for these scenarios.

The combination of these various factors explains why the 90th and 100th percentile ETE for the entire EPZ (Region R03) are longer in this study relative to the 2012 ETE study.

Fermi 2 Nuclear Power Plant 17 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

Enclosure to NRC-22-0041 Page 39 of 372 Table 11. Stakeholder Interaction Stakeholder Nature of Stakeholder Interaction Meetings to define data requirements and set up contacts with local government agencies. Review DTE Energy and approval of demographic survey instrument and of key project assumptions.

Attended kickoff meeting to discuss the project methodology, key project assumptions and to define data needs. Provided recent emergency plans and traffic management plans.

Monroe and Wayne County Emergency Provided/confirmed transient data and special Management, Michigan State Police event data. Reviewed and approved all project assumptions. Engaged in the ETE development and was informed of the study results. Reviewed and approved report.

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

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

Fermi 2 Nuclear Power Plant 18 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

Enclosure to NRC-22-0041 Page 40 of 372 Table 13. ETE Study Comparisons Topic Previous (2012) ETE Study Current ETE Study ArcGIS Software using 2010 US Census ArcGIS Software using 2020 US Census Resident blocks; area ratio method used. blocks; area ratio method used.

Population Basis Population = 97,825 Population = 100,873 Vehicles = 44,553 Vehicles = 56,975 Resident 2.72 persons/household, 1.24 2.48 persons/household, 1.42 evacuating Population evacuating vehicles/household yielding: vehicles/household yielding: 1.75 Vehicle 2.19 persons/vehicle persons/vehicle.

Occupancy 2010 US Census blocks; area ratio ArcGIS software using 2020 US Census Shadow method used. blocks; area ratio method used.

Population 20% Population = 20,383 20% Population = 21,040 Employee estimates based on information provided by the counties, Data was provided by DTE Energy and the by Internet searches, and by direct counties within the EPZ.

Employee phone calls to major employers. 1.01 1.02 employees per vehicle based on Population employees/vehicle based on phone demographic survey results.

survey results. Employees = 3,215 Employees = 4,797 Employee Vehicles = 3,153 Employee Vehicles = 4,751 Estimates based upon U.S. Census data Estimates based upon U.S. Census data and the results of the telephone survey. and the results of the demographic A total of 2,834 people who do not have survey. A total of 905 people who do not access to a vehicle, requiring 95 buses to have access to a vehicle, requiring 32 Transit evacuate. An additional 334 buses to evacuate.

Dependent homebound access and/or functional An additional 520 homebound access Population needs persons needed special and/or functional needs persons (303 transportation to evacuate (219 ambulatory, 93 wheelchair bound, and required a bus, 103 required a 124 bedridden) need special wheelchairaccessible vehicle, and 12 transportation to evacuate (in 51 buses, required an ambulance). 24 wheelchair buses, and 62 ambulances)

Transient estimates based upon information provided about transient Transient estimates based upon attractions in EPZ, supplemented by information provided by the counties Transient observations of the facilities during the within the EPZ.

Population road survey and from aerial photography. Transients = 10,939 Transients = 13,537 Transient Vehicles = 5,125 Transient Vehicles = 6,444 Fermi 2 Nuclear Power Plant 19 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

Enclosure to NRC-22-0041 Page 41 of 372 Topic Previous (2012) ETE Study Current ETE Study Special facility population based on Special Facility population based on information provided by each county information provided by each county within the EPZ. within the EPZ.

Medical Facility Census = 950 Medical Facility Census = 1,212 Special Facilities Buses Required = 31 Buses Required = 26 Population Wheelchair Vans Required = 34 Wheelchair Buses Required = 43 Ambulances Required = 21 Ambulances Required = 35 Correctional Facility Census = 343 Correctional Facility Census = 200 Buses Required = 12 Buses Required = 7 School population based on information School population based on information School provided by each county within the EPZ. provided by each county within the EPZ Population School enrollment = 19,173 School Enrollment = 18,695 Buses required = 361 Buses Required = 345 Voluntary evacuation from within EPZ in 20% of the population within the EPZ, 20% of the population within the EPZ, but areas outside but not within the Evacuation Region. not within the Evacuation Region.

region to be evacuated Shadow 20% of people outside of the EPZ within 20% of people outside of the EPZ within Evacuation the Shadow Region the Shadow Region Network Size 1,000 links; 705 nodes 1,102 links; 840 nodes.

Field surveys conducted in February Field surveys conducted in November Roadway 2012. Roads and intersections were 2020. Roads and intersections are video Geometric Data video archived. archived and capacities are based on Road capacities based on 2010 HCM. HCM 2016.

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

Based on the results of the demographic 50 percent of transitdependent persons Ridesharing survey, 78% of transitdependent persons will evacuate with a neighbor or friend.

will evacuate with a neighbor or friend.

Fermi 2 Nuclear Power Plant 110 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

Enclosure to NRC-22-0041 Page 42 of 372 Topic Previous (2012) ETE Study Current ETE Study Based on demographic survey of specific Based on residential telephone survey of pretrip mobilization activities:

specific pretrip mobilization activities: Residents with commuters returning Residents with commuters returning leave between 30 and 285 minutes (345 leave between 30 and 240 minutes. minutes in snow).

Trip Generation Residents without commuters returning Residents without commuters returning for Evacuation leave between 15 and 180 minutes. leave between 5 and 225 minutes (285 Employees and transients leave minutes in snow).

between 15 and 105 minutes. Employees and transients leave between All times measured from the Advisory to 5 minutes and 90 minutes.

Evacuate. All times measured from the Advisory to Evacuate.

Normal, Rain, or Snow. The free flow Normal, Rain, or Snow. The capacity speed and capacity of all links in the and free flow speed of all links in the Weather network are reduced by 10% in the event network are reduced by 10% in the of rain/light snow and 15% and 25% for event of rain and 20% for snow.

heavy snow, respectively.

Modeling DYNEV II System - Version 4.0.11.0 DYNEV II System - Version 4.0.21.0 The Monroe County Fair was considered.

River Raising Jazz Festival.

Special Events Special Event Transients: 22,500 Special event population = 6,667 Special Event Vehicles: 9,073 10 Regions (central sector wind 13 Regions (central sector wind direction direction and each adjacent sector and each adjacent sector technique used)

Evacuation Cases technique used) and 14 Scenarios and 14 Scenarios producing 182 unique producing 140 unique cases. cases.

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

Winter Weekday Midday, Winter, Midweek, Midday, Evacuation Time Good Weather: 2:05 Good Weather: 2:35 Estimates for the entire EPZ, 90th percentile Summer Weekend, Midday, Summer, Weekend, Midday, Good Weather: 2:00 Good Weather: 2:25 Winter Weekday Midday, Winter, Midweek, Midday, Evacuation Time Good Weather: 4:10 Good Weather: 4:55 Estimates for the entire EPZ, 100th Summer Weekend, Midday, Summer, Weekend, Midday, percentile Good Weather: 4:10 Good Weather: 4:55 Fermi 2 Nuclear Power Plant 111 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

Enclosure to NRC-22-0041 Page 43 of 372 Livonia Garden City Westland I Inkster

('

R1ver ew Ontario, Canada Trenton

~

@3 ,,,,. -- 4t ;:~rt:,;;.., . . .

Mila~ . .r -. Trenton Rockwood Channel

/ South' Rockwood I /. -

I I '\

J

\

Dundee~ \

Riv"er~Raisin I

/

I

-- - - I V

/

Lake Erie

i, 2 Legend

Ferm i 2
'- _, 2, 5, 10 Mi le Rings Figure 11. Fermi 2 Location Fermi 2 Nuclear Power Plant 112 KLD Engineering, P.C.
Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0
Enclosure to NRC-22-0041 Page 44 of 372 Belleville 1
t
/
i i
i c:~\\ 0
~~
tJ) \~
\. \~.
Lake Ene 7
Fermi 2 Node Link PAA 2.5 Figure 12. Fermi 2 LinkNode Analysis Network Fermi 2 Nuclear Power Plant 113 KLD Engineering, P.C.
Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0
Enclosure to NRC-22-0041 Page 45 of 372 2 STUDY ESTIMATES AND ASSUMPTIONS This section presents the estimates and assumptions utilized in the development of the evacuation time estimates (ETE).
2.1 Data Estimate Assumptions
1. The permanent resident population are based on the 2020 U.S. Census population from the Census Bureau website1. A methodology, referred to as the area ratio method, is employed to estimate the population within portions of census blocks that are divided by Area boundaries. It is assumed that the population is evenly distributed across a census block in order to employ the area ratio method. (See Section 3.1.)
2. Estimates of employees who reside outside the EPZ and commute to work within the EPZ are based upon data provided by DTE, the counties within the EPZ, and data from the previous study confirmed to be still accurate by the counties (See Section 3.4).
3. Population estimates at transient and special facilities are based on the data received from the counties within the EPZ, the National Center for Education Statistics website2, and the previous ETE study, supplemented by internet searches where data was missing3.
4. For medical facilities that are missing data, it is assumed that medical facilities are filled to capacity.
5. The relationship between permanent resident population and evacuating vehicles is based the results of the demographic survey (see Appendix F). Values of 2.48 persons per household and 1.42 evacuating vehicles per household are used for the permanent resident population.
6. Where data was not provided, the average household size is assumed to be the vehicles occupancy rate for the special event.
7. Employee vehicle occupancies are based on the results of the demographic survey; 1.02 employees per vehicle is used in the study. In addition, it is assumed there are two people per carpool, on average (see Figure F7).
8. The relationship between persons and vehicles for transients (see Section 3.3) and the special event is as follows:
a. Golf Courses: 1.00 transients per vehicle.
b. Marinas: 2.13 transients per vehicle.
c. Parks: 2.26 transients per vehicles.
d. Lodging Facilities: 2.11 transients per vehicle.
1 www.census.gov 2
https://nces.ed.goc/ccd/schoolsearch/index.asp 3
Many enrollment estimates for schools and preschools within the EPZ came from https://www.privateschoolreview.com/ and https://childcarecenter.us/, but were confirmed by the counties within the EPZ.
Fermi 2 Nuclear Power Plant 21 KLD Engineering, P.C.
Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0
Enclosure to NRC-22-0041 Page 46 of 372
e. Special event: about 3.8 people per vehicle
9. The maximum bus speed assumed within the EPZ is 55 mph based on Michigan state laws for buses and average posted speed limits on roadways within the EPZ.
10. Roadway capacity estimates are based on field surveys performed in 2020 (verified by aerial imagery), and the application of the Highway Capacity Manual 2016.
2.2 Methodological Assumptions
1. The Planning Basis Assumption for the calculation of ETE is a rapidly escalating accident that requires evacuation, and includes the following4 (as per NRC guidance):
a. Advisory to Evacuate (ATE) is announced coincident with the siren notification.
b. Mobilization of the general population will commence within 15 minutes after siren notification.
c. The ETE are measured relative to the ATE.
2. The centerpoint of the plant is located at the center of the containment building 41°5801.9 N, 83°1526.9 W.
3. The DYNEV II5 (Dynamic Network EVacuation) macroscopic simulation model is used to compute ETE in this study.
4. Evacuees will drive safely, travel radially away from the plant to the extent practicable given the highway network, and obey all control devices and traffic guides. All major evacuation routes are used in the analysis.
5. The existing EPZ and Protective Action Area (PAA) boundaries are used. See Figure 31.
6. The Shadow Region extends to 15 miles radially from the plant or approximately 5 miles radially from the EPZ boundary, as per NRC guidance. See Figure 72.
7. One hundred percent (100%) of the people within the impacted keyhole will evacuate.
Twenty percent (20%) of the population within the Shadow Region and within PAAs of the EPZ not advised to evacuate will voluntarily evacuate, as shown in Figure 21, as per NRC guidance. Sensitivity studies explore the effect on ETE of increasing the percentage of voluntary evacuees in the Shadow Region (see Appendix M).
8. Shadow population characteristics (household size, evacuating vehicles per household, and mobilization time) is assumed to be the same as that of the permanent resident population within the EPZ.
4 We emphasize that the adoption of this planning basis is not a representation that these events will occur within the indicated time frame. Rather, these assumptions are necessary in order to:
1. Establish a temporal framework for estimating the Trip Generation distribution in the format recommended in Section 2.13 of NUREG/CR-6863.
2. Identify temporal points of reference that uniquely define "Clear Time" and ETE.
It is likely that a longer time will elapse between the various stages of an emergency. See Section 5.1 for more detail.
5 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). The models have continuously been refined and extended since those hearings and were independently validated by a consultant retained by the NRC. The DYNEV II model incorporates the latest technology in traffic simulation and in dynamic traffic assignment.
Fermi 2 Nuclear Power Plant 22 KLD Engineering, P.C.
Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0
Enclosure to NRC-22-0041 Page 47 of 372
9. The ETE are presented at the 90th and 100th percentiles, as well as in graphical and tabular format, as per NRC guidance. The percentile ETE is defined as the elapsed time from the ATE issued to a specific Region of the EPZ, to the time that Region is clear of the indicated percentile of evacuees.
10. The ETE also includes consideration of through (ExternalExternal) trips during the time that such traffic is permitted to enter the evacuated Region. See Section 3.11.
11. This study does not assume that roadways are empty at the start of the first time period. Rather, there is a 30minute initialization period (often referred to as fill time in traffic simulation) wherein the traffic volumes from the first time period are loaded onto roadways in the study area. The amount of initialization/fill traffic that is on the roadways in the study area at the start of the first time period depends on the scenario and the region being evacuated. See Section 3.12.
12. To account for boundary conditions beyond the study area, this study assumes a 25 percent (%) reduction in capacity on twolane roads and multilane highways for roadways that have traffic signals downstream. The 25% reduction in capacity is based on the prevalence of actuated traffic signals in the study area and the fact that the evacuating traffic volume will be more significant than the competing traffic volume at any downstream signalized intersections, thereby warranting a more significant percentage (75% in this case) of the signal green time. There is no reduction in capacity for freeways due to boundary conditions.
2.3 Assumptions on Mobilization Times
1. Trip generation time (also known as mobilization time, or the time required by evacuees to prepare for the evacuation) are based upon the results of the demographic survey (See Section 5 and Appendix F). It is assumed that stated events take place in sequence such that all preceding events must be completed before the current event can occur.
2. One hundred percent (100%) of the EPZ population can be notified within 45 minutes, in accordance with the 2019 Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) Radiological Emergency Preparedness Program Manual.
3. Commuter percentages (and the percentage of residents awaiting the return of a commuter) are based on the results of the demographic survey. According to the survey results, approximately 59% of the households in the EPZ have at least 1 commuter (see Section F.3.1.); approximately 48% of those households with commuters will await the return of a commuter before beginning their evacuation trip (see Section F.3.2.).
Therefore, 28 percent (59% x 48% = 28%) of EPZ households will await the return of a commuter, prior to beginning their evacuation trip.
Fermi 2 Nuclear Power Plant 23 KLD Engineering, P.C.
Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0
Enclosure to NRC-22-0041 Page 48 of 372 2.4 Transit Dependent Assumptions
1. The percentage of transitdependent people who will rideshare with a neighbor or friend are based on the results of the demographic survey. According to the survey results, 78% of the transitdependent population will rideshare.
2. Transit vehicles are used to transport those without access to private vehicles:
a. Schools, PreSchools and Day Cares:
i. If schools are in session, transport (buses) evacuate students directly to the designated host schools. This includes all public and private schools and licensed day cares.
ii. It is assumed that parents will pick up children at nonlicensed day care facilities prior to evacuation.
iii. For the schools that are evacuated via buses, it is assumed no school children are picked up by their parents prior to the arrival of the buses.
iv. Schoolchildren, if schools are in session, are given priority in assigning transit vehicles.
b. Medical Facilities and Correctional Facilities:
i. Buses, wheelchair buses, and ambulances evacuate patients at medical facilities and at any senior facilities within the EPZ, as needed.
ii. Buses evacuate inmates at correctional facilities in the EPZ, as needed.
c. Transitdependent permanent residents:
i. Transitdependent permanent resident population are evacuated to reception centers.
ii. Access and/or functional needs population may require county assistance (ambulance, van or wheelchair van) to evacuate. This is considered separately from the general population ETE, as per NRC guidance (see Section 8).
iii. Households with 3 or more vehicles were assumed to have no need for transit vehicles.
d. Analysis of the number of required roundtrips (waves) of evacuating transit vehicles is presented (see Section 8).
e. Transport of transitdependent evacuees from reception centers to congregate care centers is not considered in this study.
3. Transit vehicle capacities:
a. School Buses = 70 students per bus for primary schools/preschools/licensed day care centers and 50 students per bus for middle/high schools
b. Ambulatory transitdependent persons, medical facility patients, and inmates from correctional facilities = 30 people per van
c. Wheelchair Buses = 15 wheelchair bound persons
d. Ambulances = 2 bedridden persons
e. Concurrent loading on multiple vehicles is assumed.
Fermi 2 Nuclear Power Plant 24 KLD Engineering, P.C.
Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0
Enclosure to NRC-22-0041 Page 49 of 372
4. Transit vehicles mobilization times:
a. School and transit buses will arrive at schools and facilities to be evacuated within 90 minutes of the ATE.
b. Transit dependent vans are mobilized when approximately 80% of residents with no commuters have completed their mobilization at 105 minutes of the ATE. The residents taking longer to mobilize are assumed to rideshare with a friend or neighbor.
c. Vehicles arrive at hospitals, medical facilities, senior living facilities, and correctional facilities to be evacuated within 90 minutes of the ATE.
5. Transit Vehicle loading times:
a. Concurrent loading on multiple buses/transit vehicles is assumed.
b. School buses are loaded in 15 minutes.
c. Transit Dependent buses require 1 minute of loading time per passenger.
d. Buses for hospitals, medical facilities, senior living facilities, and correctional facilities require 1 minute of loading time per ambulatory passenger.
e. Wheelchair transport vehicles require 5 minutes of loading time per passenger.
f. Ambulances are loaded in 15 minutes per bedridden passenger.
6. It is assumed that drivers for all transit vehicles are available.
2.5 Access Control Assumptions
1. Access Control, blocking the flow of traffic into the EPZ, is assumed to be staffed approximately 120 minutes after the ATE. Earlier activation of access control could delay returning commuters. It is assumed that no through traffic will enter the EPZ after this 120minute time period.
2. It is assumed that all transit vehicles and other responders entering the EPZ to support the evacuation are unhindered by personnel manning access control points (ACPs).
2.6 Scenarios and Regions
1. A total of 14 Scenarios representing different temporal variations (season, time of day, day of week) and weather conditions are considered. Scenarios to be considered are defined in Table 21:
a. The Monroe County Fair (a summer, weekend, midday with good weather conditions), located just outside of PAA 5, is considered as the special event (single or multiday event that attracts a significant population into the EPZ; recommended by NRC guidance) for Scenario 13.
b. As per NRC guidance, one of the top 5 highest volume roadways must be closed or one lane outbound on a freeway must be closed for a roadway impact scenario. This study considers a single lane closure of Interstate (I)75 Fermi 2 Nuclear Power Plant 25 KLD Engineering, P.C.
Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0
Enclosure to NRC-22-0041 Page 50 of 372 southbound between the I275 freeway ramp to the overpass with Laplaisance Road for the roadway impact scenario - Scenario 14.
2. Two types of adverse weather scenarios are considered. Rain may occur for either winter or summer scenarios; snow occurs in winter scenarios only. It is assumed that the rain or snow begins earlier or at about the same time the evacuation advisory is issued.
No weatherrelated reduction in the number of transients who may be present in the EPZ is assumed. It is further assumed that snow removal equipment is available, the appropriate agencies are clearing/treating the roads as they would normally during snow, and the roads are passable albeit at lower speeds and capacities.
Adverse weather affect roadway capacity and the free flow speeds. Transportation research indicates capacity and free flow speed are reduced by 10% for rain/light snow and a range of 10% to 25% for heavy snow. In accordance with Table 31 of Revision 1 to NUREG/CR7002, Rev. 1, this study assumes a 10% reduction in speed and capacity for rain and light snow and a speed and capacity reduction of 15% and 25%, respectively, for heavy snow. The factors are shown in Fermi 2 Nuclear Power Plant 26 KLD Engineering, P.C.
Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0
Enclosure to NRC-22-0041 Page 51 of 372
3. Table 22.
4. It is assumed for heavy snow scenarios that some evacuees need additional time to clear their driveways and access the public roadway system. The distribution of time for this activity was gathered through a demographic survey of the public and takes up to 150 minutes. It is assumed that the time needed by evacuees to remove snow from their driveways is sufficient time for snow removal crews to mobilize and clear/treat the public roadway system.
It is also assumed that mobilization and loading times for transit vehicles are slightly longer in adverse weather.
It is assumed that mobilization times are 10 minutes and 20 minutes longer in rain/light snow and heavy snow, respectively. It is assumed that loading times are 5 minutes and 10 minutes longer in rain/light snow and heavy snow, respectively. Refer to Fermi 2 Nuclear Power Plant 27 KLD Engineering, P.C.
Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0
Enclosure to NRC-22-0041 Page 52 of 372
5. Table 22.
6. It is assumed that employment is reduced slightly (4%) in the summer for vacations.
7. Regions are defined by the underlying keyhole or circular configurations as specified in Section 1.4 of NUREG/CR7002, Rev. 1. These Regions, as defined, display irregular boundaries reflecting the geography of the PAA included within these underlying configurations. All 16 cardinal and intercardinal wind direction keyhole configurations are considered. Regions to be considered are defined in Table 61. It is assumed that everyone within the group of PAA forming a Region that is issued an ATE will, in fact, respond and evacuate in general accord with the planned routes.
8. Staged evacuation is considered as defined in NUREG/CR7002, Rev. 1 - those people between 2 and 5 miles will shelterinplace until 90% of the 2Mile Region has evacuated, then they will evacuate. See Regions R11 through R13 in Table 61.
Table 21. Evacuation Scenario Definitions Scenario Season6 Day of Week Time of Day Weather Special 1 Summer Midweek Midday Good None Rain/Light 2 Summer Midweek Midday None Snow 3 Summer Weekend Midday Good None Rain/Light 4 Summer Weekend Midday None Snow Midweek, 5 Summer Evening Good None Weekend 6 Winter Midweek Midday Good None Rain/Light 7 Winter Midweek Midday None Snow 8 Winter Midweek Midday Heavy Snow None 9 Winter Weekend Midday Good None Rain/Light 10 Winter Weekend Midday None Snow 11 Winter Weekend Midday Heavy Snow None 6
Winter means that school is in session, at normal enrollment levels (also applies to spring and autumn). Summer means that school is in session at summer school enrollment levels (lower than normal enrollment).
Fermi 2 Nuclear Power Plant 28 KLD Engineering, P.C.
Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0
Enclosure to NRC-22-0041 Page 53 of 372 Midweek, 12 Winter Evening Good None Weekend 13 Summer Weekend Midday Good Monroe County Fair Roadway Impact -
14 Summer Midweek Midday Good Lane Closure on I75 SB Fermi 2 Nuclear Power Plant 29 KLD Engineering, P.C.
Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0
Enclosure to NRC-22-0041 Page 54 of 372 Table 22. Model Adjustment for Adverse Weather Free Mobilization Mobilization Loading Time Highway Flow Time for General Time for Transit for Transit Scenario Capacity* Speed* Population Vehicles7 Vehicles7 Rain/Light 10minute 5minute 90% 90% No Effect Snow increase increase 20minute 10minute Heavy Snow 75% 85% See Section 5.3 increase increase
Adverse weather capacity and speed values are given as a percentage of good weather conditions. Roads are assumed to be passable.
7 Does not apply to medical facilities and those with access and/or functional needs as loading times for these people are already conservative.
Fermi 2 Nuclear Power Plant 210 KLD Engineering, P.C.
Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0
Enclosure to NRC-22-0041 Page 55 of 372
\,_ !....________;- -\~\ I
....________ ~ /
~-~ ~ ~/ ~-~ ~ - -- ~
( /'-" \ \ J ( ~a \ \_ I
(( * )I ( ( A I) I
- \ ,._:~/ / ) -\ \ 2- / ;-\
\ ~r
\.
""--;~- / \ '-
~ Mile~~
_/
/
/ \.
"'/ "----,_
~
/'
@!Mil~
_/
/
/ ~
'r ~ -
15 Miles 15 Miles I 5-Mile Region I
\ / '- ~ / \ ~-------------1 \ / 1- *~ /
- . ~-~ ~ / _..__... ~ / ~-~ ~ -
J f ~1':1~,f\1
(
\ )\) (11(
( I 1
I
_ \\\
l)
!( 11 1J ~\
~i~
(
\_ ( I l))
-\ \ ',._:~/ / ) \ \ / ) \ ',::._~ // / -
"\ ."
"' '--.-/
~ 10
~ /
/ ) "'......__.,/
~ //
,,~
~10 Miles
//
"-- \ "'......__
~ / / "--)
\. "' ~10 Miles
_/
"----,_ ~ \15 Miles \
"--- _/\ / 15 Miles \ \
I '--- _...-,/\
~/ 15 M~iles \ ~
Keyhole: 2-Mile Region & 5 Miles Downwind Keyhole: 2-Mile Region & 10 Miles Downwind I I Staged Evacuation: 2-Mile Region & 5 Miles Downwind
Plant Location
Region to be Evacuated : 100% Evacuation D 20% Shadow Evacuation - Shelter, then Evacuate Figure 21. Voluntary Evacuation Methodology Fermi 2 Nuclear Power Plant 211 KLD Engineering, P.C.
Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0
Enclosure to NRC-22-0041 Page 56 of 372 3 DEMAND ESTIMATION The estimates of demand, expressed in terms of people and vehicles, constitute a critical element in developing an evacuation plan. These estimates consist of three components:
1. An estimate of population within the EPZ, stratified into groups (resident, employee, transient).
2. An estimate, for each population group, of mean occupancy per evacuating vehicle. This estimate is used to determine the number of evacuating vehicles.
3. An estimate of potential doublecounting of vehicles.
Appendix E presents much of the source material for the population estimates. Our primary source of population data, the 2020 Census, is not adequate for directly estimating some transient groups.
Throughout the year, vacationers and tourists enter the EPZ. These nonresidents may dwell within the EPZ for a short period (e.g., a few days or one or two weeks), or may enter and leave within one day. Estimates of the size of these population components must be obtained, so that the associated number of evacuating vehicles can be ascertained.
The potential for doublecounting people and vehicles must be addressed. For example:
A resident who works and shops within the EPZ could be counted as a resident, again as an employee and once again as a shopper.
A visitor who stays at a hotel and spends time at a park, then goes shopping could be counted three times.
Furthermore, the number of vehicles at a location depends on time of day. For example, motel parking lots may be full at dawn and empty at noon. Similarly, parking lots at area parks, which are full at noon, may be almost empty at dawn. Estimating counts of vehicles by simply adding up the capacities of different types of parking facilities will tend to overestimate the number of transients and can lead to ETE that are too conservative.
Analysis of the population characteristics of the Fermi 2 EPZ indicates the need to identify three distinct groups:
Permanent residents people who are yearround residents of the EPZ.
Transients people who reside outside of the EPZ who enter the area for a specific purpose (shopping, recreation) and then leave the area.
Employees people who reside outside of the EPZ and commute to work within the EPZ on a daily basis.
Estimates of the population and number of evacuating vehicles for each of the population groups are presented for each PAA and by polar coordinate representation (population rose).
The Fermi 2 EPZ is subdivided into 7 PAAs. The PAAs comprising the EPZ are shown in Figure 31.
Fermi 2 Nuclear Power Plant 31 KLD Engineering, P.C.
Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0
Enclosure to NRC-22-0041 Page 57 of 372 3.1 Permanent Residents The primary source for estimating permanent population is the latest U.S. Census data with an availability date of September 16, 2021. The average household size (2.48 persons/household) was estimated using the U.S. Census data (See Appendix F, Subsection F.3.1). The number of evacuating vehicles per household (1.42 vehicles/household - See Appendix F, Subsection F.3.2) was adapted from the demographic survey.
The permanent resident population is estimated by cutting the census block polygons by PAA and EPZ boundaries using GIS software. A ratio of the original area of each census block and the updated area (after cutting) is multiplied by the total block population to estimate the population within the EPZ. The methodology (referred to as the area ratio method) assumes that the population is evenly distributed across a census block. Table 31 provides the permanent resident population within the EPZ, by PAA, for 2010 and 2020 (based on the methodology above). As indicated, the permanent resident population within the EPZ has increased by 3.12% since the 2010 Census.
To estimate the number of vehicles, the year 2020 permanent resident population is divided by the average household size and then multiplied by the average number of evacuating vehicles per household. Permanent resident population and vehicle estimates are presented in Table
32. Figure 32 and Figure 33 present the permanent resident population and permanent resident vehicle estimates by sector and distance from Fermi 2. This rose was constructed using GIS software. Note, the 2020 Census includes residents living in group quarters, such as skilled nursing facilities, group homes, prisons, etc. These people are transit dependent (will not evacuate in personal vehicles) and are included in the special facility evacuation demand estimates. To avoid double counting vehicles, the vehicle estimates for these people have been removed. The resident vehicles in Table 32 and Figure 33 have been adjusted accordingly.
3.2 Shadow Population A portion of the population living outside the evacuation area extending to 15 miles radially from the Fermi 2 may elect to evacuate without having been instructed to do so. This area is called the Shadow Region. Based upon NUREG/CR7002, Rev. 1 guidance, it is assumed that 20% of the permanent resident population, based on U.S. Census Bureau data, in the Shadow Region will elect to evacuate.
Shadow population characteristics (household size, evacuating vehicles per household, mobilization time) are assumed to be the same as that for the EPZ permanent resident population. Table 33, Figure 34, and Figure 35 present estimates of the shadow population and vehicles, by sector. Similar to the EPZ resident vehicle estimates, resident vehicles at group quarters have been removed from the shadow population vehicle demand in Table 33 and Figure 35.
Fermi 2 Nuclear Power Plant 32 KLD Engineering, P.C.
Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0
Enclosure to NRC-22-0041 Page 58 of 372 3.3 Transient Population Transient population groups are defined as those people (who are not permanent residents, nor commuting employees) who enter the EPZ for a specific purpose (shopping, recreation).
Transients may spend less than one day or stay overnight at lodging facilities. Data for these facilities in the for the previous study were reviewed by Monroe County within the EPZ. The data for those facilities within Monroe County was confirmed to be still accurate by the county.
Data for the facilities in Wayne County were provided by representatives from Wayne County.
Assuming transients would travel to the recreational areas and facilities as a family/household.
As such, the average household size (2.48 - See Section 3.1) was used to estimate the transients and vehicles where data was missing. The transient attractions within the Fermi 2 EPZ are summarized as follow:
Golf Courses - 300 transients and 300 vehicles; 1.00 transients per vehicle Marinas - 2,319 transients and 1,089 vehicles; 2.13 transients per vehicle Parks - 6,686 transients and 2,962 vehicles; 2.26 transients per vehicle Lodging Facilities - 1,634 transients and 774 vehicles; 2.11 transients per vehicle Appendix E summarizes the transient data that was estimated for the EPZ. Table E5 presents the number of transients visiting recreational areas, while Table E6 presents the number of transients at lodging facilities within the EPZ.
In total, there are 10,939 transients in the EPZ at peak times, evacuating in 5,125 vehicles (an average vehicle occupancy of 2.13 transients per vehicle). Table 34 presents transient population and transient vehicle estimates by PAA. Figure 36 and Figure 37 present these data by sector and distance from the plant.
3.4 Employees As per the NUREG/CR7002, Rev. 1, employers with 200 or more employees working in a single shift are considered to be major employers. Data provided by DTE Energy and the counties within the EPZ was used to determine the major employers within the Fermi 2 EPZ. Any employer with less than 200 employees (during the maximum shift) is not considered in this study.
Employees who work within the EPZ fall into two categories:
Those who live and work in the EPZ Those who live outside of the EPZ and commute to jobs within the EPZ.
Those of the first category are already counted as part of the permanent resident population. To avoid double counting, we focus only on those employees commuting from outside the EPZ who will evacuate along with the permanent resident population. The percentage of employees commuting into the EPZ was included in the data provided for most major employers. When this data was not provided, the 2019 LEHD (Longitudinal Employer Fermi 2 Nuclear Power Plant 33 KLD Engineering, P.C.
Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0
Enclosure to NRC-22-0041 Page 59 of 372 Household Dynamics) OriginDestination Employment Statistics (LODES) data1 provided by the U.S. Census Bureaus OnTheMap Census analysis tool2 was used to estimate the number of employees commuting into the EPZ.
There are a total of 3,215 employees commuting into the EPZ on a daily basis. To estimate the evacuating employee vehicles, a vehicle occupancy of 1.02 employees per vehicle obtained from the demographic survey (see Appendix F, Subsection F.3.1) was used for the major employers. Appendix E, Table E4 provides the detailed information of each major employer.
Table 35 presents the estimates of employees and vehicles commuting into the EPZ by PAA. Figure 38 and Figure 39 present these data by sector.
3.5 Medical Facilities Data was provided by the counties for each of the medical facilities within the EPZ. Table E2 in Appendix E summarizes the data gathered. Section 8 details the evacuation of medical facilities and their patients. Table 36 presents the census of medical facilities in the EPZ. A total of 1,212 persons have been identified as living in or being treated in these facilities. Since the average number of patients as these facilities fluctuates often, the capacity, current census and breakdown of ambulatory, wheelchair bound and bedridden patients for each facility were provided by the county emergency management agencies.
The transportation requirements for the medical facility population are also presented in Table
36. 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 buses up to 15 people; and ambulances, up to 2 people.
3.6 Transit Dependent Population The demographic survey (see Appendix F) results were used to estimate the portion of the population requiring transit service:
Those persons in households that do not have a vehicle available.
Those persons in households that do have vehicle(s) that would not be available at the time the evacuation is advised.
In the latter group, the vehicle(s) may be used by a commuter(s) who does not return (or is not expected to return) home to evacuate the household.
Table 37 presents estimates of transitdependent people. Note:
Estimates of persons requiring transit vehicles include schoolchildren. For those evacuation scenarios where children are at school when an evacuation is ordered, separate transportation is provided for the schoolchildren. The actual need for 1
The LODES data is part of the LEHD data products from the U.S. Census Bureau. This dataset provides detailed spatial distributions of workers employment and residential locations and the relation between the two at the census block level. For detailed information, please refer to this site: https://lehd.ces.census.gov/data/
2 http://onthemap.ces.census.gov/ OnTheMap is an interactive map displaying workplace and residential distributions by user-defined geographies at census block level detail.
Fermi 2 Nuclear Power Plant 34 KLD Engineering, P.C.
Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0
Enclosure to NRC-22-0041 Page 60 of 372 transit vehicles by residents is thereby less than the given estimates. However, estimates of transit vehicles are not reduced when schools are in session.
It is reasonable and appropriate to consider that many transitdependent persons will evacuate by ridesharing with neighbors, friends or family. For example, nearly 80 percent of those who evacuated from Mississauga, Ontario who did not use their own cars, shared a ride with neighbors or friends. Other documents report that approximately 70 percent of transit dependent persons were evacuated via ride sharing. Based on the results of the demographic survey, approximately 78 percent of the transitdependent population will rideshare.
The estimated number of bus trips needed to service transitdependent persons is based on an estimate of average bus occupancy of 30 persons at the conclusion of the bus run. Transit vehicle seating capacities typically equal or exceed 60 children (roughly equivalent to 40 adults). If transit vehicle evacuees are two thirds adults and one third children, then the number of adult seats taken by 30 persons is 20 + (2/3 x10) = 27. On this basis, the average load factor anticipated is (27/40) x 100 = 68 percent. Thus, if the actual demand for service exceeds the estimates of Table 37 by 50 percent, the demand for service can still be accommodated by the available bus seating capacity.
2 20 10 40 1.5 1.00 3
Table 37 indicates that transportation must be provided for 905 people. Therefore, a total of 31 buses are required from a capacity standpoint. In order to service all of the transit dependent population and have at least one bus drive through each of the PAAs to pick up transit dependent people, 32 buses are used in the ETE calculations, see Section 10 for further discussion.
To illustrate this estimation procedure, we calculate the number of persons, P, requiring public transit or rideshare, and the number of buses, B, required for the Fermi 2 EPZ:
Where, A = Percent of households with commuters C = Percent of households who will not await the return of a commuter 40,675 0.0090 4.00 0.258 1.44 1 0.59 0.55 0.457 2.70 2 0.59 0.52 4,106 1 0.78 30 31 Fermi 2 Nuclear Power Plant 35 KLD Engineering, P.C.
Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0
Enclosure to NRC-22-0041 Page 61 of 372 These calculations are explained as follows:
The estimated number of households is obtained by dividing the EPZ population (100,873) by the average household size (2.48 people per household) and equals 40,675.
All members (4.00 avg.) of households (HH) with no vehicles (0.9%) will evacuate by public transit or rideshare. The term 40,675 (number of households) x 0.0090 x 4.00, accounts for these people.
The members of HH with 1 vehicle away (25.8%), who are at home, equal (1.441).
The number of HH where the commuter will not return home is equal to (40,675 x 0.258 x 0.44 x 0.59 x 0.52), as 59% of EPZ households have a commuter, 52% of which would not return home in the event of an emergency. The number of persons who will evacuate by public transit or rideshare is equal to the product of these two terms.
The members of HH with 2 vehicles that are away (45.70%), who are at home, equal (2.70 - 2). The number of HH where neither commuter will return home is equal to 40,675 x 0.4570 x 0.70 x (0.59 x 0.52)2. The number of persons who will evacuate by public transit or rideshare is equal to the product of these two terms (the last term is squared to represent the probability that neither commuter will return).
Households with 3 or more vehicles are assumed to have no need for transit vehicles.
The total number of persons requiring public transit is the sum of such people in HH with no vehicles, or with 1 or 2 vehicles that are away from home.
The estimate of transitdependent population in Table 37 far exceeds the number of registered transitdependent persons in the EPZ as provided by the counties (discussed below in Section 3.8). This is consistent with the findings of NUREG/CR6953, Volume 2, in that a large majority of the transitdependent population within the EPZs of U.S. nuclear plants do not register with their local emergency response agency.
3.7 School, PreSchool, and Licensed Day Care Center Population Demand Table 38 presents the population and transportation requirements for the direct evacuation of all schools, preschools, and licensed day care centers within the EPZ for the 20202021 school year. The majority of the information was provided by the counties within the EPZ. The National Center for Education Statistics3 and internet searches were used where data was missing. The column in Table 38 entitled Buses Required specifies the number of buses required for each school under the following set of assumptions and estimates:
No students will be picked up by their parents prior to the arrival of the buses.
While many high school students commute to school using private automobiles (as discussed in Section 2.4 of NUREG/CR7002, Rev. 1), the estimate of buses required for school evacuation do not consider the use of these private vehicles.
3 https://nces.ed.gov/
Fermi 2 Nuclear Power Plant 36 KLD Engineering, P.C.
Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0
Enclosure to NRC-22-0041 Page 62 of 372
Bus capacity, expressed in students per bus, is set to 70 for elementary school, pre school, and day care centers and 50 for middle and high schools.
Those staff members who do not accompany the students will evacuate in their private vehicles.
No allowance is made for student absenteeism, typically 3 percent daily.
The counties in the EPZ could introduce procedures whereby the schools are contacted prior to the dispatch of buses from the depot to ascertain the current estimate of students to be evacuated. In this way, the number of buses dispatched to the schools, preschools, and licensed day care centers will reflect the actual number needed. Those buses originally allocated to evacuate schoolchildren that are not needed due to children being picked up by their parents (although they are not advised to do so) can be gainfully assigned to service other facilities or those persons who do not have access to private vehicles or to ridesharing.
School buses are represented as two vehicles in the ETE simulations due to their larger size and more sluggish operating characteristics.
3.8 Access and/or Functional Needs Population Based on data provided by Monroe County, there are an estimated 392 access and/or functional needs people (243 ambulatory, 32 wheelchair bound, and 117 bedridden) within the Monroe County portion of the EPZ. Since no data was provided for Wayne County, it was assumed that the percent breakdown for the medical facilities within the EPZ would be used for the ambulatory, wheelchair bound, and bedridden access and/or functional needs population within the Wayne County portion of the EPZ. It was estimated that the Wayne County Portion of the EPZ would have 60 ambulatory, 61 wheelchair bound, and 7 bedridden persons. Using capacities of 30, 15, and 2 people per vehicle for buses, wheelchair buses, and ambulances, respectfully, a total of 51 buses, 24 wheelchair buses, and 62 ambulances are assumed to be deployed to evacuate the access and/or functional needs population within the Fermi 2 EPZ, as presented in Table 39.
3.9 Correctional Facilities As detailed in Table E7, there are two correctional facilities within the EPZ - the Monroe County Sheriffs Office and Jail and the Monroe County Inmate Dormitory Facility. The total inmate population at these facilities is 200 persons. A total of 7 buses are needed to evacuate these two facilities, based on a capacity of 30 inmates per bus.
3.10 Special Event Based on a discussion with DTE Energy, the Monroe County Fair held on S Cuter Rd/M50 in Monroe (about 1 mile south of the EPZ) is considered for the special event4 - Scenario 13.
4 The River Raisin Jazz Festival was also presented as a potential special event, but according to the Facebook page (https://www.facebook.com/RiverRaisinJazzFestival/), the event is cancelled indefinitely.
Fermi 2 Nuclear Power Plant 37 KLD Engineering, P.C.
Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0
Enclosure to NRC-22-0041 Page 63 of 372 According to an online article published by the Monroe News5, in 2021 the Monroe County Fair peaked at about 45,000 transients in a single day. The fairgrounds site plan6 was used to estimate the number of available parking spaces for fair visitors. Using dimensions of 22 feet long by 8 feet wide per car, to account for the space between parked vehicles and vehicle travel lanes between rows, it is estimated that the area for a parked car is 176 square feet. In total, there is 2,089,483 square feet of parking space for the event. As such, there is parking for about 11,872 vehicles at the event. (It is assumed the parking lots are full at peak times.) It is conservatively assumed that half of these people come from the EPZ (it is likely more than half of the events attendance are EPZ residents due to the portion of the City of Monroe that is within the EPZ). As such, it is estimated that an additional 22,500 transients in 5,936 vehicles are present for the special event. According to the event website, no public transportation is provided for the event and, therefore, was not considered for the special event cases.
3.11 External Traffic Vehicles will be traveling through the EPZ (externalexternal trips) at the time of an accident.
After the advisory to evacuate is announced, these throughtravelers will also evacuate. These through vehicles are assumed to travel the major routes traversing the EPZ - Interstate (I) 75, and I275. It is assumed that this traffic will continue to enter the EPZ during the first 120 minutes following the advisory to evacuate.
Average Annual Daily Traffic (AADT) data from 2020 was obtained from Michigan Department of Transportations website7 to estimate the number of vehicles per hour on the aforementioned routes. The AADT was multiplied by the KFactor, which is the proportion of the AADT on a roadway segment or link during the design hour, resulting in the design hour volume (DHV). The design hour is usually the 30th highest hourly traffic volume of the year, measured in vehicles per hour (vph). The DHV is then multiplied by the DFactor, which is the proportion of the DHV occurring in the peak direction of travel (also known as the directional split). The resulting values are the directional design hourly volumes (DDHV) and are presented in Table 310, for each of the routes considered. The DDHV is then multiplied by 2 hours2.314815e-5 days 5.555556e-4 hours 3.306878e-6 weeks 7.61e-7 months (access control is 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 10,288 vehicles entering the EPZ as externalexternal trips prior to the activation of access control and the diversion of this traffic.
3.12 Background Traffic Section 5 discusses the time needed for the people in the EPZ to mobilize and begin their evacuation trips. As shown in Table 59, there are 14 time periods during which traffic is loaded on to roadways in the study area to model the mobilization time of people in the EPZ. Note, 5
https://www.monroenews.com/story/news/county-fair/2021/08/09/fair-breaks-attendance-mark/5529119001/
6 http://monroecountyfair.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/12/Fairgroundsmap-0318.jpg 7
https://lrs.state.mi.us/portal/apps/webappviewer/index.html?id=1a8bf6b2681d483ca9090ebec5d105ff Fermi 2 Nuclear Power Plant 38 KLD Engineering, P.C.
Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0
Enclosure to NRC-22-0041 Page 64 of 372 there is no traffic generated during the 15th time period, as this time period is intended to allow traffic that has already begun evacuating to clear the study area boundaries.
This study does not assume that roadways are empty at the start of Time Period 1. Rather, there is a 30minute initialization time period (often referred to as fill time in traffic simulation) wherein the traffic volumes from Time Period 1 are loaded onto roadways in the study area. The amount of initialization/fill traffic that is on the roadways in the study area at the start of Time Period 1 depends on the scenario and the region being evacuated (see Section 6). There are 2,983 vehicles on the roadways in the study area at the end of fill time for an evacuation of the entire EPZ (Region R03) under Scenario 1 (summer, midweek, midday, good weather) conditions.
3.13 Summary of Demand A summary of population and vehicle demand is provided in Table 311 and Table 312, respectively. This summary includes all population groups described in this section. A total of 179,204 people and 91,145 vehicles are considered in this study.
Fermi 2 Nuclear Power Plant 39 KLD Engineering, P.C.
Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0
Enclosure to NRC-22-0041 Page 65 of 372 Table 31. EPZ Permanent Resident Population PAA8 2010 Population 2020 Population 1 3,429 3,375 2 4,746 5,454 3 5,434 5,171 4 38,810 40,147 5 45,406 46,381 6 0 7 345 EPZ TOTAL 97,825 100,873 EPZ Population Growth (20102020): 3.12%
Table 32. Permanent Resident Population and Vehicles by PAA 2020 PAA 2020 Population Resident Vehicles 1 3,375 1,935 2 5,454 3,123 3 5,171 2,955 4 40,147 22,944 5 46,381 25,820 6 0 0 7 345 198 EPZ TOTAL 100,873 56,975 8
PAA boundaries have updated based on the EPZ displayed in the 2022 Fermi 2 Emergency Preparedness Booklet. PAA 6 or 7 was not a part of the EPZ in the previous study, therefore, no 2010 population was reported for PAA 6 or 7 .
Fermi 2 Nuclear Power Plant 310 KLD Engineering, P.C.
Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0
Enclosure to NRC-22-0041 Page 66 of 372 Table 33. Shadow Population and Vehicles by Sector Sector 2020 Population Evacuating Vehicles N 41,760 23,764 NNE 29,630 16,814 NE 0 0 ENE 0 0 E 0 0 ESE 0 0 SE 0 0 SSE 0 0 S 0 0 SSW 0 0 SW 4,601 2,627 WSW 6,454 3,661 W 2,674 1,531 WNW 2,262 1,301 NW 4,756 2,711 NNW 13,061 7,466 TOTAL 105,198 59,875 Table 34. Summary of Transients and Transient Vehicles PAA Transients Transient Vehicles 1 44 22 2 2,050 920 3 0 0 4 948 444 5 7,173 3,447 6 0 0 7 724 292 EPZ TOTAL 10,939 5,125 Table 35. Summary of Employees and Employee Vehicles Commuting into the EPZ PAA Employees Employee Vehicles 1 519 509 2 176 173 3 117 115 4 1,205 1,181 5 1,198 1,175 6 0 0 7 0 0 EPZ TOTAL 3,215 3,153 Fermi 2 Nuclear Power Plant 311 KLD Engineering, P.C.
Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0
Enclosure to NRC-22-0041 Page 67 of 372 Table 36. Medical Facility Transit Demand Wheel Wheel chair Current Ambu chair Bed Bus Bus Ambulance PAA Facility Name Municipality Capacity Census latory Bound ridden Runs Runs Runs MONROE COUNTY 5 Alice Lorraine Care Center Monroe 32 32 17 15 0 1 1 0 5 Fountain View of Monroe Monroe 119 107 2 100 5 1 7 3 5 Mercy Memorial Hospital Monroe 217 168 69 69 30 3 5 15 ProMedica Monroe Skilled Nursing 5 and Rehab Monroe 89 89 19 67 3 1 5 2 The Oasis at Monroe Rehabilitation 5 and Healthcare Center Monroe 150 126 60 60 6 2 4 3 5 Norman Towers Senior Apartments Monroe 112 112 112 0 0 4 0 0 5 IHM Senior Living Community Monroe 295 159 105 52 2 4 4 1 5 Elm House Monroe 16 15 15 0 0 1 0 0 5 Brookdale Monroe Monroe 40 40 21 4 15 1 1 8 5 River Park Plaza Monroe 148 148 123 25 0 5 2 0 5 Medilodge of Monroe Monroe 103 92 5 81 6 1 6 3 5 Wellspring Lutheran Services Monroe 122 113 9 104 0 1 7 0 Monroe County Subtotal: 1,443 1,201 557 577 67 25 42 35 WAYNE COUNTY 4 Marybrook Residence Flat Rock 12 11 10 1 0 1 1 0 Wayne County Subtotal: 12 11 10 1 0 1 1 0 TOTAL: 1,455 1,212 567 578 67 26 43 35 Fermi 2 Nuclear Power Plant 312 KLD Engineering, P.C.
Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0
Enclosure to NRC-22-0041 Table 37. TransitDependent Population Estimates Page 68 of 372 Survey Average HH Survey Percent Size Survey Percent HH Survey Percent HH Total People Population with Indicated No. Estimated with Indicated No. of Percent HH with Non People Estimated Requiring Requiring 2020 EPZ of Vehicles No. of Vehicles with Returning Requiring Ridesharing Public Public Population 0 1 2 Households 0 1 2 Commuters Commuters Transport Percentage Transit Transit 100,873 4.00 1.44 2.70 40,675 0.90% 25.80% 45.70% 59% 52% 4,106 78% 903 0.9%
Fermi 2 Nuclear Power Plant 313 KLD Engineering, P.C.
Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0
Enclosure to NRC-22-0041 Page 69 of 372 Table 38. School Population Demand Estimates Buses PAA School Name Enrollment Required MONROE COUNTY SCHOOLS 1 North Elementary School 337 5 2 St. Charles Borromeo Catholic Academy 207 5 2 Niedermeier Elementary School 260 4 3 Jefferson High School 579 12 3 Jefferson Middle School 514 11 3 Sodt Elementary School 227 4 4 Ritter Elementary School 240 4 4 Airport Center for Education 80 2 4 Airport Middle College 17 1 4 Airport Senior High School 719 15 4 Wagar Middle School 415 9 4 Sterling Elementary School 295 5 4 Eyler Elementary School 264 4 4 St. Patrick School 104 3 5 Triumph Academy 776 12 5 Zion Lutheran School 91 2 5 Arborwood Elementary School 675 10 5 Orchard Center High School 162 4 St. Mary Middle School Campus of Monroe 5 Catholic Elementary Schools 511 11 5 St. Mary's Catholic Center High School 347 7 5 Trinity Lutheran School 202 5 5 Monroe Middle School 769 16 5 St. John's School 188 4 5 Manor Elementary School 435 7 5 Holy Ghost Lutheran School 72 2 5 Waterloo Elementary School 246 4 5 Raisinville Elementary School 432 7 5 Monroe High School 1,496 30 5 Custer I Elementary School 919 14 5 Custer II Elementary School Monroe County Subtotal: 11,579 219 WAYNE COUNTY SCHOOLS 4 St. Mary's Rockwood Elementary School 68 1 4 Chapman Elementary School 436 7 4 John M. Barnes Elementary School 413 6 4 River Heights Academy 261 4 Fermi 2 Nuclear Power Plant 314 KLD Engineering, P.C.
Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0
Enclosure to NRC-22-0041 Page 70 of 372 Buses PAA School Name Enrollment Required 4 Simpson Middle School 444 9 4 Oscar A. Carlson High School 1,146 23 4 Hellen C. Shumate Junior High School 811 17 4 Ethel Bobcean Elementary School 455 7 4 Flat Rock Community High School 571 12 4 Parsons Elementary School 420 6 4 Champions at Hunter Elementary 422 7 Wayne County Subtotal: 5,447 99 MONROE COUNTY PRESCHOOLS/LICENSED DAY CARE CENTERS 2 St. Charles School Child Care Center 60 1 4 St. Patrick School Child Care Center 57 1 4 Carleton Country Day School 48 1 On B.A.S.E. (Triumph Academy Child Care 5 Center) 42 1 5 Speckled Frog Learning Center 60 1 5 Zion Lutheran School 24 1 5 KidsNCompany Learning Center 37 1 5 Pathway Child Care and Preschool 76 2 5 Orchard Head Start 54 1 5 Oaks Acorn Childrens Village 32 1 Saint Michael Campus of the Monroe 5 Catholic Elementary Schools 428 7 5 Riverside Early Learning Center 100 2 5 Riverside Head Start 40 1 5 Monroe Family YMCA 105 2 5 Kiddie Korner Christian Daycare 90 2 5 Holy Ghost Lutheran Preschool 21 1 Monroe County Subtotal: 1,274 26 WAYNE COUNTY PRESCHOOLS/LICENSED DAY CARE CENTERS 4 Flat Rock Child Care Center 22 1 Wayne County Subtotal: 22 1 SCHOOL TOTAL: 17,026 318 PRESCHOOLS/LICENSED DAY CARE CENTERS TOTAL: 1,296 27 GRAND TOTAL: 18,322 345 Fermi 2 Nuclear Power Plant 315 KLD Engineering, P.C.
Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0
Enclosure to NRC-22-0041 Table 39. Access and/or Functional Need Estimates Page 71 of 372 Population Group Population Vehicles deployed Bus 303 51 Wheelchair Bus 93 24 Ambulances 124 62 Total: 520 137 Table 310. Fermi 2 EPZ External Traffic Hourly External 9 10 2 Up Node Down Node Road Name Direction AADT KFactor DFactor Volume Traffic 8240 914 I75 SB 56,521 0.091 0.25 1,286 2,572 8030 862 I275 SB 56,521 0.091 0.25 1,286 2,572 8454 454 I75 NB 56,521 0.091 0.5 2,572 5,144 TOTAL: 10,288 9
2020 AADT Counts; https://lrs.state.mi.us/portal/apps/webappviewer/index.html?id=1a8bf6b2681d483ca9090ebec5d105ff 10 HCM 2016 Fermi 2 Nuclear Power Plant 316 KLD Engineering, P.C.
Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0
Enclosure to NRC-22-0041 Table 311. Summary of Population Demand11 Page 72 of 372 Transit Special Special Shadow External PAA Residents Dependent Transients Employees Facilities12 Schools Event Population13 Traffic Total 1 3,375 30 44 519 0 337 0 0 0 4,305 2 5,454 49 2,050 176 0 527 0 0 0 8,256 3 5,171 46 0 117 0 1,320 0 0 0 6,654 4 40,147 359 948 1,205 11 7,708 0 0 0 50,378 5 46,381 4156 7,173 1,198 1,401 8,430 22,500 0 0 87,498 6 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 7 345 4 724 0 0 0 0 0 0 1,073 Shadow 21,040 Region 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 21,040 0 Total 100,873 903 10,939 3,215 1,412 18,322 22,500 21,040 0 179,204 11 Since the spatial distribution of the access and/or functional needs population is unknown, vehicles needed to evacuate access and/or functional needs population are not included in this table.
12 Special Facilities include both medical facilities and correctional facilities.
13 Shadow Population has been reduced to 20%. Refer to Figure 2-1 for additional information.
Fermi 2 Nuclear Power Plant 317 KLD Engineering, P.C.
Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0
Enclosure to NRC-22-0041 Table 312. Summary of Vehicle Demand14 Page 73 of 372 Transit Special Special Shadow External PAA Residents Dependent Transients Employees Facilities15 Schools Event Population16 Traffic Total 1 1,935 2 22 509 0 10 0 0 0 2,478 2 3,123 4 920 173 0 20 0 0 0 4,240 3 2,955 4 0 115 0 54 0 0 0 3,128 4 22,944 24 444 1,181 4 290 0 0 0 24,887 5 25,820 28 3,447 1,175 183 316 2,688 0 0 33,657 6 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 7 198 2 292 0 0 0 0 0 0 492 Shadow Region 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 11,975 10,288 22,263 Total 56,975 64 5,125 3,153 187 690 2,688 11,975 10,288 91,145 NOTE: Buses represented as two passenger vehicles. Refer to Section 8 for additional information.
14 Since the spatial distribution of the access and/or functional needs population is unknown, vehicles needed to evacuate access and/or functional needs population are not included in this table.
15 Special Facilities includes both medical facilities and correctional facilities.
16 Shadow vehicles have been reduced to 20%. Refer to Figure 2-1 for additional information.
Fermi 2 Nuclear Power Plant 318 KLD Engineering, P.C.
Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0
Enclosure to NRC-22-0041 Page 74 of 372 w~~
~ ~ ~ *~ i Wayne \---,--,----t-,------,-- '
County i
.. I I/
i i
-4 i r' i i
\
\
7~ \
\
\
\
\
s
~
~,
\
\\i 0
~
i
~,\
"'I a. .,,
I ~~
/
6
\
\
Lake Erie
\
7 \
\
\
\..........
Legend GJ Fermi2 PAA
, -:::, 2, 5, 10 Mile Rings 0ate:6/8/2022 Cophiktit: ESR1:o*ata and Maps 2020 K;,oi ngineering, DTE Energy
.www.census.gov I 0 2.5 5
M iles I Figure 31. PAAs Comprising the Fermi 2 EPZ Fermi 2 Nuclear Power Plant 319 KLD Engineering, P.C.
Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0
Enclosure to NRC-22-0041 Page 75 of 372 N
NNW NNE 120,8591 15, 169 I - - - - 110, 1541
-\ 2,485 7~
NW NE I8,667 I [ill]
WNW ENE I6,756 I [I]
,- .-J w E I6,470 I I 62 0 I [I]
I I i WSW ESE
\
133,6571 [I]
SW ' SE I7,431 I [I]
0
- _, 10 Mile s to EPZ Boundary SSW SSE
[ill] s [I] N
~
2020 Permanent Resident Population Mi les Subtotal by Ring Cumu lative Total 0-1 15 15 1-2 2,702 2,717 2-3 2,463 5,180 3-4 3,944 9,124 w E 4-5 4,832 13,956 5-6 6,522 20,478 6-7 9,081 29,559 7-8 18,773 48,332 8-9 24,025 72,357 9 - 10 23,221 95,578 10 - EPZ 5,295 100,873 Inset Tota l: 100,873 0- 2 Mi les s Figure 32. Permanent Resident Population by Sector Fermi 2 Nuclear Power Plant 320 KLD Engineering, P.C.
Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0
Enclosure to NRC-22-0041 Page 76 of 372 N
NNW NNE 111,9151 12,9 55 I 15,8 o7 I 1,423 NW NE I4,961 I [ill]
WNW ENE I3,868 I [I]
,- .-J w E I3,673 I I 36 0 I [I]
I I i WSW ESE
\
118, 7081 [I]
SW ' SE 14,110 1 [I]
0
- _, 10 Mile s to EPZ Boundary SSW SSE
[ill] s [I] N
~
Resident Vehicles Mi les Subtotal by Ring Cumu lative Total 0-1 9 9 1-2 1,547 1,556 2-3 1,412 2,968 3-4 2,261 5,229 w E 4-5 2,757 7,986 5-6 3,730 11,716 6-7 5,163 16,879 7-8 10,544 27,423 8-9 13,229 40,652 9 - 10 13,293 53,945 10 - EPZ 3,030 56,975 Inset Tota l: 56,975 0- 2 Mi les s Figure 33. Permanent Resident Vehicles by Sector Fermi 2 Nuclear Power Plant 321 KLD Engineering, P.C.
Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0
Enclosure to NRC-22-0041 Page 77 of 372 N
NNW 141,7601 NNE NW NE 4,756 0 WNW ENE 2,262 0
' \
w E EPZ Resident Population 2,674 See Figure 3-2 0
~
~
WSW ..., ESE 6,454 0 SW SE 4,601 0
_, EPZ Boundary to 11 Miles SSW \
0 s 0 0
2020 Shadow Population Miles Subtotal by Ring Cumulative Total EPZ - 11 17,132 17,132 11-12 23,224 40,356 12 -13 26,803 67, 159 13 -14 17,965 85, 124 14 - 15 20,074 105,198 Tota l: 105,198 Figure 34. Shadow Population by Sector Fermi 2 Nuclear Power Plant 322 KLD Engineering, P.C.
Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0
Enclosure to NRC-22-0041 Page 78 of 372 N
NNW NNE NW NE 2, 711 0 WNW ENE 1, 301 0
' \
w E EPZ Resident Vehicles 1, 5 31 See Figure 3-3 0
~
~
WSW ..., ESE 3,66 1 0 SW SE 2,62 7 0
_, EPZ Boundary to 11 Mi les SSW \
0 s 0 0
Shadow Vehicles Miles Subtota l by Ring Cum ulat ive Tota l EPZ - 11 9,734 9,734 11-12 13,217 22,951 12 -13 15,326 38,277 13 -14 10,186 48,463 14 - 15 11,412 59,875 Tota l: 59,875 Figure 35. Shadow Vehicles by Sector Fermi 2 Nuclear Power Plant 323 KLD Engineering, P.C.
Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0
Enclosure to NRC-22-0041 Page 79 of 372 N
NNW NNE
[ill]
OD I3, 319 I 0
NW NE
~ IT]
WNW ENE IT] IT]
,- .-J w E
~, 0 0 I IT]
I I i WSW ESE I1,2 77 I
\
IT]
SW ' SE 1 s,8 7 6 I IT]
0
- _, 10 M il e s to EPZ Boundary SSW SSE IT] s IT] N IT]
Transients Mi les Subtotal by Ring Cumu lative Total 0-1 0 0 1-2 14 14 2 -3 30 44 3-4 so 94 w E 4-5 2,000 2,094 5-6 4,996 7,090 6-7 378 7,468 7 -8 624 8,092 8- 9 315 8,407 9 - 10 2,472 10,879 10 - EPZ 60 10,93 9 Inset Tota l: 10,939 0 - 2 Mi les s Figure 36. Transient Population by Sector Fermi 2 Nuclear Power Plant 324 KLD Engineering, P.C.
Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0
Enclosure to NRC-22-0041 Page 80 of 372 N
NNW NNE
[ill]
OD I1, 402 I NW NE
~ [I]
WNW ENE
[I] [I]
w E
~* o 0 I [I]
i WSW ESE ffiD [I]
SW SE I2, 744 I [I]
I - '
- _, 10 Miles to EPZ Boundary SSW SSE
[I] s [I] N
[I]
Transient Vehicles Miles Subtota l by Ring Cumu lative Tota l 0-1 0 0 1-2 7 7 2 -3 15 22 3-4 50 72 w E 4-5 870 942 5-6 2,264 3,206 6 -7 239 3,445 7 -8 300 3,745 8- 9 167 3,912 9 -10 1,163 5,075 10 - EPZ 50 5,125 Tota l: 5,125 Figure 37. Transient Vehicles by Sector Fermi 2 Nuclear Power Plant 325 KLD Engineering, P.C.
Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0
Enclosure to NRC-22-0041 Page 81 of 372 NNW NNE
~
0 NW NE
~ ~
WNW ENE
~ ~
,- .-J w E
~, 0 0 I
~
I I i WSW ESE I1,21 s I ~
SW ' SE
~ ~
0
- _, 10 M iles to EPZ Boundary SSW SSE OTIJ ~ N Employees Mi les Subtotal by Ring Cumu lative Total 0-1 519 519 1-2 0 519 2 -3 0 519 3-4 176 695 w E 4-5 117 812 5 -6 0 812 6-7 138 950 7-8 939 1,889 8-9 228 2,117 9 - 10 1,098 3,215 10 - EPZ 0 3,215 Inset Tota l: 3,215 0- 2 Mi les s Figure 38. Employee Population by Sector Fermi 2 Nuclear Power Plant 326 KLD Engineering, P.C.
Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0
Enclosure to NRC-22-0041 Page 82 of 372 N
NNW NNE
[ill]
IT] IT]
0 NW NE
[ill] IT]
WNW ENE IT] IT]
,-I w E IT]' 0 0 I IT]
I I i WSW ESE 11, 192 I IT]
SW ' ' SE OU IT]
0
- _, 10 Miles to EPZ Boundary SSW SSE
~ s IT] N IT]
Employee Vehicles Miles Subtotal by Ring Cumu lative Tota l 0-1 509 509 1 -2 0 509 2-3 0 509 3-4 173 682 w E 4-5 115 797 5-6 0 797 6-7 135 932 7-8 921 1,853 8-9 224 2,077 9 - 10 1,076 3,153 10 - EPZ 0 3, 153 Total : 3, 153 Figure 39. Employee Vehicles by Sector Fermi 2 Nuclear Power Plant 327 KLD Engineering, P.C.
Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0
Enclosure to NRC-22-0041 Page 83 of 372 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 2016 Highway Capacity Manual (HCM 2016).
In discussing capacity, different operating conditions have been assigned alphabetical designations, A through F, to reflect the range of traffic operational characteristics. These designations have been termed "Levels of Service" (LOS). For example, LOS A connotes freeflow and highspeed operating conditions; LOS F represents a forced flow condition. LOS E describes traffic operating at or near capacity.
Another concept, closely associated with capacity, is Service Volume (SV). SV 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 LOS. 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 SV at the upper bound of LOS E, only.
Thus, in simple terms, SV is the maximum traffic that can travel on a road and still maintain a certain perceived level of quality to a driver based on the A, B, C, rating system (LOS). Any additional vehicles above the SV would drop the rating to a lower letter grade.
This distinction is illustrated in Exhibit 1237 of the HCM 2016. 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)
These factors are considered during the road survey and in the capacity estimation process; some factors have greater influence on capacity than others. For example, lane and shoulder width have only a limited influence on Base Free Flow Speed (BFFS1) according to Exhibit 157 of the HCM 2016. Consequently, lane and shoulder widths at the narrowest points were observed during the road survey and these observations were recorded, but no detailed measurements of lane or shoulder width were taken. Horizontal and vertical alignment can 1
A very rough estimate of BFFS might be taken as the posted speed limit plus 10 mph (HCM 2016 Page 15-15)
Fermi 2 Nuclear Power Plant 41 KLD Engineering, P.C.
Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0
Enclosure to NRC-22-0041 Page 84 of 372 influence both FFS and capacity. The estimated FFS were measured using the survey vehicles speedometer and observing local traffic, under free flow conditions. Capacity is estimated from the procedures of the HCM 2016. For example, HCM 2016 Exhibit 71(b) shows the sensitivity of SV at the upper bound of LOS D to grade (capacity is the SV at the upper bound of LOS E).
As discussed in Section 2.6, 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 FFS and of highway capacity by approximately 10%. 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 25% depending on wind speed and precipitation rates. As indicated in Section 2.6, we employ a reduction in free speed and in highway capacity of 10% for rain\light snow. During heavy snow conditions, the free speed and highway capacity reductions are 15% and 25%, respectively.
Since congestion arising from evacuation may be significant, estimates of roadway capacity must be determined with great care. Because of its importance, a brief discussion of the major factors that influence highway capacity is presented in this section.
Rural highways generally consist of: (1) one or more uniform sections with limited access (driveways, parking areas) characterized by uninterrupted flow; and (2) approaches to at grade intersections where flow can be interrupted by a control device or by turning or crossing traffic at the intersection. Due to these differences, separate estimates of capacity must be made for each section. Often, the approach to the intersection is widened by the addition of one or more lanes (turn pockets or turn bays), to compensate for the lower capacity of the approach due to the factors there that can interrupt the flow of traffic. These additional lanes are recorded during the field survey and later entered as input to the DYNEV II system.
4.1 Capacity Estimations on Approaches to Intersections Atgrade intersections are apt to become the first bottleneck locations under local heavy traffic volume conditions. This characteristic reflects the need to allocate access time to the respective competing traffic streams by exerting some form of control. During evacuation, control at critical intersections will often be provided by traffic control personnel assigned for that purpose, whose directions may supersede traffic control devices. See Appendix G for more information.
The perlane capacity of an approach to a signalized intersection can be expressed (simplistically) in the following form:
3600 3600 where:
Qcap,m = Capacity of a single lane of traffic on an approach, which executes movement, m, upon entering the intersection; vehicles per hour (vph)
Fermi 2 Nuclear Power Plant 42 KLD Engineering, P.C.
Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0
Enclosure to NRC-22-0041 Page 85 of 372 hm = Mean queue discharge headway of vehicles on this lane that are executing movement, m; seconds per vehicle G = Mean duration of GREEN time servicing vehicles that are executing movement, m, for each signal cycle; seconds L = Mean "lost time" for each signal phase servicing movement, m; seconds C = Duration of each signal cycle; seconds Pm = Proportion of GREEN time allocated for vehicles executing movement, m, from this lane. This value is specified as part of the control treatment.
m = The movement executed by vehicles after they enter the intersection: through, leftturn, rightturn, and diagonal.
The turnmovementspecific mean discharge headway hm, depends in a complex way upon many factors: roadway geometrics, turn percentages, the extent of conflicting traffic streams, the control treatment, and others. A primary factor is the value of "saturation queue discharge headway", hsat, which applies to through vehicles that are not impeded by other conflicting traffic streams. This value, itself, depends upon many factors including motorist behavior.
Formally, we can write, where:
hsat = Saturation discharge headway for through vehicles; seconds per vehicle F1,F2 = The various known factors influencing hm fm( ) = Complex function relating hm to the known (or estimated) values of hsat, F1, F2, The estimation of hm for specified values of hsat, F1, F2, ... is undertaken within the DYNEV II simulation model by a mathematical model2. The resulting values for hm always satisfy the condition:
That is, the turnmovementspecific discharge headways are always greater than, or equal to the saturation discharge headway for through vehicles. These headways (or its inverse equivalent, saturation flow rate), may be determined by observation or using the procedures of the HCM 2016.
The above discussion is necessarily brief given the scope of this Evacuation Time Estimate (ETE) report and the complexity of the subject of intersection capacity. In fact, Chapters 19, 20 and 21 2
Lieberman, E., "Determining Lateral Deployment of Traffic on an Approach to an Intersection", McShane, W. & Lieberman, E.,
"Service Rates of Mixed Traffic on the far Left Lane of an Approach". Both papers appear in Transportation Research Record 772, 1980. Lieberman, E., Xin, W., Macroscopic Traffic Modeling For Large-Scale Evacuation Planning, presented at the TRB 2012 Annual Meeting, January 22-26, 2012 Fermi 2 Nuclear Power Plant 43 KLD Engineering, P.C.
Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0
Enclosure to NRC-22-0041 Page 86 of 372 in the HCM 2016 address this topic. The factors, F1, F2,, influencing saturation flow rate are identified in equation (198) of the HCM 2016.
The traffic signals within the Emergency Planning Zone (EPZ) and Shadow Region are modeled using representative phasing plans and phase durations obtained as part of the field data collection. Traffic responsive signal installations allow the proportion of green time allocated (Pm) for each approach to each intersection to be determined by the expected traffic volumes on each approach during evacuation circumstances. The amount of green time (G) allocated is subject to maximum and minimum phase duration constraints; 2 seconds of yellow time are indicated for each signal phase and 1 second of allred time is assigned between signal phases, typically. If a signal is pretimed, the yellow and allred times observed during the road survey are used. A lost time (L) of 2.0 seconds is used for each signal phase in the analysis.
4.2 Capacity Estimation along Sections of Highway The capacity of highway sections as distinct from approaches to intersections is a function of roadway geometrics, traffic composition (e.g. percent heavy trucks and buses in the traffic stream) and, of course, motorist behavior. There is a fundamental relationship which relates SV (i.e. the number of vehicles serviced within a uniform highway section in a given time period) to traffic density. The top curve in Figure 41 illustrates this relationship.
As indicated, there are two flow regimes: (1) Free Flow (left side of curve); and (2) Forced Flow (right side). In the Free Flow regime, the traffic demand is fully serviced; the SV increases as demand volume and density increase, until the SV 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 SV) 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 SV, VF, under congested conditions.
The value of VF can be expressed as:
where:
R = Reduction factor which is less than unity Fermi 2 Nuclear Power Plant 44 KLD Engineering, P.C.
Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0
Enclosure to NRC-22-0041 Page 87 of 372 We have employed a value of R=0.90. The advisability of such a capacity reduction factor is based upon empirical studies that identified a falloff in the service flow rate when congestion occurs at bottlenecks or choke points on a freeway system. Zhang and Levinson3 describe a research program that collected data from a computerbased surveillance system (loop detectors) installed on the Interstate Highway System, at 27 active bottlenecks in the twin cities metro area in Minnesota over a 7week period. When flow breakdown occurs, queues are formed which discharge at lower flow rates than the maximum capacity prior to observed breakdown. These queue discharge flow (QDF) rates vary from one location to the next and also vary by day of week and time of day based upon local circumstances. The cited reference presents a mean QDF of 2,016 passenger cars per hour per lane (pcphpl). This figure compares with the nominal capacity estimate of 2,250 pcphpl estimated for the ETE and indicated in Appendix K for freeway links. The ratio of these two numbers is 0.896 which translates into a capacity reduction factor of 0.90.
Since the principal objective of evacuation time estimate analyses is to develop a realistic estimate of evacuation times, use of the representative value for this capacity reduction factor (R=0.90) is justified. This factor is applied only when flow breaks down, as determined by the simulation model.
Rural roads, like freeways, are classified as uninterrupted flow facilities. (This is in contrast with urban street systems which have closely spaced signalized intersections and are classified as interrupted flow facilities.) As such, traffic flow along rural roads is subject to the same effects as freeways in the event traffic demand exceeds the nominal capacity, resulting in queuing and lower QDF rates. As a practical matter, rural roads rarely break down at locations away from intersections. Any breakdowns on rural roads are generally experienced at intersections where other model logic applies, or at lane drops which reduce capacity there.
Therefore, the application of a factor of 0.90 is appropriate on rural roads, but rarely, if ever, activated.
The estimated value of capacity is based primarily upon the type of facility and on roadway geometrics. Sections of roadway with adverse geometrics are characterized by lower freeflow speeds and lane capacity. Exhibit 1546 in HCM 2016 was referenced to estimate saturation flow rates. The impact of narrow lanes and shoulders on freeflow speed and on capacity is not material, particularly when flow is predominantly in one direction as is the case during an evacuation.
The procedure used here was to estimate "section" capacity, VE, based on observations made traveling over each section of the evacuation network, based on the posted speed limits and travel behavior of other motorists and by reference to the HCM 2016. The DYNEV II simulation model determines for each highway section, represented as a network link, whether its capacity would be limited by the "sectionspecific" SV, VE, or by the intersectionspecific capacity. For each link, the model selects the lower value of capacity.
3 Lei Zhang and David Levinson, Some Properties of Flows at Freeway Bottlenecks, Transportation Research Record 1883, 2004.
Fermi 2 Nuclear Power Plant 45 KLD Engineering, P.C.
Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0
Enclosure to NRC-22-0041 Page 88 of 372 4.3 Application to the Fermi 2 Study Area As part of the development of the linknode analysis network for the study area, an estimate of roadway capacity is required. The source material for the capacity estimates presented herein is contained in:
2016 Highway Capacity Manual (HCM)
Transportation Research Board National Research Council Washington, D.C.
The highway system in the study area consists primarily of three categories of roads and, of course, intersections:
TwoLane roads: Local, State Multilane Highways (atgrade)
Freeways Each of these classifications will be discussed.
4.3.1 TwoLane Roads Ref: HCM Chapter 15 Two lane roads comprise the majority of highways within the EPZ. The perlane capacity of a twolane highway is estimated at 1,700 passenger cars per hour (pc/h). This estimate is essentially independent of the directional distribution of traffic volume except that, for extended distances, the twoway capacity will not exceed 3,200 pc/h. The HCM procedures then estimate Level of Service (LOS) and Average Travel Speed. The DYNEV II simulation model accepts the specified value of capacity as input and computes average speed based on the timevarying demand: capacity relations.
Based on the field survey and on expected traffic operations associated with evacuation scenarios:
Most sections of twolane roads within the EPZ are classified as Class I, with "level terrain"; some are rolling terrain.
Class II highways are mostly those within urban and suburban centers.
4.3.2 Multilane Highway Ref: HCM Chapter 12 Exhibit 128 of the HCM presents a set of curves that indicate a perlane capacity ranging from approximately 1,900 to 2,200 pc/h, for freespeeds of 45 to 60 mph, respectively. Based on observation, the multilane highways outside of urban areas within the EPZ service traffic with freespeeds in this range. The actual timevarying speeds computed by the simulation model reflect the demand: capacity relationship and the impact of control at intersections. A Fermi 2 Nuclear Power Plant 46 KLD Engineering, P.C.
Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0
Enclosure to NRC-22-0041 Page 89 of 372 conservative estimate of perlane capacity of 1,900 pc/h is adopted for this study for multilane highways outside of urban areas, as shown in Appendix K.
4.3.3 Freeways Ref: HCM Chapters 10, 12, 13, 14 Chapter 10 of the HCM 2016 describes a procedure for integrating the results obtained in Chapters 12, 13 and 14, 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 12 of the HCM 2016 presents procedures for estimating capacity and LOS for Basic Freeway Segments". Exhibit 1237 of the HCM 2016 presents capacity vs. free speed estimates, which are provided below.
Free Speed (mph): 55 60 65 70+
PerLane Capacity (pc/h): 2,250 I I 2,300 I 2,350 I 2,400 The inputs to the simulation model are highway geometrics, freespeeds and capacity based on field observations. The simulation logic calculates actual timevarying speeds based on demand:
capacity relationships. A conservative estimate of perlane capacity of 2,250 pc/h is adopted for this study for freeways, as shown in Appendix K.
Chapter 13 of the HCM 2016 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 13 depends on the "Type" and geometrics of the weaving segment and on the "Volume Ratio" (ratio of weaving volume to total volume).
Chapter 14 of the HCM 2016 presents procedures for estimating capacities of ramps and of "merge" areas. There are three significant factors to the determination of capacity of a ramp freeway junction: The capacity of the freeway immediately downstream of an onramp or immediately upstream of an offramp; the capacity of the ramp roadway; and the maximum flow rate entering the ramp influence area. In most cases, the freeway capacity is the controlling factor. Values of this merge area capacity are presented in Exhibit 1410 of the HCM 2016 and depend on the number of freeway lanes and on the freeway free speed. Ramp capacity is presented in Exhibit 1412 and is a function of the ramp FFS. The DYNEV II simulation model logic simulates the merging operations of the ramp and freeway traffic in accord with the procedures in Chapter 14 of the HCM 2016. 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 2016 does not address LOS F explicitly).
Fermi 2 Nuclear Power Plant 47 KLD Engineering, P.C.
Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0
Enclosure to NRC-22-0041 Page 90 of 372 4.3.4 Intersections Ref: HCM Chapters 19, 20, 21, 22 Procedures for estimating capacity and LOS for approaches to intersections are presented in Chapter 19 (signalized intersections), Chapters 20, 21 (unsignalized intersections) and Chapter 22 (roundabouts). The complexity of these computations is indicated by the aggregate length of these chapters. The DYNEV II simulation logic is likewise complex.
The simulation model explicitly models intersections: Stop/yield controlled intersections (both 2way and allway) and traffic signal controlled intersections. Where intersections are controlled by fixed time controllers, traffic signal timings are set to reflect average (non evacuation) traffic conditions. Actuated traffic signal settings respond to the timevarying demands of evacuation traffic to adjust the relative capacities of the competing intersection approaches.
The model is also capable of modeling the presence of manned traffic control. At specific locations where it is advisable or where existing plans call for overriding existing traffic control to implement manned control, the model will use actuated signal timings that reflect the presence of traffic guides. At locations where a special traffic control strategy (continuous left turns, contraflow lanes) is used, the strategy is modeled explicitly. A list that includes the total number of intersections modeled that are unsignalized, signalized, or manned by response personnel is noted in Appendix K.
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 involving several HCM chapters. 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 procedures only for the purpose of estimating capacity.
Fermi 2 Nuclear Power Plant 48 KLD Engineering, P.C.
Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0
Enclosure to NRC-22-0041 Page 91 of 372 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) FFS; and (2) saturation headway, hsat. The first of these is estimated by direct observation during the road survey; the second is estimated using the concepts of the HCM 2016, as described earlier. These parameters are listed in Appendix K, for each network link.
It is important to note that simulation represents a mathematical representation of an assumed set of conditions using the best available knowledge and understanding of traffic flow and available inputs. Simulation should not be assumed to be a prediction of what will happen under any event because a real evacuation can be impacted by an infinite number of things -
many of which will differ from these test cases - and many others cannot be taken into account with the tools available.
4.5 Boundary Conditions As illustrated in Figure 12 and in Appendix K, the linknode analysis network used for this study is finite. The analysis network does extend well beyond the 15mile radial study area in some locations in order to model intersections with other major evacuation routes beyond the study area. However, the network does have an end at the destination (exit) nodes as discussed in Appendix C. Beyond these destination nodes, there may be signalized intersections or merge points that impact the capacity of the evacuation routes leaving the study area. Rather than neglect these boundary conditions, this study assumes a 25% reduction in capacity on two lane roads (Section 4.3.1 above) and multilane highways (Section 4.3.2 above). There is no reduction in capacity for freeways due to boundary conditions. The 25% reduction in capacity is based on the prevalence of actuated traffic signals in the study area and the fact that the evacuating traffic volume will be more significant than the competing traffic volume at any downstream signalized intersections, thereby warranting a more significant percentage (75% in this case) of the signal green time.
Fermi 2 Nuclear Power Plant 49 KLD Engineering, P.C.
Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0
Enclosure to NRC-22-0041 Page 92 of 372 Volume, vph Capacity Drop Qmax R Qmax Qs Density, vpm Flow Regimes I I
Speed, mph I Free Forced I vf I R vc -----:------
Density, vpm kf kopt kj ks Figure 41. Fundamental Diagrams Fermi 2 Nuclear Power Plant 410 KLD Engineering, P.C.
Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0
Enclosure to NRC-22-0041 Page 93 of 372 5 ESTIMATION OF TRIP GENERATION TIME Federal guidance (see NUREG/CR7002, Rev. 1) recommends that the ETE study estimate the distributions of elapsed times associated with mobilization activities undertaken by the public to prepare for the evacuation trip. The elapsed time associated with each activity is represented as a statistical distribution reflecting differences between members of the public.
The quantification of these activitybased distributions relies largely on the results of the demographic survey. We define the sum of these distributions of elapsed times as the Trip Generation Time Distribution.
5.1 Background In general, an accident at a nuclear power plant is characterized by the following Emergency Classification Levels (see Section C of Part IV of Appendix E of 10 CFR 50 for details):
1. Unusual Event
2. Alert
3. Site Area Emergency
4. General Emergency At each level, the Federal guidelines specify a set of Actions to be undertaken by the licensee, and by the state and local offsite agencies. As a Planning Basis, we will adopt a conservative posture, in accordance with Section 1.2 of NUREG/CR7002, Rev. 1, that a rapidly escalating accident at the plant wherein evacuation is ordered promptly, and no early protective actions have been implemented will be considered in calculating the Trip Generation Time. We will assume:
1. The ATE will be announced coincident with the siren notification.
2. Mobilization of the general population will commence within 15 minutes after the siren notification.
3. ETE are measured relative to the ATE.
We emphasize that the adoption of this planning basis is not a representation that these events will occur within the indicated time frame. Rather, these assumptions are necessary in order to:
1. Establish a temporal framework for estimating the Trip Generation distribution in the format recommended in Section 2.13 of NUREG/CR6863.
2. Identify temporal points of reference that uniquely define "Clear Time" and ETE.
It is likely that a longer time will elapse between the various classes of an emergency. For example, suppose one hour elapses from the siren alert to the ATE. In this case, it is reasonable to expect some degree of spontaneous evacuation by the public during this onehour period. As a result, the population within the EPZ will be lower when the ATE is announced, than at the time of the siren alert. In addition, many will engage in preparation activities to evacuate, in anticipation that an advisory will be broadcasted. Thus, the time needed to complete the mobilization activities and the number of people remaining to evacuate the EPZ Fermi 2 Nuclear Power Plant 51 KLD Engineering, P.C.
Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0
Enclosure to NRC-22-0041 Page 94 of 372 after the ATE, will both be somewhat less than the estimates presented in this report.
Consequently, the ETE presented in this report are likely to be higher than the actual evacuation time, if this hypothetical situation were to take place.
The notification process consists of two events:
1. Transmitting information using the alert and notification systems (ANS) available within the EPZ (e.g. sirens, tone alerts, EAS broadcasts, loudspeakers).
2. Receiving and correctly interpreting the information that is transmitted.
The population within the EPZ is dispersed over an area of approximately 320 square miles and is engaged in a wide variety of activities. It must be anticipated that some time will elapse between the transmission and receipt of the information advising the public of an event.
The amount of elapsed time will vary from one individual to the next depending on where that person is, what that person is doing, and related factors. Furthermore, some persons who will be directly involved with the evacuation process may be outside the EPZ at the time the emergency is declared. These people may be commuters, shoppers and other travelers who reside within the EPZ and who will return to join the other household members upon receiving notification of an emergency.
As indicated in Section 2.13 of NUREG/CR6863, the estimated elapsed times for the receipt of notification can be expressed as a distribution reflecting the different notification times for different people within, and outside, the EPZ. By using time distributions, it is also possible to distinguish between different population groups and different dayofweek and timeofday scenarios, so that accurate ETE may be computed.
For example, people at home or at work within the EPZ will be notified by siren, and/or tone alert and/or radio (if available). Those well outside the EPZ will be notified by telephone, radio, TV and wordofmouth, with potentially longer time lags. Furthermore, the spatial distribution of the EPZ population will differ with time of day - families will be united in the evenings but dispersed during the day. In this respect, weekends will differ from weekdays.
As indicated in Section 4.1 of NUREG/CR7002, Rev. 1, the information required to compute trip generation times is typically obtained from a demographic survey of EPZ residents. Such a survey was conducted in support of this ETE study. Appendix F discusses the survey sampling plan, documents the survey instrument utilized, and provides the survey results. It is important to note that the shape and duration of the evacuation trip mobilization distribution is important at sites where traffic congestion is not expected to cause the evacuation time estimate to extend in time well beyond the trip generation period. The remaining discussion will focus on the application of the trip generation data obtained from the demographic survey to the development of the ETE documented in this report.
Fermi 2 Nuclear Power Plant 52 KLD Engineering, P.C.
Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0
Enclosure to NRC-22-0041 Page 95 of 372 5.2 Fundamental Considerations The environment leading up to the time that people begin their evacuation trips consists of a sequence of events and activities. Each event (other than the first) occurs at an instant in time and is the outcome of an activity.
Activities are undertaken over a period of time. Activities may be in "series" (i.e., to undertake an activity implies the completion of all preceding events) or may be in parallel (two or more activities may take place over the same period of time). Activities conducted in series are functionally dependent on the completion of prior activities; activities conducted in parallel are functionally independent of one another. The relevant events associated with the public's preparation for evacuation are:
Event Number Event Description 1 Notification 2 Awareness of Situation 3 Depart Work 4 Arrive Home 5 Depart on Evacuation Trip Associated with each sequence of events are one or more activities, as outlined in Table 51:
These relationships are shown graphically in Figure 51.
An Event is a state that exists at a point in time (e.g., depart work, arrive home)
An Activity is a process that takes place over some elapsed time (e.g., prepare to leave work, travel home)
As such, a completed Activity changes the state of an individual (i.e., the activity, travel home changes the state from depart work to arrive home). Therefore, an Activity can be described as an Event Sequence; the elapsed times to perform an event sequence vary from one person to the next and are described as statistical distributions on the following pages.
An employee who lives outside the EPZ will follow sequence (c) of Figure 51. A household within the EPZ that has one or more commuters at work and will await their return before beginning the evacuation trip will follow the first sequence of Figure 51(a). A household within the EPZ that has no commuters at work, or that will not await the return of any commuters, will follow the second sequence of Figure 51(a), regardless of day of week or time of day.
Households with no commuters on weekends or in the evening/nighttime, will follow the applicable sequence in Figure 51(b). Transients will always follow one of the sequences of Figure 51(b). Some transients away from their residence could elect to evacuate immediately without returning to the residence, as indicated in the second sequence.
It is seen from Figure 51, that the Trip Generation time (i.e., the total elapsed time from Event 1 to Event 5) depends on the scenario and will vary from one household to the next.
Fermi 2 Nuclear Power Plant 53 KLD Engineering, P.C.
Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0
Enclosure to NRC-22-0041 Page 96 of 372 Furthermore, Event 5 depends, in a complicated way, on the time distributions of all activities preceding that event. That is, to estimate the time distribution of Event 5, we must obtain estimates of the time distributions of all preceding events. For this study, we adopt the conservative posture that all activities will occur in sequence.
In some cases, assuming certain events occur strictly sequential (for instance, commuter returning home before beginning preparation to leave, or removing snow only after the preparation to leave) can result in rather conservative (that is, longer) estimates of mobilization times. It is reasonable to expect that at least some parts of these events will overlap for many households, but that assumption is not made in this study.
5.3 Estimated Time Distributions of Activities Preceding Event 5 The time distribution of an event is obtained by "summing" the time distributions of all prior contributing activities. (This "summing" process is quite different than an algebraic sum since it is performed on distributions - not scalar numbers).
Time Distribution No. 1, Notification Process: Activity 1 2 Federal regulations (10CFR50 Appendix E, Item IV.D.3) stipulate, [t]he design objective of the prompt public alert and notification system shall be to have the capability to essentially complete the initial alerting and initiate notification of the public within the plume exposure pathway EPZ within about 15 minutes. Furthermore, Part V, Section B.1, item 3 of the 2019 Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) Radiological Emergency Preparedness Program Manual states that Notification methods will be established to ensure coverage within 45 minutes of essentially 100% of the population Given the federal regulations and guidance, and the presence of sirens within the EPZ, it is assumed that 100% of the population in the EPZ can be notified within 45 minutes. The notification distribution is provided in Table 52. The distribution is plotted in Figure 52.
Distribution No. 2, Prepare to Leave Work: Activity 2 3 It is reasonable to expect that the vast majority of business enterprises within the EPZ will elect to shut down following notification and most employees would leave work quickly. Commuters, who work outside the EPZ could, in all probability, also leave quickly since facilities outside the EPZ would remain open and other personnel would remain. Personnel or farmers responsible for equipment/livestock would require additional time to secure their facility. The distribution of Activity 2 3 shown in Table 53 reflects data obtained by the demographic survey. This distribution is also applicable for residents to leave stores, restaurants, parks and other locations within the EPZ. This distribution is plotted in Figure 52.
Distribution No. 3, Travel Home: Activity 3 4 These data are provided directly by those households which responded to the demographic survey. This distribution is plotted in Figure 52 and listed in Table 54.
Fermi 2 Nuclear Power Plant 54 KLD Engineering, P.C.
Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0
Enclosure to NRC-22-0041 Page 97 of 372 Distribution No. 4, Prepare to Leave Home: Activity 2, 4 5 These data are provided directly by those households which responded to the demographic survey. This distribution is plotted in Figure 52 and listed in Table 55.
Distribution No. 5, Snow Clearance Time Distribution Inclement weather scenarios involving snowfall must address the time lags associated with snow clearance. It is assumed that snow equipment is mobilized and deployed during the snowfall to maintain passable roads. The general consensus is that the snowplowing efforts are generally successful for all but the most extreme blizzards when the rate of snow accumulation exceeds that of snow clearance over a period of many hours.
Consequently, it is reasonable to assume that the highway system will remain passable - albeit at a lower capacity - under the vast majority of heavy snow conditions. Nevertheless, for the vehicles to gain access to the highway system, it may be necessary for driveways and employee parking lots to be cleared to the extent needed to permit vehicles to gain access to the roadways. These clearance activities take time; this time must be incorporated into the trip generation time distributions. These data are provided by those households which responded to the demographic survey. This distribution is plotted in Figure 52 and listed in Table 56.
5.4 Calculation of Trip Generation Time Distribution The time distributions for each of the mobilization activities presented herein must be combined to form the appropriate Trip Generation Distributions. As discussed above, this study assumes that the stated events take place in sequence such that all preceding events must be completed before the current event can occur. For example, if a household awaits the return of a commuter, the worktohome trip (Activity 3 4) must precede Activity 4 5.
To calculate the time distribution of an event that is dependent on two sequential activities, it is necessary to sum the distributions associated with these prior activities. The distribution summing algorithm is applied repeatedly as shown to form the required distribution. As an outcome of this procedure, new time distributions are formed; we assign letter designations to these intermediate distributions to describe the procedure. Table 57 presents the summing procedure to arrive at each designated distribution.
Table 58 presents a description of each of the final trip generation distributions achieved after the summing process is completed.
5.4.1 Statistical Outliers As discussed in the footnote to Table 53, some portion of the survey respondents answer Decline to State to some questions or choose to not respond to a question. The mobilization activity distributions are based upon actual responses. But, it is the nature of surveys that a few numeric responses are inconsistent with the overall pattern of results. An example would be a case in which for 500 responses, almost all of them estimate less than two hours for a given answer, but three people say four hours and four people say six or more hours.
Fermi 2 Nuclear Power Plant 55 KLD Engineering, P.C.
Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0
Enclosure to NRC-22-0041 Page 98 of 372 These outliers must be considered: are they valid responses, or so atypical that they should be dropped from the sample?
In assessing outliers, there are three alternates to consider:
1) Some responses with very long times may be valid, but reflect the reality that the respondent really needs to be classified in a different population subgroup, based upon special needs;
2) Other responses may be unrealistic (6 hours6.944444e-5 days 0.00167 hours 9.920635e-6 weeks 2.283e-6 months to return home from commuting distance, or 2 days to prepare the home for departure);
3) Some high values are representative and plausible, and one must not cut them as part of the consideration of outliers.
The issue of course is how to make the decision that a given response or set of responses are to be considered outliers for the component mobilization activities, using a method that objectively quantifies the process.
There is considerable statistical literature on the identification and treatment of outliers singly or in groups, much of which assumes the data is normally distributed and some of which uses non parametric methods to avoid that assumption. The literature cites that limited work has been done directly on outliers in sample survey responses.
In establishing the overall mobilization time/trip generation distributions, the following principles are used:
1) It is recognized that the overall trip generation distributions are conservative estimates, because they assume a household will do the mobilization activities sequentially, with no overlap of activities;
2) The individual mobilization activities (prepare to leave work, travel home, prepare home, clear snow) are reviewed for outliers, and then the overall trip generation distributions are created (see Figure 51, Table 57, and Table 58);
3) Outliers can be eliminated either because the response reflects a special population (e.g.
those with access and/or functional needs, transit dependent) or lack of realism, because the purpose is to estimate trip generation patterns for personal vehicles;
4) To eliminate outliers, a) the mean and standard deviation of the specific activity are estimated from the responses, b) the median of the same data is estimated, with its position relative to the mean noted, c) the histogram of the data is inspected, and d) all values greater than 3.5 standard deviations are flagged for attention, taking special note of whether there are gaps (categories with zero entries) in the histogram display.
Fermi 2 Nuclear Power Plant 56 KLD Engineering, P.C.
Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0
Enclosure to NRC-22-0041 Page 99 of 372 In general, only flagged values more than 4 standard deviations from the mean are allowed to be considered outliers, with gaps in the histogram expected.
When flagged values are classified as outliers and dropped, steps a to d are repeated.
5) As a practical matter, even with outliers eliminated by the above, the resultant histogram, viewed as a cumulative distribution, is not a normal distribution. A typical situation that results is shown in Figure 53.
6) In particular, the cumulative distribution differs from the normal distribution in two key aspects, both very important in loading a network to estimate evacuation times:
Most of the real data is to the left of the normal curve above, indicating that the network loads faster for the first 8085% of the vehicles, potentially causing more (and earlier) congestion than otherwise modeled; The last 1015% of the real data tails off slower than the comparable normal curve, indicating that there is significant traffic still loading at later times.
Because these two features are important to preserve, it is the histogram of the data that is used to describe the mobilization activities, not a normal curve fit to the data. One could consider other distributions, but using the shape of the actual data curve is unambiguous and preserves these important features;
7) With the mobilization activities each modeled according to Steps 16, including preserving the features cited in Step 6, the overall (or total) mobilization times are constructed.
This is done by using the data sets and distributions under different scenarios (e.g., commuter returning, no commuter returning, no snow or snow in each). In general, these are additive, using weighting based upon the probability distributions of each element; Figure 54 presents the combined trip generation distributions designated A, C, D, E and F. These distributions are presented on the same time scale. (As discussed earlier, the use of strictly additive activities is a conservative approach, because it makes all activities sequential - preparation for departure follows the return of the commuter; snow clearance follows the preparation for departure, and so forth. In practice, it is reasonable that some of these activities are done in parallel, at least to some extent - for instance, preparation to depart begins by a household member at home while the commuter is still on the road.)
The mobilization distributions that result are used in their tabular/graphical form as direct inputs to later computations that lead to the ETE.
The DYNEV II simulation model is designed to accept varying rates of vehicle trip generation for each origin centroid, expressed in the form of histograms. These histograms, which represent Distributions A, C, D, E and F, properly displaced with respect to one another, are tabulated in Table 59 (Distribution B, Arrive Home, omitted for clarity).
Fermi 2 Nuclear Power Plant 57 KLD Engineering, P.C.
Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0
Enclosure to NRC-22-0041 Page 100 of 372 The final time period (15) is 600 minutes long. This time period is added to allow the analysis network to clear, in the event congestion persists beyond the trip generation period. Note that there are no trips generated during this final time period.
5.4.2 Staged Evacuation Trip Generation As defined in NUREG/CR7002 Rev. 1, staged evacuation consists of the following:
1. PAAs comprising the 2Mile Region are advised to evacuate immediately
2. PAAs comprising regions extending from 2 to 5 miles downwind are advised to shelter inplace while the 2Mile Region is cleared
3. As vehicles evacuate the 2Mile Region, sheltered people from 2 to 5 miles downwind continue preparation for evacuation
4. The population sheltering in the 2 to 5Mile Region are advised to begin evacuating when approximately 90% of those originally within the 2Mile Region evacuate across the 2Mile Region boundary
5. The population in the 5 to 10 mile region (to the EPZ boundary) shelters in place
6. Noncompliance with the shelter recommendation is the same as the shadow evacuation percentage of 20%
Assumptions
1. The EPZ population in PAAs beyond 5 miles will shelterinplace, with the exception of the 20% noncompliance.
2. The population in the shadow region beyond the EPZ boundary, extending to approximately 15 miles radially from the plant, will react as they do for all nonstaged evacuation scenarios. That is 20% of these households will elect to evacuate with no shelter delay.
3. The transient population will not be expected to stage their evacuation because of the limited sheltering options available to people who may be at parks, on a beach, or at other venues. Also, notifying the transient population of a staged evacuation would prove difficult.
4. Employees will also be assumed to evacuate without first sheltering.
Procedure
1. Trip generation for population groups in the 2Mile Region will be as computed based upon the results of the demographic survey and analysis.
2. Trip generation for the population subject to staged evacuation will be formulated as follows:
a. Identify the 90th percentile evacuation time for the PAAs comprising the 2Mile Region. This value, TScen*, is obtained from simulation results. It will become the Fermi 2 Nuclear Power Plant 58 KLD Engineering, P.C.
Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0
Enclosure to NRC-22-0041 Page 101 of 372 time at which the region being sheltered will be told to evacuate for each scenario.
b. The resultant trip generation curves for staging are then formed as follows:
i. The nonshelter trip generation curve is followed until a maximum of 20%
of the total trips are generated (to account for shelter noncompliance).
ii. No additional trips are generated until time TScen*
iii. Following time TScen*, the balance of trips are generated:
1. by stepping up and then following the nonshelter trip generation curve (if TScen* is < max trip generation time) or
2. by stepping up to 100% (if TScen* is > max trip generation time)
c. Note: This procedure implies that there may be different staged trip generation distributions for different scenarios. NUREG/CR7002, Rev. 1 uses the statement approximately 90 percent as the time to end staging and begin evacuating.
The value of TScen* is 2:30 for nonsnow scenarios and 3:15 for heavy snow scenarios.
3. Staged trip generation distributions are created for the following population groups:
a. Residents with returning commuters
b. Residents without returning commuters
c. Residents with returning commuters and heavy snow conditions
d. Residents without returning commuters and heavy snow conditions Figure 55 presents the staged trip generation distributions for both residents with and without returning commuters; the 90th percentile twomile evacuation time is approximately 150 minutes for good weather and rain/light snow and approximately 195 minutes for heavy snow scenarios. (Note that 150 minutes occurs at the midpoint of Time Period 8. Traffic volumes are distributed throughout the time period. As such, the staged loading for good weather and rain/light snow is shown in Time Period 7.) At the approximate 90th percentile evacuation time for the 2Mile Region, approximately 20% of the population (who have completed their mobilization activities) advised to shelter has nevertheless departed the area. These people do not comply with the shelter advisory. Also included on the plot are the trip generation distributions for these groups as applied to the regions advised to evacuate immediately.
Since the 90th percentile evacuation time occurs before the end of the trip generation time, after the sheltered region is advised to evacuate, the shelter trip generation distribution rises to meet the balance of the nonstaged trip generation distribution. Following time TScen*, the balance of staged evacuation trips that are ready to depart are released within 30 minutes. After TScen*+30, the remainder of evacuation trips are generated in accordance with the unstaged trip generation distribution.
Table 510 provides the trip generation histograms for staged evacuation.
5.4.3 Trip Generation for Waterways and Recreational Areas Fermi 2 Radiological Emergency Response Preparedness Plan (RERP), dated December 2019, indicates the U.S. Coast Guard will provide assistance through the NRP upon request from the Fermi 2 Nuclear Power Plant 59 KLD Engineering, P.C.
Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0
Enclosure to NRC-22-0041 Page 102 of 372 State of Michigan in the event that an emergency at Fermi 2 may affect activities on Lake Erie, including Canadian waters.
As indicated in Table 52, this study assumes 100% notification in 45 minutes. It is assumed that this timeframe is sufficient for the notification of boaters those recreating on Lake Erie. Table 59 indicates that all transients will have mobilized within 1 hour1.157407e-5 days 2.777778e-4 hours 1.653439e-6 weeks 3.805e-7 months and 30 minutes; it is assumed that this allows sufficient time for campers, boaters, and other transients to return to their vehicles and begin their evacuation trip.
Fermi 2 Nuclear Power Plant 510 KLD Engineering, P.C.
Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0
Enclosure to NRC-22-0041 Page 103 of 372 Table 51. Event Sequence for Evacuation Activities Event Sequence Activity Distribution 12 Receive Notification 1 23 Prepare to Leave Work 2 2,3 4 Travel Home 3 2,4 5 Prepare to Leave to Evacuate 4 N/A Snow Clearance 5 Table 52. Time Distribution for Notifying the Public Elapsed Time Percent of (Minutes) Population Notified 0 0%
5 7%
10 13%
15 27%
20 47%
25 66%
30 87%
35 92%
40 97%
45 100%
Fermi 2 Nuclear Power Plant 511 KLD Engineering, P.C.
Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0
Enclosure to NRC-22-0041 Page 104 of 372 Table 53. Time Distribution for Employees to Prepare to Leave Work Cumulative Cumulative Percent Percent Elapsed Time Employees Elapsed Time Employees (Minutes) Leaving Work (Minutes) Leaving Work 0 0.0% 30 92.8%
5 27.9% 35 95.2%
10 50.0% 40 97.6%
15 73.1% 45 99.5%
20 83.7% 50 100.0%
25 85.6%
NOTE: The survey data was normalized to distribute the "Decline to State" response. That is, the sample was reduced in size to include only those households who responded to this question. The underlying assumption is that the distribution of this activity for the Decline to State responders, if the event takes place, would be the same as those responders who provided estimates.
Table 54. Time Distribution for Commuters to Travel Home Cumulative Cumulative Elapsed Time Percent Elapsed Time Percent (Minutes) Returning Home (Minutes) Returning Home 0 0.0% 40 84.1%
5 6.5% 45 88.8%
10 21.0% 50 93.9%
15 38.3% 55 94.4%
20 47.7% 60 98.1%
25 59.8% 75 99.5%
30 68.7% 90 100.0%
35 77.1%
NOTE: The survey data was normalized to distribute the "Decline to State" response Fermi 2 Nuclear Power Plant 512 KLD Engineering, P.C.
Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0
Enclosure to NRC-22-0041 Page 105 of 372 Table 55. Time Distribution for Population to Prepare to Leave Home Cumulative Cumulative Elapsed Time Percent Leaving Elapsed Time Percent Leaving (Minutes) Home (Minutes) Home 0 0% 105 86.4%
15 7.5% 120 90.2%
30 34.1% 135 95.8%
45 44.9% 150 95.8%
60 68.2% 165 96.3%
75 79.0% 180 97.2%
90 85.5% 195 100.0%
NOTE: The survey data was normalized to distribute the "Decline to State" response Table 56. Time Distribution for Population to Clear 6"8" of Snow Cumulative Percent Elapsed Time Completing Snow (Minutes) Removal 0 14%
15 37.8%
30 57.2%
45 74.1%
60 86.1%
75 93.0%
90 93.5%
105 95.5%
120 97.5%
135 99.0%
150 100.0%
NOTE: The survey data was normalized to distribute the "Decline to State" response Fermi 2 Nuclear Power Plant 513 KLD Engineering, P.C.
Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0
Enclosure to NRC-22-0041 Page 106 of 372 Table 57. Mapping Distributions to Events Apply Summing Algorithm To: Distribution Obtained Event Defined Distributions 1 and 2 Distribution A Event 3 Distributions A and 3 Distribution B Event 4 Distributions B and 4 Distribution C Event 5 Distributions 1 and 4 Distribution D Event 5 Distributions C and 5 Distribution E Event 5 Distributions D and 5 Distribution F Event 5 Table 58. Description of the Distributions Distribution Description Time distribution of commuters departing place of work (Event 3). Also applies A to employees who work within the EPZ who live outside, and to Transients within the EPZ.
B Time distribution of commuters arriving home (Event 4).
Time distribution of residents with commuters who return home, leaving home C
to begin the evacuation trip (Event 5).
Time distribution of residents without commuters returning home, leaving home D
to begin the evacuation trip (Event 5).
Time distribution of residents with commuters who return home, leaving home E
to begin the evacuation trip, after snow clearance activities (Event 5).
Time distribution of residents with no commuters returning home, leaving to F
begin the evacuation trip, after snow clearance activities (Event 5).
Fermi 2 Nuclear Power Plant 514 KLD Engineering, P.C.
Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0
Enclosure to NRC-22-0041 Table 59. Trip Generation Histograms for the EPZ Population for UnStaged Evacuation Page 107 of 372 Percent of Total Trips Generated Within Indicated Time Period Residents Residents With Residents Residents with Without Commuters Without Time Duration Employees Transients Commuters Commuters Snow Commuters Snow Period (Min) (Distribution A) (Distribution A) (Distribution C) (Distribution D) (Distribution E) (Distribution F) 1 15 5% 5% 0% 1% 0% 0%
2 15 32% 32% 0% 4% 0% 1%
3 30 58% 58% 5% 34% 1% 13%
4 15 4% 4% 9% 17% 3% 11%
5 15 1% 1% 14% 16% 6% 14%
6 15 0% 0% 15% 9% 9% 14%
7 15 0% 0% 16% 5% 11% 11%
8 30 0% 0% 20% 6% 24% 15%
9 30 0% 0% 10% 4% 19% 10%
10 15 0% 0% 4% 1% 7% 3%
11 30 0% 0% 3% 3% 9% 4%
12 60 0% 0% 4% 0% 9% 4%
13 30 0% 0% 0% 0% 1% 0%
14 30 0% 0% 0% 0% 1% 0%
15 600 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0%
NOTE:
Shadow vehicles are loaded onto the analysis network (Figure 12) using Distributions C and E for good weather and snow, respectively.
Special event vehicles are loaded using Distribution A.
Fermi 2 Nuclear Power Plant 515 KLD Engineering, P.C.
Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0
Enclosure to NRC-22-0041 Table 510. Trip Generation Histograms for the EPZ Population for Staged Evacuation Page 108 of 372 Percent of Total Trips Generated Within Indicated Time Period*
Residents Residents Residents with Without Residents With Without Time Duration Commuters Commuters Commuters Snow Commuters Snow Period (Min) (Distribution C) (Distribution D) (Distribution E) (Distribution F) 1 15 0% 0% 0% 0%
2 15 0% 1% 0% 0%
3 30 1% 7% 0% 3%
4 15 2% 3% 1% 2%
5 15 3% 3% 1% 3%
6 15 3% 2% 2% 3%
7 15 3% 1% 2% 2%
8 30 4% 1% 5% 3%
9 30 73% 78% 4% 2%
10 15 4% 1% 1% 0%
11 30 3% 3% 73% 78%
12 60 4% 0% 9% 4%
13 30 0% 0% 1% 0%
14 30 0% 0% 1% 0%
15 600 0% 0% 0% 0%
Trip Generation for Employees and Transients (see Table 59) is the same for UnStaged and Staged Evacuation.
Fermi 2 Nuclear Power Plant 516 KLD Engineering, P.C.
Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0
Enclosure to NRC-22-0041 Page 109 of 372 1 2 3 4 5 Residents Households wait 1
for Commuters Households without Residents 1 2 5 Commuters and households who do not wait for Commuters (a) Accident occurs during midweek, at midday; year round Residents, Transients 1 2 4 5 Return to residence, away from Residence o-------0---0-----0 then evacuate Residents, 1 2 5 Residents at home; Transients at transients evacuate directly Residence (b) Accident occurs during weekend or during the evening2 1 2 3, 5 (c) Employees who live outside the EPZ ACTIVITIES EVENTS 1 --+ 2 Receive Notification 1. Notification 2 --+ 3 Prepare to Leave Work 2. Aware of situation 2, 3 --+ 4 Travel Home 3. Depart work 2, 4 --+ 5 Prepare to Leave to Evacuate 4. Arrive home
5. Depart on evacuation trip Activities Consume Time 0
1 Applies for evening and weekends also if commuters are at work.
2 Applies throughout the year for transients.
Figure 51. Events and Activities Preceding the Evacuation Trip Fermi 2 Nuclear Power Plant 517 KLD Engineering, P.C.
Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0
Enclosure to NRC-22-0041 Page 110 of 372 Mobilization Activities 100%
Percent of Population Completing Mobilization Activity 80%
60%
Notification IIIII Prepare to Leave Work Travel Home 40% Prepare Home Time to Clear Snow 20%
0%
0 30 60 90 120 150 180 210 Elapsed Time from Start of Mobilization Activity (min)
Figure 52. Time Distributions for Evacuation Mobilization Activities Fermi 2 Nuclear Power Plant 518 KLD Engineering, P.C.
Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0
Enclosure to NRC-22-0041 100.0% Page 111 of 372
\ \
90.0%
80.0%
70.0%
Cumulative Percentage (%)
60.0%
50.0%
40.0%
30.0%
20.0%
10.0%
0.0%
112.5 2.5 7.5 12.5 17.5 22.5 27.5 32.5 37.5 42.5 47.5 52.5 57.5 67.5 82.5 97.5 Center of Interval (minutes)
Cumulative Data Cumulative Normal Figure 53. Comparison of Data Distribution and Normal Distribution Fermi 2 Nuclear Power Plant 519 KLD Engineering, P.C.
Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0
Enclosure to NRC-22-0041 Page 112 of 372 Trip Generation Distributions Employees/Transients Residents with Commuters Residents with no Commuters II Res with Comm and Snow II Res no Comm with Snow 100 Percent of Population Beginning Evacuation Trip 80 60 40 20 0
0 60 120 180 240 300 360 Elapsed Time from Evacuation Advisory (min)
Figure 54. Comparison of Trip Generation Distributions Fermi 2 Nuclear Power Plant 520 KLD Engineering, P.C.
Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0
Enclosure to NRC-22-0041 Page 113 of 372 Staged and Unstaged Evacuation Trip Generation Employees / Transients Residents with Commuters IIIII IIII Residents with no Commuters Res with Comm and Snow Res no Comm with Snow Staged Residents with Commuters Staged Residents with no Commuters Staged Residents with Commuters (Snow)
Staged Residents with no Commuters (Snow) 100 80
% of Population Evacuating 60 40 20 0
0 30 60 90 120 150 180 210 240 270 300 330 360 Elapsed Time from Evacuation Advisory (min)
Figure 55. Comparison of Staged and Unstaged Trip Generation Distributions in the 2 to 5Mile Region Fermi 2 Nuclear Power Plant 521 KLD Engineering, P.C.
Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0
Enclosure to NRC-22-0041 Page 114 of 372 6 EVACUATION CASES An evacuation case defines a combination of Evacuation Region and Evacuation Scenario.
The definitions of Region and Scenario are as follows:
Region A grouping of contiguous evacuating PAA that forms either a keyhole sector based area, or a circular area within the EPZ, that must be evacuated in response to a radiological emergency.
Scenario A combination of circumstances, including time of day, day of week, season, and weather conditions. Scenarios define the number of people in each of the affected population groups and their respective mobilization time distributions.
A total of 13 Regions were identified which encompass all the groupings of PAA considered.
These Regions are defined in Table 61. The PAA configurations are identified in Figure 61.
Each keyhole sectorbased area consists of a central circle centered at the power plant, and one three adjoining sector on each side (a 3sector keyhole), each with a central angle of 22.5 degrees, as per DTE Energys Protective Action Recommendation (PAR) plan. The central sector coincides with the wind direction. These sectors extend to 5 miles from the plant (Regions R04 and R05) or to the EPZ boundary (Regions R06 through R10).
Regions R01, R02 and R03 represent evacuations of circular areas with radii of 2, 5 and 10 miles, respectively. Regions R11 through R13 are identical to Regions R02, R04 and R05; however, those PAA between 2 miles and 5 miles are staged until 90% of the 2Mile Region (Region R01) has evacuated.
A total of 14 Scenarios were evaluated for all Regions. Thus, there are a total of 13 x 14 = 182 evacuation cases. Table 62 is a description of all Scenarios.
Each combination of Region and Scenario implies a specific population to be evacuated. The population group and the vehicle estimates presented in Section 3 and in Appendix E are peak values. These peak values are adjusted depending on the scenario and region being considered, using Scenario and Regionspecific percentages, such that the average population is considered for each evacuation case. The Scenario percentages are presented in Table 63, while the Region percentages are provided in Table H1. Table 64 presents the vehicle counts for each scenario for an evacuation of Region R03 - the entire EPZ, based on the scenario percentages in Table 63. The percentages presented in Table 63 were determined as follows:
The percentage of residents with commuters (28%) during the week (when workforce is at its peak) is equal to the product of 59% (the number of households with at least one commuter) and 48% (the number of households with a commuter that would await the return of the commuter prior to evacuating). See assumption 3 in Section 2.3. It is estimated for weekend and evening scenarios that 10% of those households with returning commuters during the week will have a commuter at work during those times.
Fermi 2 Nuclear Power Plant 61 KLD Engineering, P.C.
Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0
Enclosure to NRC-22-0041 Page 115 of 372 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 period over the summer.
Assume these vacations, in aggregate, are uniformly dispersed over 10 weeks, i.e., 10 percent of the population is on vacation during each twoweek interval.
Assume half of these vacationers leave the area.
On this basis, the permanent resident population would be reduced by 5 percent in the summer and by a lesser amount in the offseason. Given the uncertainty in this estimate, we elected to apply no reductions in permanent resident population for the summer scenarios to account for residents who may be out of the area.
Employment is assumed to be at its peak (100%) during the winter, midweek, midday scenarios.
Employment is reduced slightly (96%) for summer, midweek, midday scenarios. This is based on the estimation that 50% of the employees commuting into the EPZ will be on vacation for a week during the approximate 12 weeks of summer. It is further estimated that those taking vacation will be uniformly dispersed throughout the summer with approximately 4% of employees vacationing each week. It is further estimated that only 10% of the employees are working in the evenings and during the weekends.
Transient activity is estimated to be at its peak during summer weekends (90%) and less (65%)
during the week as many of these facilities are less populated on weekdays. Transient activity is estimated to be less in the winter as some of these facilities (golf courses and marinas) would be closed in the winter. As such, transient activity is estimated to be 45% on weekends and 30% during the week in the winter. As shown in Appendix E, there are many parks, golf courses and marinas, as well as a large hunting and fishing area, that are lightly utilized during evening hours; thus, transient activity is estimated to be 35% for summer and 25% for winter during evening hours.
As noted in the shadow footnote to Table 63, the shadow percentages are computed using a base of 20% (see assumption 7 in Section 2.2); to include the employees within the shadow region who may choose to evacuate, the voluntary evacuation is multiplied by a scenario specific proportion of employees to permanent residents in the shadow region. For example, using the values provided in Table 64 for Scenario 1, the shadow percentage is computed as follows:
3,027 20% 1 21%
16,143 40,841 One special event - the Monroe County Fair - was considered as Scenario 13. Thus, the special event traffic is 100% evacuated for Scenario 13, and 0% for all other scenarios.
Fermi 2 Nuclear Power Plant 62 KLD Engineering, P.C.
Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0
Enclosure to NRC-22-0041 Page 116 of 372 As discussed in the footnote to Table 21, schools are in session during the winter season, midweek, midday and 100% of buses will be needed under those circumstances. It is estimated that summer school enrollment is approximately 10% of enrollment during the regular school year for summer, midweek, midday scenarios. School is not in session during weekends and evenings, thus no buses for school children are needed under those circumstances.
Transit buses for the transitdependent, medical facility, and correctional facility population are set to 100% for all scenarios as it is assumed that these population groups are present in the EPZ at all times.
External traffic is estimated to be 100% for all midday scenarios, while it is significantly less (40%) during evening scenarios.
Fermi 2 Nuclear Power Plant 63 KLD Engineering, P.C.
Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0
Enclosure to NRC-22-0041 Page 117 of 372 Table 61. Description of Evacuation Regions Radial Regions PAA Region Description 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 R01 2Mile Region x x R02 5Mile Region x x x x R03 Full EPZ x x x x x x x Evacuate 2Mile Region and Downwind to 5 Miles PAA Region Wind Direction From: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 R04 S, SSW, SW, WSW x x x W, WNW, NW, NNW, N Refer to Region R01 R05 NNE, NE, ENE x x x E, ESE, SE, SSE Refer to Region R02 Evacuate 2Mile Region and Downwind to the EPZ Boundary PAA Region Wind Direction From: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 R06 S, SSW, SW, WSW x x x x x R07 W, WNW, NW, NNW, N x x x R08 NNE, NE, ENE x x x x x R09 E, ESE, SE x x x x x x R10 SSE x x x x x Staged Evacuation 2Mile Region Evacuates, then Evacuate Downwind to 5 Miles PAA Region Wind Direction From: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 R11 5mile Region x x x x R12 S, SSW, SW, WSW x x x W, WNW, NW, NNW, N Refer to Region R01 R13 NNE, NE, ENE x x x E, ESE, SE, SSE Refer to Region R12 PAA (s) ShelterinPlace until 90%
PAA(s) Evacuate PAA(s) ShelterinPlace ETE for R01, then Evacuate Fermi 2 Nuclear Power Plant 64 KLD Engineering, P.C.
Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0
Enclosure to NRC-22-0041 Page 118 of 372 Table 62. Evacuation Scenario Definitions Scenario Season1 Day of Week Time of Day Weather Special 1 Summer Midweek Midday Good None 2 Summer Midweek Midday Rain/Light Snow None 3 Summer Weekend Midday Good None 4 Summer Weekend Midday Rain/Light Snow None Midweek, 5 Summer Evening Good None Weekend 6 Winter Midweek Midday Good None 7 Winter Midweek Midday Rain/Light Snow None 8 Winter Midweek Midday Heavy Snow None 9 Winter Weekend Midday Good None 10 Winter Weekend Midday Rain/Light Snow None 11 Winter Weekend Midday Heavy Snow None Midweek, 12 Winter Evening Good None Weekend Special Event - Monroe 13 Summer Weekend Midday Good County Fair Roadway Impact - Lane 14 Summer Midweek Midday Good Closure on I75 SB 1
Winter means that school is in session at normal enrollment levels (also applies to spring and autumn). Summer means that school is in session at summer school enrollment levels (lower than normal enrollment).
Fermi 2 Nuclear Power Plant 65 KLD Engineering, P.C.
Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0
Enclosure to NRC-22-0041 Table 63. Percent of Population Groups Evacuating for Various Scenarios Page 119 of 372 Households Households Transit/
With Without Medical/ External Returning Returning School Correctional Through Scenario Commuters Commuters Employees Transients Shadow Special Event Buses Vehicles Traffic 1 28% 72% 96% 65% 21% 0% 10% 100% 100%
2 28% 72% 96% 65% 21% 0% 10% 100% 100%
3 3% 97% 10% 90% 20% 0% 0% 100% 100%
4 3% 97% 10% 90% 20% 0% 0% 100% 100%
5 3% 97% 10% 35% 20% 0% 0% 100% 40%
6 28% 72% 100% 30% 21% 0% 100% 100% 100%
7 28% 72% 100% 30% 21% 0% 100% 100% 100%
8 28% 72% 100% 30% 21% 0% 100% 100% 100%
9 3% 97% 10% 45% 20% 0% 0% 100% 100%
10 3% 97% 10% 45% 20% 0% 0% 100% 100%
11 3% 97% 10% 45% 20% 0% 0% 100% 100%
12 3% 97% 10% 25% 20% 0% 0% 100% 40%
13 3% 97% 10% 90% 20% 100% 100% 100% 100%
14 28% 72% 96% 65% 21% 0% 10% 100% 100%
Households with Returning Commuters ......... Households of EPZ residents who await the return of commuters prior to beginning the evacuation trip.
Households without Returning Commuters .... Households of EPZ residents who do not have commuters or will not await the return of commuters prior to beginning the evacuation trip.
Employees ..................................................... EPZ employees who live outside the EPZ Transients ..................................................... People who are in the EPZ at the time of an event for recreational or other (nonemployment) purposes.
Shadow ......................................................... Residents and employees in the shadow region (outside of the EPZ) who will spontaneously decide to relocate during the evacuation. The basis for the values shown is a 20% relocation of shadow residents along with a proportional percentage of shadow employees.
Special Event ................................................. Additional vehicles in the EPZ due to the identified special event.
School, Transit, Medical and Correctional Buses .................................. Vehicleequivalents present on the road during evacuation servicing schools, medical facility patients, transitdependent people and correctional facility inmates (1 bus is equivalent to 2 passenger vehicles).
External Through Traffic ................................ Traffic on interstates/freeways and major arterial roads at the start of the evacuation. This traffic is stopped by access control approximately 120 minutes after the evacuation begins.
Fermi 2 Nuclear Power Plant 66 KLD Engineering, P.C.
Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0
Enclosure to NRC-22-0041 Table 64. Vehicle Estimates by Scenario Page 120 of 372 Households Households With Without Special External Total Returning Returning Special Facility School Transit Through Scenario Scenario Commuters Commuters Employees Transients Shadow Event Vehicles2 Buses Buses Traffic Vehicles 1 16,134 40,841 3,027 3,331 12,611 0 187 69 64 10,288 86,552 2 16,134 40,841 3,027 3,331 12,611 0 187 69 64 10,288 86,552 3 1,613 55,362 315 4,613 12,041 0 187 0 64 10,288 84,483 4 1,613 55,362 315 4,613 12,041 0 187 0 64 10,288 84,483 5 1,613 55,362 315 1,794 12,041 0 187 0 64 4,115 75,491 6 16,134 40,841 3,153 1,538 12,638 0 187 690 64 10,288 85,533 7 16,134 40,841 3,153 1,538 12,638 0 187 690 64 10,288 85,533 8 16,134 40,841 3,153 1,538 12,638 0 187 690 64 10,288 85,533 9 1,613 55,362 315 2,306 12,041 0 187 0 64 10,288 82,176 10 1,613 55,362 315 2,306 12,041 0 187 0 64 10,288 82,176 11 1,613 55,362 315 2,306 12,041 0 187 0 64 10,288 82,176 12 1,613 55,362 315 1,281 12,041 0 187 0 64 4,115 74,978 13 1,613 55,362 315 4,613 12,041 5,936 187 0 64 10,288 90,419 14 16,134 40,841 3,027 3,331 12,611 0 187 69 64 10,288 86,552 2
Includes both medical and correctional facility vehicles.
Fermi 2 Nuclear Power Plant 67 KLD Engineering, P.C.
Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0
Enclosure to NRC-22-0041 Page 121 of 372 w~~
~
Wa.yne -----.--,-~-
County I ,,
/
1 i uA i
/ i i
\
\
\
Maybee
'~ \
\
\
Monroe County
~
~
I
\
~
,,i, Q. * .,
I
\!l\~
/
i\
6
\
\
\
Lake Erie
\
7 \
\
\
~,
Legend **, **, I Gl Fermi2 PAA
, -:, 2, 5, 10 Mile Rings Date: 6/8/2022 Cop{,rig"tit:'ESR1:DataandMaps2020 K;.oi:ngineering.OTEEnergv
.www.census.gov I 0 2.5 5
M; les I Figure 61. PAAs Comprising the Fermi 2 EPZ Fermi 2 Nuclear Power Plant 68 KLD Engineering, P.C.
Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0
Enclosure to NRC-22-0041 Page 122 of 372 7 GENERAL POPULATION EVACUATION TIME ESTIMATES This section presents the ETE results of the computer analyses using the DYNEV II System described in Appendices B, C and D. These results cover 13 Evacuation Regions within the Fermi 2 Nuclear Power Plant (Fermi 2) Emergency Planning Zone (EPZ) and the 14 Evacuation Scenarios discussed in Section 6.
The ETE for all Evacuation Cases are presented in Table 71 and Table 72. These tables present the estimated times to clear the indicated population percentages from the Evacuation Regions for all Evacuation Scenarios. The ETE of the 2Mile Region in both staged and unstaged regions are presented in Table 73 and Table 74. Table 75 defines the Evacuation Regions considered.
The tabulated values of ETE are obtained from the DYNEV II model outputs which are generated at 5minute intervals.
7.1 Voluntary Evacuation and Shadow Evacuation Voluntary evacuees are permanent residents within the EPZ in Protective Action Areas (PAAs) for which an Advisory to Evacuate (ATE) has not been issued, yet who elect to evacuate.
Shadow evacuation is the voluntary outward movement of some permanent residents from the Shadow Region (outside the EPZ) for whom no protective action recommendation (PAR) has been issued. Both voluntary and shadow evacuations are assumed to take place over the same time frame as the evacuation from within the impacted Evacuation Region.
The ETE for the Fermi 2 EPZ addresses the issue of voluntary evacuees in the manner shown in Figure 71. Within the EPZ, 20% of permanent residents located in PAAs outside of the Evacuation Region who are not advised to evacuate, are assumed to elect to evacuate.
Similarly, it is assumed that 20% of those permanent residents in the Shadow Region will also choose to leave the area.
Figure 72 presents the area identified as the Shadow Region. This region extends radially from the plant to cover a region between the EPZ boundary and approximately 15 miles. The population and number of evacuating vehicles in the Shadow Region were estimated using the same methodology that was used for the permanent residents within the EPZ (see Section 3.1).
As discussed in Section 3, it is estimated that a total of 105,198 permanent residents reside in the Shadow Region; 20% of them would evacuate. See Table 64 for the number of evacuating vehicles from the Shadow Region.
Traffic generated within this Shadow Region, including externalexternal traffic (see Section 3.11), traveling away from the plant location, has the potential for impeding evacuating vehicles from within the Evacuation Region. All ETE calculations include this shadow traffic movement.
Fermi 2 Nuclear Power Plant 71 KLD Engineering, P.C.
Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0
Enclosure to NRC-22-0041 Page 123 of 372 7.2 Staged Evacuation As defined in NUREG/CR7002, Rev. 1, staged evacuation consists of the following:
1. PAAs comprising the 2Mile Region are advised to evacuate immediately.
2. PAAs comprising regions extending from 2 to 5 miles downwind are advised to shelter inplace while the 2Mile Region is cleared.
3. As vehicles evacuate the 2Mile Region, people from 2 to 5 miles downwind continue preparation for evacuation while they shelter.
4. The population sheltering in the 2 to 5Mile Region is advised to begin evacuating when approximately 90% of those originally within the 2Mile Region evacuating traffic crosses the 2Mile Region boundary.
5. The population between the 5 Mile Region to EPZ boundary (to the EPZ boundary) shelters in place.
6. Noncompliance with the shelter recommendation is the same as the shadow evacuation percentage of 20%.
See Section 5.4.2 for additional information on staged evacuation.
7.3 Patterns of Traffic Congestion during Evacuation Figure 73 through Figure 78 illustrate the patterns of traffic congestion that arise for the case when the entire EPZ (Region R03) is advised to evacuate during the winter, midweek, midday period under good weather conditions (Scenario 6).
Traffic congestion, as the term is used here, is defined as Level of Service (LOS) F. LOS F is defined as follows (HCM 2016, page 55):
The HCM uses LOS F to define operations that have either broken down (i.e., demand exceeds capacity) or have reached a point that most users would consider unsatisfactory, as described by a specified service measure value (or combination of service measure values).
However, analysts may be interested in knowing just how bad the LOS F condition is, particularly for planning applications where different alternatives may be compared.
Several measures are available for describing individually, or in combination, the severity of a LOS F condition:
Demandtocapacity ratios describe the extent to which demand exceeds capacity during the analysis period (e.g., by 1%, 15%).
Duration of LOS F describes how long the condition persists (e.g., 15 min, 1 h, 3 h).
Spatial extent measures describe the areas affected by LOS F conditions. These include measures such as the back of queue and the identification of the specific intersection approaches or system elements experiencing LOS F conditions.
Fermi 2 Nuclear Power Plant 72 KLD Engineering, P.C.
Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0
Enclosure to NRC-22-0041 Page 124 of 372 All highway "links" which experience LOS F are delineated in these figures by a thick red line; all others are lightly indicated.
Figure 73 displays the patterns of congestion at 30 minutes after the ATE. At this time, evacuees are beginning to mobilize (6%) and external traffic is still permitted to traverse the area along Interstate (I) 75 and I275. There is slight (LOS B) congestion in the 2mile region as evacuees leave the plant along Fermi Dr.
As shown in Figure 74, congestion builds at 1 hour1.157407e-5 days 2.777778e-4 hours 1.653439e-6 weeks 3.805e-7 months after the ATE. At this time, N Custer Rd, Riverview Avenue, and Herr Rd in Monroe, as well as US24, Hull Rd, S Dixie Hwy and Albain Rd in South Monroe are exhibiting LOS F conditions within the EPZ. To the north, sections of several major evacuation routes for Flat Rock and Rockwood are exhibiting LOS F conditions within the EPZ. Most routes within Monroe, Rockwood, and Flat Rock are experiencing severe congestion (LOS F at most). I75 and I275 are experiencing congestion within the EPZ (LOS E at worst) and Shadow Region (LOS F at worst) as evacuees mix with external traffic on these roadways, and their capacity is constrained. The 2mile region still exhibits slight congestion along Fermi Dr and N Dixie Hwy. At this time, approximately 34% of evacuees have mobilized, and 28% of vehicles have successfully evacuated the EPZ.
Figure 75 shows congestion patterns at 1 hour1.157407e-5 days 2.777778e-4 hours 1.653439e-6 weeks 3.805e-7 months and 30 minutes after the ATE when congestion reaches its peak within the EPZ. At this time, to the north of the EPZ, LOS F exists on most northbound major evacuation routes including Grafton Rd, I275, US24, SR85, Allen Rd, Huron River Dr, and Jefferson St. Woodruff Rd, which connects Jefferson Ave and Huron River Dr, is also severely congested. Several minor roads in Flat Rock and Rockwood are also severely congested. In the south of the EPZ, N Custer Rd, Riverview Ave, and Herr Rd in Monroe, as well as US24, Hull Rd, S Dixie Hwy and Albain Rd in South Monroe, are all still congested and at worse levels. At this time, approximately 63% of evacuees (100% of employees/transients) have mobilized, and approximately 52% of vehicles have successfully evacuated the EPZ. The 2 mile region is nearly clear of congestion.
At 2 hours2.314815e-5 days 5.555556e-4 hours 3.306878e-6 weeks 7.61e-7 months after the ATE, Figure 76 shows that the 2Mile Region is clear of congestion. At this time access control is implemented and traffic entering the area on I75 and I275 has been stopped opening up more capacity along these roadways for evacuees leaving the EPZ.
Congestion within Flat Rock and Rockwood has lessened, but still remains along Woodruff Rd, Gibraltar Rd, SR85 and Allen Rd. I275 northbound is still severely congested. Congestion in Monroe and South Monroe has dissipated but still remains along N Custer Rd, US24, SR125, and E Albain Rd. At this time, approximately 80% of all evacuees have mobilized, and approximately 75% of vehicles have successfully evacuated the EPZ.
Within 30 minutes, congestion within the EPZ dissipates rapidly, now that the full capacity of I 75 and I275 is available to evacuees, as shown in Figure 77 (congestion at 2 hours2.314815e-5 days 5.555556e-4 hours 3.306878e-6 weeks 7.61e-7 months and 30 minutes after the ATE). The last bit of congestion within the 5Mile Region is along N Dixie Hwy and clears 5 minutes later at 2 hours2.314815e-5 days 5.555556e-4 hours 3.306878e-6 weeks 7.61e-7 months and 35 minutes after the ATE. Severe congestion (LOS F) remains on E Albain Rd in South Monroe while slight congestion remains N Custer Rd. Slight congestion remains along W Huron River Dr and Fort Street (LOS B) in Flat Rock. All congestion within the EPZ clears 20 minutes later at 2 hours2.314815e-5 days 5.555556e-4 hours 3.306878e-6 weeks 7.61e-7 months and 50 minutes after the ATE. At this time, Fermi 2 Nuclear Power Plant 73 KLD Engineering, P.C.
Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0
Enclosure to NRC-22-0041 Page 125 of 372 approximately 89% of evacuees have mobilized, and approximately 89% of vehicles have successfully evacuated the EPZ. This is still well before the completion of the mobilization time (4 hours4.62963e-5 days 0.00111 hours 6.613757e-6 weeks 1.522e-6 months and 45 minutes) plus 10minute travel time to EPZ boundary, at which point the EPZ is clear of all evacuating traffic.
Figure 78 shows the last remnants of congestion in the Shadow Region at 3 hours3.472222e-5 days 8.333333e-4 hours 4.960317e-6 weeks 1.1415e-6 months and 15 minutes after the ATE. Parts of Ida Maybee Rd and Blue Bush Rd exhibit LOS F to the southwest.
Congestion within the Shadow Region clears 25 minutes later at 3 hours3.472222e-5 days 8.333333e-4 hours 4.960317e-6 weeks 1.1415e-6 months and 40 minutes after the ATE. At this time, approximately 96% of evacuees have mobilized, and approximately 96%
of vehicles have successfully evacuated the EPZ. All evacuees mobilize at 4 hours4.62963e-5 days 0.00111 hours 6.613757e-6 weeks 1.522e-6 months and 45 minutes after the ATE, and the EPZ is completely clear of all vehicles at 4 hours4.62963e-5 days 0.00111 hours 6.613757e-6 weeks 1.522e-6 months and 55 minutes after the ATE.
7.4 Evacuation Rates Evacuation is a continuous process, as implied by Figure 79 through Figure 722. These figures display the rate at which traffic flows out of the indicated areas for the case of an evacuation of the full EPZ (Region R03) under the indicated conditions. One figure is presented for each scenario considered.
As indicated in Figure 79 through Figure 722, there is typically a long "tail" to these distributions, due to the time to mobilize. Vehicles begin to evacuate an area slowly at first, as people respond to the ATE at different rates. Then traffic demand builds rapidly (slopes of curves increase). When the system becomes congested, traffic exits the EPZ at rates somewhat below capacity until some evacuation routes have cleared. As more routes clear, the aggregate rate of egress slows since many vehicles have already left the EPZ. Towards the end of the process, there are a few evacuation routes servicing the remaining demand.
This decline in aggregate flow rate, towards the end of the process, is characterized by these curves flattening and gradually becoming horizontal. Ideally, it would be desirable to fully saturate all evacuation routes equally so that all will service traffic near capacity levels, and all will clear at the same time. For this ideal situation, all curves would retain the same slope until the end of mobilization time - thus minimizing evacuation time. In reality, this ideal is generally unattainable reflecting the spatial variation in population density, mobilization rates and in highway capacity over the EPZ.
7.5 ETE Results Table 71 and Table 72 present the ETE values for all 13 Evacuation Regions and all 14 Evacuation Scenarios. Table 73 and Table 74 present the ETE values for 2Mile Region for both staged and unstaged keyhole regions downwind to 5 miles. The tables are organized as follows:
Fermi 2 Nuclear Power Plant 74 KLD Engineering, P.C.
Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0
Enclosure to NRC-22-0041 Page 126 of 372 Table Contents The ETE represents the elapsed time required for 90% of the population within 71 a Region, to evacuate from that Region. All Scenarios are considered, as well as Staged Evacuation scenarios.
The ETE represents the elapsed time required for 100% of the population 72 within a Region, to evacuate from that Region. All Scenarios are considered, as well as Staged Evacuation scenarios.
The ETE represents the elapsed time required for 90% of the population within 73 the 2Mile Region, to evacuate from the 2Mile Region with both Concurrent and Staged Evacuations of additional PAAs downwind in the keyhole Region.
The ETE represents the elapsed time required for 100% of the population within the 2Mile Region, to evacuate from the 2Mile Region with both 74 Concurrent and Staged Evacuations of additional PAAs downwind in the keyhole Region.
The animation snapshots described in Section 7.3, reflect the ETE statistics for the concurrent (unstaged) evacuation scenarios and regions, which are displayed in Figure 73 through Figure
78. The vast majority of the population within the EPZ is within the cities of Monroe, Rockwood, Flat Rock, and Gibraltar which are located between 5 miles and the EPZ boundary.
In addition, there is ample roadway capacity such that the significant congestion within the EPZ dissipates well before the completion of the mobilization time. These concepts are reflected in the ETE statistics:
The 90th percentile ETE for the 2Mile Region (R01) ranges from 2:20 (hh:mm) to 2:30 for nonheavy snow scenarios. Heavy Snow scenarios range from 3:10 to 3:15.
The 90th percentile ETE for the 5Mile Region (R02) range from 2:05 to 2:10 for all non heavy snow scenarios. Heavy Snow scenarios range from 2:30 to 2:40. I75 runs through the 5mile region, carries over 10,000 vehicles, and is stopped at 2 hours2.314815e-5 days 5.555556e-4 hours 3.306878e-6 weeks 7.61e-7 months after the ATE.
These vehicles make up over 50% of the evacuating traffic from this region. As such, they drive down the 90th percentile ETE as 90% of the total evacuating traffic can be reached more quickly than when these vehicles arent present (like in the 2mile region).
As a result, the ETE for this region are at most 40 minutes shorter than the 2Mile Region.
The 90th percentile ETE for the full EPZ (R03) ranges between from 2:20 to 2:40 for non heavy snow scenarios. Heavy Snow scenarios range from 3:15 to 3:20. As shown in Figure 73 through Figure 78 heavy congestion exists within the 5 to 10Mile Region of the EPZ in the major population centers of Monroe, Rockwood, Flat Rock, and Gibraltar.
As such the ETE for this region are at most 45 minutes longer than the 5Mile Region.
The 100th percentile ETE for all Regions and Scenarios parallel mobilization time (plus a 5 or 10 minute travel time), as the congestion within the EPZ dissipates at 2 hours2.314815e-5 days 5.555556e-4 hours 3.306878e-6 weeks 7.61e-7 months and 50 Fermi 2 Nuclear Power Plant 75 KLD Engineering, P.C.
Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0
Enclosure to NRC-22-0041 Page 127 of 372 minutes after the ATE, as displayed in Figure 77 and Figure 78 and discussed in Section 7.3. The 100th percentile ETE ranges from 4:45 to 4:55 (mobilization time plus 10 minutes to travel out of the EPZ) for all heavy snow scenarios. Heavy Snow scenarios range from 5:45 to 5:55, again due to mobilization times being longer in heavy snow.
Comparison of Scenarios 3 and 13, in Table 71 and Table 72, indicate that the Special Event -
the Monroe County Fair - has no impact to the 90th or 100th percentile ETE since there is ample roadway capacity in Monroe and the Special Event occurs just outside the EPZ boundary and the 100th percentile ETE is dictated by trip generation time.
Comparison of Scenarios 1 and 14 in Table 71 and Table 72 indicate that the roadway closure
- a single lane closure on I75 southbound between the I275 freeway ramp to the overpass with Laplaisance Road has no impact on the 90th percentile for all Regions and Scenarios. As discussed in Section 7.3 and displayed in Figure 73 through Figure 78, I75 southbound has minimal congestion (LOS B or better) within the EPZ and clears at about 2 hours2.314815e-5 days 5.555556e-4 hours 3.306878e-6 weeks 7.61e-7 months and 30 minutes after the ATE. There is no impact to the 100th percentile ETE, as the trip generation (plus the travel time to the EPZ boundary) dictates the ETE.
7.6 Staged Evacuation Results Table 73 and Table 74 present a comparison of the ETE compiled for the concurrent (un staged) and staged evacuation results. Note that Regions R11 through R13 are geographically identical to Region R02, Region R04, and Region R05, respectively. The times shown in Table 73 and Table 74 are when the 2Mile Region is 90% clear and 100% clear, respectively.
The objective of a staged evacuation is to show that the ETE for the 2Mile Region can be significantly reduced (30 minutes or 25%, whichever is less) without significantly impacting people beyond the regions between 2 miles and 5 miles. As shown in Table 73 and Table 74, the 90th percentile ETE for the 2Mile Region the same for all Regions and Scenarios with and without staging. As discussed in Section 7.3, there is little congestion within the 5Mile Region.
As such, the evacuation of those between 2 and 5 miles does not impede the evacuation of those evacuees within 2 miles of Fermi 2. The 100th percentile ETE also remains the same since the trip generation (plus the travel time to the EPZ boundary) dictates the ETE.
To determine the effect of staged evacuation on the residents beyond the 2Mile Region, the ETE for Region R02, Region R04, and Region R05 is compared to Regions R11 through R13 in Table 71 and Table 72. A comparison of ETE between these similar Regions reveals that staging has significantly increased (at most 1 hour1.157407e-5 days 2.777778e-4 hours 1.653439e-6 weeks 3.805e-7 months and 35 minutes) at the 90th percentile for those beyond 2 miles. Staging has no impact on the 100th percentile ETE.
In summary, staging evacuation provides no benefit to evacuees within the 2Mile Region and severely impacts evacuees within the 2 to 5Mile Region. Based on the guidance in NUREG 0654, Supplement 3, this analysis would result in staged evacuation not being implemented for this site.
Fermi 2 Nuclear Power Plant 76 KLD Engineering, P.C.
Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0
Enclosure to NRC-22-0041 Page 128 of 372 7.7 Guidance on Using ETE Tables The user first determines the percentile of population for which the ETE is sought (The NRC guidance calls for the 90th percentile). The applicable value of ETE within the chosen table may then be identified using the following procedure:
1. Identify the applicable Scenario (Step 1):
Season Summer Winter (also Autumn and Spring)
Day of Week Midweek Weekend
Time of Day Midday Evening
Weather Condition Good Weather Rain/Light Snow Heavy Snow
Special Event The Monroe County Fair
Roadway Impact A single lane closure of Interstate 75 southbound (between the I275 freeway ramp to the overpass with Laplaisance Road)
Evacuation Staging No, Staged Evacuation is not considered Yes, Staged Evacuation is considered While these Scenarios are designed, in aggregate, to represent conditions throughout the year, some further clarification is warranted:
The conditions of a summer evening (either midweek or weekend) and rain/light snow are not explicitly identified in the Tables. For these conditions, Scenarios (2) and (4) apply.
The conditions of a winter evening (either midweek or weekend) and rain/light snow are not explicitly identified in the Tables. For these conditions, Scenarios (7) and (9) for rain/light snow apply.
The conditions of a winter evening (either midweek or weekend) are not explicitly identified in the Tables.
The seasons are defined as follows:
Summer assumes public schools are in session at summer school enrollment levels (lower than normal enrollment).
Winter (includes Spring and Autumn) considers that public schools are in session at normal enrollment levels.
Fermi 2 Nuclear Power Plant 77 KLD Engineering, P.C.
Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0
Enclosure to NRC-22-0041 Page 129 of 372
Time of Day: Midday implies the time over which most commuters are at work or are traveling to/from work.
2. With the desired percentile ETE and Scenario identified, now identify the Evacuation Region (Step 2):
Determine the projected azimuth direction of the plume (coincident with the wind direction). This direction is expressed in terms of compass orientation: from the N, NNE, NE, etc.
Determine the distance that the Evacuation Region will extend from the nuclear power plant. The applicable distances and their associated candidate Regions are given below:
2 Miles (Region R01)
To 5 Miles (Region R02, R04 and R05) to EPZ Boundary (Regions R03, R06 through R10)
Enter Table 75 and identify the applicable group of candidate Regions based on the distance that the selected Region extends from the plant. Select the Evacuation Region identifier in that row, based on the azimuth direction of the plume, from the first column of the Table.
3. Determine the ETE Table based on the percentile selected. Then, for the Scenario identified in Step 1 and the Evacuation Region identified in Step 2, proceed as follows:
The columns of Table 71 are labeled with the Scenario numbers. Identify the proper column in the selected table using the Scenario number determined in Step 1.
Identify the row in this table that provides ETE values for the Region identified in Step 2.
The unique data cell defined by the column and row so determined contains the desired value of ETE expressed in Hours:Minutes.
Example It is desired to identify the ETE for the following conditions:
Sunday, August 10th at 4:00 AM.
It is raining.
Wind direction is from the southwest (SW).
Wind speed is such that the distance to be evacuated is judged to be a 2Mile Region and downwind to EPZ boundary.
The desired ETE is that value needed to evacuate 90% of the population from within the impacted Region.
A staged evacuation is not desired.
Table 71 is applicable because the 90th percentile ETE is desired. Proceed as follows:
1. Identify the Scenario as summer, weekend, evening and raining. Entering Table 71, it is seen that there is no match for these descriptors. However, the clarification given above assigns this combination of circumstances to Scenario 4.
2. Enter Table 75 and locate the Region described as Evacuate 2Mile Region and Downwind to EPZ Boundary for wind direction from the SW and read Region R06 in the Fermi 2 Nuclear Power Plant 78 KLD Engineering, P.C.
Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0
Enclosure to NRC-22-0041 Page 130 of 372 first column of that row.
3. Enter Table 71 to locate the data cell containing the value of ETE for Scenario 4 and Region R06. This data cell is in column (4) and in the row for Region R06; it contains the ETE value of 2:25.
Fermi 2 Nuclear Power Plant 79 KLD Engineering, P.C.
Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0
Enclosure to NRC-22-0041 Table 71. Time to Clear the Indicated Area of 90 Percent of the Affected Population Page 131 of 372 Summer Summer Summer Winter Winter Winter Summer Summer Midweek Midweek Midweek Weekend Midweek Weekend Weekend Midweek Weekend Weekend Scenario: (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9) (10) (11) (12) (13) (14)
Midday Midday Evening Midday Midday Evening Midday Midday Region Good Rain/Light Good Rain/Light Good Good Rain/Light Heavy Good Rain/Light Heavy Good Special Roadway Weather Snow Weather Snow Weather Weather Snow Snow Weather Snow Snow Weather Event Impact Entire 2Mile Region, 5Mile Region, and EPZ R01 2:30 2:30 2:20 2:25 2:25 2:30 2:30 3:15 2:25 2:25 3:10 2:25 2:20 2:30 R02 2:10 2:10 2:05 2:05 2:10 2:10 2:10 2:40 2:05 2:05 2:30 2:10 2:05 2:10 R03 2:35 2:40 2:25 2:35 2:25 2:35 2:40 3:20 2:20 2:30 3:15 2:25 2:25 2:35 2Mile Region and Keyhole to 5 Miles R04 2:05 2:05 2:05 2:05 2:05 2:05 2:05 2:25 2:05 2:05 2:15 2:05 2:05 2:05 R05 2:05 2:05 2:05 2:05 2:05 2:05 2:05 2:25 2:05 2:05 2:15 2:05 2:05 2:05 2Mile Region and Keyhole to EPZ Boundary R06 2:30 2:30 2:20 2:25 2:25 2:30 2:30 3:15 2:25 2:25 3:10 2:25 2:20 2:30 R07 2:30 2:40 2:20 2:30 2:25 2:30 2:35 3:15 2:20 2:30 3:05 2:20 2:20 2:30 R08 2:30 2:40 2:25 2:35 2:25 2:30 2:40 3:20 2:25 2:30 3:10 2:25 2:25 2:30 R09 2:30 2:30 2:20 2:25 2:25 2:30 2:30 3:15 2:20 2:25 3:05 2:25 2:20 2:30 R10 2:30 2:40 2:25 2:35 2:25 2:30 2:40 3:20 2:25 2:30 3:10 2:25 2:25 2:30 Staged Evacuation 2Mile Region and Keyhole to 5 Miles R11 2:50 2:50 2:45 2:50 3:00 2:50 2:50 3:35 2:50 2:50 3:35 3:00 2:45 2:50 R12 3:05 3:05 3:05 3:05 3:05 3:05 3:05 3:55 3:05 3:05 3:50 3:05 3:05 3:05 R13 3:05 3:05 3:05 3:05 3:05 3:05 3:05 3:55 3:05 3:05 3:50 3:05 3:05 3:05 Fermi 2 Nuclear Power Plant 710 KLD Engineering, P.C.
Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0
Enclosure to NRC-22-0041 Table 72. Time to Clear the Indicated Area of 100 Percent of the Affected Population Page 132 of 372 Summer Summer Summer Winter Winter Winter Summer Summer Midweek Midweek Midweek Weekend Midweek Weekend Weekend Midweek Weekend Weekend Scenario: (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9) (10) (11) (12) (13) (14)
Midday Midday Evening Midday Midday Evening Midday Midday Region Good Rain/Light Good Rain/Light Good Good Rain/Light Heavy Good Rain/Light Heavy Good Special Roadway Weather Snow Weather Snow Weather Weather Snow Snow Weather Snow Snow Weather Event Impact Entire 2Mile Region, 5Mile Region, and EPZ R01 4:45 4:45 4:45 4:45 4:45 4:45 4:45 5:45 4:45 4:45 5:45 4:45 4:45 4:45 R02 4:50 4:50 4:50 4:50 4:50 4:50 4:50 5:50 4:50 4:50 5:50 4:50 4:50 4:50 R03 4:55 4:55 4:55 4:55 4:55 4:55 4:55 5:55 4:55 4:55 5:55 4:55 4:55 4:55 2Mile Region and Keyhole to 5 Miles R04 4:50 4:50 4:50 4:50 4:50 4:50 4:50 5:50 4:50 4:50 5:50 4:50 4:50 4:50 R05 4:50 4:50 4:50 4:50 4:50 4:50 4:50 5:50 4:50 4:50 5:50 4:50 4:50 4:50 2Mile Region and Keyhole to EPZ Boundary R06 4:55 4:55 4:55 4:55 4:55 4:55 4:55 5:55 4:55 4:55 5:55 4:55 4:55 4:55 R07 4:55 4:55 4:55 4:55 4:55 4:55 4:55 5:55 4:55 4:55 5:55 4:55 4:55 4:55 R08 4:55 4:55 4:55 4:55 4:55 4:55 4:55 5:55 4:55 4:55 5:55 4:55 4:55 4:55 R09 4:55 4:55 4:55 4:55 4:55 4:55 4:55 5:55 4:55 4:55 5:55 4:55 4:55 4:55 R10 4:55 4:55 4:55 4:55 4:55 4:55 4:55 5:55 4:55 4:55 5:55 4:55 4:55 4:55 Staged Evacuation 2Mile Region and Keyhole to 5 Miles R11 4:50 4:50 4:50 4:50 4:50 4:50 4:50 5:50 4:50 4:50 5:50 4:50 4:50 4:50 R12 4:50 4:50 4:50 4:50 4:50 4:50 4:50 5:50 4:50 4:50 5:50 4:50 4:50 4:50 R13 4:50 4:50 4:50 4:50 4:50 4:50 4:50 5:50 4:50 4:50 5:50 4:50 4:50 4:50 Fermi 2 Nuclear Power Plant 711 KLD Engineering, P.C.
Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0
Enclosure to NRC-22-0041 Table 73. Time to Clear 90 Percent of the 2Mile Region within the Indicated Region Page 133 of 372 Summer Summer Summer Winter Winter Winter Summer Summer Midweek Midweek Midweek Weekend Midweek Weekend Weekend Midweek Weekend Weekend Scenario: (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9) (10) (11) (12) (13) (14)
Midday Midday Evening Midday Midday Evening Midday Midday Region Good Rain/Light Good Rain/Light Good Good Rain/Light Heavy Good Rain/Light Heavy Good Special Roadway Weather Snow Weather Snow Weather Weather Snow Snow Weather Snow Snow Weather Event Impact Unstaged Evacuation 2Mile Region and Keyhole to 5Miles R01 2:30 2:30 2:20 2:25 2:25 2:30 2:30 3:15 2:25 2:25 3:10 2:25 2:20 2:30 R02 2:30 2:30 2:20 2:25 2:25 2:30 2:30 3:15 2:25 2:25 3:10 2:25 2:20 2:30 R04 2:30 2:30 2:20 2:25 2:25 2:30 2:30 3:15 2:25 2:25 3:10 2:25 2:20 2:30 R05 2:30 2:30 2:20 2:25 2:25 2:30 2:30 3:15 2:25 2:25 3:10 2:25 2:20 2:30 Staged Evacuation 2Mile Region and Keyhole to 5Miles R11 2:30 2:30 2:20 2:25 2:25 2:30 2:30 3:15 2:25 2:25 3:10 2:25 2:20 2:30 R12 2:30 2:30 2:20 2:25 2:25 2:30 2:30 3:15 2:25 2:25 3:10 2:25 2:20 2:30 R13 2:30 2:30 2:20 2:25 2:25 2:30 2:30 3:15 2:25 2:25 3:10 2:25 2:20 2:30 Fermi 2 Nuclear Power Plant 712 KLD Engineering, P.C.
Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0
Enclosure to NRC-22-0041 Table 74. Time to Clear 100 Percent of the 2Mile Region within the Indicated Region Page 134 of 372 Summer Summer Summer Winter Winter Winter Summer Summer Midweek Midweek Midweek Weekend Midweek Weekend Weekend Midweek Weekend Weekend Scenario: (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9) (10) (11) (12) (13) (14)
Midday Midday Evening Midday Midday Evening Midday Midday Region Good Rain/Light Good Rain/Light Good Good Rain/Light Heavy Good Rain/Light Heavy Good Special Roadway Weather Snow Weather Snow Weather Weather Snow Snow Weather Snow Snow Weather Event Impact Unstaged Evacuation 2Mile Region and Keyhole to 5Miles R01 4:45 4:45 4:45 4:45 4:45 4:45 4:45 5:45 4:45 4:45 5:45 4:45 4:45 4:45 R02 4:45 4:45 4:45 4:45 4:45 4:45 4:45 5:45 4:45 4:45 5:45 4:45 4:45 4:45 R04 4:45 4:45 4:45 4:45 4:45 4:45 4:45 5:45 4:45 4:45 5:45 4:45 4:45 4:45 R05 4:45 4:45 4:45 4:45 4:45 4:45 4:45 5:45 4:45 4:45 5:45 4:45 4:45 4:45 Staged Evacuation 2Mile Region and Keyhole to 5Miles R11 4:45 4:45 4:45 4:45 4:45 4:45 4:45 5:45 4:45 4:45 5:45 4:45 4:45 4:45 R12 4:45 4:45 4:45 4:45 4:45 4:45 4:45 5:45 4:45 4:45 5:45 4:45 4:45 4:45 R13 4:45 4:45 4:45 4:45 4:45 4:45 4:45 5:45 4:45 4:45 5:45 4:45 4:45 4:45 Fermi 2 Nuclear Power Plant 713 KLD Engineering, P.C.
Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0
Enclosure to NRC-22-0041 Page 135 of 372 Table 75. Description of Evacuation Regions Radial Regions PAA Region Description 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 R01 2Mile Region x x R02 5Mile Region x x x x R03 Full EPZ x x x x x x x Evacuate 2Mile Region and Downwind to 5 Miles PAA Region Wind Direction From: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 R04 S, SSW, SW, WSW x x x W, WNW, NW, NNW, N Refer to Region R01 R05 NNE, NE, ENE x x x E, ESE, SE, SSE Refer to Region R02 Evacuate 2Mile Region and Downwind to the EPZ Boundary PAA Region Wind Direction From: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 R06 S, SSW, SW, WSW x x x x x R07 W, WNW, NW, NNW, N x x x R08 NNE, NE, ENE x x x x x R09 E, ESE, SE x x x x x x R10 SSE x x x x x Staged Evacuation 2Mile Region Evacuates, then Evacuate Downwind to 5 Miles PAA Region Wind Direction From: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 R11 5mile Region x x x x R12 S, SSW, SW, WSW x x x W, WNW, NW, NNW, N Refer to Region R01 R13 NNE, NE, ENE x x x E, ESE, SE, SSE Refer to Region R12 PAA (s) ShelterinPlace until PAA(s) Evacuate PAA(s) ShelterinPlace 90% ETE for R01, then Evacuate Fermi 2 Nuclear Power Plant 714 KLD Engineering, P.C.
Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0
Enclosure to NRC-22-0041 Page 136 of 372
,_ , ) ,_ , I ~- ~ /
~~ ~-~ ~
- I / /---" ""\// \ I "'\
\ .
- - ~ \_
( (r e )}
- \ ,,~tMJle-,: /J J J \ l(( 2 } l
.. / . -( 1, )
. _ ___., < " . _ ___., /
"--,_/
~
10Miles 15 Miles
/
/ "--,_,
@.Miles,
~OM~ ~
15 Miles
/
\
- , _ /.
15 Miles
(
I 2-Mile Region I I 5-Mile Region I IEntire EPZ I
\ ~ "-~/ \ ~ '-~ J- ~ /
-- ~-~~ / ~ .
/~-~"'\ -
J( (( (~1'" \ \_ /;(
iss )} I
. \\r ~( /
) )
/ "I\ \ \_
J \ \'- l _ ( I\ - ~- JI J} -)
\
\
\ ' - i-2 ~
-- 5~
//
/ "'
'21Miles)l / /
~M~ /
/
J \
"'----.._~~ _.,--
'- *2~
, /
/ /~ I
~ ------~ / '--,~ _.,-- /~ I
~r-Keyhole: 2-Mile Region & 5 Miles Downwind Keyhole: 2-Mile Region & 10 Miles Downwi nd I I Staged Evacuation: 2-Mile Region & 5 Miles Downwind
Plant Location
Region to be Evacuated : 100% Evacuation D 20% Shadow Evacuation - Shelter, then Evacuate Figure 71. Voluntary Evacuation Methodology Fermi 2 Nuclear Power Plant 715 KLD Engineering, P.C.
Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0
Enclosure to NRC-22-0041 Belleville = Page 137 of 372 I
Romulus r.--4 l .-
l ,-;i, ;, l~ rt"'
i~
er*~/
7 i"\ ,, 1 ,l
i \-jl'rr ;
/
Washtenaw Wayne /
County Ontario, 1 >--l-'-+-----.- ci:anad~,~ ~ - - + - - -11 1-- -_j_-s:-- r- -1 I
,1 I
J ,
f,/ I \
\
1\ Maybee
\
11 \
Monroe County \
I A
,;~
1 I I
cl
., \ C'>
i0-\~
-..y-'6 Stony Poi t \ .,
C!l ,e;
~ \
'3, I
\
I 7 \ I
\
\ I
\ ,, I
\
,, I
\ ',f ,,
'\ /
I ',
Legend / ,,
GJ Fermi2 PAA ' ' /
/
/
/
Shadow Region '
I I
4i?a~:6/8/2022
, -:, 2, 5, 10, 15 Mile Rin gs /:opyright: E~: IOa taa ndMa ps2020 KLOEngmeenng,DTEEnergy www.cens1.1sf! ov - - - - - 0 10Mi les Figure 72. Fermi 2 Nuclear Power Plant Shadow Region Fermi 2 Nuclear Power Plant 716 KLD Engineering, P.C.
Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0
Enclosure to NRC-22-0041 Page 138 of 372 N
Congestion Patterns at 00:30 "1,yandotte w~ ,
Belleville ~ ..:;~::.:,::__t---1 ,,
I I
I I
? I
, ? ,I I
8 *, I' I
3 8 e I
i E I
~ i I I
i I I
I I
_,,,u
!!/
~/ ~
't, / <b
-~
fJ (j
§t I .
I I
I I
I
(
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
LOS Lake Erie 7 A B
C D
-- E f Legend Gl Fermi2 PAA
~ Shadow Region Date: 7/ 12/2022 0 2.5 Copyright:ESRIDataandMaps2020 (""'-. 2, 5, 10, 15 Mile Rings KLD Engineering, DTE Energy www.census.gov Figure 73. Congestion Patterns at 30 Minutes after the ATE Fermi 2 Nuclear Power Plant 717 KLD Engineering, P.C.
Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0
Enclosure to NRC-22-0041 Page 139 of 372 N
Congestion Patterns at 01:00 "1,yandotte w~ ,
Belleville ~ ...::..;~::.:..:;:...-+ - --/ ,,
Romulus I
I I
I
? I
, ? ,I I
8 *, I' I
3 8 e I
i E
"' i i
I I
I I
I I
I
_,, u
!!/
~/ ~
't, / <b
~
fJ (j
§t I .
I I
I I
I
(
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
LOS Lake Erie 7 A r
~
!* B
<ii C D
-- E f Legend
\ '-
Gl Fermi 2 PAA
,,.~......
Shadow Region
'- Date: 7/18/2022 0 2.5 ' ' Copyright: ESRI Data and Maps 2020 KLD Engineering, DTE Energy 2, 5, 10, 15 Mile Rings
' ....... www.census.gov Figure 74. Congestion Patterns at 1 Hour after the ATE Fermi 2 Nuclear Power Plant 718 KLD Engineering, P.C.
Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0
Enclosure to NRC-22-0041 Page 140 of 372 N
Congestion Patterns at 01:30 "1,yandotte w~ ,
Belleville 1---...:.;~ ::.:.,:__.L---7 ,,
I I
I I
I I
I' I
I I
I I
I I
I I
_,,,u
!!/
~/ ~
't, / <b
-~
fJ (j
§t I .
I I
I I
I
(
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
LOS Lake Erie 7 A B
C D
-- E f Legend Gl Fermi2 PAA
~ Shadow Region Date: 7/ 18/ 2022 0 2.5 Copyright:ESRI DataandMaps 2020 (""'-. 2, 5, 10, 15 Mile Rings KLD Engineering, DTE Energy www.census.gov Figure 75. Congestion Patterns at 1 Hour and 30 Minutes after the ATE Fermi 2 Nuclear Power Plant 719 KLD Engineering, P.C.
Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0
Enclosure to NRC-22-0041 Page 141 of 372 N
Congestion Patterns at 02:00 "1,yandotte w~ ,
Belleville 1---...:.;~ ::.:.,:__.L---7 ,,
Romulus Eureka Rd I
I I
I I
I I'
I I
I I
I I
I I
I
_,,,u
!!/
~/ ~
't, / <b
-~
fJ (j
§t I .
I I
I I
I
(
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
LOS Lake Erie 7 A B
C D
t -- E f Legend Gl Fermi2 PAA
~ Shadow Region Date: 7/ 18/ 2022 0 2.5 Copyright:ESRIDataandMaps2020 (""'-. 2, 5, 10, 15 Mile Rings KLD Engineering, DTE Energy www.census.gov Figure 76. Congestion Patterns at 2 Hours after the ATE Fermi 2 Nuclear Power Plant 720 KLD Engineering, P.C.
Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0
Enclosure to NRC-22-0041 Page 142 of 372 N
Congestion Patterns at 02:30 "1,yandotte w~ ,
Belleville ~ ..:;...::::::.:,::__.L---7 ,,
I I
I I
? I
, ? ,I I
8 *, I' I
3 8 e I
i E I
~ i I I
i I I
I I
_,,,u
!!/
~/ ~
't, / <b
-~
fJ (j
§t I .
I I
I I
I
(
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
LOS Lake Erie 7 A B
C D
-- E f Legend Gl Fermi2 PAA
~ Shadow Region Date: 7/ 18/ 2022 0 2.5 Copyright:ESRIDataandMaps2020 (""'-. 2, 5, 10, 15 Mile Rings KLD Engineering, DTE Energy www.census.gov Figure 77. Congestion Patterns at 2 Hours and 30 Minutes after the ATE Fermi 2 Nuclear Power Plant 721 KLD Engineering, P.C.
Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0
Enclosure to NRC-22-0041 Page 143 of 372 N
Congestion Patterns at 03:15 "1,yandotte w~ ,
Belleville 1---...:.;z.:;;;::.:.,:__-t---7 ,,
I I
I I
I I
I' I
I I
I I
I I
I I
_,,,u
!!/
~/ ~
't, / o:
I ""' \
i------i-----t---j__-4---_"'
I i\
I I
I
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
6 \ q
"" \ ,::
t"' I C. \
\ ,CJ
a. \ i, i
~ \~
I
/
\\
/ \
\
6 \
\
\
Lake Erie 7
\
\
Gl Fermi 2 Evacuation Route PAA Shadow Region Date:6/24/2022 Copyright:ESRI DataandMaps2020 KLDEngineering, DTE Energy
'---:::, 2, 5, 10, 15 Mile Rings Miles www.census.gov Figure 101. Evacuation Routes Fermi 2 Nuclear Power Plant 1011 KLD Engineering, P.C.
Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0
Enclosure to NRC-22-0041 Page 198 of 372 Ill ', I I / A
~ayne J
1 /r' ' ' 1 : + + ~ ~
-County +
')
~ C- /7. ~1 I t
~ ) :' Q~ I I - {:
l I " wf<?*
'3, I
I I
\
\
\
,6 \ q
"';i ~J C:. \
\
""~
~
"'I "' l ,CJ o.\l
'!l \ o, I
/
\\
\
/
6 Lake Erie 7
Legend Transit-Dependent - PAA 3 - PAA 5 - Rout e 1 Bus Route - PAA 4 - Route 1 - PAA 5 - Route 2 Fermi2
- PAAl - - PAA 4 - Route 2 PAA 5 - Route 3 Gl PAA Date:7/18/2022 PAA2 PAA 4 - Route 3 -- PAA 5 - Route 4 Shadow Region Copyright: ESRroataandMaps2020
- PAA7 \..--:, 2, 5, 10, 15 Mile Rings KlOEnginee~ -~~
Figure 102. TransitDependent Bus Routes Fermi 2 Nuclear Power Plant 1012 KLD Engineering, P.C.
Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0
Enclosure to NRC-22-0041
'1 !e§ilanti Taylor High I Allen Par!<, Page 199 of 372 c,----4-t"" School ~ a~ ne cdunty Com'munity w"
-¢",
lilyfor <tollege ~ Wyandotte\ l Belleville 7
//r
\ Southgate
@3 Lincoln i:': sq stephan - - - I Saline School § i:' Scliool __.-
Rtvefv,ew.._ ,
as
~
1 --::o
~
District
=a \ J ~" i ' '
§t f ,; \ ' ......
-5; ~
~,. §3 Trenton-r[ ] ~\ ......
/ ! /I ~i
/ ~ " Ontario, Milan /
" Canada
.J
,Middle '\,
School /
\ WashtenawCounf1!._ I
\
1-- - , - - - - - Nilafi l Monroe County I
\
I
\
I I
\ \
I \
" \
I I
I Maybee
(\ c:. ,
\
~o.\CJ l
1/~ ~
5
~
,i,
~.
<a\~
q
,!Z ii')
"'t.
~
1 .-S>
~
" i \ "'
ounaee~ l *iid - * --....._., 9l
~c:h: , -St~ 6 OJflt,,,
ch
~- §' SummJ rfield Ida tblic a" a ' I t:l 0
~
] I High School Petersburg
~
Ida chools
\
7
0
.:\:.; \
Deerfield 24 I
\
\ £( \
~ I
\ Legend M ason
' ig
' h Scno,
. , j Lake Erie Fermi2 Host School Lun~
Re ce ption Center
§} / !Bedford ......
~ hiteford Sen'ior High ...... D Re ce ption Center/Host School High School I n ,Schciol 2perJ ' ...... ,,,.. ,,,..
0ate:6/24/2022 Copyright:ESRIDalaandMaps2020 Q PAA Shadow Region
, -:::, 2, 5, 10, 15 Mile Rings Milesll 10 KLDEngi neering,OTEEnergy www.census.gov Figure 103. General Population Reception Centers/Host Schools Fermi 2 Nuclear Power Plant 1013 KLD Engineering, P.C.
Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0
Enclosure to NRC-22-0041 Page 200 of 372 APPENDIX A Glossary of Traffic Engineering Terms
Enclosure to NRC-22-0041 Page 201 of 372 A. GLOSSARY OF TRAFFIC ENGINEERING TERMS This appendix provides a glossary of traffic engineering terms that are used throughout this report.
Table A1. Glossary of Traffic Engineering Terms Term Definition Analysis Network A graphical representation of the geometric topology of a physical roadway system, which is comprised of directional links and nodes.
Link A network link represents a specific, onedirectional section of roadway. A link has both physical (length, number of lanes, topology, etc.) and operational (turn movement percentages, service rate, freeflow speed) characteristics.
Measures of Effectiveness Statistics describing traffic operations on a roadway network.
Node A network node generally represents an intersection of network links. A node has control characteristics, i.e., the allocation of service time to each approach link.
Origin A location attached to a network link, within the EPZ or Shadow Region, where trips are generated at a specified rate in vehicles per hour (vph). These trips enter the roadway system to travel to their respective destinations.
Prevailing Roadway and Relates to the physical features of the roadway, the nature (e.g.,
Traffic Conditions composition) of traffic on the roadway and the ambient conditions (weather, visibility, pavement conditions, etc.).
Service Rate Maximum rate at which vehicles, executing a specific turn maneuver, can be discharged from a section of roadway at the prevailing conditions, expressed in vehicles per second (vps) or vph.
Service Volume Maximum number of vehicles which can pass over a section of roadway in one direction during a specified time period with operating conditions at a specified Level of Service (The Service Volume at the upper bound of Level of Service, E, equals Capacity).
Service Volume is usually expressed as vph.
Signal Cycle Length The total elapsed time to display all signal indications, in sequence.
The cycle length is expressed in seconds.
Signal Interval A single combination of signal indications. The interval duration is expressed in seconds. A signal phase is comprised of a sequence of signal intervals, usually green, yellow, red.
Fermi 2 Nuclear Power Plant A1 KLD Engineering, P.C.
Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0
Enclosure to NRC-22-0041 Page 202 of 372 Term Definition Signal Phase A set of signal indications (and intervals) which services a particular combination of traffic movements on selected approaches to the intersection. The phase duration is expressed in seconds.
Traffic (Trip) Assignment A process of assigning traffic to paths of travel in such a way as to satisfy all trip objectives (i.e., the desire of each vehicle to travel from a specified origin in the network to a specified destination) and to optimize some stated objective or combination of objectives. In general, the objective is stated in terms of minimizing a generalized "cost". For example, "cost" may be expressed in terms of travel time.
Traffic Density The number of vehicles that occupy one lane of a roadway section of specified length at a point in time, expressed as vehicles per mile (vpm).
Traffic (Trip) Distribution A process for determining the destinations of all traffic generated at the origins. The result often takes the form of a Trip Table, which is a matrix of origindestination traffic volumes.
Traffic Simulation A computer model designed to replicate the realworld operation of vehicles on a roadway network, so as to provide statistics describing traffic performance. These statistics are called Measures of Effectiveness (MOE).
Traffic Volume The number of vehicles that pass over a section of roadway in one direction, expressed in vph. Where applicable, traffic volume may be stratified by turn movement.
Travel Mode Distinguishes between private auto, bus, rail, pedestrian, and air travel modes.
Trip Table or Origin A rectangular matrix or table, whose entries contain the number Destination Matrix of trips generated at each specified origin, during a specified time period, that are attracted to (and travel toward) each of its specified destinations. These values are expressed in vph or in vehicles.
Turning Capacity The capacity associated with that component of the traffic stream which executes a specified turn maneuver from an approach at an intersection.
Fermi 2 Nuclear Power Plant A2 KLD Engineering, P.C.
Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0
Enclosure to NRC-22-0041 Page 203 of 372 APPENDIX B DTRAD: Dynamic Traffic Assignment and Distribution Model
Enclosure to NRC-22-0041 Page 204 of 372 B. DYNAMIC TRAFFIC ASSIGNMENT AND DISTRIBUTION MODEL This appendix describes the integrated dynamic trip assignment and distribution model named DTRAD (Dynamic TRaffic Assignment and Distribution) that is expressly designed for use in analyzing evacuation scenarios. DTRAD employs logitbased pathchoice principles and is one of the models of the DYNEV II System. The DTRAD module implements pathbased Dynamic Traffic Assignment (DTA) so that time dependent OriginDestination (OD) trips are assigned to routes over the network based on prevailing traffic conditions.
To apply the DYNEV II System, the analyst must specify the highway network, link capacity information, the timevarying volume of traffic generated at all origin centroids and, optionally, a set of accessible candidate destination nodes on the periphery of the Emergency Planning Zone (EPZ) for selected origins. DTRAD calculates the optimal dynamic trip distribution (i.e., trip destinations) and the optimal dynamic trip assignment (i.e., trip routing) of the traffic generated at each origin node traveling to its set of candidate destination nodes, so as to minimize evacuee travel cost.
B.1 Overview of Integrated Distribution and Assignment Model The underlying premise is that the selection of destinations and routes is intrinsically coupled in an evacuation scenario. That is, people in vehicles seek to travel out of an area of potential risk as rapidly as possible by selecting the best routes. The model is designed to identify these best routes in a manner that realistically distributes vehicles from origins to destinations and routes them over the highway network, in a consistent and optimal manner, reflecting evacuee behavior.
For each origin, a set of candidate destination nodes is selected by the software logic and by the analyst to reflect the desire by evacuees to travel away from the power plant and to access major highways. The specific destination nodes within this set that are selected by travelers and the selection of the connecting paths of travel, are both determined by DTRAD. This determination is made by a logitbased path choice model in DTRAD, so as to minimize the trip cost, as discussed later.
The traffic loading on the network and the consequent operational traffic environment of the network (density, speed, throughput on each link) vary over time as the evacuation takes place.
The DTRAD model, which is interfaced with the DYNEV simulation model, executes a succession of sessions wherein it computes the optimal routing and selection of destination nodes for the conditions that exist at that time.
Fermi 2 Nuclear Power Plant B1 KLD Engineering, P.C.
Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0
Enclosure to NRC-22-0041 Page 205 of 372 B.2 Interfacing the DYNEV Simulation Model with DTRAD The DYNEV II system reflects NRC guidance that evacuees will seek to travel in a general direction away from the location of the hazardous event. An algorithm was developed to support the DTRAD model in dynamically varying the Trip Table (OD matrix) over time from one DTRAD session to the next. Another algorithm executes a mapping from the specified geometric network (linknode analysis network) that represents the physical highway system, to a path network that represents the vehicle [turn] movements. DTRAD computations are performed on the path network: DYNEV simulation model, on the geometric network.
B.2.1 DTRAD Description DTRAD is the DTA module for the DYNEV II System.
When the road network under study is large, multiple routing options are usually available between trip origins and destinations. The problem of loading traffic demands and propagating them over the network links is called Network Loading and is addressed by DYNEV II using macroscopic traffic simulation modeling. Traffic assignment deals with computing the distribution of the traffic over the road network for given OD demands and is a model of the route choice of the drivers. Travel demand changes significantly over time, and the road network may have time dependent characteristics, e.g., timevarying signal timing or reduced road capacity because of lane closure, or traffic congestion. To consider these time dependencies, DTA procedures are required.
The DTRAD DTA module represents the dynamic route choice behavior of drivers, using the specification of dynamic origindestination matrices as flow input. Drivers choose their routes through the network based on the travel cost they experience (as determined by the simulation model). This allows traffic to be distributed over the network according to the timedependent conditions. The modeling principles of DTRAD include:
It is assumed that drivers not only select the best route (i.e., lowest cost path) but some also select less attractive routes. The algorithm implemented by DTRAD archives several efficient routes for each OD pair from which the drivers choose.
The choice of one route out of a set of possible routes is an outcome of discrete choice modeling. Given a set of routes and their generalized costs, the percentages of drivers that choose each route is computed. The most prevalent model for discrete choice modeling is the logit model. DTRAD uses a variant of PathSizeLogit model (PSL). PSL overcomes the drawback of the traditional multinomial logit model by incorporating an additional deterministic path size correction term to address path overlapping in the random utility expression.
Fermi 2 Nuclear Power Plant B2 KLD Engineering, P.C.
Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0
Enclosure to NRC-22-0041 Page 206 of 372 DTRAD executes the traffic assignment (TA) algorithm on an abstract network representation called "the path network" which is built from the actual physical link node analysis network. This execution continues until a stable situation is reached: the volumes and travel times on the edges of the path network do not change significantly from one iteration to the next. The criteria for this convergence are defined by the user.
Travel cost plays a crucial role in route choice. In DTRAD, path cost is a linear summation of the generalized cost of each link that comprises the path. The generalized cost for a link, a, is expressed as where is the generalized cost for link and , , and, are cost coefficients for link travel time, distance, and supplemental cost, respectively. Distance and supplemental costs are defined as invariant properties of the network model, while travel time is a dynamic property dictated by prevailing traffic conditions. The DYNEV simulation model computes travel times on all edges in the network and DTRAD uses that information to constantly update the costs of paths. The route choice decision model in the next simulation iteration uses these updated values to adjust the route choice behavior. This way, traffic demands are dynamically reassigned based on time dependent conditions.
The interaction between the DTRAD traffic assignment and DYNEV II simulation models is depicted in Figure B1. Each round of interaction is called a Traffic Assignment Session (TA session). A TA session is composed of multiple iterations, marked as loop B in the figure.
The supplemental cost is based on the survival distribution (a variation of the exponential distribution). The Inverse Survival Function is a cost term in DTRAD to represent the potential risk of travel toward the plant:
sa = ln (p), 0 p l ; 0 p=
dn = Distance of node, n, from the plant d0 = Distance from the plant where there is zero risk
= Scaling factor The value of do = 10 miles, the outer distance of the EPZ. Note that the supplemental cost, sa, of link, a, is (high, low), if its downstream node, n, is (near, far from) the power plant.
Fermi 2 Nuclear Power Plant B3 KLD Engineering, P.C.
Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0
Enclosure to NRC-22-0041 Page 207 of 372 B.2.2 Network Equilibrium In 1952, John Wardrop wrote:
Under equilibrium conditions traffic arranges itself in congested networks in such a way that no individual tripmaker can reduce his path costs by switching routes.
The above statement describes the User Equilibrium definition, also called the Selfish Driver Equilibrium. It is a hypothesis that represents a [hopeful] condition that evolves over time as drivers search out alternative routes to identify those routes that minimize their respective costs. It has been found that this equilibrium objective to minimize costs is largely realized by most drivers who routinely take the same trip over the same network at the same time (i.e.,
commuters). Effectively, such drivers learn which routes are best for them over time. Thus, the traffic environment settles down to a nearequilibrium state.
Clearly, since an emergency evacuation is a sudden, unique event, it does not constitute a long term learning experience which can achieve an equilibrium state. Consequently, DTRAD was not designed as an equilibrium solution, but to represent drivers in a new and unfamiliar situation, who respond in a flexible manner to realtime information (either broadcast or observed) in such a way as to minimize their respective costs of travel.
Fermi 2 Nuclear Power Plant B4 KLD Engineering, P.C.
Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0
Enclosure to NRC-22-0041 Page 208 of 372 Start of next DTRAD Session 0 A ~
I Set T0 Clock time.
Archive System State at T0 I
Define latest Link Turn Percentages I
Execute Simulation Model from B ~
~
time, T0 to T1 (burn time)
I Provide DTRAD with link MOE at time, T1 I
Execute DTRAD iteration; Get new Turn Percentages I
Retrieve System State at T0 ;
Apply new Link Turn Percents I
DTRAD iteration converges?
No Yes Next iteration Simulate from T0 to T2 I I (DTA session duration)
Set Clock to T2 B
r 6A Figure B1. Flow Diagram of SimulationDTRAD Interface Fermi 2 Nuclear Power Plant B5 KLD Engineering, P.C.
Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0
Enclosure to NRC-22-0041 Page 209 of 372 APPENDIX C DYNEV Traffic Simulation Model
Enclosure to NRC-22-0041 Page 210 of 372 C. DYNEV TRAFFIC SIMULATION MODEL This appendix describes the DYNEV traffic simulation model. The DYNEV traffic simulation model is a macroscopic model that describes the operations of traffic flow in terms of aggregate variables: vehicles, flow rate, mean speed, volume, density, queue length, on each link, for each turn movement, during each Time Interval (simulation time step). The model generates trips from sources and from Entry Links and introduces them onto the analysis network at rates specified by the analyst based on the mobilization time distributions. The model simulates the movements of all vehicles on all network links over time until the network is empty. At intervals, the model outputs Measures of Effectiveness (MOE) such as those listed in Table C1.
Model Features Include:
Explicit consideration is taken of the variation in density over the time step; an iterative procedure is employed to calculate an average density over the simulation time step for the purpose of computing a mean speed for moving vehicles.
Multiple turn movements can be serviced on one link; a separate algorithm is used to estimate the number of (fractional) lanes assigned to the vehicles performing each turn movement, based, in part, on the turn percentages provided by the Dynamic Traffic Assignment and Distribution (DTRAD) model.
At any point in time, traffic flow on a link is subdivided into two classifications: queued and moving vehicles. The number of vehicles in each classification is computed. Vehicle spillback, stratified by turn movement for each network link, is explicitly considered and quantified. The propagation of stopping waves from link to link is computed within each time step of the simulation. There is no vertical stacking of queues on a link.
Any link can accommodate source flow from zones via side streets and parking facilities that are not explicitly represented. This flow represents the evacuating trips that are generated at the source.
The relation between the number of vehicles occupying the link and its storage capacity is monitored every time step for every link and for every turn movement. If the available storage capacity on a link is exceeded by the demand for service, then the simulator applies a metering rate to the entering traffic from both the upstream feeders and source node to ensure that the available storage capacity is not exceeded.
A path network that represents the specified traffic movements from each network link is constructed by the model; this path network is utilized by the DTRAD model.
A twoway interface with DTRAD: (1) provides link travel times; (2) receives data that translates into link turn percentages.
Provides MOE to animation software, Evacuation Animator (EVAN)
Calculates ETE statistics All traffic simulation models are dataintensive. Table C2 outlines the necessary input data elements.
Fermi 2 Nuclear Power Plant C1 KLD Engineering, P.C.
Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0
Enclosure to NRC-22-0041 Page 211 of 372 To provide an efficient framework for defining these specifications, the physical highway environment is represented as a network. The unidirectional links of the network represent roadway sections: rural, multilane, urban streets or freeways. The nodes of the network generally represent intersections or points along a section where a geometric property changes (e.g., a lane drop, change in grade or free flow speed).
Figure C1 is an example of a small network representation. The freeway is defined by the sequence of links, (20,21), (21,22), and (22,23). Links (8001, 19) and (3, 8011) are Entry and Exit links, respectively. An arterial extends from node 3 to node 19 and is partially subsumed within a grid network. Note that links (21,22) and (17,19) are gradeseparated.
C.1 Methodology C.1.1 The Fundamental Diagram It is necessary to define the fundamental diagram describing flowdensity and speeddensity relationships. Rather than settling for a triangular representation, a more realistic representation that includes a capacity drop, (IR)Qmax, at the critical density when flow conditions enter the forced flow regime, is developed and calibrated for each link. This representation, shown in Figure C2, asserts a constant free speed up to a density, k , and then a linear reduction in speed in the range, k k k 45 vpm, the density at capacity. In the flowdensity plane, a quadratic relationship is prescribed in the range, k k 95 vpm which roughly represents the stopandgo condition of severe congestion. The value of flow rate, Q , corresponding to k , is approximated at 0.7 RQ . A linear relationship between k and k completes the diagram shown in Figure C2. Table C3 is a glossary of terms.
The fundamental diagram is applied to moving traffic on every link. The specified calibration values for each link are: (1) Free speed, v ; (2) Capacity, Q ; (3) Critical density, k 45 vpm ; (4) Capacity Drop Factor, R = 0.9 ; (5) Jam density, k . Then, v , k k
. Setting k k k , then Q RQ k for 0 k k 50 . It can be shown that Q 0.98 0.0056 k RQ for k k k , where k 50 and k 175.
C.1.2 The Simulation Model The simulation model solves a sequence of unit problems. Each unit problem computes the movement of traffic on a link, for each specified turn movement, over a specified time interval (TI) which serves as the simulation time step for all links. Figure C3. A UNIT Problem Configuration with t1 > 0 is a representation of the unit problem in the timedistance plane. Table C3 is a glossary of terms that are referenced in the following description of the unit problem procedure.
Fermi 2 Nuclear Power Plant C2 KLD Engineering, P.C.
Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0
Enclosure to NRC-22-0041 Page 212 of 372 The formulation and the associated logic presented below are designed to solve the unit problem for each sweep over the network (discussed below), for each turn movement serviced on each link that comprises the evacuation network, and for each TI over the duration of the evacuation.
Given Q , M , L , TI , E , LN , G C , h , L , R , L , E , M Compute O , Q , M Define O O O O ; E E E
1. For the first sweep, s = 1, of this TI, get initial estimates of mean density, k , the R - factor, R and entering traffic, E , using the values computed for the final sweep of the prior TI.
For each subsequent sweep, s 1 , calculate E P O S where P , O are the relevant turn percentages from feeder link, i , and its total outflow (possibly metered) over this TI; S is the total source flow (possibly metered) during the current TI.
Set iteration counter, n = 0, k k , and E E .
2. Calculate v k such that k 130 using the analytical representations of the fundamental diagram.
Q TI G Calculate Cap 3600 C LN , in vehicles, this value may be reduced due to metering Set R 1.0 if G C 1 or if k k ; Set R 0.9 only if G C 1 and k k L
Calculate queue length, L Q LN
3. Calculate t TI . If t 0 , set t E O 0 ; Else, E E .
4. Then E E E ; t TI t
5. If Q Cap , then O Cap , O O 0 If t 0 , then Q Q M E Cap Else Q Q Cap End if Calculate Q and M using Algorithm A below
6. Else Q Cap O Q , RCap Cap O
7. If M RCap , then Fermi 2 Nuclear Power Plant C3 KLD Engineering, P.C.
Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0
Enclosure to NRC-22-0041 Page 213 of 372
8. If t 0, O M ,O min RCap M , 0 Q E O If Q 0 , then Calculate Q , M with Algorithm A Else Q 0, M E End if Else t 0 O M and O 0 M M O E; Q 0 End if
9. Else M O 0 If t 0 , then O RCap , Q M O E Calculate Q and M using Algorithm A
10. Else t 0 M M If M ,
O RCap Q M O Apply Algorithm A to calculate Q and M Else O M M M O E and Q 0 End if End if End if End if
11. Calculate a new estimate of average density, k k 2k k ,
where k = density at the beginning of the TI k = density at the end of the TI k = density at the midpoint of the TI All values of density apply only to the moving vehicles.
If k k and n N where N max number of iterations, and is a convergence criterion, then Fermi 2 Nuclear Power Plant C4 KLD Engineering, P.C.
Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0
Enclosure to NRC-22-0041 Page 214 of 372
12. set n n 1 , and return to step 2 to perform iteration, n, using k k .
End if Computation of unit problem is now complete. Check for excessive inflow causing spillback.
13. If Q M , then The number of excess vehicles that cause spillback is: SB Q M ,
where W is the width of the upstream intersection. To prevent spillback, meter the outflow from the feeder approaches and from the source flow, S, during this TI by the amount, SB. That is, set SB M 1 0 , where M is the metering factor over all movements .
E S This metering factor is assigned appropriately to all feeder links and to the source flow, to be applied during the next network sweep, discussed later.
Algorithm A This analysis addresses the flow environment over a TI during which moving vehicles can join a standing or discharging queue. For the case Qb v Q shown, Q Cap, with t 0 and a queue of Q
Qe length, Q , formed by that portion of M and E that reaches the stopbar within the TI, but could not v discharge due to inadequate capacity. That is, Q Mb M E . This queue length, Q Q M v L3 E Cap can be extended to Q by traffic entering the approach during the current TI, traveling at t1 t3 speed, v, and reaching the rear of the queue within T the TI. A portion of the entering vehicles, E E ,
will likely join the queue. This analysis calculates t , Q and M for the input values of L, TI, v, E, t, L , LN, Q .
When t 0 and Q Cap:
L L Define: L Q . From the sketch, L v TI t t L Q E .
LN LN Substituting E E yields: vt E L v TI t L . Recognizing that the first two terms on the right hand side cancel, solve for t to obtain:
Fermi 2 Nuclear Power Plant C5 KLD Engineering, P.C.
Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0
Enclosure to NRC-22-0041 Page 215 of 372 L
t such that 0 t TI t E L v
TI LN If the denominator, v 0, set t TI t .
t t t Then, Q Q E , M E 1 TI TI The complete Algorithm A considers all flow scenarios; space limitation precludes its inclusion, here.
C.1.3 Lane Assignment The unit problem is solved for each turn movement on each link. Therefore it is necessary to calculate a value, LN , of allocated lanes for each movement, x. If in fact all lanes are specified by, say, arrows painted on the pavement, either as full lanes or as lanes within a turn bay, then the problem is fully defined. If however there remain unchannelized lanes on a link, then an analysis is undertaken to subdivide the number of these physical lanes into turn movement specific virtual lanes, LNx.
C.2 Implementation C.2.1 Computational Procedure The computational procedure for this model is shown in the form of a flow diagram as Figure C4. Flow of Simulation Processing (See Glossary: Table C3)
. As discussed earlier, the simulation model processes traffic flow for each link independently over TI that the analyst specifies; it is usually 60 seconds or longer. The first step is to execute an algorithm to define the sequence in which the network links are processed so that as many links as possible are processed after their feeder links are processed, within the same network sweep. Since a general network will have many closed loops, it is not possible to guarantee that every link processed will have all of its feeder links processed earlier.
The processing then continues as a succession of time steps of duration, TI, until the simulation is completed. Within each time step, the processing performs a series of sweeps over all network links; this is necessary to ensure that the traffic flow is synchronous over the entire network. Specifically, the sweep ensures continuity of flow among all the network links; in the context of this model, this means that the values of E, M, and S are all defined for each link such that they represent the synchronous movement of traffic from each link to all of its outbound links. These sweeps also serve to compute the metering rates that control spillback.
Within each sweep, processing solves the unit problem for each turn movement on each link.
With the turn movement percentages for each link provided by the DTRAD model, an algorithm allocates the number of lanes to each movement serviced on each link. The timing at a signal, if any, applied at the downstream end of the link, is expressed as a G/C ratio, the signal timing needed to define this ratio is an input requirement for the model. The model also has the Fermi 2 Nuclear Power Plant C6 KLD Engineering, P.C.
Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0
Enclosure to NRC-22-0041 Page 216 of 372 capability of representing, with macroscopic fidelity, the actions of actuated signals responding to the timevarying competing demands on the approaches to the intersection.
The solution of the unit problem yields the values of the number of vehicles, O, that discharge from the link over the time interval and the number of vehicles that remain on the link at the end of the time interval as stratified by queued and moving vehicles: Q and M . The procedure considers each movement separately (multipiping). After all network links are processed for a given network sweep, the updated consistent values of entering flows, E; metering rates, M; and source flows, S are defined so as to satisfy the no spillback condition.
The procedure then performs the unit problem solutions for all network links during the following sweep.
Experience has shown that the system converges (i.e. the values of E, M and S settle down for all network links) in just two sweeps if the network is entirely undersaturated or in four sweeps in the presence of extensive congestion with link spillback. (The initial sweep over each link uses the final values of E and M, of the prior TI). At the completion of the final sweep for a TI, the procedure computes and stores all measures of effectiveness for each link and turn movement for output purposes. It then prepares for the following time interval by defining the values of Q and M for the start of the next TI as being those values of Q and M at the end of the prior TI. In this manner, the simulation model processes the traffic flow over time until the end of the run. Note that there is no spacediscretization other than the specification of network links.
C.2.2 Interfacing with Dynamic Traffic Assignment (DTRAD)
The DYNEV II system reflects NRC guidance that evacuees will seek to travel in a general direction away from the location of the hazardous event. Thus, an algorithm was developed to identify an appropriate set of destination nodes for each origin based on its location and on the expected direction of travel. This algorithm also supports the DTRAD model in dynamically varying the Trip Table (OD matrix) over time from one DTRAD session to the next.
Figure B1 depicts the interaction of the simulation model with the DTRAD model in the DYNEV II system. As indicated, DYNEV II performs a succession of DTRAD sessions; each such session computes the turn link percentages for each link that remain constant for the session duration, T , T , specified by the analyst. The end product is the assignment of traffic volumes from each origin to paths connecting it with its destinations in such a way as to minimize the networkwide cost function. The output of the DTRAD model is a set of updated link turn percentages which represent this assignment of traffic.
As indicated in Figure B1, the simulation model supports the DTRAD session by providing it with operational link MOE that are needed by the path choice model and included in the DTRAD cost function. These MOE represent the operational state of the network at a time, T T , which lies within the session duration, T , T . This burn time, T T , is selected by the analyst. For each DTRAD iteration, the simulation model computes the change in network operations over this burn time using the latest set of link turn percentages computed by the DTRAD model. Upon convergence of the DTRAD iterative procedure, the Fermi 2 Nuclear Power Plant C7 KLD Engineering, P.C.
Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0
Enclosure to NRC-22-0041 Page 217 of 372 simulation model accepts the latest turn percentages provided by the Dynamic Traffic Assignment (DTA) model, returns to the origin time, T , and executes until it arrives at the end of the DTRAD session duration at time, T . At this time the next DTA session is launched and the whole process repeats until the end of the DYNEV II run.
Additional details are presented in Appendix B.
Fermi 2 Nuclear Power Plant C8 KLD Engineering, P.C.
Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0
Enclosure to NRC-22-0041 Page 218 of 372 Table C1. Selected Measures of Effectiveness Output by DYNEV II Measure Units Applies To Vehicles Discharged Vehicles Link, Network, Exit Link Speed Miles/Hours (mph) Link, Network Density Vehicles/Mile/Lane Link Level of Service LOS Link Content Vehicles Network Travel Time Vehiclehours Network Evacuated Vehicles Vehicles Network, Exit Link Trip Travel Time Vehicleminutes/trip Network Capacity Utilization Percent Exit Link Attraction Percent of total evacuating vehicles Exit Link Max Queue Vehicles Node, Approach Time of Max Queue Hours:minutes Node, Approach Length (mi); Mean Speed (mph); Travel Route Statistics Route Time (min)
Mean Travel Time Minutes Evacuation Trips; Network Fermi 2 Nuclear Power Plant C9 KLD Engineering, P.C.
Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0
Enclosure to NRC-22-0041 Page 219 of 372 Table C2. Input Requirements for the DYNEV II Model HIGHWAY NETWORK Links defined by upstream and downstream node numbers Link lengths Number of lanes (up to 9) and channelization Turn bays (1 to 3 lanes)
Destination (exit) nodes Network topology defined in terms of downstream nodes for each receiving link Node Coordinates (X,Y)
Nuclear Power Plant Coordinates (X,Y)
GENERATED TRAFFIC VOLUMES On all entry links and source nodes (origins), by Time Period TRAFFIC CONTROL SPECIFICATIONS Traffic signals: linkspecific, turn movement specific Signal control treated as fixed time or actuated Location of traffic control points (these are represented as actuated signals)
Stop and Yield signs Rightturnonred (RTOR)
Route diversion specifications Turn restrictions Lane control (e.g., lane closure, movementspecific)
DRIVERS AND OPERATIONAL CHARACTERISTICS Drivers (vehiclespecific) response mechanisms: freeflow speed, discharge headway Bus route designation.
DYNAMIC TRAFFIC ASSIGNMENT Candidate destination nodes for each origin (optional)
Duration of DTA sessions Duration of simulation burn time Desired number of destination nodes per origin INCIDENTS Identify and Schedule of closed lanes Identify and Schedule of closed links Fermi 2 Nuclear Power Plant C10 KLD Engineering, P.C.
Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0
Enclosure to NRC-22-0041 Page 220 of 372 Table C3. Glossary The maximum number of vehicles, of a particular movement, that can discharge Cap from a link within a time interval.
The number of vehicles, of a particular movement, that enter the link over the E
time interval. The portion, ETI, can reach the stopbar within the TI.
The green time: cycle time ratio that services the vehicles of a particular turn G/C movement on a link.
h The mean queue discharge headway, seconds.
k Density in vehicles per lane per mile.
The average density of moving vehicles of a particular movement over a TI, on a k
link.
L The length of the link in feet.
The queue length in feet of a particular movement, at the [beginning, end] of a L ,L time interval.
The number of lanes, expressed as a floating point number, allocated to service a LN particular movement on a link.
L The mean effective length of a queued vehicle including the vehicle spacing, feet.
M Metering factor (Multiplier): 1.
The number of moving vehicles on the link, of a particular movement, that are M ,M moving at the [beginning, end] of the time interval. These vehicles are assumed to be of equal spacing, over the length of link upstream of the queue.
The total number of vehicles of a particular movement that are discharged from a O
link over a time interval.
The components of the vehicles of a particular movement that are discharged from a link within a time interval: vehicles that were Queued at the beginning of O ,O ,O the TI; vehicles that were Moving within the link at the beginning of the TI; vehicles that Entered the link during the TI.
The percentage, expressed as a fraction, of the total flow on the link that P
executes a particular turn movement, x.
Fermi 2 Nuclear Power Plant C11 KLD Engineering, P.C.
Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0
Enclosure to NRC-22-0041 Page 221 of 372 The number of queued vehicles on the link, of a particular turn movement, at the Q ,Q
[beginning, end] of the time interval.
The maximum flow rate that can be serviced by a link for a particular movement Q in the absence of a control device. It is specified by the analyst as an estimate of link capacity, based upon a field survey, with reference to the HCM 2016.
R The factor that is applied to the capacity of a link to represent the capacity drop when the flow condition moves into the forced flow regime. The lower capacity at that point is equal to RQ .
RCap The remaining capacity available to service vehicles of a particular movement after that queue has been completely serviced, within a time interval, expressed as vehicles.
S Service rate for movement x, vehicles per hour (vph).
t Vehicles of a particular turn movement that enter a link over the first t seconds of a time interval, can reach the stopbar (in the absence of a queue down stream) within the same time interval.
TI The time interval, in seconds, which is used as the simulation time step.
v The mean speed of travel, in feet per second (fps) or miles per hour (mph), of moving vehicles on the link.
v The mean speed of the last vehicle in a queue that discharges from the link within the TI. This speed differs from the mean speed of moving vehicles, v.
W The width of the intersection in feet. This is the difference between the link length which extends from stopbar to stopbar and the block length.
Fermi 2 Nuclear Power Plant C12 KLD Engineering, P.C.
Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0
Enclosure to NRC-22-0041 Page 222 of 372 8011 8009 2 3 8104 8107 6 5 8008 8010 8 9 10 8007 8012 12 11 8006 8005 13 14 8014 15 25 8004 16 0------+0 24 8024 17 8003 23 22 21 20 8002 Entry, Exit Nodes are 19 numbered 8xxx 08001 Figure C1. Representative Analysis Network Fermi 2 Nuclear Power Plant C13 KLD Engineering, P.C.
Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0
Enclosure to NRC-22-0041 Page 223 of 372 Volume, vph Capacity Drop Qmax R Qmax Qs Density, vpm Flow Regimes Speed, mph Free Forced vf R vc - ---- ---------------
Density, vpm kf kc kj ks Figure C2. Fundamental Diagrams Distance l Qb OQ vQ OM OE Qe 0 Down v
v L
Mb Me Up t1 t2 Time E1 E2 TI Figure C3. A UNIT Problem Configuration with t1 > 0 Fermi 2 Nuclear Power Plant C14 KLD Engineering, P.C.
Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0
Enclosure to NRC-22-0041 Page 224 of 372 Sequence Network Links Next Timestep, of duration, TI A
Next sweep; Define E, M, S for all B
Links C Next Link D Next Turn Movement, x Get lanes, LNx Service Rate, Sx ; G/Cx Get inputs to Unit Problem:
Q b , Mb , E Solve Unit Problem: Q e , Me , O No D Last Movement ?
Yes No Last Link ? C Yes No B Last Sweep ?
Yes Calc., store all Link MOE Set up next TI :
No A Last Time - step ?
Yes DONE Figure C4. Flow of Simulation Processing (See Glossary: Table C3)
Fermi 2 Nuclear Power Plant C15 KLD Engineering, P.C.
Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0
Enclosure to NRC-22-0041 Page 225 of 372 APPENDIX D Detailed Description of Study Procedure
Enclosure to NRC-22-0041 Page 226 of 372 D. DETAILED DESCRIPTION OF STUDY PROCEDURE This appendix describes the activities that were performed to compute Evacuation Time Estimates (ETE). The individual steps of this effort are represented as a flow diagram in Figure D1. Each numbered step in the description that follows corresponds to the numbered element in the flow diagram.
Step 1 The first activity was to obtain Emergency Planning Zone (EPZ) boundary information and create a geographic information system (GIS) base map. The base map extends beyond the Shadow Region which extends approximately 15 miles (radially) from the power plant location.
The base map incorporates the local roadway topology, a suitable topographic background and the EPZ and Protective Action Area (PAA) boundary.
Step 2 The 2020 Census block population information was obtained in GIS format. This information was used to estimate the permanent resident population within the EPZ and Shadow Region and to define the spatial distribution and demographic characteristics of the population within the study area. Data for employees and transients were obtained from the county emergency management departments and emergency plans, or confirmed by DTE Energy, supplemented by internet searches, aerial imagery where new data could not be obtained.
Step 3 A kickoff meeting was conducted with major stakeholders (state and county emergency officials, and onsite and offDTE Energy personnel). The purpose of the kickoff meeting was to present an overview of the work effort, identify key agency personnel, and indicate the data requirements for the study. Specific requests for information were presented to the state and county emergency officials and DTE Energy utility managers. Unique features of the study area were discussed to identify the local concerns that should be addressed by the ETE study.
Step 4 Next, a physical survey of the roadway system in the study area was conducted to determine the geometric properties of the highway sections, the channelization of lanes on each section of roadway, whether there are any turn restrictions or special treatment of traffic at intersections, the type and functioning of traffic control devices, gathering signal timings for pretimed traffic signals (if any exist within the study area), and to make the necessary observations needed to estimate realistic values of roadway capacity. Roadway characteristics were also verified using aerial imagery.
Step 5 An online demographic survey of the households within the study area was conducted to identify household dynamics, trip generation characteristics, and evacuationrelated demographic information of the study area population. This information was used to determine important study factors including the average number of evacuating vehicles used by each Fermi 2 Nuclear Power Plant D1 KLD Engineering, P.C.
Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0
Enclosure to NRC-22-0041 Page 227 of 372 household, and the time required to perform preevacuation mobilization activities.
Step 6 A computerized representation of the physical roadway system, called a linknode analysis network, was developed using the most recent UNITES software (see Section 1.3) developed by KLD. Once the geometry of the network was completed, the network was calibrated using the information gathered during the road survey (Step 4) and information obtained from aerial imagery. Estimates of highway capacity for each link and other linkspecific characteristics were introduced to the network description. Traffic signal timings were input accordingly. The link node analysis network was imported into a GIS map. The 2020 permanent resident population estimates (Step 2) were overlaid in the map, and origin centroids where trips would be generated during the evacuation process were assigned to appropriate links.
Step 7 The EPZ is subdivided into 7 PAAs. Based on wind direction and speed, Regions (groupings of PAA) that may be advised to evacuate, were developed.
The need for evacuation can occur over a range of timeofday, dayofweek, seasonal and weatherrelated conditions. Scenarios were developed to capture the variation in evacuation demand, highway capacity and mobilization time, for different time of day, day of the week, time of year, and weather conditions.
Step 8 The input stream for the DYNEV II model, which integrates the dynamic traffic assignment and distribution model, DTRAD, with the evacuation simulation model, was created for a prototype evacuation case - the evacuation of the entire EPZ for a representative scenario.
Step 9 After creating this input stream, the DYNEV II System was executed on the prototype evacuation case to compute evacuating traffic routing patterns consistent with the appropriate NRC guidelines. DYNEV II contains an extensive suite of data diagnostics which check the completeness and consistency of the input data specified. The analyst reviews all warning and error messages produced by the model and then corrects the database to create an input stream that properly executes to completion.
The model assigns destinations to all origin centroids consistent with a (general) radial evacuation of the EPZ and Shadow Region. The analyst may optionally supplement and/or replace these modelassigned destinations, based on professional judgment, after studying the topology of the analysis highway network. The model produces link and networkwide measures of effectiveness as well as estimates of evacuation time.
Step 10 The results generated by the prototype evacuation case are critically examined. The examination includes observing the animated graphics (using the EVAN software - see Section 1.3) produced by DYNEV II and reviewing the statistics output by the model. This is a labor Fermi 2 Nuclear Power Plant D2 KLD Engineering, P.C.
Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0
Enclosure to NRC-22-0041 Page 228 of 372 intensive activity, requiring the direct participation of skilled engineers who possess the necessary practical experience to interpret the results and to determine the causes of any problems reflected in the results.
Essentially, the approach is to identify those bottlenecks in the network that represent locations where congested conditions are pronounced and to identify the cause of this congestion. This cause can take many forms, either as excess demand due to high rates of trip generation, improper routing, a shortfall of capacity, or as a quantitative flaw in the way the physical system was represented in the input stream. This examination leads to one of two conclusions:
The results are satisfactory; or The input stream must be modified accordingly.
This decision requires, of course, the application of the user's judgment and experience based upon the results obtained in previous applications of the model and a comparison of the results of the latest prototype evacuation case iteration with the previous ones. If the results are satisfactory in the opinion of the user, then the process continues with Step 13. Otherwise, proceed to Step 11.
Step 11 There are many "treatments" available to the user in resolving apparent problems. These treatments range from decisions to reroute the traffic by assigning additional evacuation destinations for one or more sources, imposing turn restrictions where they can produce significant improvements in capacity, changing the control treatment at critical intersections so as to provide improved service for one or more movements, adding minor routes (which are paved and traversable) that were not previously modelled but may assist in an evacuation and increase the available roadway network capacity, or in prescribing specific treatments for channelizing the flow, so as to expedite the movement of traffic along major roadway systems.
Such "treatments" take the form of modifications to the original prototype evacuation case input stream. All treatments are designed to improve the representation of evacuation behavior.
Step 12 As noted above, the changes to the input stream must be implemented to reflect the modifications undertaken in Step 11. At the completion of this activity, the process returns to Step 9 where the DYNEV II System is again executed.
Step 13 Evacuation of transitdependent people and special facilities are included in the evacuation analysis. Fixed routing for transit buses and for school buses, ambulances, and other transit vehicles are introduced into the final prototype evacuation case data set. DYNEV II generates routespecific speeds over time for use in the estimation of evacuation times for the transit dependent and special facility population groups.
Fermi 2 Nuclear Power Plant D3 KLD Engineering, P.C.
Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0
Enclosure to NRC-22-0041 Page 229 of 372 Step 14 The prototype evacuation case was used as the basis for generating all region and scenario specific evacuation cases to be simulated. This process was automated through the UNITES user interface. For each specific case, the population to be evacuated, the trip generation distributions, the highway capacity and speeds, and other factors are adjusted to produce a customized casespecific data set.
Step 15 All evacuation cases are executed using the DYNEV II System to compute ETE. Once results are available, quality control procedures are used to assure the results are consistent, dynamic routing is reasonable, and traffic congestion/bottlenecks are addressed properly.
Step 16 Once vehicular evacuation results are accepted, average travel speeds for transit and special facility routes are used to compute ETE for transitdependent permanent residents, schools, medical facilities, and other special facilities.
Step 17 The simulation results are analyzed, tabulated, and graphed. Traffic management plans are analyzed, and traffic control points are prioritized, if applicable. Additional analysis is conducted to identify the sensitivity of the ETE to changes in some base evacuation conditions and model assumptions. The results are then documented, as required by NUREG/CR7002, Rev. 1.
Step 18 Following the completion of documentation activities, the ETE criteria checklist (see Appendix N) is completed. An appropriate report reference is provided for each criterion provided in the checklist.
Fermi 2 Nuclear Power Plant D4 KLD Engineering, P.C.
Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0
Enclosure to NRC-22-0041 Page 230 of 372 A
Step 1 Step 10 Create GIS Base Map Examine Prototype Evacuation Case using EVAN and DYNEV II Output Step 2 Gather Census Block and Demographic Data for Results Satisfactory Study Area Step 11 Step 3 Modify Evacuation Destinations and/or Develop Conduct Kickoff Meeting with Stakeholders Traffic Control Treatments Step 4 Step 12 Field Survey of Roadways within Study Area Modify Database to Reflect Changes to Prototype Evacuation Case Step 5 Conduct and Analyze Demographic Survey and Develop Trip Generation Characteristics B 0---
Step 13 Step 6 Establish Transit Dependent Evacuation Routes and 14llllt----
Create and Calibrate LinkNode Analysis Network Update DYNEV II Database I
Step 14 Step 7 Generate DYNEV II Input Streams for All Evacuation 1111 Cases Develop Evacuation Regions and Scenarios I
Step 15 Step 8 1111 Execute DYNEV II to Compute ETE for All Evacuation Create and Debug DYNEV II Input Stream Cases I
Step 16 Step 9 Use DYNEV II Average Speed Output to Compute ETE 1111 for Transit Routes B Execute DYNEV II for Prototype Evacuation Case Step 17 Documentation A Step 18 Q+--1 Complete ETE Criteria Checklist Figure D1. Flow Diagram of Activities Fermi 2 Nuclear Power Plant D5 KLD Engineering, P.C.
Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0
Enclosure to NRC-22-0041 Page 231 of 372 APPENDIX E Special Facility Data
Enclosure to NRC-22-0041 Page 232 of 372 E. SPECIAL FACILITY DATA The following tables list population information, as of August 2021, for special facilities, transient attractions and major employers that are located within the Fermi 2 EPZ. Special facilities are defined as schools, preschools/licensed day care centers, medical facilities, and correctional facilities. Transient population data is included in the tables for recreational areas (golf courses, marinas, parks) and lodging facilities. Employment data is included in the table for major employers. Each table is grouped by county. The location of the facility is defined by its straightline distance (miles) and direction (magnetic bearing) from the center point of the plant. Maps of each school, preschool/licensed day care center, medical facility, major employer, recreational area (golf course, marina, park), lodging facility, and correctional facility are also provided.
Fermi 2 Nuclear Power Plant E1 KLD Engineering, P.C.
Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0
Enclosure to NRC-22-0041 Table E1. Schools within the EPZ Page 233 of 372 Distance Dire Enroll PAA (miles) ction School Name Street Address Municipality ment MONROE COUNTY, MI 1 2.3 NNW North Elementary School 8281 N Dixie Hwy Newport 337 2 2.6 NW St. Charles Borromeo Catholic Academy 8125 Swan Creek Rd Monroe 207 2 3.5 NW Niedermeyer Elementary School 8400 S Newport Rd South Rockwood 260 3 2.9 WSW Jefferson High School 5707 Williams Rd Monroe 579 3 3.0 WSW Jefferson Middle School 5201 N Stony Creek Rd Monroe 514 3 3.6 WSW Sodt Elementary School 2888 Nadeau Rd Monroe 227 5650 CarletonS 4 6.6 N Ritter Elementary School Rockwood Rd South Rockwood 240 4 7.9 NW Airport Center for Education 11330 Grafton Rd Carleton 80 4 7.9 NW Airport Middle College 11330 Grafton Rd Carleton 17 4 7.9 NW Airport Senior High School 11330 Grafton Rd Carleton 719 4 7.9 NW Wagar Middle School 11270 Grafton Rd Carleton 415 4 8.0 NW Sterling Elementary School 160 Fessner Rd Carleton 295 1335 CarletonS 4 8.4 NW Eyler Elementary School Rockwood Rd Carleton 264 4 9.1 WNW St. Patrick School 2970 W Labo Rd Carleton 104 5 5.5 W Triumph Academy 3000 Vivian Rd Monroe 776 5 6.9 WSW Zion Lutheran School 186 Cole Rd Monroe 91 5 7.0 WSW Arborwood Elementary School 1135 Riverview Ave Monroe 675 5 7.7 SW Orchard Center High School 1750 Oak St Monroe 162 St. Mary Middle School Campus of 5 7.9 WSW Monroe Catholic Elementary Schools 151 N Monroe St Monroe 511 5 8.0 WSW St. Mary's Catholic Center High School 108 W Elm Ave Monroe 347 5 8.1 WSW Trinity Lutheran School 315 Scott St Monroe 202 5 8.3 WSW Monroe Middle School 503 Washington St Monroe 769 5 8.3 WSW St. John's School 521 S Monroe St Monroe 188 5 8.6 WSW Manor Elementary School 1731 W Lorain St Monroe 435 5 8.9 W Holy Ghost Lutheran School 3563 Heiss Rd Monroe 72 5 9.3 WSW Waterloo Elementary School 1933 S Custer Rd Monroe 246 5 9.7 W Raisinville Elementary School 2300 N Raisinville Rd Monroe 432 5 9.9 WSW Monroe High School 901 Herr Rd Monroe 1,496 Fermi 2 Nuclear Power Plant E2 KLD Engineering, P.C.
Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0
Enclosure to NRC-22-0041 Distance Dire Enroll Page 234 of 372 PAA (miles) ction School Name Street Address Municipality ment 5 10.6 WSW Custer I Elementary School 5003 W Albain Rd Monroe 9191 5 10.7 WSW Custer II Elementary School 5001 W Albain Rd Monroe Monroe County Subtotal: 11,579 WAYNE COUNTY, MI 4 7.1 N St. Mary's Rockwood Elementary School 32447 Church St Rockwood 68 4 7.6 N Chapman Elementary School 31500 Olmstead Rd Rockwood 436 4 8.3 N John M. Barnes Elementary School 24925 Meadows Dr Flat Rock 413 4 8.4 N River Heights Academy 30100 Olmstead Rd Flat Rock 261 4 8.4 N Simpson Middle School 24900 Meadows Dr Flat Rock 444 4 8.5 NNE Oscar A. Carlson High School 30550 W Jefferson Ave Gibraltar 1,146 4 8.6 NNE Hellen C. Shumate Junior High School 30550 W Jefferson Ave Gibraltar 811 4 9.2 N Ethel Bobcean Elementary School 28300 Evergreen St Flat Rock 455 4 9.3 N Flat Rock Community High School 28100 Aspen Dr Flat Rock 571 4 9.3 NNE Parsons Elementary School 14473 Middle Gibraltar Rd Gibraltar 420 4 9.4 N Champions at Hunter Elementary 21320 Roche Rd Brownstown 422 Wayne County Subtotal: 5,447 EPZ TOTAL: 17,026 1
Custer I Elementary School and Custer II Elementary School share the same address. The enrollment includes students in both schools.
Fermi 2 Nuclear Power Plant E3 KLD Engineering, P.C.
Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0
Enclosure to NRC-22-0041 Table E2. PreSchools/Licensed Day Care Centers within the EPZ Page 235 of 372 Distance Dire Enroll PAA (miles) ction School Name Street Address Municipality ment MONROE COUNTY, MI 2 2.6 NW St. Charles School Child Care Center 8125 Swan Creek Rd Monroe 60 4 9.1 WNW St. Patrick School Child Care Center 2970 W Labo Rd Carleton 57 4 9.7 NW Carleton Country Day School 12707 Maxwell Rd Carleton 48 5 5.5 W On B.A.S.E. (Triumph Academy Child Care Center) 3000 Vivian Rd Monroe 42 5 6.7 WSW Speckled Frog Learning Center 900 Greenwood Ave Monroe 60 5 6.9 WSW Zion Lutheran School 186 Cole Rd Monroe 24 5 7.6 WSW KidsNCompany Learning Center 529 N Monroe St Monroe 37 5 7.6 WSW Pathway Child Care and Preschool 1199 Stewart Rd Monroe 76 5 7.7 SW Orchard Head Start 1750 Oak St Monroe 54 5 7.8 WSW Oaks Acorn Childrens Village 942 E 3rd St Monroe 32 5 8.3 WSW Saint Michael Campus of the Monroe Catholic Elementary Schools 510 W Front St Monroe 428 5 8.4 WSW Riverside Early Learning Center 77 N Roessler St Monroe 100 5 8.4 WSW Riverside Head Start 77 N Roessler St Monroe 40 5 8.5 WSW Monroe Family YMCA 1111 West Elm Ave Monroe 105 5 8.7 WSW Kiddie Korner Christian Daycare 1602 N Custer Rd Monroe 90 5 8.9 W Holy Ghost Lutheran Preschool 3563 Heiss Rd Monroe 21 Monroe County Subtotal: 1,274 WAYNE COUNTY, MI 4 9.0 N Flat Rock Child Care Center 28639 Division St Flat Rock 22 Wayne County Subtotal: 22 EPZ TOTAL: 1,296 Fermi 2 Nuclear Power Plant E4 KLD Engineering, P.C.
Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0
Enclosure to NRC-22-0041 Table E3. Medical Facilities within the EPZ Page 236 of 372 Ambul Wheel Bed Distance Dire Capa Current atory chair ridden PAA (miles) ction Facility Name Street Address Municipality city Census Patients Patients Patients MONROE COUNTY, MI 5 6.5 W Alice Lorraine Care Center 2590 N Monroe St Monroe 32 32 17 15 0 5 6.9 WSW Fountain View of Monroe 1971 N Monroe St Monroe 119 107 2 100 5 5 7.4 WSW Mercy Memorial Hospital 718 N Macomb St Monroe 217 168 69 69 30 ProMedica Monroe Skilled Nursing 5 7.5 WSW and Rehab 700 Stewart Rd Monroe 89 89 19 67 3 The Oasis at Monroe Rehabilitation 5 8.0 WSW and Healthcare Center 1215 N Telegraph Rd Monroe 150 126 60 60 6 5 8.2 WSW Norman Towers Senior Apartments 810 W Elm Ave Monroe 112 112 112 0 0 5 8.2 WSW IHM Senior Living Community 610 W Elm Ave Monroe 295 159 105 52 2 5 8.3 WSW Elm House 852 W Elm Ave Monroe 16 15 15 0 0 5 8.3 WSW Brookdale Monroe 1605 Fredericks Dr Monroe 40 40 21 4 15 5 8.4 WSW River Park Plaza 20 N Roessler St Monroe 148 148 123 25 0 5 8.5 WSW Medilodge of Monroe 481 Village Green Ln Monroe 103 92 5 81 6 5 8.9 WSW Wellspring Lutheran Services 1236 S Monroe St Monroe 122 113 9 104 0 Monroe County Subtotal: 1,443 1,201 557 577 67 WAYNE COUNTY, MI 4 8.8 N Marybrook Residence 23201 Gibraltar Rd Flat Rock 12 11 10 1 0 Wayne County Subtotal: 12 11 10 1 0 EPZ TOTAL: 1,455 1,212 567 578 67 Fermi 2 Nuclear Power Plant E5 KLD Engineering, P.C.
Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0
Enclosure to NRC-22-0041 Page 237 of 372 Table E4. Major Employers within the EPZ
% Employee Employees Employees Vehicles Distance Dire Employees Commuting Commuting Commuting PAA (miles) ction Facility Name Street Address Municipality (Max Shift) into the EPZ into the EPZ into the EPZ MONROE COUNTY, MI 1 Fermi II Nuclear Power Plant 6400 N Dixie Hwy Newport 811 64% 519 509 2 3.7 NW Meijer Distribution Center 8857 Swan Creek Rd Newport 450 39% 176 173 3 4.5 WSW Jefferson Public Schools 2400 N Dixie Hwy Monroe 300 39% 117 115 4 7.2 NW Four Star Greenhouse 1015 Indian Trail Rd Carleton 350 70% 245 240 5 6.4 WSW Backyard Storage 1000 Ternes Dr Monroe 215 64% 138 135 5 7.1 SW Monroe Power Plant 3500 E Front St Monroe 200 50% 100 98 5 7.4 WSW Mercy Memorial Hospital 718 N Macomb St Monroe 947 50% 474 465 5 7.9 WSW LaZBoy Incorporated 1 LaZBoy Dr Monroe 300 40% 120 118 5 8.1 WSW County of Monroe 125 E 2nd St Monroe 584 39% 228 224 5 9.3 WSW Bay Corrugated 1655 W 7th St Monroe 250 55% 138 135 Monroe County Subtotal: 4,407 2,255 2,212 WAYNE COUNTY , MI 4 9.6 N Auto Alliance International 1 International Drive Flat Rock 1,500 64% 960 941 Wayne County Subtotal: 1,500 960 941 EPZ TOTAL: 5,907 3,215 3,153 Fermi 2 Nuclear Power Plant E6 KLD Engineering, P.C.
Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0
Enclosure to NRC-22-0041 Page 238 of 372 Table E5. Transient Attractions within the EPZ Distance Dire PAA (miles) ction Facility Name Street Address Municipality Facility Type Transients Vehicles MONROE COUNTY, MI 1 1.1 NNW Swan Yacht Basin 5898 Trombley Rd Newport Marina 14 7 1 2.6 SW Brest Bay Marina 4088 Brest Rd Newport Marina 30 15 2 3.3 NNW Thorne Brothers at Lilac Golf Course 9090 Armstrong Rd New Port Golf Course 50 50 2 4.6 NNE Pointe Mouillee State Game Area 37205 Point Mouillee Rd Brownstown Park 2,000 870 4 7.2 N Wesburn Golf & Country Club 5617 S Huron River Dr South Rockwood Golf Course 50 50 4 9.4 NW Carleton Glen Golf Club 13470 Grafton Road Carlton Golf Course 50 50 5 5.7 SW William C. Sterling State Park 2800 State Park Rd Monroe Park 4,302 1,937 5 6.1 WSW Raisin River Country Club 1500 N Dixie Hwy Monroe Golf Course 50 50 5 6.4 WSW Monroe Golf & Country Club 611 Cole Rd Monroe Golf Course 50 50 5 7.3 SW Riverfront Marina 1560 E Elm Ave Monroe Marina 150 75 5 8.7 W Sandy Creek Golf Course 3177 Heiss Rd Monroe Golf Course 50 50 5 9.2 SW Trout's Yacht Basin 13940 Trout St Monroe Marina 50 25 5 9.3 SW Monroe Boat Club 7932 Bolles Harbor Dr Monroe Marina 50 25 5 9.4 SW Kandlers Cove 14060 N La Plaisance Rd Monroe Marina 50 25 5 9.5 SW Erie Party Shoppe & Docks 14128 Laplaisance Rd Monroe Marina 1,000 500 5 10.4 SW Piper Cove Marina 13468 Laplaisance Rd Monroe Marina 40 40 Monroe County Subtotal: 7,986 3,819 WAYNE COUNTY, MI 4 6.7 NNE Lake Erie Metropark Golf Course 14786 Lee Rd Brownstown Golf Course Included with the park 4 6.8 NNE Lake Erie Metropark Marina 35001 Milleville Rd Brownstown Marina Included with the park 4 7.7 NNE Lake Erie Metropark 32481 W Jefferson Brownstown Park 384 155 4 9.6 NNE Humbug Marina of Gibraltar 13400 Middle Gibraltar Rd Rockwood Marina 211 85 7 9.6 NNE Ford Yacht Club 29500 Southpointe Rd Grosse Ile Township Marina 724 292 Wayne County Subtotal: 1,319 532 EPZ TOTAL: 9,305 4,351 Fermi 2 Nuclear Power Plant E7 KLD Engineering, P.C.
Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0
Enclosure to NRC-22-0041 Table E6. Lodging Facilities within the EPZ Page 239 of 372 Distance Dire PAA (miles) ction Facility Name Street Address Municipality Transients Vehicles MONROE COUNTY, MI 4 6.6 NNW Eva's Motel 11920 Telegraph Rd Carleton 20 10 5 5.4 WSW Holiday Inn Express 1687 N Dixie Hwy Monroe 206 83 5 5.5 WSW Hampton Inn Monroe 1565 N Dixie Hwy Monroe 118 59 5 5.7 WSW Americas Best Value Inn & Suites Monroe 1885 Welcome Way Monroe 178 89 5 5.7 WSW Days Inn & Suites by Wyndham Monroe 1900 Welcome Way Monroe 192 96 5 6.2 WSW Quality Inn & Suites 1225 N Dixie Hwy Monroe 258 129 5 7.8 WSW Del Rio Suites & Hotel 215 E Elm St Monroe 40 20 5 8.1 WSW Hotel Sterling 109 W Front St Monroe 79 39 5 8.1 WSW Hollywood Motel 1028 N Telegraph Rd Monroe 20 10 5 8.4 WSW Sunset Motel 450 N Telegraph Rd Monroe 12 6 5 9.1 SW Baymont by Wyndham Monroe 14774 Laplaisance Rd Monroe 100 50 5 9.2 WSW Motel Seven 15390 S Dixie Hwy Monroe 54 27 5 9.6 SW Econo Lodge Inn & Suites 6500 E Albain Rd Monroe 104 52 5 10.2 WSW Monroe Motel 15339 S Telegraph Rd Monroe 20 10 Monroe County Subtotal: 1,401 680 WAYNE COUNTY, MI 4 8.8 N Baymont by Wyndham Flat Rock 29101 Commerce Dr Flat Rock 154 62 4 9.6 N Best Motel 27527 Telegraph Rd Flat Rock 57 23 4 10.0 N Poplar Motel 26831 Telegraph Rd Flat Rock 22 9 Wayne County Subtotal: 233 94 EPZ TOTAL: 1,634 774 Table E7. Correctional Facilities within the EPZ Distance Dire Current PAA (miles) ction Facility Name Street Address Municipality Census MONROE COUNTY, MI 5 8.1 WSW Monroe County Sheriff's Office and Jail 100 E 2nd St Monroe 148 5 8.7 SW Monroe County Inmate Dormitory Facility 7000 E Dunbar Rd Monroe 52 Monroe County Subtotal: 200 EPZ TOTAL: 200 Fermi 2 Nuclear Power Plant E8 KLD Engineering, P.C.
Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0
Enclosure to NRC-22-0041 Page 240 of 372
/
I r---
JA_
/
' ¥-'
/
/ Wayne County
/
' '\ '
'\
.j..
I I /~ \
I I / /~ \
A Q -l '--r-- \
I I Carleton
i \
~
I I
I i I
I
\
( \
i t 11 \
Maybee
\ \
\
\
\
s
~
~,
\
\a.\i.,,
~,\
"'I I ~~
/
~ RaJlii 6
~
\
\
~ Lake Erie
\
\
\ 7 \
\ \
\ I Legend \......... I
l Fermi 2 School
...., <£'
I I
GJ PAA ,p$ '--...
Shadow Region /
'---:::, 2, 5, 10, 15 M ile Rings I 0 2.5 5
M iles I Figure E1. Overview of Schools within the EPZ Fermi 2 Nuclear Power Plant E9 KLD Engineering, P.C.
Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0
Enclosure to NRC-22-0041 Page 241 of 372 M ap No. I Facility Nam e
~: l ' 0~ 0 1 IAirport Ce nter for Educat ion Airport Middle Co l lege
~ --
WOodhaven Airport Senior High School 4
~~ 0 Champions at Hunter Elementary
~ :4 ft Chapman Elementary Schoo l g / V s' Ethe l Bobcean Elementary Schoo l
.t e> /
Flat Rock
)'
Eyler Elementary School Fl at Rock Community High School Hellen C. Sh u mate Ju nior High Schoo l 10 IJohn M. Barnes Elementary Schoo l
/ 11 Ni edermeier El ementary School
/
~ 12 North Elementary School
/
.t 13 Osca r A. Carlson High Schoo l 14 Parsons Elementary School 0 15 Ritte r Elementary School
/ ,t Rockwood 16 River Heights Academy 17 Simpson Middl e Schoo l 4'.t s:ut;~
~- , .t
/
/ .ro 18 St. Charles Borromeo Catholic Academy 19 St. Mary's Rockwood El ementary Schoo l 20 St. Patrick Schoo l Rockw:6od 21 SterlingEl ementarySchool Carleton I I 22 WaKar Middle Sc hool I
I I
I l!l -.5. t,Ji\e_s - _
C:. \
~ \CJ
~ \i:a I ~\~
---J ~ ii \
I .t \
\
2 \
\
\
~ \
.t z*tifti\es- -
/
/ '
\
5 7 \
\
Lake Erie Legend (ill
,t Fermi 2 School I
6 \
\
GJ PAA :12s:
1 \
Shadow Region I
. \
Copyright: ESRI Data and Maps 2020
'--:::, 2, 5, 10, 15 M ile Rings KLDEngineer'i°ng, DTE Eni!rgy
/
Miles www.census ~~ \ /
Figure E2. Schools within PAAs 1, 2 and 4 Fermi 2 Nuclear Power Plant E10 KLD Engineering, P.C.
Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0
Enclosure to NRC-22-0041 Page 242 of 372
-~,
' l I 0
.t M ap No. I 1 IArbor woo d Eleme nt ary Sc hool Cus t er I Elementa ry Schoo l Custer II El eme ntary_ Sc hool Holy Ghost Lu t heran Sc hool 5 !Jefferson High Schoo l 6 IJeffe rson Mi dd l e Schoo l 7 IManor Elementa ry Schoo l Faci lity Name 8 IMon roe Hii h Sc hool 9 IMonroe Middle Sc hool 10 IOr chard Center High Sc hool 11 IRais i nvi lle Elementary Schoo l 12 ISod t Elementary Schoo l 13 ISt.Joh n 's Sc hoo l 14 ISt. Mary's Catholic Center High Sc hool 15 ISt. Mary M id dle School Camp us of Monroe Cat hol ic Elementa ry School s 16 ITr i nity Luthe ran School 17 ITri umph Aca demy 18 IWaterl oo Ele m enta ry Schoo l 19 IZion Luthe ra n School 6 ~ G) l w,1,,, 4._ .t- ~G
/ Er,,.,,,4ve WF,~F,onts,
. '?
PA~ : 5
(' ./sts.
25 M?inroe 9 1
~ ,f
' w O .t ,.,,,,
.t .t ~ St Lake Erie 7
Legend
,t School Gl PAA Shadow Region
\..-:::, 2, 5, 10, 15 Mi le Rings I 0 2 M iles I Figure E3. Schools within PAAs 3 and 5 Fermi 2 Nuclear Power Plant E11 KLD Engineering, P.C.
Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0
Enclosure to NRC-22-0041 Page 243 of 372
' / Map No . Facility Name w , / 1 Carl eton Country Day School 2 Flat Rock Ch ild Care Center
' / Wayne 3 Holv rJhost Lutheran Preschool
/ Count / 4 Kiddie Korner Christian Daycare I ""' 5 Kids-N-Company Learning Center I- 6 MonroeFamilyYMCA 7 Oaks Acorn Child re ns Vil lage I I 8 On B.A.S.E. (Triumph Academy Child Care Center)
I 9 Orchard Head Start 1 r)-1'~
0 Carleton 10 Pathway Child Care and Preschool 11 Riverside Early Learning Center 12 Rivers ide Head Sta rt I
13 Saint Michael Campus of the Monroe Cat hol i c Elementary Schools 14 Speckled Frog Learning Center 15 St. Charles School Child Care Cente r 16 St. Patrick Schoo l Child Care Center 17 Zi on Lu t heran Sc hool
\
\ 01'" ~ GI
_wk, ;f
~"J f _ f $ Monroe
~ ;,
\ ~ * *" w_,1!>>!1.,,f /
Monroe County \ - ~,
\
c:. .
\ \~
~,~
\\
\
\
\
\
7
\
\ I
\ I Legend \*.......
Fermi2
~ Pre-School/ Licensed I I I
Day Care Center *y,, .......
t:jJ PAA Shadow Region
/ *-..............
,,- ...._ 2, 5, 10, 15 Mile Rings I 0 L.
2.5 Figure E4. PreSchools/Licensed Day Care Centers within the EPZ Fermi 2 Nuclear Power Plant E12 KLD Engineering, P.C.
Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0
Enclosure to NRC-22-0041 Page 244 of 372
~
Map No. Fac ility Name w ' / 1 IAli ce Lo r raine Care Center
--¢-- / /
Wayne 2 Brookdale Mon roe 3 Elm House
/ County 4 ] Founta in View of Monroe
~
/ _i___------r I A
5 IHMSeniorlivingCommuni ty 6 Marybrook Residence 7 Medil odge of Monroe I 8 Mercy Memorial Hospital I Norman Towers Sen i or Apartme nts 10 ProMedica Monroe Ski ll ed Nursing and Rehab 1 11 River Park Plaza 12 The Oas is at Monroe Rehabi l itati on and Healthcare Center
\
13 Wellspri ng Luth eran Servi ces
,c.
~,- * .I~ PAA: 5 L ~ ~k, /,
\
\
\
" \ 0,f/
e1,,f)St
G cS IS
~"'
,: ; ff; "
0
\
\ ~ r 6/e,qve Monroe County
"'5'*
i
\ q
~
Ir Q-ster Dr Monroe j;
,;1
"' c:.\ .
- -.. .4-e;,
. A
"' '-Wes~*
t ,.,.onroe ~-4v. V*
.~
0
\ \~
/
/ Lake Erie
~,~
\\
-,. o.
--- 6 \
\
\
\
7
\
\ I
\ I Legend \*....... I
e Fermi 2 Medical Facility I I
y, ......_
GJ PAA Shadow Region
/ *-..............
'-- _., 2, 5, 10, 15 Mi le Rings I 0 2.5 L.
5 Miles Figure E5. Medical Facilities within the EPZ Fermi 2 Nuclear Power Plant E13 KLD Engineering, P.C.
Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0
Enclosure to NRC-22-0041 Page 245 of 372
' / M ap No. Fac il it y Name w
-¢--, \// 1 IAutoAll iance Inte rn at io na l
/ Cm*y\
Wayne { 2 I Backya rd Storage 3 I Bay Corrugated County of Mon roe
/t L Ferm i II NuclearPowe r Plant 7 /,
6 I Four Sta r Greenhouse 7 IJefferso n Pu blic Schoo ls 8 ILa-Z-Boy Inco rp orated
/
I 9 IMeije r Distr ib uti on Cen t er
[; ,,{ 10 I Mercy Memo ri a l Hosp it a l 11 I Monroe Powe r Pla nt
( _l
\ \
\
\ \
\ 1'-::1
~ '-"
\
\ 0 Monroe Coanty \ ~
c:.\ .
f
\ \~
~,~
\\
\
\
\
\
I
\ I Legend \ I
~
Fermi 2 Major Employer
-....... _ I I
y,, *...._
GJ PAA / ................
Shadow Region
'---:::, 2, 5, 10, 15 Mi le Rings www.census.gov I 0 2.5 L.
5 M iles Figure E6. Major Employers within the EPZ Fermi 2 Nuclear Power Plant E14 KLD Engineering, P.C.
Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0
Enclosure to NRC-22-0041 Page 246 of 372
~~
' / Map No. Facility Name w , / I 1 Br est Bay Marina 2 Ca r leton Glen Golf Clu b
/
3 Erie Par ty Shop pe & Doc ks
/ /
4 Fo rd Yac ht Cl ub
.

:::.~ / . a . - - - ,&
/t L 5 Hu mb ug Mari na ofGib ralta r 6 Kandle rs Cove 7 La ke Erie Me t ropark o ~ - -----f--c_---.
8 La ke Erie MetroparkGolfCourse I ,.
/ 1A
@ 9 La ke Erie M etropa rkMar i na
[; 1 . ..
Carleton 10 Mon roe Boat Clu b
/ 1 1 Monroe Go lf&Cou ntryC l ub 12 Pipe r Cove Ma rina I
I I ( 13 Po i nte Mou il lee State Game Area 14 Ra isi n Rive r Country Cl ub
\ 15 Riverfront Ma ri na
\ 16 Sa ndyC ree k Golf Co u rse 17 SwanYac ht Basin
\ 18 Th orn e Brothe rs at Li lac Golf Course
\ 19 Trout 's Yacht Bas i n 20 Wesburn Golf & Cou ntry Clu b
\ 21 W i lliam C. SterliniState Pa r k
\
Monroe County \ qiO PAA: 5 J'2'ffi ~ 4D c:.\ .
m" -i;1l~@O
\ \~
~,~
~ooo'/an~*
Beach' O
/
/ Lake Erie
~'3.-\
it Bea{,, 6 i,p)irk Legend Fermi 2 Golf Co urse 7
\ I I
i;1l Marina \ I
,.. I
@ Park
'**-...... ......._ I GJ PAA
y,, .......
Shadow Region r':: 2, 5, 10, / *-....... .......
15 Mile Rings I
0 L.
2.5 5 Miles Figure E7. Transient Attractions within the EPZ Fermi 2 Nuclear Power Plant E15 KLD Engineering, P.C.
Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0
Enclosure to NRC-22-0041 Page 247 of 372 w ,
' y /
Wayne County Facility I icas Best Va lue I ant by Wyndham nt by Wyndham ote l n & Suites by Wy I- Su ites & Hotel odge Inn & Suites I
I r 1 I/ te l n Inn Monroe
[; . / Carleton nn Exp ress d Motel rl ing I
I otel I en
\ te l
\ & Suites el
\
\
\ PAA:5 I;!
\ "'# .J-----0 Monroe County \
\
c:. .
\ \~
/ Lake Erie
~,~
/
\\
6 \
\
\
7
\\ I
\ I Legend \*....... I I I
Fermi 2 **,......__
Iii! Lodging Faci lity
y, .*...._
Q PAA I *-....... .......
Shadow Region
,,- ...._ 2, 5, 10, 15 Mile Rings I 0 L.
2.5 Figure E8. Lodging Facilities within the EPZ Fermi 2 Nuclear Power Plant E16 KLD Engineering, P.C.
Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0
Enclosure to NRC-22-0041 Page 248 of 372 w
i , ~/// /
W*y*, \
County ~
I t El,
'.~ ""'
/ I A it \ / J I , k I- I : . .------ -I 1
1 r ~ C arleton I
I I
I F \
\
Monroe County f- \
\
\
\
\
c:. .
\ \CJ\i>.,_
Q.
~ \ o:i
\\
\
\
\
7
\\ I
\ I Legend \ I
Fermi 2 I
-...... ......._ I B Correctiona l Faci lity
y,, *...._
Q PAA
/ *-....... .......
Shadow Region
,,- --. 2, 5, 10, 15 Mi le Rings I 0 2.5 L.
Figure E9. Correctional Facilities within the EPZ Fermi 2 Nuclear Power Plant E17 KLD Engineering, P.C.
Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0
Enclosure to NRC-22-0041 Page 249 of 372 APPENDIX F Demographic Survey
Enclosure to NRC-22-0041 Page 250 of 372 F. DEMOGRAPHIC SURVEY F.1 Introduction The development of ETE for the Fermi 2 Nuclear Power Plant (Fermi 2) EPZ requires the identification of travel patterns, car ownership and household size of the population within the EPZ. Demographic information can be obtained from Census data; however, the use of this data has several limitations when applied to emergency planning. First, the Census data do not encompass the range of information needed to identify the time required for preliminary activities (mobilization) that must be undertaken prior to evacuating the area. Secondly, Census data do not contain attitudinal responses needed from the population of the EPZ and consequently may not accurately represent the anticipated behavioral characteristics of the evacuating populace.
These concerns are addressed by conducting a demographic survey of a representative sample of the EPZ population. The survey is designed to elicit information from the public concerning family demographics and estimates of response times to well defined events. The design of the survey includes a limited number of questions of the form What would you do if ? and other questions regarding activities with which the respondent is familiar (How long does it take you to?)
F.2 Survey Instrument and Sampling Plan Attachment A presents the final survey instrument used in this study. A draft of the instrument was submitted to stakeholders for comment. Comments were received and the survey instrument was modified accordingly, prior to conducting the survey.
Following the completion of the instrument, a sampling plan was developed. Since the demographic survey discussed herein was performed in 2021 prior to the release of the 2020 Census, 2010 Census data was used to develop the sampling plan.
A sample size of approximately 383 completed survey forms yields results with a sampling error of +/-5.0% at the 95% confidence level. The sample must be drawn from the EPZ population.
Consequently, a list of zip codes in the EPZ was developed using geographic information system (GIS) software. This list is shown in Table F1. Along with each zip code, an estimate of the population and number of households in each area was determined by overlaying 2010 Census data and the EPZ boundary, again using GIS software. The proportional number of desired completed survey interviews for each area was identified, as shown in Table F1. Note that the average household size computed in Table F1 was an estimate for sampling purposes and was not used in the ETE study.
The number of samples obtained was less than the sampling plan despite a good faith effort put forward by the offsite response organizations (OROs) and DTE Energy. A total of 221 completed samples were obtained from zip codes within the Fermi 2 EPZ corresponding to sampling error of +/-6.57% at the 95% confidence level based on the 2020 Census data. Table F1 shows the number of samples obtained within each zip code.
Fermi 2 Nuclear Power Plant F1 KLD Engineering, P.C.
Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0
Enclosure to NRC-22-0041 Page 251 of 372 F.3 Survey Results The results of the survey fall into two categories. First, the household demographics of the area can be identified. Demographic information includes such factors as household size, automobile ownership, and automobile availability. The distributions of the time to perform certain pre evacuation activities are the second category of survey results. These data are processed to develop the trip generation distributions used in the evacuation modeling effort, as discussed in Section 5.
A review of the survey instrument reveals that several questions have a decline to state entry for a response. It is accepted practice in conducting surveys of this type to accept the answers of a respondent who offers a decline to state response for a few questions or who refuses to answer a few questions. To address the issue of occasional decline to state responses from a large sample, the practice is to assume that the distribution of these responses is the same as the underlying distribution of the positive responses. In effect, the decline to state responses are ignored, and the distributions are based upon the positive data that is acquired.
F.3.1 Household Demographic Results Household Size Figure F1 presents the distribution of household size within the EPZ, based on the responses to the demographic survey. The average household contains 2.48 people. The estimated household size for the EPZ (2.48 people, see Table F1) was drawn from the 2020 Census data and matches the results of the survey exactly. This speaks to the validity of the survey and minimizes any uncertainty in the survey results.
Automobile Ownership The average number of automobiles available per household in the EPZ is 2.12. It should be noted that 1% households in the EPZ (all of which have 1 person in the household) do not have access to an automobile according to the demographic survey. The distribution of automobile ownership is presented in Figure F2. Figure F3 and Figure F4 present the automobile availability by household size.
Ridesharing Approximately 78% of households surveyed responded that they would share a ride with a neighbor, relative, or a friend if a car was not available to them when advised to evacuate in the event of an emergency. Figure F5 presents this response.
Commuters Figure F6 presents the distribution of the number of commuters in each household. Commuters are defined as household members who travel to work or college on a daily basis. The data shows an average of 0.99 commuters per household in the EPZ, and Approximately 59% of households have at least one commuter.
Fermi 2 Nuclear Power Plant F2 KLD Engineering, P.C.
Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0
Enclosure to NRC-22-0041 Page 252 of 372 Commuter Travel Modes Figure F7 presents the mode of travel that commuters use on a daily basis. The vast majority of commuters use their private automobiles to travel to work. The data shows an average of 1.02 employees per vehicle, assuming 2 people per vehicle - on average - for carpools.
Impact of COVID19 on Commuters Figure F8 presents the distribution of the number of commuters in each household that were temporarily impacted by the COVID19 pandemic. Approximately 41% of households indicated someone in their household had a work and/or school commute that was temporarily impacted by the COVID19 pandemic.
Functional or Transportation Needs Figure F9 presents the distribution of the number of individuals with functional or transportation needs. The data shows that approximately 8% of households have functional or transportation needs. Of those with functional or transportation needs, 53% require a bus, 13% require a medical bus/van, 25% require a wheelchair accessible van, 6% require an ambulance, and 3%
indicated that they would need other functional or transportation needs.
F.3.2 Evacuation Response Several questions were asked to gauge the populations response to an emergency. These are now discussed:
How many of the vehicles would your household use during an evacuation? The response is shown in Figure F10. On average, evacuating households would use 1.42 vehicles.
Would your family await the return of other family members prior to evacuating the area?
Of the survey participants who responded, 48% said they would await the return of other family members before evacuating and 52% indicated that they would not await the return of other family members, as shown in Figure F11.
If you had a household pet, would you take your pet with you if you were asked to evacuate the area? Based on responses from the survey, 95% of households have a family pet. Of the households with pets, 38% indicated that they would take their pets with them to a shelter, 59%
indicated that they would take their pets somewhere else and 3% would leave their pet at home.
Of the households with pets, 96% indicated that they have sufficient room in their vehicle to evacuate with their pet(s)/animal(s) and 1% indicated that they do not have sufficient room; the remaining 3% would need to use a trailer. As such, only 2.7% of households have pets and would use a trailer to evacuate with them to a shelter or somewhere else.
What type of pet(s) and/or animal(s) do you have? Based on responses from the survey, 96%
of households have a household pet (dog, cat, bird, reptile, fish, guinea pig, mouse, or hedgehog),
4% of households have farm animals (horse, chicken, goat, or pig), and 4% have other small pets/animals.
Fermi 2 Nuclear Power Plant F3 KLD Engineering, P.C.
Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0
Enclosure to NRC-22-0041 Page 253 of 372 Emergency officials advise you to take shelter at home in an emergency. Would you? This question is designed to elicit information regarding compliance with instructions to shelter in place. The results, as shown in Figure F12, indicate that 87% of households who are advised to shelter in place would do so; the remaining 13% would choose to evacuate the area. Note the baseline ETE study assumes 20% of households will not comply with the shelter advisory, as per Section 2.5.2 of NUREG/CR7002, Rev. 1. Thus, the data obtained through the survey is less than the federal guidance recommendation. A sensitivity study was conducted to estimate the impact of shadow evacuation noncompliance of shelter advisory on ETE - see Table M2 in Appendix M.
Emergency officials advise you to take shelter at home now in an emergency and possibly evacuate later while people in other areas are advised to evacuate now. Would you? This question is designed to elicit information specifically related to the possibility of a staged evacuation. That is, asking a population to shelter in place now and then to evacuate after a specified period of time. As shown in Figure F13, the results indicate that 65% of households would follow instructions and delay the start of evacuation until so advised, while the balance of 35% would choose to begin evacuating immediately.
Emergency officials advise you to evacuate due to an emergency. Where would you evacuate to? This question is designed to elicit information regarding the destination of evacuees in case of an evacuation. As shown in Figure F14, 47% of households indicated that they would evacuate to a friend or relatives home, 3% to a reception center, 16% to a hotel, motel or campground, 15% to a second or seasonal home, 1% of people indicated they would not evacuate, and the remaining 26% of people answered other/dont know.
F.3.3 Time Distribution Results The survey asked several questions about the amount of time it takes to perform certain pre evacuation activities. These activities involve actions taken by residents during the course of their daytoday lives. Thus, the answers fall within the realm of the responders experience.
The mobilization distributions provided below are the result of having applied the analysis described in Section 5.4.1 on the component activities of the mobilization.
How long does it take the commuter to complete preparation for leaving work or college?
Figure F15 presents the cumulative distribution; in all cases, the activity is completed by about 50 minutes. Approximately, 86% can leave within 25 minutes.
How long would it take the commuter to travel home? Figure F16 presents the work to home travel time for the EPZ. About 89% of commuters can arrive home within about 45 minutes of leaving work; all within 90 minutes.
How long would it take the family to pack clothing, secure the house, and load the car? Figure F17 presents the time required to prepare for leaving on an evacuation trip. In many ways this activity mimics a familys preparation for a short holiday or weekend away from home. Hence, the responses represent the experience of the responder in performing similar activities.
Fermi 2 Nuclear Power Plant F4 KLD Engineering, P.C.
Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0
Enclosure to NRC-22-0041 Page 254 of 372 The distribution shown in Figure F17 has a long tail. About 96% of households can be ready to leave home within 135 minutes; the remaining households require up to an additional hour.
How long would it take you to clear 6 to 8 inches of snow from your driveway? During adverse, snowy weather conditions, an additional activity must be performed before residents can depart on the evacuation trip. Although snow scenarios assume that the roads and highways have been plowed and are passable (albeit at lower speeds and capacities), it may be necessary to clear a private driveway prior to leaving the home so that the vehicle can access the street. Figure F18 presents the time distribution for removing 6 to 8 inches of snow from a driveway. The time distribution for clearing the driveway has a long tail; about 94% of driveways are passable within 90 minutes. The last driveway is cleared 2 hours2.314815e-5 days 5.555556e-4 hours 3.306878e-6 weeks 7.61e-7 months and 30 minutes after the start of this activity.
Note that those respondents (14%) who answered that they would not take time to clear their driveway were assumed to be ready immediately at the start of this activity. Essentially, they would drive through the snow on the driveway to access the roadway and begin their evacuation trip.
Fermi 2 Nuclear Power Plant F5 KLD Engineering, P.C.
Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0
Enclosure to NRC-22-0041 Page 255 of 372 Table F1. Fermi 2 Nuclear Power Plant Demographic Survey Sampling Plan and Results 2010 EPZ 2010 EPZ 2020 EPZ 2020 EPZ Desired Achieved Zip Code Population in Households in Population in Households in Samples Sample Zip Code Zip Code Zip Code Zip Code 48117 7,931 3,065 7,922 3,235 31 23 48134 10,737 4,141 11,474 4,461 42 22 48145 1 0 345 157 0 1 48161 19,738 7,870 19,494 7,953 79 20 48162 27,004 10,752 26,845 11,243 108 38 48166 11,453 4,123 13,244 4,985 41 40 48173 12,594 4,794 13,370 5,195 48 20 48179 3,274 1,282 3,196 1,352 13 9 48183 5,093 1,948 4,983 2,108 21 48 Total EPZ 97,825 37,975 100,873 40,689 383 221 Average EPZ 2.58 2.48 HH Size:
Fermi 2 Nuclear Power Plant F6 KLD Engineering, P.C.
Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0
Enclosure to NRC-22-0041 Page 256 of 372 Household Size 50%
40%
Percent of Households 30%
20%
10%
0%
1 2 3 4 5 6+
People Figure F1. Household Size in the EPZ Vehicle Availability 50%
40%
Percent of Households 30%
20%
10%
0%
0 1 2 3 4 5+
Vehicles Figure F2. Household Vehicle Availability Fermi 2 Nuclear Power Plant F7 KLD Engineering, P.C.
Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0
Enclosure to NRC-22-0041 Page 257 of 372 Distribution of Vehicles by HH Size 14 Person Households 1 Person 2 People 3 People 4 People 100%
80%
Percent of Households 60%
40%
20%
0%
0 1 2 3 4 5+
Vehicles Figure F3. Vehicle Availability 1 to 4 Person Households Distribution of Vehicles by HH Size 58+ Person Households 5 People 6 People 7 People 8+ People 100%
80%
Percent of Households 60%
40%
20%
0%
0 1 2 3 4 5+
Vehicles Figure F4. Vehicle Availability 6 to 8 Person Households Fermi 2 Nuclear Power Plant F8 KLD Engineering, P.C.
Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0
Enclosure to NRC-22-0041 Page 258 of 372 Rideshare with Neighbor/Friend 100%
80%
Percent of Households 60%
40%
20%
0%
Yes No Figure F5. Household Ridesharing Preference Commuters per Household 50%
40%
Percent of Households 30%
20%
10%
0%
0 1 2 3 4+
Commuters Figure F6. Commuters in Households in the EPZ Fermi 2 Nuclear Power Plant F9 KLD Engineering, P.C.
Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0
Enclosure to NRC-22-0041 Page 259 of 372 Travel Mode to Work 100%
80%
Percent of Commuters 60%
40%
20%
0%
Drive Alone Carpool (2+)
Mode of Travel Figure F7. Modes of Travel in the EPZ Covid19 Impact to Commuters 60%
50%
Percent of Households 40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
0 1 2 3 4+
Commuters Figure F8. Impact to Commuters due to COVID19 Pandemic Fermi 2 Nuclear Power Plant F10 KLD Engineering, P.C.
Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0
Enclosure to NRC-22-0041 Page 260 of 372 Functional or Transportation Needs 60%
50%
Percent of Households 40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
Bus Medical Bus/Van Wheelchair Ambulance Other Accessible Vehicle Figure F9. Households with Functional or Transportation Needs Evacuating Vehicles Per Household 80%
Percent of Households 60%
40%
20%
0%
0 1 2 3+
Vehicles Figure F10. Number of Vehicles Used for Evacuation Fermi 2 Nuclear Power Plant F11 KLD Engineering, P.C.
Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0
Enclosure to NRC-22-0041 Page 261 of 372 Await Returning Commuter Before Leaving 60%
Percent of Households 40%
20%
0%
Yes, would await return No, would evacuate Figure F11. Percent of Households that Await Returning Commuter Before Leaving Shelter in Place Characteristics 100%
Percent of Households 80%
60%
40%
20%
0%
Shelter Evacuate Figure F12. Shelter in Place Characteristics Fermi 2 Nuclear Power Plant F12 KLD Engineering, P.C.
Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0
Enclosure to NRC-22-0041 Page 262 of 372 Shelter then Evacuate Characteristics 80%
60%
Percent of Households 40%
20%
0%
Shelter, then Evacuate Evacuate Immediately Figure F13. Shelter in Place Characteristics - Staged Evacuation Shelter Locations 50%
Percent of Households 40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
Figure F14. Study Area Evacuation Destinations Fermi 2 Nuclear Power Plant F13 KLD Engineering, P.C.
Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0
Enclosure to NRC-22-0041 Page 263 of 372 Time to Prepare to Leave Work/College 100%
80%
Percent of Commuters 60%
40%
20%
0%
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 Preparation Time (min)
Figure F15. Time Required to Prepare to Leave Work/College Time to Commute Home From Work/College 100%
80%
Percent of Commuters 60%
40%
20%
0%
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 Travel Time (min)
Figure F16. Time to Commute Home from Work/College Fermi 2 Nuclear Power Plant F14 KLD Engineering, P.C.
Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0
Enclosure to NRC-22-0041 Page 264 of 372 Time to Prepare to Leave Home 100%
80%
Percent of Households 60%
40%
20%
0%
30 30 90 150 210 Preparation Time (min)
Figure F17. Time to Prepare Home for Evacuation Time to Remove Snow from Driveway 100%
80%
Percent of Households 60%
40%
20%
0%
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 Time (min)
Figure F18. Time to Remove 68 of Snow from Driveway Fermi 2 Nuclear Power Plant F15 KLD Engineering, P.C.
Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0
Enclosure to NRC-22-0041 Page 265 of 372 ATTACHMENT A Demographic Survey Instrument Fermi 2 Nuclear Power Plant F16 KLD Engineering, P.C.
Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0
Enclosure to NRC-22-0041 Page 266 of 372 Emergency Response and Planning Survey Mÿ;%NO/&%P Purpose The purpose of this survey is to identify local behavior during emergency situations. The information gathered in this survey will be shared with local emergency planners to enhance emergency response plans in your area. Your responses will greatly contribute to local emergency preparedness. 0123425617859 1225624 27 2 5 425101234232 2235 25 4251 723 45 512 859 122 24 27
( ) . Do not provide your name or any personal Information, and the survey will take less than 5 minutes to complete.
1. What is your gender?
ÿÿÿ!
0 ()*%
0 +%,)*%
0 -%.*/0%ÿ#2ÿ3#)#%
0 "#$%&'
4 2. How old are you?
ÿÿÿ!
0 5647 0 48697 0 98677 0 78687 0 886:7 0 :8ÿ";ÿ"<-=;
0 -=><?@=ÿA"ÿ3ABA=
9 3. What is your home zip code?
7 4A. In total. how many running cars. or other vehicles are usually available to the household?
ÿÿÿ!
0 "@=
0 AC" 0 AD;==
0 +"E; 0 +?F=
0 3?G 0 3=F=@
0 =?HDA 0 @?@=ÿ";ÿ(";=
0 I=;"ÿJ@"@=K 0 -=><?@=ÿA"ÿ3ABA=
8 4B. In an emergency. could you get a ride out of the area with a neighbor or friend?
ÿÿÿ!
0 L=3 0 @"
0 -=><?@=ÿA"ÿ3ABA=
Enclosure to NRC-22-0041 Page 267 of 372 01 5. How many vehicles would your household use during an evacuation?
2345ÿ789ÿ78ÿ739 0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0 ÿÿ
0 ÿ
0 ÿ!"ÿ#$#ÿ%&ÿ%$&$!
0 ÿ!"ÿ#$#ÿ%&ÿ%
0 "$!ÿÿ#
'1 6. How many people usually live in this household?
2345ÿ789ÿ78ÿ739 0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0 !
0 !
0
0
0
0
0
0
0 ÿÿ
0 "$!ÿÿ#
(1 7. How many people in your household have a work and/or school commute that has been temporarily impacted due to the COVID-19 pandemic?
2345ÿ789ÿ78ÿ739 0
0
0
0
0 ÿÿ
0 "$!ÿÿ#
)1 8. How many people in the household normally (during non-COVID conditions) commute to a job, or to college on a daily basis?
2345ÿ789ÿ78ÿ739 0 
0
0
0
0 ÿÿ
0 "$!ÿÿ#
Enclosure to NRC-22-0041 Page 268 of 372 012 9. Thinking about each commuter. how does each person usually travel to work or college?
3456ÿ89 ÿ89 ÿ84ÿ 5ÿ58
*+, %-. '*,/0%+121,3 (4+53ÿ&,673 )*4866,ÿ64ÿ9643ÿ8368,3 (67:;ÿ/76<
)699-;34ÿ0 0 0 0 0 0 0
)699-;34ÿ 0 0 0 0 0 0
)699-;34ÿ 0 0 0 0 0 0
)699-;34ÿ! 0 0 0 0 0 0 002 10-1. How much time on average, would it take Commuter #1 to travel home from work or college?
3456ÿ89 ÿ89ÿ84
0 ÿÿÿ
0 01ÿ
0 000ÿ
0 01ÿ
0 0ÿ
0 1ÿ
0 0ÿ
0 !1ÿ
0 !0!ÿ
0 !1ÿ
0 0ÿ
0 ÿÿ0ÿ"
0 #ÿ0ÿ"$ÿ%ÿÿ"&ÿ0ÿ"ÿ0ÿ
0 %'ÿ0ÿ"ÿ0ÿÿ&(ÿ0ÿ"ÿ1ÿ
0 %'ÿ0ÿ"ÿ0ÿÿ&(ÿ0ÿ"ÿ!ÿ
0 %'ÿ0ÿ"ÿ!ÿÿ&(ÿÿ"
0 #ÿÿ"
0 ()ÿÿ&
02 If Over 2 Hours for Question 10-1. Specify Here
,3*53ÿ=,*7/ÿ+>ÿ26-4ÿ*7.<34ÿ>64ÿ?-3.;+67ÿ010$ÿ+.ÿ-7@34ÿÿA6-4.2 0 2 10-2. How much time on average. would it take Commuter #2 to travel home from work or college?
3456ÿ89 ÿ89ÿ84
0 ÿÿÿ
0 01ÿ
0 000ÿ
0 01ÿ
0 0ÿ
0 1ÿ
0 0ÿ
0 !1ÿ
0 !0!ÿ
0 !1ÿ
0 0ÿ
0 ÿÿ0ÿ"
0 #ÿ0ÿ"$ÿ%ÿÿ"&ÿ0ÿ"ÿ0ÿ
0 %'ÿ0ÿ"ÿ0ÿÿ&(ÿ0ÿ"ÿ1ÿ
0 %'ÿ0ÿ"ÿ0ÿÿ&(ÿ0ÿ"ÿ!ÿ
0 %'ÿ0ÿ"ÿ!ÿÿ&(ÿÿ"
0 #ÿÿ"
0 ()ÿÿ&
0!2 If Over 2 Hours for Question 9-2, Specify Here
,3*53ÿ=,*7/ÿ+>ÿ26-4ÿ*7.<34ÿ>64ÿ?-3.;+67ÿB$ÿ+.ÿ-7@34ÿÿA6-4.2
Enclosure to NRC-22-0041 Page 269 of 372 012 10-3. How much time on average, would it take Commuter #3 to travel home from work or college?
3456ÿ89 ÿ89ÿ84
0 1ÿÿÿ
0 0ÿ
0 0001ÿ
0 0ÿ
0 01ÿ
0 ÿ
0 01ÿ
0 ÿ
0 01ÿ
0 1ÿ
0 1011ÿ
0 1ÿÿ0ÿ
0 !ÿ0ÿ"ÿ#ÿÿ $ÿ0ÿÿ01ÿ
0 #%ÿ0ÿÿ0ÿÿ$&ÿ0ÿÿÿ
0 #%ÿ0ÿÿ0ÿÿ$&ÿ0ÿÿ1ÿ
0 #%ÿ0ÿÿÿÿ$&ÿÿ
0 !ÿÿ
0 &'ÿÿ$
02 If Over 2 Hours for Question 9-3, Specify Here
+,-+ÿ.*,/0ÿ12ÿ3456ÿ,/78+6ÿ246ÿ95+7:14/ÿ;"ÿ17ÿ5/<+6ÿÿ=45672 0(2 10-4. How much time on average, would it take Commuter #4 to travel home from work or college?
3456ÿ89 ÿ89ÿ84
0 1ÿÿÿ
0 0ÿ
0 0001ÿ
0 0ÿ
0 01ÿ
0 ÿ
0 01ÿ
0 ÿ
0 01ÿ
0 1ÿ
0 1011ÿ
0 1ÿÿ0ÿ
0 !ÿ0ÿ"ÿ#ÿÿ $ÿ0ÿÿ01ÿ
0 #%ÿ0ÿÿ0ÿÿ$&ÿ0ÿÿÿ
0 #%ÿ0ÿÿ0ÿÿ$&ÿ0ÿÿ1ÿ
0 #%ÿ0ÿÿÿÿ$&ÿÿ
0 !ÿÿ
0 &'ÿÿ$
0)2 If Over 2 Hours for Question 9-4, Specify Here
+,-+ÿ.*,/0ÿ12ÿ3456ÿ,/78+6ÿ246ÿ95+7:14/ÿ;"ÿ17ÿ5/<+6ÿÿ=45672
Enclosure to NRC-22-0041 Page 270 of 372 012 11-1. Approximately how much time would it take Commuter #1 to complete preparation for leaving work or college prior to starting the trip home?
3456ÿ89 ÿ89ÿ84
0 ÿÿÿ
0 0ÿ
0 000ÿ
0 0ÿ
0 0ÿ
0 ÿ
0 0ÿ
0 ÿ
0 0ÿ
0 ÿ
0 0ÿ
0 ÿÿ0ÿ!
0 "ÿ0ÿ!#ÿ$ÿÿ!%ÿ0ÿ!ÿ0ÿ
0 $&ÿ0ÿ!ÿ0ÿÿ%'ÿ0ÿ!ÿÿ
0 $&ÿ0ÿ!ÿ0ÿÿ%'ÿ0ÿ!ÿÿ
0 $&ÿ0ÿ!ÿÿÿ%'ÿÿ!
0 "ÿÿ!
0 '(ÿÿ%
2 If Over 2 Hours for Question 10-1. Specify Here
)*+,*ÿ-)+./ÿ01ÿ2345ÿ+.67*5ÿ135ÿ84*6903.ÿ00#ÿ06ÿ4.:*5ÿÿ;34562
02 11-2. Approximately how much time would it take Commuter #2 to complete preparation for leaving work or college prior to starting the trip home?
3456ÿ89 ÿ89ÿ84
0 ÿÿÿ
0 0ÿ
0 000ÿ
0 0ÿ
0 0ÿ
0 ÿ
0 0ÿ
0 ÿ
0 0ÿ
0 ÿ
0 0ÿ
0 ÿÿ0ÿ!
0 "ÿ0ÿ!#ÿ$ÿÿ!%ÿ0ÿ!ÿ0ÿ
0 $&ÿ0ÿ!ÿ0ÿÿ%'ÿ0ÿ!ÿÿ
0 $&ÿ0ÿ!ÿ0ÿÿ%'ÿ0ÿ!ÿÿ
0 $&ÿ0ÿ!ÿÿÿ%'ÿÿ!
0 "ÿÿ!
0 '(ÿÿ%
2 If Over 2 Hours for Question 10-2, Specify Here
)*+,*ÿ-)+./ÿ01ÿ2345ÿ+.67*5ÿ135ÿ84*6903.ÿ0#ÿ06ÿ4.:*5ÿÿ;34562
Enclosure to NRC-22-0041 Page 271 of 372 012 11-3. Approximately how much time would it take Commuter #3 to complete preparation for leaving work or college prior to starting the trip home?
3456ÿ89 ÿ89ÿ84
0 ÿÿÿ
0 ÿ
0 ÿ
0 0ÿ
0 00ÿ
0 01ÿ
0 11ÿ
0 1ÿ
0 ÿ
0 ÿ
0 ÿ
0 ÿÿÿ
0 !ÿÿ"ÿ#ÿÿ $ÿÿÿÿ
0 #%ÿÿÿÿÿ$&ÿÿÿ1ÿ
0 #%ÿÿÿ1ÿÿ$&ÿÿÿÿ
0 #%ÿÿÿÿÿ$&ÿ0ÿ
0 !ÿ0ÿ
0 &'ÿÿ$
02 If Over 2 Hours for Question 10-3, Specify Here
()*+)ÿ,(*-.ÿ/0ÿ1234ÿ*-56)4ÿ024ÿ73)58/2-ÿ1"ÿ/5ÿ3-9)4ÿ0ÿ:23452 02 11-4. Approximately how much time would it take Commuter #4 to complete preparation for leaving work or college prior to starting the trip home?
3456ÿ89 ÿ89ÿ84
0 ÿÿÿ
0 ÿ
0 ÿ
0 0ÿ
0 00ÿ
0 01ÿ
0 11ÿ
0 1ÿ
0 ÿ
0 ÿ
0 ÿ
0 ÿÿÿ
0 !ÿÿ"ÿ#ÿÿ $ÿÿÿÿ
0 #%ÿÿÿÿÿ$&ÿÿÿ1ÿ
0 #%ÿÿÿ1ÿÿ$&ÿÿÿÿ
0 #%ÿÿÿÿÿ$&ÿ0ÿ
0 !ÿ0ÿ
0 &'ÿÿ$
02 If Over 2 Hours for Question 10-4, Specify Here
()*+)ÿ,(*-.ÿ/0ÿ1234ÿ*-56)4ÿ024ÿ73)58/2-ÿ"ÿ/5ÿ3-9)4ÿ0ÿ:23452
Enclosure to NRC-22-0041 Page 272 of 372 012 12. If you were advised by local authorities to evacuate, how much time would it take the household to pack clothing, medications, secure the house, load the car, and complete preparations prior to evacuating?
3456ÿ89 ÿ89ÿ84
0 ÿÿÿ
0 ÿ
0 ÿ
0 ÿÿÿÿ!"
0 ÿ!"ÿ!ÿÿ!"ÿÿ
0 ÿ!"ÿ ÿÿ!ÿÿ!"ÿÿ
0 ÿ!"ÿÿÿ!ÿÿ!"ÿÿ
0 ÿ!"ÿ ÿÿ!ÿ0ÿ!"
0 0ÿ!"ÿ!ÿ0ÿ!"ÿÿ
0 0ÿ!"ÿ ÿÿ!ÿ0ÿ!"ÿÿ
0 0ÿ!"ÿÿÿ!ÿ0ÿ!"ÿÿ
0 0ÿ!"ÿ ÿÿ!ÿÿ!"
0 ÿ!"ÿ!ÿÿ!"ÿÿ
0 ÿ!"ÿ ÿÿ!ÿÿ!"ÿÿ
0 ÿ!"ÿÿÿ!ÿÿ!"ÿÿ
0 ÿ!"ÿ ÿÿ!ÿÿ!"
0 ÿ!"ÿ!ÿÿ!"ÿÿ
0 ÿ!"ÿ ÿÿ!ÿÿ!"ÿÿ
0 ÿ!"ÿÿÿ!ÿÿ!"ÿÿ
0 ÿ!"ÿ ÿÿ!ÿÿ!"
0 ÿ!"ÿ!ÿÿ!"ÿÿ
0 ÿ!"ÿÿÿ!ÿÿ!"
0 !#"ÿÿ!"
0 $ÿ!ÿ#%
0 &%ÿ!ÿ
0'2 If Over 6 Hours for Question 11, Specify Here
+,-.,ÿ/+-01ÿ23ÿ4567ÿ-089,7ÿ357ÿ:6,8;250ÿ*ÿ28ÿ60<,7ÿÿ=56782 0(2 13. If there are 6-8 inches of snow on your driveway or curb, would you need to shovel out to evacuate? If yes, how much time, on average, would it take you to clear the 6-8 inches of snow to move the car from the driveway or curb to begin the evacuation trip? Assume the roads are passable.
3456ÿ89 ÿ89ÿ84
0 ÿÿÿ
0 ÿ
0 ÿ
0 ÿÿ)ÿÿ!"
0 ÿ!"ÿ!ÿÿ!"ÿÿ
0 ÿ!"ÿ ÿÿ!ÿÿ!"ÿÿ
0 ÿ!"ÿÿÿ!ÿÿ!"ÿÿ
0 ÿ!"ÿ ÿÿ!ÿ0ÿ!"
0 0ÿ!"ÿ!ÿ0ÿ!"ÿÿ
0 0ÿ!"ÿ ÿÿ!ÿ0ÿ!"ÿÿ
0 0ÿ!"ÿÿÿ!ÿ0ÿ!"ÿÿ
0 0ÿ!"ÿ ÿÿ!ÿÿ!"
0 !*ÿ$ÿ!ÿ!#ÿ!
0 !#"ÿÿ!"
0 &%ÿ!ÿ
2 If Over 3 Hours for Question 12, Specify Here
+,-.,ÿ/+-01ÿ23ÿ4567ÿ-089,7ÿ357ÿ:6,8;250ÿ0*ÿ28ÿ60<,7ÿÿ=56782
Enclosure to NRC-22-0041 Page 273 of 372 012 14. Please specify the number of people in your household who require Functional or Transportation needs in an evacuation:
3456ÿ89 ÿ89 ÿ84ÿ 5ÿ58
J 1 0 + =ÿÿ+
E! 0 0 0 0 0 0
=%ÿE!@6 0 0 0 0 0 0 A%
4%%!!#ÿ6% 0 0 0 0 0 0 4"#% 0 0 0 0 0 0 8 0 0 0 0 0 0 02 Specify "Other" Transportation Need Below 002 15. Please choose one of the following:
3456ÿ89 ÿ89ÿ84
0 ÿÿÿÿÿÿ!ÿ""#!ÿÿ$%ÿ&2 0 ÿÿ$%ÿ'(ÿÿ"ÿÿ!ÿ""#!ÿ2 0 )%ÿÿ*
0+2 16A. Emergency officials advise you to shelter-in-place in an emergency because you are not in an area of risk. Would you:
3456ÿ89 ÿ89ÿ84
0 *,-./-01213.45-0 -64574/-
0 )-5.2-ÿ/8ÿ*/4/-
092 16B. Emergency officials advise you to shelter-in-place now in an emergency and possibly evacuate later while people in other areas are advised to evacuate now. Would you:
3456ÿ89 ÿ89ÿ84
0 *,-./-01213.45-0 -64574/-
0 )-5.2-ÿ/8ÿ*/4/-
0:2 16C. Emergency officials advise you to evacuate due to an emergency. Where would you evacuate to?
3456ÿ89 ÿ89ÿ84
0 4ÿ0-.4/6-;*ÿ80ÿ<0-2);*ÿ,8=-
0 4ÿ0-5-3/82ÿ5-2/-0 0 4ÿ,8/-.>ÿ=8/-.ÿ80ÿ54=3?0872) 0 4ÿ*-582)@*-4*824.ÿ,8=-
0 A87.)ÿ28/ÿ-64574/-
0 )82B/ÿC28A 0 8/,-0ÿD*'%(ÿEF 0 )-5.2-ÿ/8ÿ*/4/-
0G2 Fill in OTHER answers for question 15C 0H2 17A. Do you have any pet(s) and/or animal(s)?
3456ÿ89 ÿ89ÿ84
0 I-*
0 28 0 )-5.2-ÿ/8ÿ*/4/-
Enclosure to NRC-22-0041 Page 274 of 372 012 17B. What type of pet(s} and/or animal(s} do you have?
9 ÿÿÿ
3

3!
"!
#$
3

3 ÿ!&ÿ!'$&!ÿ(!)6*+,-ÿ6./01 3 ÿÿ!'$&!ÿ(!)6*+,-ÿ6./01 345678 232 45ÿ67ÿ67ÿ68
0 $ÿ3ÿ!
292 17C. What would you do with your pet(s} and/or animal(s} if you had to evacuate?
45ÿ67ÿ67ÿ68
0 #ÿÿ: ÿ&ÿ3ÿÿ!
0 #ÿÿ: ÿ&ÿ!3&: ÿ!
0 ;ÿÿÿ3&
0 $ÿ3ÿ!
2<2 17D. Do you have sufficient room in your vehicle(s} to evacuate with your pet(s} and/or animal(s}?
45ÿ67ÿ67ÿ68
0 =!
0 $3 0 :ÿ>!ÿÿ
0 $ÿ3ÿ!
0 345678 This content is neither created nor endorsed by Google.
Google Forms
Enclosure to NRC-22-0041 Page 275 of 372 APPENDIX G Traffic Management Plan
Enclosure to NRC-22-0041 Page 276 of 372 G. TRAFFIC MANAGEMENT PLAN NUREG/CR7002, Rev. 1 indicates that the existing Access Control Points (ACPs) identified by the offsite agencies should be used in the evacuation simulation modeling. The traffic control plans for the Emergency Planning Zone (EPZ) were provided by the offsite response organizations (OROs) within the EPZ.
These plans were reviewed and the ACPs were modeled accordingly. An analysis of the ACP locations was performed, and it was determined to model the ETE simulations with existing ACPs that were provided in the approved county and state emergency plans, with no additional recommended ACPs.
G.1 Manual Traffic Control The ACPs are forms of manual traffic control (MTC). As discussed in Section 9, MTC at intersections (which are controlled) are modeled as actuated signals. If an intersection has a pre timed signal, stop, or yield control, and the intersection is identified as a ACP, the control type was changed to an actuated signal in the DYNEV II system, in accordance with Section 3.3 of NUREG/CR7002, Rev. 1. MTCs at existing actuated traffic signalized intersections were essentially left alone.
Table K1 provides the control type and number of nodes with each control type in the analysis network. If the existing control was changed due to the point being a ACP, the control type is indicated as ACP in Table K1. These MTC points, as shown in the state emergency plan, are mapped as blue dots in Figure G1. No additional locations for MTC are suggested in this study.
It is assumed that the ACPs will be established within 120 minutes of the advisory to evacuate (ATE) to discourage through travelers from using major through routes which traverse the EPZ.
As discussed in Section 3.11, external traffic was considered on Interstate 75 (I75) and I275 in this analysis.
G.2 Analysis of Key ACP Locations As discussed in Section 5.2 of NUREG/CR7002, Rev. 1, MTC at intersections could benefit from the ETE analysis. The MTC locations contained within the traffic management plans (TMPs) were analyzed to determine key locations where MTC would be most useful and can be readily implemented. As previously mentioned, signalized intersections that were actuated based on field data collection were essentially left as actuated traffic signals in the model, with modifications to green time allocation as needed. Other controlled intersections (pretimed signals, stop signs and yield signs) were changed to actuated traffic signals to represent the MTC that would be implemented according to the TMPs.
Table G1 shows a list of the controlled intersections that were identified as MTC points in the TMPs that were not previously actuated signals, including the type of control that currently exists at each location. To determine the impact of MTC at these locations, a winter, midweek, midday, with good weather scenario (Scenario 6) evacuation of the 2Mile Radius, 5Mile Radius and the Fermi 2 Nuclear Power Plant G1 KLD Engineering, P.C.
Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0
Enclosure to NRC-22-0041 Page 277 of 372 entire EPZ (Region R01, R02, R03) were simulated wherein these intersections were left as is (without MTC). The results were compared to the results presented in Section 7. Although localized congestion worsened, the 90th and 100th percentile ETE was not affected when MTC was not present at these intersections. The remaining ACPs at controlled intersections were left as actuated signals in the model and, therefore, had no material impact to ETE. External traffic along I75 and I275 was assumed to be stopped at 2 hours2.314815e-5 days 5.555556e-4 hours 3.306878e-6 weeks 7.61e-7 months after the ATE similar to the base case.
As discussed in 7.3, 90% of evacuees mobilize at about 2 hours2.314815e-5 days 5.555556e-4 hours 3.306878e-6 weeks 7.61e-7 months and 30 minutes after the ATE. As such, despite the presence of congestion in the EPZ, the 90th percentile ETE is dictated by the time needed to mobilize (plus 5 to travel to the EPZ boundary), rather than congestion. As a result, the presence of MTC does not reduce the 90th percentile ETE. Similarly, congestion within the EPZ clears prior to the completion of the trip generation time (the time to mobilize, plus travel time to EPZ boundary, dictates the 100th percentile ETE); as a result, the MTC has no impact on the 100th percentile ETE.
Although there is no reduction in ETE when MTC is implemented, access control can be beneficial in the reduction of localized congestion and driver confusion and can be extremely helpful for fixed point surveillance, amongst other things. Should there be a shortfall of personnel to staff the ACPs, the list of locations provided in Table G1 could be considered as priority locations when implementing the TMP.
Fermi 2 Nuclear Power Plant G2 KLD Engineering, P.C.
Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0
Enclosure to NRC-22-0041 Page 278 of 372 Table G1. List of Key Manual Traffic Control Locations Previous Control ACP Number Node Number (Prior to being an ACP) 1 760 Stop Control 2 800 Stop Control 3 780 Stop Control 5 805 Stop Control 6 250 Stop Control 8 472 Stop Control 10 765 Stop Control 11 808 Stop Control 12 336 Stop Control 23 736 Stop Control 25 18 Stop Control 26 317 Stop Control 36 822 Stop Control 40 109 Stop Control 47 239 Stop Control 53 126 Stop Control 61 774 Stop Control Table G2. ETE with No MTC Scenario 6 th Region 90 Percentile ETE 100th Percentile ETE Base No MTC Difference Base No MTC Difference R01 (2Mile) 2:30 2:30 0:00 4:45 4:45 0:00 R02 (5Mile) 2:10 2:10 0:00 4:50 4:50 0:00 R03 (Full EPZ) 2:35 2:35 0:00 4:55 4:55 0:00 Fermi 2 Nuclear Power Plant G3 KLD Engineering, P.C.
Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0
Enclosure to NRC-22-0041 Page 279 of 372
\
\ q c.\ Sa i1

~ -, C'I
'i.\\ 1/) \ Q.
~
I ;.,1>>
'3,,
I \
\
/
\
- 6
\
Lake Erie \
7
\
\
\
Fermi 2 0 Access Control Point GJ PAA
n Date: 7/18/2022 Copyright:ES 0"vataandMaps2020 KLDEngineering, DTE Energy www.census.gov Shadow Region 2, 5, 10, 15 Mile Rings Figure G1. Access Control Points for the Fermi 2 EPZ Fermi 2 Nuclear Power Plant G4 KLD Engineering, P.C.
Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0
Enclosure to NRC-22-0041 Page 280 of 372 APPENDIX H Evacuation Regions
Enclosure to NRC-22-0041 Page 281 of 372 H. EVACUATION REGIONS This appendix presents the evacuation percentages for each Evacuation Region (Table H1) and maps of all Evacuation Regions (Figure H1 through Figure H13). The percentages presented in Table H1 are based on the methodology discussed in assumption 7 of Section 2.2 and shown in Figure 21.
Note the baseline ETE study assumes 20% of households will not comply with the shelter advisory, as per Section 2.5.2 of NUREG/CR7002, Rev. 1.
Fermi 2 Nuclear Power Plant H1 KLD Engineering, P.C.
Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0
Enclosure to NRC-22-0041 Page 282 of 372 Table H1. Percent of PAA Population Evacuating for Each Region Radial Regions PAA Region Description 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 R01 2Mile Region 100% 20% 20% 20% 20% 100% 20%
R02 5Mile Region 100% 100% 100% 20% 20% 100% 20%
R03 Full EPZ 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100%
Evacuate 2Mile Region and Downwind to 5 Miles PAA Region Wind Direction From: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 R04 S, SSW, SW, WSW 100% 100% 20% 20% 20% 100% 20%
W, WNW, NW, NNW, N Refer to Region R01 R05 NNE, NE, ENE 100% 20% 100% 20% 20% 100% 20%
E, ESE, SE, SSE Refer to Region R02 Evacuate 2Mile Region and Downwind to the EPZ Boundary PAA Region Wind Direction From: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 R06 S, SSW, SW, WSW 100% 100% 20% 100% 20% 100% 100%
R07 W, WNW, NW, NNW, N 100% 20% 20% 20% 20% 100% 100%
R08 NNE, NE, ENE 100% 20% 100% 20% 100% 100% 100%
R09 E, ESE, SE 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 20%
R10 SSE 100% 100% 100% 100% 20% 100% 20%
Staged Evacuation 2Mile Region Evacuates, then Evacuate Downwind to 5 Miles PAA Region Wind Direction From: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 R11 5Mile Region 100% 100% 100% 20% 20% 100% 20%
R12 S, SSW, SW, WSW 100% 100% 20% 20% 20% 100% 20%
W, WNW, NW, NNW, N Refer to Region R01 R13 NNE, NE, ENE 100% 20% 100% 20% 20% 100% 20%
E, ESE, SE, SSE Refer to Region R12 PAA (s) ShelterinPlace until PAA(s) Evacuate PAA(s) ShelterinPlace 90% ETE for R01, then Evacuate Fermi 2 Nuclear Power Plant H2 KLD Engineering, P.C.
Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0
Enclosure to NRC-22-0041 Page 283 of 372 Wayne
~~- w~ ~'
County Legend \. *,
GJ Fermi 2 PAA
~ Evacuate
'---:, 2, 5, 10 Mi le Rings
- - Wind Sector Boundary 2022 it':ESRIDataandMaps2020 ngineering,OTEin1rgy www.census.gov I
0 2.5 5
Mi les I Figure H1. Region R01 Fermi 2 Nuclear Power Plant H3 KLD Engineering, P.C.
Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0
Enclosure to NRC-22-0041 Page 284 of 372 Wayne
~~- w~ ~'
County Legend \. *,
GJ Fermi 2 PAA
~ Evacuate
'--:, 2, 5, 10 Mi le Rings
.I~ I
/2022
- - W ind Sector Boundary it':ESRIDataandMaps2020 ngineering,OTE .~rgy 2.5 s .
~ - - - - ~ ~ - - - - ~ - www.census.gov ---====------ M iles _
Figure H2. Region R02 Fermi 2 Nuclear Power Plant H4 KLD Engineering, P.C.
Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0
Enclosure to NRC-22-0041 Page 285 of 372 Wayne
~~- w~ ~'
County Legend GJ Fermi 2 PAA
~ Evacuate
'--:, 2, 5, 10 Mi le Rings
- - W ind Sector Boundary
/2022 it':ESRIDataandMaps2020 ngineering,OTE .~
~ - - - - ~ ~ - - - - ~ - www.census.gov rgy
~
I_---====------
2.5 s . I M iles _
Figure H3. Region R03 Fermi 2 Nuclear Power Plant H5 KLD Engineering, P.C.
Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0
Enclosure to NRC-22-0041 Page 286 of 372 Wayne
\_.,..___,~- w~~
County Monroe County Legend Gl Fermi2 PAA
~ Evacuate
'-~ 2, 5, 10 Mi le Rings
- - Wind Sector Boundary 1.pate:611s12022 f CoPvli'lih.t:' ES~IDataan<;,Maps2020 KLD Engineering, DTE i~rgy www.census.gov I0 2.5 5
M iles I Figure H4. Region R04 Fermi 2 Nuclear Power Plant H6 KLD Engineering, P.C.
Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0
Enclosure to NRC-22-0041 Page 287 of 372 IRegion RO~ I Wayne
\_.,..___,~- w~~
County Monroe County Legend Gl Fermi2 PAA
~ Evacuate
'-~ 2, 5, 10 Mi le Rings
- - Wind Sector Boundary
-- 22 1
t: ES~IDataan<;,Maps2020 ngineering, DTE i ~ rgv www.census.gov I0 2.5 5
M iles I Figure H5. Region R05 Fermi 2 Nuclear Power Plant H7 KLD Engineering, P.C.
Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0
Enclosure to NRC-22-0041 Page 288 of 372 Wayne
\_.,..___,~- w~~
County Monroe County Legend Gl Fermi2 PAA
~ Evacuate
'-~ 2, 5, 10 Mi le Rings
- - Wind Sector Boundary
-- 2 ,:
t: ES~IDataan<;,Maps2020 ngineering, DTE i ~ rgv www.census.gov I0 2.5 5
M iles I Figure H6. Region R06 Fermi 2 Nuclear Power Plant H8 KLD Engineering, P.C.
Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0
Enclosure to NRC-22-0041 Page 289 of 372 IRegion RO; I Wayne
\_.,..___,~- w~~
County Monroe County Legend Gl Fermi2 PAA
~ Evacuate
'-~ 2, 5, 10 Mi le Rings
- - Wind Sector Boundary
-- 22 1
t: ES~IDataan<;,Maps2020 ngineering, DTE i ~ rgv www.census.gov I0 2.5 5
M iles I Figure H7. Region R07 Fermi 2 Nuclear Power Plant H9 KLD Engineering, P.C.
Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0
Enclosure to NRC-22-0041 Page 290 of 372 IRegion RO~ I Wayne
\_.,..___,~- w~~
County Monroe County Legend Gl Fermi2 PAA
~ Evacuate
'-~ 2, 5, 10 Mi le Rings
- - Wind Sector Boundary
-- 22 1
t: ES~IDataan<;,Maps2020 ngineering, DTE i ~ rgv www.census.gov I0 2.5 5
M iles I Figure H8. Region R08 Fermi 2 Nuclear Power Plant H10 KLD Engineering, P.C.
Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0
Enclosure to NRC-22-0041 Page 291 of 372 Wayne
\_.,..___,~- w~~
County Monroe County Legend \.. *,**,
Gl Fermi2 PAA
~ Evacuate **,:.
'-~ 2, 5, 10 Mi le Rings
- - Wind Sector Boundary
-- 2 ,:
t: ES~IDataan<;,Maps2020 ngineering, DTE i~rgv www.census.gov I0 2.5 5
M iles I Figure H9. Region R09 Fermi 2 Nuclear Power Plant H11 KLD Engineering, P.C.
Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0
Enclosure to NRC-22-0041 Page 292 of 372 Wayne
\_.,..___,~- w~~
County Monroe County Legend \.. *,**,
Gl Fermi2 PAA
~ Evacuate **,:.
'-~ 2, 5, 10 Mi le Rings
- - Wind Sector Boundary
-- 2 ,:
t: ES~IDataan<;,Maps2020 ngineering, DTE i~rgv www.census.gov I0 2.5 5
M iles I Figure H10. Region R10 Fermi 2 Nuclear Power Plant H12 KLD Engineering, P.C.
Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0
Enclosure to NRC-22-0041 Page 293 of 372 IRegion Rl~ I Wayne
\_.,..___,~- w~~
County Monroe County Legend GJ Fermi2 PAA
~ Evacuate
~ Shelter, then Evacuate
'-~ 2, 5, 10 Mile Rings
- - Wind Sector Boundary
-- 22 1
t: ES~IDataan<;,Maps2020 ngineering, DTE i ~ rgv www.census.gov I0 2.5 5
Miles I Figure H11. Region R11 Fermi 2 Nuclear Power Plant H13 KLD Engineering, P.C.
Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0
Enclosure to NRC-22-0041 Page 294 of 372 IRegion Rl~ I Wayne
\_.,..___,~- w~~
County Monroe County Legend GJ Fermi2 PAA
~ Evacuate
~ Shelter, then Evacuate
'-~ 2, 5, 10 Mile Rings
- - Wind Sector Boundary
-- 22 1
t: ES~IDataan<;,Maps2020 ngineering, DTE i ~ rgv www.census.gov I0 2.5 5
Miles I Figure H12. Region R12 Fermi 2 Nuclear Power Plant H14 KLD Engineering, P.C.
Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0
Enclosure to NRC-22-0041 Page 295 of 372 IRegion Rl~ I Wayne
\_.,..___,~- w~~
County Monroe County Legend GJ Fermi2 PAA
~ Evacuate
~ Shelter, then Evacuate
'-~ 2, 5, 10 Mile Rings
- - Wind Sector Boundary
-- 22 1
t: ES~IDataan<;,Maps2020 ngineering, DTE i ~ rgv www.census.gov I0 2.5 5
Miles I Figure H13. Region R13 Fermi 2 Nuclear Power Plant H15 KLD Engineering, P.C.
Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0
Enclosure to NRC-22-0041 Page 296 of 372 APPENDIX J Representative Inputs to and Outputs from the DYNEV II System
Enclosure to NRC-22-0041 Page 297 of 372 J. REPRESENTATIVE INPUTS TO AND OUTPUTS FROM THE DYNEV II SYSTEM This appendix presents data input to and output from the DYNEV II System. Table J1 provides source (vehicle loading) and destination information for several roadway segments (links) in the analysis network. In total, there are 376 source links (origins) in the model. The source links are shown as centroid points in Figure J1. On average, evacuees travel a straightline distance of 6.58 miles to exit the network.
Table J2 provides network-wide statistics (average travel time, average delay time1, average speed and number of vehicles) for an evacuation of the entire EPZ (Region R03) for each scenario. Rain/light snow scenarios (Scenarios 2, 4, 7 and 10) and heavy snow scenarios (Scenarios 8 and 11) exhibit slower average speeds, slightly higher delays and slightly longer average travel times when compared to good weather scenarios. The special event and roadway impact scenario also exhibit slower average speeds, slightly higher delays and slightly longer average travel times when compared to their counterparts.
Table J3 provides statistics (average speed and travel time) for the major evacuation routes - I 275, I75, N Dixie Highway, and US24 - for an evacuation of the entire EPZ (Region R03) under Scenario 1 conditions. The study area has ample roadway capacity to service all evacuating within the EPZ and Shadow Region. As discussed in Sections 7.3 and shown in Figures 73 through 78, there is significant congestion (LOS F) on US24 southbound, as well as along N Dixie Highway southbound during the first 2 hours2.314815e-5 days 5.555556e-4 hours 3.306878e-6 weeks 7.61e-7 months and 50 minutes after the ATE; therefore, the travel times and speeds are longer and slower, respectively along these roadways for the first two to three hours of the evacuation. In addition, external traffic is permitted to traverse the area for the first 2 hours2.314815e-5 days 5.555556e-4 hours 3.306878e-6 weeks 7.61e-7 months of the evacuation. When these vehicles mix with evacuees, I275 and I75 become congested and exhibit slower speeds and longer travel times, as shown in Table J3.
Table J4 provides the number of vehicles discharged and the cumulative percent of total vehicles discharged for each link exiting the analysis network, for an evacuation of the entire EPZ (Region R03) under Scenario 1 conditions. Refer to the figures in Appendix K for a map showing the geographic location of each link.
Figure J2 through Figure J15 plot the trip generation time versus the ETE for each of the 14 Scenarios considered. The distance between the trip generation and ETE curves is the travel time. Plots of trip generation versus ETE are indicative of the level of traffic congestion during evacuation. For low population density sites, the curves are close together, indicating short travel times and minimal traffic congestion. For higher population density sites, the curves are farther apart indicating longer travel times and the presence of traffic congestion.
As seen in Figure J2 through Figure J15, the curves are mostly close together as a result of the limited traffic congestion in the EPZ, which clears at about 2 hours2.314815e-5 days 5.555556e-4 hours 3.306878e-6 weeks 7.61e-7 months and 50 minutes after the ATE, as discussed in detail in Section 7.3.
1 Computed as the difference of the average travel time and the average ideal travel time under free flow condition.
Fermi 2 Nuclear Power Plant J1 KLD Engineering, P.C.
Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0
Enclosure to NRC-22-0041 Page 298 of 372 Table J1. Sample Simulation Model Input Vehicles Entering Link Upstream Downstream Network Directional Destination Destination Number Node Node on this Link Preference Nodes Capacity 8089 2,850 2 2 3 668 S 8437 4,275 8240 6,750 8769 1,700 864 737 32 49 SW 8854 1,700 8148 1,700 8240 6,750 894 756 605 379 N 8629 4,275 8055 2,850 8240 6,750 758 643 642 223 N 8629 4,275 8437 4,275 8769 1,700 161 100 99 326 SW 8854 1,700 8148 1,700 8030 6,750 481 332 108 531 W 8216 1,700 8541 1,700 8030 6,750 959 809 802 21 W 8854 1,700 8216 1,700 8089 2,850 266 171 390 44 N 8437 4,275 8055 2,850 8773 1,700 610 506 20 169 W 8631 1,700 8769 1,700 8089 2,850 826 705 53 193 NE 8437 4,275 8055 2,850 Fermi 2 Nuclear Power Plant J2 KLD Engineering, P.C.
Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0
Enclosure to NRC-22-0041 Table J2. Selected Model Outputs for the Evacuation of the Entire EPZ (Region R03) Page 299 of 372 Scenario 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 NetworkWide Average 1.8 2.3 2.1 2.5 2.0 1.8 2.2 Travel Time (Min/VehMi)
NetworkWide Average 0.6 1.1 0.9 1.3 0.8 0.6 1.0 Delay Time (Min/VehMi)
NetworkWide Average 33.5 26.2 28.7 24.1 30.6 33.9 27.1 Speed (mph)
Total Vehicles 89,810 90,346 88,010 88,546 77,547 89,064 89,538 Exiting Network Scenario 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 NetworkWide Average 2.3 1.9 2.3 2.2 1.9 2.3 1.9 Travel Time (Min/VehMi)
NetworkWide Average 1.1 0.7 1.1 1.0 0.7 1.1 0.7 Delay Time (Min/VehMi)
NetworkWide Average 26.0 31.4 25.6 26.8 31.8 25.6 31.9 Speed (mph)
Total Vehicles 89,058 85,467 85,977 85,432 76,806 94,452 90,055 Exiting Network Fermi 2 Nuclear Power Plant J3 KLD Engineering, P.C.
Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0
Enclosure to NRC-22-0041 Table J3. Average Speed (mph) and Travel Time (min) for Major Evacuation Routes (Region R03, Scenario 1) Page 300 of 372 Elapsed Time (hours:minutes) 1:00 2:00 3:00 4:00 4:55 Travel Length Speed Time Travel Travel Travel Travel Route (miles) (mph) (min) Speed Time Speed Time Speed Time Speed Time I275 Northbound 7.5 63.6 7.1 66.3 6.8 74.5 6.0 73.6 6.1 74.5 6.0 I75 Northbound 9.2 72.8 7.6 73.1 7.5 73.1 7.5 72.6 7.6 73.2 7.5 I75 Southbound 9.7 66.6 8.7 68.9 8.4 69.0 8.4 67.9 8.5 69.0 8.4 N Dixie Highway Northbound 11.9 48.5 14.7 53.4 13.4 53.1 13.5 52.9 13.5 54.1 13.2 N Dixie Highway Southbound 6.5 26.5 14.7 39.8 9.8 42.8 9.1 43.6 8.9 48.0 8.1 US24 Northbound 10.4 50.0 12.5 47.2 13.3 49.5 12.6 49.6 12.6 55.8 11.2 US24 Southbound 7.4 36.0 12.3 37.5 11.9 45.3 9.8 45.4 9.8 50.9 8.7 Fermi 2 Nuclear Power Plant J4 KLD Engineering, P.C.
Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0
Enclosure to NRC-22-0041 Page 301 of 372 Table J4. Simulation Model Outputs at Network Exit Links for Region R03, Scenario 1 Elapsed Time (hours:minutes) 1:00 2:00 3:00 4:00 4:55 Network Upstream Downstream Roadway Name Cumulative Vehicles Discharged by the Indicated Time Exit Link Node Node Cumulative Percent of Vehicles Discharged by the Indicated Time Interval 352 1,116 1,693 1,882 1,916 US24 110 72 497 2.06% 2.10% 2.06% 2.12% 2.13%
331 1,558 2,789 3,036 3,062 Ida West Road 221 143 769 1.94% 2.92% 3.39% 3.42% 3.41%
47 519 1,166 1,275 1,283 Lewis Avenue 222 144 148 0.27% 0.97% 1.42% 1.44% 1.43%
290 1,086 2,034 2,293 2,338 Ida Center Road 223 144 148 1.70% 2.04% 2.47% 2.58% 2.60%
762 2,248 3,810 4,118 4,167 SR50 230 149 631 4.47% 4.22% 4.63% 4.64% 4.64%
448 1,350 1,981 2,180 2,210 SR125 348 230 510 2.63% 2.53% 2.41% 2.46% 2.46%
4,205 10,575 15,759 16,610 16,738 I75 452 308 131 24.65% 19.85% 19.15% 18.71% 18.64%
217 819 1,377 1,683 1,703 Palmer Road 652 541 669 1.27% 1.54% 1.67% 1.90% 1.90%
476 2,079 3,070 3,462 3,510 Cole Road 1009 848 105 2.79% 3.90% 3.73% 3.90% 3.91%
4,037 10,654 16,154 16,816 16,936 I75 On Ramp 1018 858 443 23.67% 19.99% 19.63% 18.95% 18.86%
26 454 1,038 1,105 1,120 I275 1022 861 862 0.15% 0.85% 1.26% 1.25% 1.25%
338 1,383 1,819 2,042 2,085 Eureka Road 1025 863 866 1.98% 2.60% 2.21% 2.30% 2.32%
196 909 1,668 1,795 1,819 Eureka Road 1027 864 863 1.15% 1.71% 2.03% 2.02% 2.03%
512 2,029 3,291 3,463 3,495 SR85 1048 880 881 3.00% 3.81% 4.00% 3.90% 3.89%
415 2,000 3,393 3,682 3,766 SR85 1049 881 882 2.43% 3.75% 4.12% 4.15% 4.19%
Pennsylvania 107 950 1,711 1,823 1,842 1063 891 892 Road 0.63% 1.78% 2.08% 2.05% 2.05%
155 842 1,492 1,697 1,741 Dix Toledo Road 1064 892 55 0.91% 1.58% 1.81% 1.91% 1.94%
1,006 3,537 4,741 5,010 5,055 Eureka Road 1078 905 900 5.90% 6.64% 5.76% 5.64% 5.63%
3,033 8,820 12,689 13,770 14,000 I75 1080 909 140 17.78% 16.55% 15.42% 15.51% 15.59%
106 357 637 1,018 1,025 Sweitzer Road 1130 951 950 0.62% 0.67% 0.77% 1.15% 1.14%
Fermi 2 Nuclear Power Plant J5 KLD Engineering, P.C.
Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0
Enclosure to NRC-22-0041 Page 302 of 372
" i Belleville '=-1---vl,j,<--an_R~ , I i
1 i
\
t Lake Ene 7
Legend Fermi2 Source Link Centroid Link Gl PAA
~ Shadow Region Date: 7/11/2022 2.5 Copyrig~~oE!~~~:~r~nng~~T;;n2e~~~ \... _, 2, 5, 10, 15 Mile Rings www.census.gov Figure J1. Network Sources/Origins Fermi 2 Nuclear Power Plant J6 KLD Engineering, P.C.
Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0
Enclosure to NRC-22-0041 Page 303 of 372 ETE and Trip Generation Summer, Midweek, Midday, Good (Scenario 1) 100%
- Trip Generation
- ETE Percent of Total Vehicles 80%
60%
40%
20%
0%
0:00 0:30 1:00 1:30 2:00 2:30 3:00 3:30 4:00 4:30 5:00 5:30 Elapsed Time (h:mm)
Figure J2. ETE and Trip Generation: Summer, Midweek, Midday, Good Weather (Scenario 1)
ETE and Trip Generation Summer, Midweek, Midday, Rain (Scenario 2) 100%
- Trip Generation
- ETE Percent of Total Vehicles 80%
60%
40%
20%
0%
0:00 0:30 1:00 1:30 2:00 2:30 3:00 3:30 4:00 4:30 5:00 5:30 Elapsed Time (h:mm)
Figure J3. ETE and Trip Generation: Summer, Midweek, Midday, Rain/Light Snow (Scenario 2)
Fermi 2 Nuclear Power Plant J7 KLD Engineering, P.C.
Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0
Enclosure to NRC-22-0041 Page 304 of 372 ETE and Trip Generation Summer, Weekend, Midday, Good (Scenario 3) 100%
- Trip Generation
- ETE Percent of Total Vehicles 80%
60%
40%
20%
0%
0:00 0:30 1:00 1:30 2:00 2:30 3:00 3:30 4:00 4:30 5:00 5:30 Elapsed Time (h:mm)
Figure J4. ETE and Trip Generation: Summer, Weekend, Midday, Good Weather (Scenario 3)
ETE and Trip Generation Summer, Weekend, Midday, Rain (Scenario 4) 100%
- Trip Generation
- ETE Percent of Total Vehicles 80%
60%
40%
20%
0%
0:00 0:30 1:00 1:30 2:00 2:30 3:00 3:30 4:00 4:30 5:00 5:30 Elapsed Time (h:mm)
Figure J5. ETE and Trip Generation: Summer, Weekend, Midday, Rain/Light Snow (Scenario 4)
Fermi 2 Nuclear Power Plant J8 KLD Engineering, P.C.
Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0
Enclosure to NRC-22-0041 Page 305 of 372 ETE and Trip Generation Summer, Midweek, Weekend, Evening, Good (Scenario 5) 100%
- Trip Generation
- ETE Percent of Total Vehicles 80%
60%
40%
20%
0%
0:00 0:30 1:00 1:30 2:00 2:30 3:00 3:30 4:00 4:30 5:00 5:30 Elapsed Time (h:mm)
Figure J6. ETE and Trip Generation: Summer, Midweek, Weekend, Evening, Good Weather (Scenario 5)
ETE and Trip Generation Winter, Midweek, Midday, Good (Scenario 6) 100%
- Trip Generation
- ETE Percent of Total Vehicles 80%
60%
40%
20%
0%
0:00 0:30 1:00 1:30 2:00 2:30 3:00 3:30 4:00 4:30 5:00 5:30 Elapsed Time (h:mm)
Figure J7. ETE and Trip Generation: Winter, Midweek, Midday, Good Weather (Scenario 6)
Fermi 2 Nuclear Power Plant J9 KLD Engineering, P.C.
Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0
Enclosure to NRC-22-0041 Page 306 of 372 ETE and Trip Generation Winter, Midweek, Midday, Rain (Scenario 7) 100%
- Trip Generation
- ETE Percent of Total Vehicles 80%
60%
40%
20%
0%
0:00 0:30 1:00 1:30 2:00 2:30 3:00 3:30 4:00 4:30 5:00 5:30 Elapsed Time (h:mm)
Figure J8. ETE and Trip Generation: Winter, Midweek, Midday, Rain/Light Snow (Scenario 7)
ETE and Trip Generation Winter, Midweek, Midday, Snow (Scenario 8) 100%
- Trip Generation
- ETE Percent of Total Vehicles 80%
60%
40%
20%
0%
0:00 0:30 1:00 1:30 2:00 2:30 3:00 3:30 4:00 4:30 5:00 5:30 6:00 6:30 Elapsed Time (h:mm)
Figure J9. ETE and Trip Generation: Winter, Midweek, Midday, Heavy Snow (Scenario 8)
Fermi 2 Nuclear Power Plant J10 KLD Engineering, P.C.
Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0
Enclosure to NRC-22-0041 Page 307 of 372 ETE and Trip Generation Winter, Weekend, Midday, Good (Scenario 9) 100%
- Trip Generation
- ETE Percent of Total Vehicles 80%
60%
40%
20%
0%
0:00 0:30 1:00 1:30 2:00 2:30 3:00 3:30 4:00 4:30 5:00 5:30 Elapsed Time (h:mm)
Figure J10. ETE and Trip Generation: Winter, Weekend, Midday, Good Weather (Scenario 9)
ETE and Trip Generation Winter, Weekend, Midday, Rain (Scenario 10) 100%
- Trip Generation
- ETE Percent of Total Vehicles 80%
60%
40%
20%
0%
0:00 0:30 1:00 1:30 2:00 2:30 3:00 3:30 4:00 4:30 5:00 5:30 Elapsed Time (h:mm)
Figure J11. ETE and Trip Generation: Winter, Weekend, Midday, Rain/Light Snow (Scenario 10)
Fermi 2 Nuclear Power Plant J11 KLD Engineering, P.C.
Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0
Enclosure to NRC-22-0041 Page 308 of 372 ETE and Trip Generation Winter, Weekend, Midday, Snow (Scenario 11) 100%
- Trip Generation
- ETE Percent of Total Vehicles 80%
60%
40%
20%
0%
0:00 0:30 1:00 1:30 2:00 2:30 3:00 3:30 4:00 4:30 5:00 5:30 6:00 6:30 Elapsed Time (h:mm)
Figure J12. ETE and Trip Generation: Winter, Weekend, Midday, Heavy Snow (Scenario 11)
ETE and Trip Generation Winter, Midweek, Weekend, Evening, Good (Scenario 12) 100%
- Trip Generation
- ETE Percent of Total Vehicles 80%
60%
40%
20%
0%
0:00 0:30 1:00 1:30 2:00 2:30 3:00 3:30 4:00 4:30 5:00 5:30 Elapsed Time (h:mm)
Figure J13. ETE and Trip Generation: Winter, Midweek, Weekend, Evening, Good Weather (Scenario 12)
Fermi 2 Nuclear Power Plant J12 KLD Engineering, P.C.
Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0
Enclosure to NRC-22-0041 Page 309 of 372 ETE and Trip Generation Summer, Weekend, Midday, Good, Special Event (Scenario 13) 100%
- Trip Generation
- ETE Percent of Total Vehicles 80%
60%
40%
20%
0%
0:00 0:30 1:00 1:30 2:00 2:30 3:00 3:30 4:00 4:30 5:00 5:30 Elapsed Time (h:mm)
Figure J14. ETE and Trip Generation: Summer, Weekend, Midday, Good Weather, Special Event (Scenario 13)
ETE and Trip Generation Summer, Midweek, Midday, Good, Roadway Impact (Scenario 14) 100%
- Trip Generation
- ETE Percent of Total Vehicles 80%
60%
40%
20%
0%
0:00 0:30 1:00 1:30 2:00 2:30 3:00 3:30 4:00 4:30 5:00 5:30 Elapsed Time (h:mm)
Figure J15. ETE and Trip Generation: Summer, Midweek, Midday, Good Weather, Roadway Impact (Scenario 14)
Fermi 2 Nuclear Power Plant J13 KLD Engineering, P.C.
Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0
Enclosure to NRC-22-0041 Page 310 of 372 APPENDIX K Evacuation Roadway Network
Enclosure to NRC-22-0041 Page 311 of 372 K. EVACUATION ROADWAY NETWORK As discussed in Section 1.3, a linknode analysis network was constructed to model the roadway network within the study area. Figure K1 provides an overview of the linknode analysis network. The figure has been divided up into 36 more detailed figures (Figure K2 through Figure K37) which show each of the links and nodes in the network.
The analysis network was calibrated using the observations made during the field surveys conducted in November 2020.
Table K1 summarizes the number of nodes by the type of control (stop sign, yield sign, pre timed signal, actuated signal, Access Control Point [ACP] and uncontrolled).
Table K1. Summary of Nodes by the Type of Control Number of Control Type Nodes Uncontrolled 520 Pretimed 23 Actuated 121 Stop 118 ACP 55 Yield 3 Total: 840 Fermi 2 Nuclear Power Plant K1 KLD Engineering, P.C.
Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0
Enclosure to NRC-22-0041 Page 312 of 372 t
1 Mon,o<:,~ ~\
Washtenaw Coun!!'* J,....-----,,:!1/
4~~~,~~~\~~~~:Ji~~;.,....,,}~ I""""'"""""'"""~""'.,,/,"""'~ ~ ~ ~~
7 Legend i
'~------------'i i
Fermi 2 Node Link i Index Grid
_j '- '-
Date: 7/11/2022 PAA Shadow Region 2.5
-- Copyright: ESRI Data and Maps 2020 KLD Engineering, DTE Energy
_ w~ cen~ gov
'- _, 2, 5, 10, 15 Mile Rings Figure K1. Fermi 2 LinkNode Analysis Network Fermi 2 Nuclear Power Plant K2 KLD Engineering, P.C.
Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0
Enclosure to NRC-22-0041 Page 313 of 372
ermi 2 Evacuation Time Estimate Link-Node Analysis Network Figures
- Link Water Grid 1
-+- Railroad M Park Copyright: ESRI Data and Maps 2o 2o DataCopyright: KLDEngineering
[J Index Grid ,,- : 2, 5, 10, 15 Mile Rings M i le DTE Energy, www.census.gov Figure K2. LinkNode Analysis Network - Grid 1 Fermi 2 Nuclear Power Plant K3 KLD Engineering, P.C.
Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0
Enclosure to NRC-22-0041 Page 314 of 372 Legend Fermi 2 Evacuation Time Estimate Link-Node Analysis Network Figures
Fermi 2 Q PAA Node @ Shadow Region Link Water Grid 2
-+- Railroad Park
'[J Index Grid ,,- - 2, 5, 10, 15 Mile Rings Mile Copyright: ESRI Data and Maps 2020 DataCopyright: KLDEngineering DTE Energy, www.census.gov Figure K3. LinkNode Analysis Network - Grid 2 Fermi 2 Nuclear Power Plant K4 KLD Engineering, P.C.
Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0
Enclosure to NRC-22-0041 Page 315 of 372
~ - L,Je~ ~ ~ -1 ~ A1ve CLE-:>>mons-Blvd ~ c, i {------ ! ,.-~ ----* -------*
/Jen __.,_._,--_, ---
tn
-**-** a** "-- **-**--
__,Shore"-1 a L'~ gh4/a::;n::...::.'--~r-
~--*-**-**-**--*-
~;
~ : ~
j
,..1---1-==-----:z7 0
6:.,/~
,s'o.
~
; J!
Fordline nt Run o'f'.lQ O.el'>'o
~
c~
~ God~ar i

i;.
ii :ii 0
0 sr
-+-~=--i---*11 . ,
O i [
'< ~ c,
~g~,-~H
/ave
:::':+-=-'-
~ -"
Brest:R Yorkshire St I
' ~-+-IH-++ +:l-+-1---1: :1-+-l--++-I ...u:=:;:::i:.:.:.:.- Alkali St HL.L::';'4~--+- Wyandotte 8 Dr
8089 Detroit River 886 894 I
Ti'ta
~ 1: -..::(/)
~~
1t!j-(l) rr114 ~ ~ i,...-...i...,. _..,.,....,....,,,.,,. -....L-U.1..-Jole su>,
Yori(
w
,l I m::::.:, ,4 1-or,,tte Ave
""'1tJ\:::i1 <
~
10 I '° / "~
cti w,u,ams'O
-Sfbrietiam Ln ro v;;Sto~ anfCt
~ ~
Dr 0 Ln \lI ~WSQ~~~
t , ::i
/ -
90 Trenton Chann 1,na Ca r \ll- *" )'Sh*n!!':.d~
587 Dr c mjf,,<<,,~-. ~{A dll t/l'!l f11. -i**-
A 1
I
~,ew r
-l ~ .J....,eL 1197 198
)-
Sibley Rd
'iJ ~
,D ~
{a 1J 9
>.- *~ "
Br.
~;tt 1
,i* Riverview ~r,... 590 '{
, 00 ~.8 s .
Tre ntwo ~~~~r t(in9 5;,,oo'-+
Riverview ~ ~ ')'. m A Highland~ rJtJrS1 §' \Q'
/ GC Pond -+- '?"fry, d . __ _._...... .__ '1 ,\\'\
~~ ~
-~ '- _L_/
o;;
..,...--,.,-_-..;*.;;*;.;a:,.-.R.;dr"-------2~~ .J ] i<J:'9 ~"°
....-t,-:--
1 ~ -;-r, SJ~
_1:t~r~..}~
J r l
?__ ~s~
[61
- ~ - - - ,1111- ~-,,,.,.,;.,.::;..;,_;.:.,:_LL_ J'i -
Key Map :**-~
Legend Fermi 2 Evacuation Time Estimate r--*-*-*- *-~ ~r,, , /*,
1 Link-Node Analysis Network Figures
Fermi 2 Q PAA :I ~~ ~-,--,-,-,-
a'i~7"'l8!- '\
~---!7,--. ;r::~, -:;rL--s ~ i' \
Node @ Sh adow Region ::::i --L-i= --
Link Water ~J~U~!
,'* ~-.~ /f?.i'-'
u
~ II Grid 3
-+-- Railroad Park L_, ~w~ / 0 Copyright: ESRI Data and Maps 2020
'[J Index Grid ,,- 2, 5, 10, 15 Mile Rings L__! / M ile DataCopyright:KLDEngineering DTE Energy, www.census.gov Figure K4. LinkNode Analysis Network - Grid 3 Fermi 2 Nuclear Power Plant K5 KLD Engineering, P.C.
Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0
Enclosure to NRC-22-0041 Page 316 of 372 Dr Washtenaw County ___!!i,ck a Talladay Rd LJn I I 'Vic!Gria St Thatcham Ln r
Grames Rd Grams Rd Gr 40 G10A"'- /
~
~ 2 Allison Rd Hoffman Rd Legend Fermi 2 Evacuation Time Estimate Link-Node Analysis Network Figures
Fermi 2 Q PAA Node @ Shadow Region Link Water Grid 4
-+- Railroad Park
'[J Index Grid ,,- - 2, 5, 10, 15 Mile Rings Mi les Copyright: ESRI Data and Maps 20 20 DataCopyright:KLDEngineering DTE Energy, www.census.gov Figure K5. LinkNode Analysis Network - Grid 4 Fermi 2 Nuclear Power Plant K6 KLD Engineering, P.C.
Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0
Enclosure to NRC-22-0041 Page 317 of 372 i
t~
i J f
~
!/ //// WNewburgRd / '
Legend Fermi 2 Evacuation Time Estimate Link-Node Analysis Network Figures
Fermi 2 Q PAA Node @ Sh adow Region
- Link Water Grid 5
-+- Railroad Park
'[J Index Grid ,,- - 2, 5, 10, 15 Mile Rings Mile Copyright: ESRI Data and Maps 2020 OataCopyright:KLDEngineering DTE Energy, www.census.gov Figure K6. LinkNode Analysis Network - Grid 5 Fermi 2 Nuclear Power Plant K7 KLD Engineering, P.C.
Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0
Enclosure to NRC-22-0041 Page 318 of 372 1/~ ,r1-r
,// ~ **-**-:**-**-**-**-**-**-**=**-**-**-**-**-**-**-**-**-
!: //////////, --~* ! !
i /
i~
!~1/2,
! 1//
f;~
I
,/
cS Christina or:;~ ,.__
1/' a P, a I~
L.. _!.
p.,~ //0 /~ ;A~/ ~ , -
.1"7':,..,._;i:.;2...<c:.L'.Y
~~
~
ey-C,,,ek *-**-**- .!:~
~l/.
.$' J i
' ,'/ ' /
j/ '/ , **-**-*
// *-*7 77 ~*-;-**-;*-;**-
/ / / * -*
Or Bndgewood L;"'Jo-1/4,," !:i --
Legend :ermi 2 Evacuation Time Estimate Ferm i 2 Node Q PAA
@ Shadow Region Link-Node Analysis Network Figures
- Link Water Grid 6
-+- Railroad M Park 0.5 Copyright: ESRI Data and Maps 2020 DataCopyright:KLDEngineering
[J Index Grid ,,- : 2, 5, 10, 15 Mile Rings Mi les DTE Energy, www.cens us.gov Figure K7. LinkNode Analysis Network - Grid 6 Fermi 2 Nuclear Power Plant K8 KLD Engineering, P.C.
Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0
Enclosure to NRC-22-0041 Page 319 of 372 Ford Woodhaven 595 Stamping Plant Woodhaven Wayne County
~ ~ lr "
>/'-
/~
~
tlf t I Vi=
B r!
!: NHampton ,._ ,._
/
---L--o~
~ :

------------------------------------------fl,ckol'Y*----1---

r ~ :
Legend Key Map :--- 1--f--! Fermi 2 Evacuation Time Estimate i------!~ ~ '
~ 1-~:5, '\ Link-Node Analysis Network Figures
Fermi 2 Q PAA i' ~ ~ -,+,-,---'
Node @ Shadow Region i---7,,r~;ib~_j '
Link Water *--~~---L-i~!---*
i~ @f *_J~~ I Grid 7
,'* ~-'~ /f?.i'-'
u I
-+- Railroad Park L_,~w~ / 0 0.5 Copyright: ESRI Data and Maps 2020
'[J Index Grid ,,- 2, 5, 10, 15 Mile Rings L__! / M i les DataCopyright:KLDEngineering DTE Energy, www.census.gov Figure K8. LinkNode Analysis Network - Grid 7 Fermi 2 Nuclear Power Plant K9 KLD Engineering, P.C.
Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0
Enclosure to NRC-22-0041 Page 320 of 372 Woodhaven Legend Key Map :--- 1--f--! Fermi 2 Evacuation Time Estimate i------!~ ~ ~ ' Link-Node Analysis Network Figures
Fermi 2 Q PAA i ~ -.--?T,A '\
Node @ Shadow Region i---7,,r~;ib~_j '
Link Water *--~~---L-i~!---*
i~ @f *_J~~ I Grid 8
,'* ~-'~ /f?.i'-'
u I
-+- Railroad Park L_,~w~ / 0 0.5 Copyright: ESRI Data and Maps 2020
'[J Index Grid ,,- 2, 5, 10, 15 Mile Rings L__! / M i les DataCopyright: KLDEngineering DTE Energy, www.census.gov Figure K9. LinkNode Analysis Network - Grid 8 Fermi 2 Nuclear Power Plant K10 KLD Engineering, P.C.
Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0
Enclosure to NRC-22-0041 Page 321 of 372
~ud--,
Ii ~~ J cli"1 ' - - \
~ 1~~i w,,e, Regioo
@ Shadow Link-Nod Fermi 2 Evacu at,on
. Time Estimate Railmad M "" I e Analysis Network F Grid g
- Link
[J lode>G,id, _ : ~ f-1~ I
rgures 2, 5, 10, 15 M'I 1e Rings L_, 1:::;(Jti:-'
f"~_;,_J L _! / / wA y ,
o--====:==--=-~0.
s 5 Copyright: ESRI Dat nd Data Copyright: K~; ~aps 2020
/ Mi les DTE Energy, www.c~~!:s~;:~g Figure K10. LinkNode Analysis Network - Grid 9 Fermi 2 Nuclear Power Plant K11 KLD Engineering, P.C.
Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0
Enclosure to NRC-22-0041 Page 322 of 372
~
Monroe ~l, County ~
i
-+--
Fermi 2 Evacuation T L.ink-Node An I . ime Estimate a ys1s Network F.igures Grid 10
--====:==--=-~0.5 Miles Copyright: ESRI Dat Data Copyright: K~; nd ~aps 2020 DTE Energy, www.c~~!:s~;:~g Figure K11. LinkNode Analysis Network - Grid 10 Fermi 2 Nuclear Power Plant K12 KLD Engineering, P.C.
Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0
Enclosure to NRC-22-0041 Page 323 of 372 Legend Key Map :--- 1--f--! Fermi 2 Evacuation Time Estimate i---~ !~ ~ ' Link-Node Analysis Network Figures
Fermi 2 Q PAA i ~ -.--~ :8:i] '\
Node @ Shadow Region : ,~ --i;rl,., :
~---~ !=",--L-'~ -! \
Link Water *--~~---L-i~!---*
i~ @f *_J~~ I Grid 11
,'* ~-'~ /f?.i'-'
u I
-+- Railroad Park L_,~w~ / 0 0.5 Copyright: ESRI Data and Maps 2020
'[J Index Grid ,,- 2, 5, 10, 15 Mile Rings L__! / M i les DataCopyright: KLDEngineering DTE Energy, www.census.gov Figure K12. LinkNode Analysis Network - Grid 11 Fermi 2 Nuclear Power Plant K13 KLD Engineering, P.C.
Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0
Enclosure to NRC-22-0041 Page 324 of 372 A..7 ntln nAel Pond Legend Fermi 2 Evacuation Time Estimate Link-Node Analysis Network Figures
Fermi 2 Q PAA Node @ Shadow Region Link Water Grid 12
-+- Railroad Park 0.5
'[J Index Grid ,,- - 2, 5, 10, 15 Mile Rings Mi les Copyright: ESRI Data and Maps 2020 DataCopyright: KLDEngineering DTE Energy, www.census.gov Figure K13. LinkNode Analysis Network - Grid 12 Fermi 2 Nuclear Power Plant K14 KLD Engineering, P.C.
Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0
Enclosure to NRC-22-0041 Page 325 of 372
---~--------------------------
i
! Trenton i
i i
i i
i i
i i
i i
Gikraftlir, i
i i
i i Detroit River i
i i
i i
i i
i i Trenton Channel i
i
~!,
<n
f(i i
PAA:7
\llt5..
lo
,- Lake Erie i
i PAiA:
Ji Legend . n Time Estimate Fermi 2 Node Q PAA
@ Shadow Region Fermi 2 Evacuat1? Network Figures Link-Node Analysis
- Link water Grid 13
-+- Railroad M Park 0.5 . . RI Data and Maps ~020 Copyright ES_ ht* KLD Engineermg L_J Index Grid ,,- 2, 5, 10, 15 Mile Rings Miles DataCopyng
DTE Energy, WWW.
census.gov Figure K14. LinkNode Analysis Network - Grid 13 Fermi 2 Nuclear Power Plant K15 KLD Engineering, P.C.
Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0
Enclosure to NRC-22-0041 Page 326 of 372
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
Albert Dr I,
Monroe Carleton Rockwood RP County Huron River Dr
/
/
11 Maplecrest or
/
/
~ I ~8
/ "'
/
/
I

- ---------------------------r - --------------------- --- -----------------------7---

Legend Fermi 2 Evacuation Time Estimate Link-Node Analysis Network Figures
Fermi 2 Q PAA Node @ Shadow Region Link Water Grid 14
-+- Railroad Park 0.5
'[J Index Grid ,,- - 2, 5, 10, 15 Mile Rings M i les Copyright: ESRI Data and Maps 2020 DataCopyright:KLDEngineering DTE Energy, www.census.gov Figure K15. LinkNode Analysis Network - Grid 14 Fermi 2 Nuclear Power Plant K16 KLD Engineering, P.C.
Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0
Enclosure to NRC-22-0041 Page 327 of 372
~ .
--- ----------**-**--*-**¥ --------------------------------------------------- - ------------------ ~------------------------------i --
~ E Newburg Rd [ jF
"-- - - - - - -~ ~ *I Swan Creek
~
~
PAA:4 }
a~
I i;;
~
~e
(.)
Q
"'~
~
Legend Fermi 2 Evacuation Time Estimate Fermi 2 Node Q PAA
@ Sh adow Region Link-Node Analysis Network Figures
- Link Water Grid 15
-+- Railroad M Park 0.5 Copyright: ESRI Data and Maps 20 20 DataCopyright:KLD Engineering
[J Index Grid ,,- : 2, 5, 10, 15 Mile Rings M i les DTE Energy, www.census.gov Figure K16. LinkNode Analysis Network - Grid 15 Fermi 2 Nuclear Power Plant K17 KLD Engineering, P.C.
Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0
Enclosure to NRC-22-0041 Page 328 of 372 Monroe South County Rockwood Ready Rd *944 a
945 C
.Q O> __,
C
E i:2 a:,
'o~o~9=, j C
0
} D' Q
ECreek Rd
---.I ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ________ *( __ _
i :
Legend Key Map :--- 1--f--! Fermi 2 Evacuation Time Estimate i--~ ~ ~ ~ ---- Link-Node Analysis Network Figures
Fermi 2 Q PAA :
! ~~I J~ :
~ 7"'l8! '\
Node @ Sh adow Region ~---7,tti=!=<,__ L-J= _! \
Link Water *--~~---L-i~!---*
i~ @f *_J~~ I Grid 16
,'* ~-.~ /f?.i'
u-' I
-+- Railroad Park L_,~w~ / 0 0.5 Copyright: ESRI Data and Maps 2020
'[J Index Grid ,,- 2, 5, 10, 15 Mile Rings L__! / Mi les DataCopyright:KLDEngineering DTE Energy, www.census.gov Figure K17. LinkNode Analysis Network - Grid 16 Fermi 2 Nuclear Power Plant K18 KLD Engineering, P.C.
Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0
Enclosure to NRC-22-0041 Page 329 of 372 Monroe County
-~.
638 Legend Fermi 2 Evacuation Time Estimate Link-Node Analysis Network Figures
Fermi 2 Q PAA Node @ Shadow Region Link Water Grid 17
-+- Railroad Park 0.5
'[J Index Grid ,,- - 2, 5, 10, 15 Mile Rings Mi les Copyright: ESRI Data and Maps 2020 DataCopyright: KLDEngineering DTE Energy, www.census.gov Figure K18. LinkNode Analysis Network - Grid 17 Fermi 2 Nuclear Power Plant K19 KLD Engineering, P.C.
Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0
Enclosure to NRC-22-0041 Page 330 of 372 i------------------------------------------*=
- - -- =-
- **------------------------- ----------------- - -' --------------------*-r*- :
~m" ~ i i
i i
i 0
-<.t0~~
?>"~~
IL______ __l'.W
~S~ i~gl~er'._!R~dl___ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ t-__________\ _________ e ss1 e s19 E 5;91*'
<,-0\0 PAA:4 a
Grid l 18 i

.J.W~L~ab~o::R~d:__= =--==-- - ---:1~ - - - j _ - - - - -~**1-3-----'=------

ELaboRd M on roe County Corkins Rd
~ 37 !1 i
PAA:S I i_
i ~ :
Legend Fermi 2 Evacuation Time Estimate Link-Node Analysis Network Figures
Fermi 2 Q PAA Node @ Shadow Region Link Water Grid 18
-+- Railroad Park 0.5
'[J Index Grid ,,- - 2, 5, 10, 15 Mile Rings Mi les Copyright: ESRI Data and Maps 2020 DataCopyright:KLDEngineering DTE Energy, www.cens us.gov Figure K19. LinkNode Analysis Network - Grid 18 Fermi 2 Nuclear Power Plant K20 KLD Engineering, P.C.
Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0
Enclosure to NRC-22-0041 Page 331 of 372 4 - --- 7 I~
-- t Indian Trail Rd j
~
f Jee
~ ! *1
~ *J___L ~ - - - - - -~E~S~i~gl~*r~R~d:________1 Sigler Rd ih - - - - - - - - - - t - - - - -"<-* ..:,
.,,a
~
.,, ~
O'. l' 1"'
0
"'r.i cl:
PAA:4 Grid 19 812 f. """"""""""""""""""""'""""..5E_;L;ga;;bo~ R:;d_______
1.J_______ """l"'....1.""':"'!""'""""""""""'i'""'""""'""~ ~ ............... *,C*
a a
.,,a ""0"' ""
Monroe County 0
0 a:- 8 73
~ ~
~ "'
--J Ll'.' "~- Lonesl' l'o l \216 /
o#°" g
('.;'~ - 0 /
~ Dr --1~
Legend
Fermi 2 Q PAA i-- ~~~
Key Map :--- 1--f--!
i' ~ -,--:--,-+_,t;,
~ ---- '\
'3'i'~,..,-~
Fermi 2 Evacuation Time Estimate Link-Node Analysis Network Figures Node @ Shadow Region ,, *
'~---7,tt:-
---"j
_l-,= _!: \
, @f '_JJn~ I Grid 19 Link Water
~, -- {'~H ~---
/f?.i'-' I
-+- Railroad Park L_,~w~ / 0 0.5 Copyright: ESRI Data and Maps 2020
'[J Index Grid ,,- 2, 5, 10, 15 Mile Rings L__! / Mile DataCopyright:KLDEngineering DTE Energy, www.census.gov Figure K20. LinkNode Analysis Network - Grid 19 Fermi 2 Nuclear Power Plant K21 KLD Engineering, P.C.
Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0
Enclosure to NRC-22-0041 Page 332 of 372
...i --*-**-**-**-**-**-**-**-**-**-**-**-**-**-**-**-**-**-**-**-**-**-**-**-**-**-**-**-**-**-**-**-**-**-**-**-**-**-**-**-**-**j**-
i 7,7r :
~:
~~
i =~ Ji.)I
~ ~M e 916 I
PAA:4 Monroe Cou A ty G~i
i_ ,__ _,...,5/.,:;L,:.ab~o:,:R;:.:.d..,__ _ _ _ _ _ 8Hl- - - - - - - -* ~ ~ J,
/ ~ '
Legend Fermi 2 Evacuation Time Estimate Link-Node Analysis Network Figures
Fermi 2 Q PAA Node @ Shadow Region Link Water Grid 20
-+- Railroad Park 0.5
'[J Index Grid ,,- - 2, 5, 10, 15 Mile Rings Mile Copyright: ESRI Data and Maps 2020 DataCopyright: KLDEngineering DTE Energy, www.census.gov Figure K21. LinkNode Analysis Network - Grid 20 Fermi 2 Nuclear Power Plant K22 KLD Engineering, P.C.
Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0
Enclosure to NRC-22-0041 Page 333 of 372 Mow lee cfeek i2r;- ~
~
~-
Monroe 3 i County ~ j L- - - - - - - ----lt- ~- =Labo'-'-
Rd G-rid'_j___-t~ - ---~1~
J:
! 21 {a
~
PAA:2 IL _J l- - - - -~ Nr*w::tp'.o'::rt'.'. .'Rd
. c~ - - - - - - - r 39
---*l*----------------Leann~ct- ----------------------= ~"~=
~ 250 Legend Fermi 2 Evacuation Time Estimate Fermi 2 Node Q PAA
@ Sh adow Region Link-Node Analysis Network Figures
- Link Water Grid 21
-+- Railroad M Park 0.5 Copyright: ESRI Data and Maps 2020 DataCopyri ght:KLDEngineering
[J Index Grid ,,- : 2, 5, 10, 15 Mile Rings Mil e DTE Energy, www.census.gov Figure K22. LinkNode Analysis Network - Grid 21 Fermi 2 Nuclear Power Plant K23 KLD Engineering, P.C.
Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0
Enclosure to NRC-22-0041 Page 334 of 372 i
i
\
\
-- \
\
\
Pointe Mouilfe
' \
State Game Area \
\
PAA:2 Moui/lee
\,,
Creek i\
Monroe ,
County
" \
\
i i
i PAA: 1
---ii *----------- ---------------------------------------------
Legend Key Map :--- 1--f--! Fermi 2 Evacuation Time Estimate i--~ ~ ~ ~ ---- Link-Node Analysis Network Figures
Fermi 2 Q PAA i' i"' _.r-e-1--l'/il '\
Node @ Sh adow Region : ~ ---!-i;rL \
~---V,--,! j'Qj-_L' Link Water I ~Mi , 1
~:~ :,Ji __ ,
I Grid 22
, ' /f?.i'-' I
-+- Railroad Park L_,~w~ /
0 Copyright: ESRI Data and Maps 2020
'[J Index Grid ,,- 2, 5, 10, 15 Mile Rin gs L__! / Mile DataCopyright: KLDEngineering DTE Energy, www.cens us.gov Figure K23. LinkNode Analysis Network - Grid 22 Fermi 2 Nuclear Power Plant K24 KLD Engineering, P.C.
Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0
Enclosure to NRC-22-0041 Page 335 of 372 Ste wart
/
/ /
/
~' I!
i i
i Legend Fermi 2 Evacuation Time Estimate Fermi 2 Node Q PAA
@ Shadow Region Link-Node Analysis Network Figures
- Link Water Grid 23
-+- Railroad M Park Copyright: ESRI Data and Maps 2020 DataCopyright: KLDEngineering
[J Index Grid ,,- : 2, 5, 10, 15 Mile Rings Mile DTE Energy, www.census.gov Figure K24. LinkNode Analysis Network - Grid 23 Fermi 2 Nuclear Power Plant K25 KLD Engineering, P.C.
Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0
Enclosure to NRC-22-0041 Page 336 of 372 I!~
/
- ////, /
!B '///
- Link M Park
-+- Railroad Mile Rings
'[J Index Grid 2, 5, 10, 15 Figure K25. LinkNode Analysis Network - Grid 24 Fermi 2 Nuclear Power Plant K26 KLD Engineering, P.C.
Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0
Enclosure to NRC-22-0041 Page 337 of 372
_ ___ i **-**-**-**-**-**-**-**-**-**-**-**-**-**-**-**-**-**-**-**-**-**-**-**-**-**-**-**-**--*-**-**-**-**-* _l_ **-**-**-**-**-**-**:-**
Toben Rd Buh_ Rd MarkD Steiner Rd PAA:5 l
Grid 25 Monroe County Neighbor Rd
&,'h Dr
<1>
f J~'<!jl ' O~r,}
lg
o Lasalle Rd
~ * ~41 j ----
o. - ------------------------------ ----------------------------------------------- ~ *- -------- ------------
0-~
-- l'Va9e ~
107,.* ~~ ----
Legend Fermi 2 Evacuation Time Estimate Fermi 2 Node Q PAA
@ Shadow Region Link-Node Analysis Network Figures
- Link Water Grid 25
-+- Railroad M Park 0.5 Copyright: ESRI Data and Maps 20 20 DataCopyright:KLDEngineering
[J Index Grid ,,- : 2, 5, 10, 15 Mile Rings Mi les DTE Energy, www.cens us.gov Figure K26. LinkNode Analysis Network - Grid 25 Fermi 2 Nuclear Power Plant K27 KLD Engineering, P.C.
Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0
Enclosure to NRC-22-0041 Page 338 of 372 I
808
======---- - -:;;:;,;;,;.;;;__-:----t~-"""""",=,-A~ - - -
Buhl Rd
332 /
I i I f I PAA: S / Mon 1roe I County Grid/
2 I
Ra!. ,
.,, 296 . ~
c:5
. e847 ff~'-
~
J --Y-- 164 163 - ~ :
Legend Fermi 2 Evacuation Time Estimate Link-Node Analysis Network Figures
Fermi 2 Q PAA Node @ Shadow Region Link Water Grid 26
-+- Railroad Park 0.5
'[J Index Grid ,,- - 2, 5, 10, 15 Mile Rings Mi les Copyright: ESRI Data and Maps 2020 DataCopyright:KLDEngineering DTE Energy, www.census.gov Figure K27. LinkNode Analysis Network - Grid 26 Fermi 2 Nuclear Power Plant K28 KLD Engineering, P.C.
Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0
Enclosure to NRC-22-0041 Page 339 of 372 Monroe County 6
1*~ 6
38 Legend Fermi 2 Evacuation Time Estimate Link-Node Analysis Network Figures
Fermi 2 Q PAA Node @ Shadow Region Link Water Grid 27
-+- Railroad Park 0.5
'[J Index Grid ,,- - 2, 5, 10, 15 Mile Rings Mi les Copyright: ESRI Data and Maps 2020 DataCopyright: KLDEngineering DTE Energy, www.census.gov Figure K28. LinkNode Analysis Network - Grid 27 Fermi 2 Nuclear Power Plant K29 KLD Engineering, P.C.
Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0
Enclosure to NRC-22-0041 Page 340 of 372 I
I
\
I
\ ,i):..:.
Fix:;..:R c:.:d;___ _ eAA:_3....l-------------- ~
1---- - - - - - - --t- M*o*nro-e/
County
, II
~rid
/ 28
\0'
~"Yv,..o- t 1'o- \
\
\
Legend Fermi 2 Evacuation Time Estimate Link-Node Analysis Network Figures
Fermi 2 Q PAA Node @ Shadow Region Link Water Grid 28
--+- Railroad Park 0.5
'[J Index Grid ,,- - 2, 5, 10, 15 Mile Rings M i les Copyright: ESRI Data and Maps 2020 DataCopyright:KLDEngineering DTE Energy, www.census.gov Figure K29. LinkNode Analysis Network - Grid 28 Fermi 2 Nuclear Power Plant K30 KLD Engineering, P.C.
Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0
Enclosure to NRC-22-0041 Page 341 of 372 Lake Erie PAA:6 Legend Key Map :--- 1--f--! Fermi 2 Evacuation Time Estimate
Fermi 2 Q PAA 1- ~~1
I ~
rL. i \
~ % 3'i~ : m~i, 7"'l8!
'\ Link-Node Analysis Network Figures
. ~ , L ~ '
Node @ Sh adow Region ii;-*- - - ~ - - r .-,- - -*
Link Water * @f '_J ~ I Grid 29
- ~ '* -- {'~H /f?.i'-~ ' I
-+- Railroad Park L_, ~w~ / 0 Copyright: ESRI Data and Maps 2020
'[J Index Grid ,,- 2, 5, 10, 15 Mile Rings L__! / M ile DataCopyright: KLDEngineering DTE Energy, www.census.gov Figure K30. LinkNode Analysis Network - Grid 29 Fermi 2 Nuclear Power Plant K31 KLD Engineering, P.C.
Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0
Enclosure to NRC-22-0041 Page 342 of 372
b
'-~
!~
fI139 * ""f-. - ~ - - - - - - - - -
. 147
/
i' I ~--- ,,,,,,,, I
! m --- i i
ii Monroe County V/////;~;:/~////, ~
i Yargervi
- *854 8854 I
W Stein Rd
w ==::--= ~ --~~~-~----- ------ - **-**-**-** .

1 .,u---------------- . n Time Estimate Legend *--------- IKey Map i ..) ,zdZ??:; '- Fermi 2 Evacuat,o Network Figures

Fermi 2 Q PAA _
i--~:fi~i~ \
r*--;--,---1 L'1nk-Node Analysis
. Grid 30 tl -,..
Node @ Shadow Region i w CQ,\ i II A ,
Y, _ _*,* .,,_,~
- Link water :',r --ffi
,w
,1/'J:
.*-_J-!::Po_:
_ ;ri{~ , -L-~
f~ ~ -- Copyright ES_ . KLD Engineermg
' 1_..!J
-+- Railroad M Park . , .,---h'l
, --- I o rn "*~ -
I -o/,
~~:.., / M i le L_J Index Grid ,,.. -
,*--:: 2, 5, 10, 15 Mile Rings L
' _ _I Figure K31. LinkNode Analysis Network - Grid 30 Fermi 2 Nuclear Power Plant K32 KLD Engineering, P.C.
Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0
Enclosure to NRC-22-0041 Page 343 of 372
~
-**-**-**-:-** '/ A "'"' 1',yA ~ *
, **-**-* / / /;,; '4,l fl:c:,
~* ~,= m***r, ' 632 . R'(iera Dr Q'!,'<
,I .
-* 971 ~* ' ";
4~abe11,7x 0 i,'.'
~
/,,/ 698
/
/f:A;,
// / ~ V' 7M*n,** 31 * \,,.,,
C****Y 7~ ;t; i
/,
/2 i
i,795
!~
i i
i
. e s Fermi 2 Evacuat1? Network Figures Fermi 2 Q PAA .
Link-Node Analysis
Node @ Sh adow Region
- Link water Grid 31
-+- Railroad M Park . . RI Data and Maps ~020 Copyright ES_ ht* KLD Engineermg L_J Index Grid ,,- 2, 5, 10, 15 Mile Rings Mile DataCopyng
DTE Energy, WWW.
census.gov Figure K32. LinkNode Analysis Network - Grid 31 Fermi 2 Nuclear Power Plant K33 KLD Engineering, P.C.
Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0
Enclosure to NRC-22-0041 Page 344 of 372 Legend Fermi 2 Evacuation Time Estimate Link-Node Analysis Network Figures
Fermi 2 Q PAA Node @ Shadow Region Link Water Grid 32
-+- Railroad Park 0.5
'[J Index Grid ,,- - 2, 5, 10, 15 Mile Rings Mi les Copyright: ESRI Data and Maps 2020 DataCopyright: KLDEngineering DTE Energy, www.census.gov Figure K33. LinkNode Analysis Network - Grid 32 Fermi 2 Nuclear Power Plant K34 KLD Engineering, P.C.
Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0
Enclosure to NRC-22-0041 Page 345 of 372 Sterling State Park
~ 33 Mo -n roe
,J___ Couhty
, , *~") ~
- -~ )<
28-..__,,.,-, ~/
Monroe River Raisin PAA:7 Lake Erie Plum Creek Legend Fermi 2 Evacuation Time Estimate Fermi 2 Node Q PAA
@ Sh adow Region Link-Node Analysis Network Figures
- Link Water Grid 33
-+- Railroad M Park 0.5 Copyright: ESRI Data and Maps 2020 DataCopyright: KLDEngineering
[J Index Grid ,,- : 2, 5, 10, 15 Mile Rings M i les DTE Energy, www.census.gov Figure K34. LinkNode Analysis Network - Grid 33 Fermi 2 Nuclear Power Plant K35 KLD Engineering, P.C.
Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0
Enclosure to NRC-22-0041 Page 346 of 372 Grid 34 Legend :ermi 2 Evacuation Time Estimate Fermi 2 Node Q PAA
@ Shadow Region Link-Node Analysis Network Figures
- Link Water Grid 34
-+- Railroad M Park 0.5 Copyright: ESRI Data and Maps 2020 DataCopyright: KLDEngineering
[J Index Grid ,- -- 2, 5, 10, 15 Mile Rings Mi les DTE Energy, www.census.gov Figure K35. LinkNode Analysis Network - Grid 34 Fermi 2 Nuclear Power Plant K36 KLD Engineering, P.C.
Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0
Enclosure to NRC-22-0041 Page 347 of 372 i ...,;;;:;,::zi,::.4y;rµ ,4-<£:,tr,ry £.L-cm= ~- :
--- --------- : : : :: :~ :: : : :: * * - * * - * * - ** -= ,. ;',7;,,.,~t<, *---
30~ i Wood Rd i
i
/ i
,/!
i!J
~t;..-
i i
~ 699 !
29 !
i i
i:_ __
Luna Pier Rd 1----/1/:-=='-.'-R;_:d_ _
454 *
~
I °',.
132/
c;,,,f <'.?,&
J " ~"
Luna Pier
'i'~\
i Lake Erie L.
54 Temperance Rd North Maumee Bay Ctngfte

~~ ,ahon - ----------------------------

Legend Fermi 2 Evacuation Time Estimate Link-Node Analysis Network Figures
Fermi 2 Q PAA Node @ Shadow Region Link Water Grid 35
-+- Railroad Park
'[J Index Grid ,,- - 2, 5, 10, 15 Mile Rings M i le Copyright: ESRI Data and Maps 2020 DataCopyright:KLDEngineering DTE Energy, www.census.gov Figure K36. LinkNode Analysis Network - Grid 35 Fermi 2 Nuclear Power Plant K37 KLD Engineering, P.C.
Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0
Enclosure to NRC-22-0041 Page 348 of 372

l 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 l~
i Gricl 36 i
i i
i
! Lake Erie i i
i i
i i i
~1 i
, i i
i i
! i i !
i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i
--------- ___J Legend .Fermi 2 Evacuation T Fermi 2 Node Q PAA
@ Sh adow Region Link-Node Anal .
ime Estimate y51s Network F.1gures
- Link Water Grid 36
-+- Railroad - Park 0.5 Copyright: ESRI Data Data Copyright: KL;~d ~aps 2020
[J Index Grid ,- - 2, 5, 10, 15 M'I .
1 e Rings Mi les DTE Energy, www.ce~!:s~;:~g Figure K37. LinkNode Analysis Network - Grid 36 Fermi 2 Nuclear Power Plant K38 KLD Engineering, P.C.
Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0
Enclosure to NRC-22-0041 Page 349 of 372 APPENDIX L Protective Action Area Boundaries
Enclosure to NRC-22-0041 Page 350 of 372 L. PROTECTIVE ACTION AREA BOUNDARIES PAA 1 County: Monroe Berlin Township east of North Dixie Highway, and south of U.S.
Turnpike and Reaume Road.
Frenchtown Township east of North Dixie Highway and north of Brest Road.
PAA 2 County: Monroe Berlin Township south of Sigler Road, west of North Dixie Highway, north of U.S. Turnpike and Reaume Road.
PAA 3 County: Monroe Frenchtown Township west of North Dixie Highway, south of Brest Road, east of I75 and north of Hurd Road.
PAA 4 County: Monroe Berlin Township north of Sigler Road.
Ash Township east of Maxwell Road and south of Carleton West Road.
Exeter Township south of OHara Road and east of Finzel Road.
County: Wayne Brownstone Township south of Vreeland Road and the municipalities of Rockwood, Gibraltar, and Flat Rock.
PAA 5 County: Monroe Frenchtown Township west of I75 and south of Hurd Road.
Raisinville Township east of Steffas Road and North Raisinville Road and north of North Custer Road.
Monroe Township east of Herr Road, north of Dunbar Road, east of South Telegraph Road, north of Albain Road, east of I75, and north of Mortar Creek Road.
City of Monroe.
PAA 6 Lake Erie Lake Erie area 0to5mile radius.
PAA 7 Lake Erie Lake Erie area 5to10mile radius.
Fermi 2 Nuclear Power Plant L1 KLD Engineering, P.C.
Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0
Enclosure to NRC-22-0041 Page 351 of 372 APPENDIX M Evacuation Sensitivity Studies
Enclosure to NRC-22-0041 Page 352 of 372 M. EVACUATION SENSITIVITY STUDIES This appendix presents the results of a series of sensitivity analyses. These analyses are designed to identify the sensitivity of the Evacuation Time Estimates (ETE) to changes in some base evacuation conditions.
M.1 Effect of Changes in Trip Generation Times A sensitivity study was performed to determine whether changes in the estimated trip generation time have an effect on the ETE for the entire Emergency Planning Zone (EPZ). Specifically, if the tail of the mobilization distribution were truncated (i.e., if those who responded most slowly to the Advisory to Evacuate (ATE), could be persuaded to respond much more rapidly) or if the tail were elongated (i.e., spreading out the departure of evacuees to limit the demand during peak times), how would the ETE be affected? The case considered was Scenario 1, Region 3; a summer, midweek, midday, with good weather evacuation of the entire EPZ. Table M1 presents the results of this study.
If evacuees mobilize one hour quicker, the 90th percentile ETE is reduced by 10 minutes (not a significant change) and the 100th percentile ETE are reduced by 1 hour1.157407e-5 days 2.777778e-4 hours 1.653439e-6 weeks 3.805e-7 months (a significant change),
respectively. If evacuees mobilize one hour slower, the 90th and 100th percentile ETE are increased by 40 minutes and 1 hour1.157407e-5 days 2.777778e-4 hours 1.653439e-6 weeks 3.805e-7 months , respectively - a significant change.
As discussed in Section 7.3, traffic congestion persists within the EPZ for about 2 hours2.314815e-5 days 5.555556e-4 hours 3.306878e-6 weeks 7.61e-7 months and 50 minutes after the ATE, well before the completion of trip generation time. As such, trip generation (plus a 10minute travel time to the EPZ boundary), dictates the 90th and 100th percentile ETE, as a result the ETE are sensitive to changes in the trip generation time. See Table M1.
M.2 Effect of Changes in the Number of People in the Shadow Region Who Relocate A sensitivity study was conducted to determine the effect on ETE due to changes in the percentage of people who decide to relocate from the Shadow Region. The case considered was Scenario 1, Region 3; a summer, midweek, midday, with good weather evacuation for the entire EPZ. The movement of people in the Shadow Region has the potential to impede vehicles evacuating from an Evacuation Region within the EPZ. Refer to Sections 3.2 and 7.1 for additional information on population within the Shadow Region.
Table M2 presents the ETE for each of the cases considered. The results show that eliminating (0%)
the shadow evacuation decreases the 90th percentile ETE by 5 minutes and has no effect on the 100th percentile ETE. Doubling (40%) has no effect on the 90th or 100th percentile ETE. Tripling (60%)
results in the 90th percentile ETE increasing by 5 minutes and has no effect on the 100th percentile ETE. Increasing the shadow evacuation percentage to 80% increases the 90th percentile ETE by 10 minutes and 100th percentile ETE is not affected. A full shadow evacuation (100%) increases the 90th percentile ETE by 20 minutes and the 100th percentile ETE by 10 minutes.
Fermi 2 Nuclear Power Plant M1 KLD Engineering, P.C.
Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0
Enclosure to NRC-22-0041 Page 353 of 372 Note the demographic survey results presented in Appendix F, indicate that 13% of households would elect to evacuate if advised to shelter, which differs from the base assumption of 20% non compliance suggested in the NUREG/CR7002, Rev. 1. A sensitivity study was run using 13% shadow evacuation, and the 90th percentile ETE was reduced by 5 minutes while the 100th percentile ETE was not impacted.
As shown in Figure 73 through Figure 78, there is congestion in the Shadow Region to the north and south of the EPZ. This congestion, however, is not significant enough to significantly delay EPZ evacuees.
M.3 Effect of Changes in Permanent Resident Population A sensitivity study was conducted to determine the effect on ETE due to changes in the permanent resident population within the study area (EPZ plus Shadow Region). As population in the study area changes over time, the time required to evacuate the public may increase, decrease, or remain the same. Since the ETE is related to the demand to capacity ratio present within the study area, changes in population will cause the demand side of the equation to change and could impact ETE.
As per the NRCs response to the Emergency Planning Frequently Asked Question (EPFAQ) 2013 001, the ETE population sensitivity study must be conducted to determine what percentage increase in permanent resident population causes an increase in the 90th percentile ETE of 25%
or 30 minutes, whichever is less. The sensitivity study must use the scenario with the longest 90th percentile ETE (excluding the roadway impact scenario and the special event scenario if it is a one day per year special event).
The sensitivity study was conducted using the following planning assumptions:
1. The percent change in population within the study area was increased by up to 28%.
Changes in population were applied to permanent residents only (as per federal guidance), in both the EPZ and the Shadow Region.
2. The transportation infrastructure (as presented in Appendix K) remained fixed; the presence of future proposed roadway changes and/or highway capacity improvements were not considered.
3. The study was performed for the 2Mile Radius (R01), the 5Mile Radius (R02) and the entire EPZ (R03).
4. The scenario (excluding roadway impact and special event) which yielded the longest 90th percentile ETE values was selected as the case to be considered in this sensitivity study (Scenario 8- Winter, Midweek, Midday with Heavy Snow).
Table M3 presents the results of the sensitivity study.Section IV of Appendix E to 10 CFR Part 50, and NUREG/CR7002, Rev. 1, Section 5.4, require licensees to provide an updated ETE analysis to the NRC when a population increase within the EPZ causes the longest 90th percentile ETE values (for the 2Mile Radius, 5Mile Radius or entire EPZ) to increase by 25% or 30 minutes, whichever is less. Base ETE value for the 2 Mile Radius (R01), 5Mile Radius (R02), and for the Fermi 2 Nuclear Power Plant M2 KLD Engineering, P.C.
Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0
Enclosure to NRC-22-0041 Page 354 of 372 Entire EPZ (R03) are greater than 2 hours2.314815e-5 days 5.555556e-4 hours 3.306878e-6 weeks 7.61e-7 months ; 25 percent of these base ETE is always equal or greater than 30 minutes. Therefore, the R01, R02, and R03 criteria for updating is 30 minutes.
Those percent population changes which result in the longest 90th percentile ETE change greater than the respective criterion for each region are highlighted in red in Table M3 - a 28% or greater increase in the 2Mile Radius permanent resident population (includes 20% of the Shadow permanent resident population). Constellation will have to estimate the full EPZ population on an annual basis. If the 2Mile Radius population increases by 28% or more, an updated ETE analysis will be needed.
M.4 Enhancements in Evacuation Time This appendix documents sensitivity studies on critical variables that could potentially impact ETE.
Possible improvements to ETE are further discussed below:
Reducing or prolonging the trip generation time by an hour impacts the 90th percentile ETE by 10 to 40 minutes and the 100th percentile ETE by 1 hour1.157407e-5 days 2.777778e-4 hours 1.653439e-6 weeks 3.805e-7 months , since trip generation within the EPZ dictates ETE (Section M.1). Public outreach encouraging evacuees to mobilize more quickly or in a timely manner will decrease ETE.
Increasing the shadow evacuation percent can impact ETE but not significantly (Section M.2). Public outreach could be considered to inform those people within the EPZ (and potentially beyond the EPZ) that if they are not advised to evacuate, they should not.
Population growth results in more evacuating vehicles, which could significantly increase ETE (Section M.3). Public outreach to encourage EPZ residents to carpool and evacuate as a family in a single vehicle could reduce the number of evacuating vehicles and could reduce ETE or offset the impact of population growth.
Fermi 2 Nuclear Power Plant M3 KLD Engineering, P.C.
Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0
Enclosure to NRC-22-0041 Page 355 of 372 Table M1. Evacuation Time Estimates for Trip Generation Sensitivity Study Trip Generation Evacuation Time Estimate for Entire EPZ Period th 90 Percentile 100th Percentile 3 Hours and 45 Minutes 2:25 3:55 4 Hours and 45 Minutes (Base) 2:35 4:55 5 Hours and 45 Minutes 3:15 5:55 Table M2. Evacuation Time Estimates for Shadow Sensitivity Study Percent Shadow Evacuating Shadow Evacuation Time Estimate for Entire EPZ Evacuation Vehicles1 th 90 Percentile 100th Percentile 0 0 2:30 4:55 13 (Survey) 8,197 2:30 4:55 20 (Base) 12,611 2:35 4:55 40 25,222 2:35 4:55 60 37,834 2:40 4:55 80 50,445 2:45 4:55 100 63,056 2:55 5:05 Table M3. Evacuation Time Estimates for Variation with Population Change EPZ and 20%
Shadow Permanent Base 26% 27% 28%
Resident Population 121,913 153,610 154,830 156,049 ETE (hrs:mins) for the 90th Percentile Population Change Region Base 26% 27% 28%
2Mile radius (R01) 3:15 3:15 3:15 3:15 5Mile radius (R02) 2:40 2:50 2:50 2:50 Entire EPZ (R03) 3:20 3:45 3:45 3:50 ETE (hrs:mins) for the 100th Percentile Population Change Region Base 26% 27% 28%
2Mile radius (R01) 5:45 5:45 5:45 5:45 5Mile radius (R02) 5:50 5:50 5:50 5:50 Entire EPZ (R03) 5:55 5:55 5:55 5:55 1
The Evacuating Shadow Vehicles, in Table M-2, represent the residents and employees who will spontaneously decide to relocate during the evacuation. The basis, for the base values shown, is a 20% relocation of shadow residents along with a proportional percentage of shadow employees. See Section 6 for further discussion.
Fermi 2 Nuclear Power Plant M4 KLD Engineering, P.C.
Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0
Enclosure to NRC-22-0041 Page 356 of 372 APPENDIX N ETE Criteria Checklist
Enclosure to NRC-22-0041 Page 357 of 372 N. ETE CRITERIA CHECKLIST Table N1. ETE Review Criteria Checklist Addressed in ETE NRC Review Criteria Comments Analysis (Yes/No/NA) 1.0 Introduction
a. The emergency planning zone (EPZ) and surrounding area is Yes Section 1 described.
b. A map is included that identifies primary features of the site Yes Figures 11, 31, 61 including major roadways, significant topographical features, boundaries of counties, and population centers within the EPZ.
c. A comparison of the current and previous ETE is provided Yes Table 13 including information similar to that identified in Table 11, ETE Comparison.
1.1 Approach
a. The general approach is described in the report as outlined Yes Section 1.1, Section 1.3, Appendix D, in Section 1.1, Approach. Table 11 1.2 Assumptions
a. Assumptions consistent with Table 12, General Yes Section 2 Assumptions, of NUREG/CR7002 are provided and include the basis to support use.
1.3 Scenario Development
a. The scenarios in Table 13, Evacuation Scenarios, are Yes Section 6, Table 62 developed for the ETE analysis. A reason is provided for use of other scenarios or for not evaluating specific scenarios.
Fermi 2 Nuclear Power Plant N1 KLD Engineering, P.C.
Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0
Enclosure to NRC-22-0041 Addressed in ETE Page 358 of 372 NRC Review Criteria Comments Analysis (Yes/No/NA) 1.4 Evacuation Planning Areas
a. A map of the EPZ with emergency response planning areas Yes Figure 31, Figure 61 (ERPAs) is included.
1.4.1 Keyhole Evacuation
a. A table similar to Table 14 Evacuation Areas for a Keyhole Yes Table 61, Table 75, Table H1 Evacuation, is provided identifying the ERPAs considered for each ETE calculation by downwind direction.
1.4.2 Staged Evacuation
a. The approach used in development of a staged evacuation is Yes Section 7.2 discussed.
b. A table similar to Table 15, Evacuation Areas for a Staged Yes Table 61, Table 75, Table H1 Evacuation, is provided for staged evacuations identifying the ERPAs considered for each ETE calculation by downwind direction.
2.0 Demand Estimation
a. Demand estimation is developed for the four population Yes Section 3 groups (permanent residents of the EPZ, transients, special facilities, and schools).
2.1 Permanent Residents and Transient Population
a. The U.S. Census is the source of the population values, or Yes Section 3.1 another credible source is provided.
b. The availability date of the census data is provided. Yes Section 3.1
c. Population values are adjusted as necessary for growth to Yes N/A - 2020 Census used as the base reflect population estimates to the year of the ETE. year of the analysis Fermi 2 Nuclear Power Plant N2 KLD Engineering, P.C.
Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0
Enclosure to NRC-22-0041 Addressed in ETE Page 359 of 372 NRC Review Criteria Comments Analysis (Yes/No/NA)
d. A sector diagram, similar to Figure 21, Population by Yes Figure 32 Sector, is included showing the population distribution for permanent residents.
2.1.1 Permanent Residents with Vehicles
a. The persons per vehicle value is between 1 and 3 or Yes Section 3.1 justification is provided for other values.
2.1.2 Transient Population
a. A list of facilities that attract transient populations is Yes Section 3.3, Table E5 and Table E6 included, and peak and average attendance for these facilities is listed. The source of information used to develop attendance values is provided.
b. Major employers are listed. Yes Section 3.4, Table E4
c. The average population during the season is used, itemized Yes Table 34, Table 35 and Appendix E and totaled for each scenario. itemize the peak transient population and employee estimates. These estimates are multiplied by the scenario specific percentages provided in Table 63 to estimate average transient population by scenario - see Table 64.
d. The percentage of permanent residents assumed to be at Yes Section 3.3 and Section 3.4 facilities is estimated.
e. The number of people per vehicle is provided. Numbers may Yes Section 3.3 and Section 3.4 vary by scenario, and if so, reasons for the variation are discussed.
Fermi 2 Nuclear Power Plant N3 KLD Engineering, P.C.
Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0
Enclosure to NRC-22-0041 Addressed in ETE Page 360 of 372 NRC Review Criteria Comments Analysis (Yes/No/NA)
f. A sector diagram is included, similar to Figure 21, Yes Figure 36 (transients) and Figure 38 Population by Sector, is included showing the population (employees) distribution for the transient population.
2.2 Transit Dependent Permanent Residents
a. The methodology (e.g., surveys, registration programs) used Yes Section 3.6 to determine the number of transit dependent residents is discussed.
b. The State and local evacuation plans for transit dependent Yes Section 8.1 residents are used in the analysis.
c. The methodology used to determine the number of people Yes Section 3.8 with disabilities and those with access and functional needs who may need assistance and do not reside in special facilities is provided. Data from local/county registration programs are used in the estimate.
d. Capacities are provided for all types of transportation Yes Item 3 of Section 2.4 resources. Bus seating capacity of 50 percent is used or justification is provided for higher values.
e. An estimate of the transit dependent population is provided. Yes Section 3.6, Table 37, Table 39
f. A summary table showing the total number of buses, Yes Table 312, Table 81 ambulances, or other transport assumed available to support evacuation is provided. The quantification of resources is detailed enough to ensure that double counting has not occurred.
Fermi 2 Nuclear Power Plant N4 KLD Engineering, P.C.
Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0
Enclosure to NRC-22-0041 Addressed in ETE Page 361 of 372 NRC Review Criteria Comments Analysis (Yes/No/NA) 2.3 Special Facility Residents
a. Special facilities, including the type of facility, location, and Yes Table E3 and Table E7 lists all medical average population, are listed. Special facility staff is facilities and correctional facilities, included in the total special facility population. respectively, by facility name, location, and average population. Staff estimates were not provided.
b. The method of obtaining special facility data is discussed. Yes Section 3.5
c. An estimate of the number and capacity of vehicles assumed Yes Table 36 available to support the evacuation of the facility is provided.
d. The logistics for mobilizing specially trained staff (e.g., Yes Section 8.1 - under Evacuation of medical support or security support for prisons, jails, and Medical Facilities other correctional facilities) are discussed when appropriate.
2.4 Schools
a. A list of schools including name, location, student Yes Table 38, Table E1, Table E2, Section population, and transportation resources required to 3.7 support the evacuation, is provided. The source of this information should be identified.
b. Transportation resources for elementary and middle schools Yes Section 3.7 are based on 100 percent of the school capacity.
c. The estimate of high school students who will use personal Yes Section 3.7 vehicle to evacuate is provided and a basis for the values used is given.
d. The need for return trips is identified. Yes Section 8.1 Fermi 2 Nuclear Power Plant N5 KLD Engineering, P.C.
Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0
Enclosure to NRC-22-0041 Addressed in ETE Page 362 of 372 NRC Review Criteria Comments Analysis (Yes/No/NA) 2.5 Other Demand Estimate Considerations 2.5.1 Special Events
a. A complete list of special events is provided including Yes Section 3.10 information on the population, estimated duration, and season of the event.
b. The special event that encompasses the peak transient Yes Section 3.10 population is analyzed in the ETE.
c. The percentage of permanent residents attending the event Yes Section 3.10 is estimated.
2.5.2 Shadow Evacuation
a. A shadow evacuation of 20 percent is included consistent Yes Item 7 of Section 2.2, Figure 21 and with the approach outlined in Section 2.5.2, Shadow Figure 71, Section 3.2 Evacuation.
b. Population estimates for the shadow evacuation in the Yes Section 3.2, Table 33, Figure 34 shadow region beyond the EPZ are provided by sector.
c. The loading of the shadow evacuation onto the roadway Yes Section 5 - Table 59 (footnote) network is consistent with the trip generation time generated for the permanent resident population.
2.5.3 Background and Pass Through Traffic
a. The volume of background traffic and passthrough traffic is Yes Section 3.11 and Section 3.12 based on the average daytime traffic. Values may be reduced for nighttime scenarios.
Fermi 2 Nuclear Power Plant N6 KLD Engineering, P.C.
Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0
Enclosure to NRC-22-0041 Addressed in ETE Page 363 of 372 NRC Review Criteria Comments Analysis (Yes/No/NA)
b. The method of reducing background and passthrough traffic Yes Section 2.2 - Assumption 10 is described. Section 2.5 Section 3.11 and Section 3.12 Table 63 - External Through Traffic footnote
c. Passthrough traffic is assumed to have stopped entering the Yes Section 2.5 EPZ about two (2) hours after the initial notification.
2.6 Summary of Demand Estimation
a. A summary table is provided that identifies the total Yes Table 311, Table 312, and Table 64 populations and total vehicles used in the analysis for permanent residents, transients, transit dependent residents, special facilities, schools, shadow population, and passthrough demand in each scenario.
3.0 Roadway Capacity
a. The method(s) used to assess roadway capacity is discussed. Yes Section 4 3.1 Roadway Characteristics
a. The process for gathering roadway characteristic data is Yes Section 1.3, Appendix D described including the types of information gathered and how it is used in the analysis.
b. Legible maps are provided that identify nodes and links of Yes Appendix K the modeled roadway network similar to Figure A1, Roadway Network Identifying Nodes and Links, and Figure A2, Grid Map Showing Detailed Nodes and Links.
Fermi 2 Nuclear Power Plant N7 KLD Engineering, P.C.
Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0
Enclosure to NRC-22-0041 Addressed in ETE Page 364 of 372 NRC Review Criteria Comments Analysis (Yes/No/NA) 3.2 Model Approach
a. The approach used to calculate the roadway capacity for the Yes Section 4 transportation network is described in detail, and the description identifies factors that are expressly used in the modeling.
b. Route assignment follows expected evacuation routes and Yes Appendix B and Appendix C traffic volumes.
c. A basis is provided for static route choices if used to assign N/A Static route choices are not used to evacuation routes. assign evacuation routes. Dynamic traffic assignment is used.
d. Dynamic traffic assignment models are described including Yes Appendix B and Appendix C calibration of the route assignment.
3.3 Intersection Control
a. A list that includes the total numbers of intersections Yes Table K1 modeled that are unsignalized, signalized, or manned by response personnel is provided.
b. The use of signal cycle timing, including adjustments for Yes Section 4, Appendix G manned traffic control, is discussed.
3.4 Adverse Weather
a. The adverse weather conditions are identified. Yes Assumption 2 and 3 of Section 2.6
b. The speed and capacity reduction factors identified in Table Yes Table 22 31, Weather Capacity Factors, are used or a basis is provided for other values, as applicable to the model.
c. The calibration and adjustment of driver behavior models for N/A Driver behavior is not adjusted for adverse weather conditions are described, if applicable. adverse weather conditions.
Fermi 2 Nuclear Power Plant N8 KLD Engineering, P.C.
Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0
Enclosure to NRC-22-0041 Addressed in ETE Page 365 of 372 NRC Review Criteria Comments Analysis (Yes/No/NA)
d. The effect of adverse weather on mobilization is considered Yes Table 22 and assumptions for snow removal on streets and driveways are identified, when applicable.
4.0 Development of Evacuation Times 4.1 Traffic Simulation Models
a. General information about the traffic simulation model used Yes Section 1.3, Table 13, Appendix B, in the analysis is provided. Appendix C
b. If a traffic simulation model is not used to perform the ETE N/A Not applicable since a traffic simulation calculation, sufficient detail is provided to validate the model was used.
analytical approach used.
4.2 Traffic Simulation Model Input
a. Traffic simulation model assumptions and a representative Yes Section 2, Appendix J set of model inputs are provided.
b. The number of origin nodes and method for distributing Yes Appendix J, Appendix C vehicles among the origin nodes are described.
c. A glossary of terms is provided for the key performance Yes Appendix A measures and parameters used in the analysis.
4.3 Trip Generation Time
a. The process used to develop trip generation times is Yes Section 5 identified.
b. When surveys are used, the scope of the survey, area of the Yes Appendix F survey, number of participants, and statistical relevance are provided.
c. Data used to develop trip generation times are summarized. Yes Appendix F, Section 5 Fermi 2 Nuclear Power Plant N9 KLD Engineering, P.C.
Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0
Enclosure to NRC-22-0041 Addressed in ETE Page 366 of 372 NRC Review Criteria Comments Analysis (Yes/No/NA)
d. The trip generation time for each population group is Yes Section 5 developed from sitespecific information.
e. The methods used to reduce uncertainty when developing N/A Not applicable trip generation times are discussed, if applicable.
4.3.1 Permanent Residents and Transient Population
a. Permanent residents are assumed to evacuate from their Yes Section 5 discusses trip generation for homes but are not assumed to be at home at all times. Trip households with and without returning generation time includes the assumption that a percentage commuters. Table 63 presents the of residents will need to return home before evacuating. percentage of households with returning commuters and the percentage of households either without returning commuters or with no commuters. Appendix F presents the percent households who will await the return of commuters. Section 2.3, Assumption 3
b. The trip generation time accounts for the time and method Yes Section 5 to notify transients at various locations.
c. The trip generation time accounts for transients potentially Yes Section 5, Figure 51 returning to hotels before evacuating.
d. The effect of public transportation resources used during Yes Section 3.10 special events where a large number of transients are expected is considered.
Fermi 2 Nuclear Power Plant N10 KLD Engineering, P.C.
Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0
Enclosure to NRC-22-0041 Addressed in ETE Page 367 of 372 NRC Review Criteria Comments Analysis (Yes/No/NA) 4.3.2 Transit Dependent Permanent Residents
a. If available, existing and approved plans and bus routes are N/A Established bus routes do not exist.
used in the ETE analysis.
Section 8.1 under Evacuation of Transit Dependent Population
b. The means of evacuating ambulatory and nonambulatory Yes Section 8.1 under Evacuation of Transit residents are discussed. Dependent Population, Section 8.2
c. Logistical details, such as the time to obtain buses, brief Yes Section 8.1, Figure 81 drivers and initiate the bus route are used in the analysis.
d. The estimated time for transit dependent residents to Yes Section 8.1 under Evacuation of Transit prepare and then travel to a bus pickup point, including the Dependent Population expected means of travel to the pickup point, is described.
e. The number of bus stops and time needed to load Yes Section 8.1, Table 85 though Table 87 passengers are discussed.
f. A map of bus routes is included. Yes Figure 102
g. The trip generation time for nonambulatory persons Yes Section 8.2 including the time to mobilize ambulances or special vehicles, time to drive to the home of residents, time to load, and time to drive out of the EPZ, is provided.
h. Information is provided to support analysis of return trips, if Yes Section 8.1 and 8.2 necessary.
4.3.3 Special Facilities
a. Information on evacuation logistics and mobilization times is Yes Section 2.4, Section 8.1, Table 89 provided. through Table 812 Fermi 2 Nuclear Power Plant N11 KLD Engineering, P.C.
Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0
Enclosure to NRC-22-0041 Addressed in ETE Page 368 of 372 NRC Review Criteria Comments Analysis (Yes/No/NA)
b. The logistics of evacuating wheelchair and bed bound Yes Section 8.1, Table 88 through Table 8 residents are discussed. 12
c. Time for loading of residents is provided. Yes Section 2.4, Section 8.1, Table 88 through Table 812
d. Information is provided that indicates whether the Yes Section 8.1 evacuation can be completed in a single trip or if additional trips are needed.
e. Discussion is provided on whether special facility residents Yes Section 8.1 are expected to pass through the reception center before being evacuated to their final destination.
f. Supporting information is provided to quantify the time Yes Section 8.1 elements for each trip, including destinations if return trips are needed.
4.3.4 Schools
a. Information on evacuation logistics and mobilization times is Yes Section 2.4, Section 8.1, Table 82 provided. through Table 85
b. Time for loading of students is provided. Yes Section 2.4, Section 8.1, Table 82 through Table 85
c. Information is provided that indicates whether the Yes Section 8.1 evacuation can be completed in a single trip or if additional trips are needed.
d. If used, reception centers should be identified. A discussion Yes Section 8.1, Table 103 is provided on whether students are expected to pass through the reception center before being evacuated to their final destination.
Fermi 2 Nuclear Power Plant N12 KLD Engineering, P.C.
Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0
Enclosure to NRC-22-0041 Addressed in ETE Page 369 of 372 NRC Review Criteria Comments Analysis (Yes/No/NA)
e. Supporting information is provided to quantify the time Yes Section 8.1, Table 82 through Table 85 elements for each trip, including destinations if return trips are needed.
4.4 Stochastic Model Runs
a. The number of simulation runs needed to produce average N/A DYNEV does not rely on simulation results is discussed. averages or random seeds for statistical
b. If one run of a single random seed is used to produce each N/A confidence. For DYNEV/DTRAD, it is a ETE result, the report includes a sensitivity study on the 90 mesoscopic simulation and uses percent and 100 percent ETE using 10 different random dynamic traffic assignment model to seeds for evacuation of the full EPZ under Summer, obtain the "average" (stable) network Midweek, Daytime, Normal Weather conditions. work flow distribution. This is different from microscopic simulation, which is montecarlo random sampling by nature relying on different seeds to establish statistical confidence. Refer to Appendix B for more details 4.5 Model Boundaries
a. The method used to establish the simulation model Yes Section 4.5 boundaries is discussed.
b. Significant capacity reductions or population centers that Yes Section 4.5 may influence the ETE and that are located beyond the evacuation area or shadow region are identified and included in the model, if needed.
Fermi 2 Nuclear Power Plant N13 KLD Engineering, P.C.
Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0
Enclosure to NRC-22-0041 Addressed in ETE Page 370 of 372 NRC Review Criteria Comments Analysis (Yes/No/NA) 4.6 Traffic Simulation Model Output
a. A discussion of whether the traffic simulation model used Yes Appendix B must be in equilibration prior to calculating the ETE is provided.
b. The minimum following model outputs for evacuation of the Yes 1. Appendix J, Table J2 entire EPZ are provided to support review: 2. Table J2
1. Evacuee average travel distance and time. 3. Table J4
2. Evacuee average delay time. 4. None and 0%. 100 percent ETE is
3. Number of vehicles arriving at each destination node. based on the time the last
4. Total number and percentage of evacuee vehicles not vehicle exits the evacuation exiting the EPZ. zone
5. A plot that provides both the mobilization curve and 5. Figures J2 through J15 (one evacuation curve identifying the cumulative percentage plot for each scenario of evacuees who have mobilized and exited the EPZ. considered)
6. Average speed for each major evacuation route that exits 6. Table J3 the EPZ.
c. Color coded roadway maps are provided for various times Yes Figure 73 through Figure 78 (e.g., at 2, 4, 6 hrs.) during a full EPZ evacuation scenario, identifying areas where congestion exists.
4.7 Evacuation Time Estimates for the General Public
a. The ETE includes the time to evacuate 90 percent and 100 Yes Table 71 and Table 72 percent of the total permanent resident and transient population.
b. Termination criteria for the 100 percent ETE are discussed, if N/A 100 percent ETE is based on the time not based on the time the last vehicle exits the evacuation the last vehicle exits the evacuation zone. zone.
Fermi 2 Nuclear Power Plant N14 KLD Engineering, P.C.
Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0
Enclosure to NRC-22-0041 Addressed in ETE Page 371 of 372 NRC Review Criteria Comments Analysis (Yes/No/NA)
c. The ETE for 100 percent of the general public includes all Yes Section 5.4.1 - truncating survey data members of the general public. Any reductions or truncated to eliminate statistical outliers data is explained. Table 72 - 100th percentile ETE for general population
d. Tables are provided for the 90 and 100 percent ETEs similar Yes Table 73 and Table 74 to Table 43, ETEs for a Staged Evacuation, and Table 44, ETEs for a Keyhole Evacuation.
e. ETEs are provided for the 100 percent evacuation of special Yes Section 8 facilities, transit dependent, and school populations.
5.0 Other Considerations 5.1 Development of Traffic Control Plans
a. Information that responsible authorities have approved the Yes Section 9, Appendix G traffic control plan used in the analysis are discussed.
b. Adjustments or additions to the traffic control plan that Yes Section 9, Appendix G affect the ETE is provided.
5.2 Enhancements in Evacuation Time
a. The results of assessments for enhancing evacuations are Yes Appendix M provided.
5.3 State and Local Review
a. A list of agencies contacted is provided and the extent of Yes Table 11 interaction with these agencies is discussed.
Fermi 2 Nuclear Power Plant N15 KLD Engineering, P.C.
Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0
Enclosure to NRC-22-0041 Addressed in ETE Page 372 of 372 NRC Review Criteria Comments Analysis (Yes/No/NA)
b. Information is provided on any unresolved issues that may Yes The draft ETE report was provided to affect the ETE. DTE Energy and the offsite response organizations for review and comment.
No comments on the draft report were provided. There are no unresolved issues.
5.4 Reviews and Updates
a. The criteria for when an updated ETE analysis is required to Yes Appendix M, Section M.3 be performed and submitted to the NRC is discussed.
5.4.1 Extreme Conditions
a. The updated ETE analysis reflects the impact of EPZ N/A This ETE is being updated as a result of conditions not adequately reflected in the scenario the availability of US Census Bureau variations. decennial census data.
5.5 Reception Centers and Congregate Care Center
a. A map of congregate care centers and reception centers is Yes Figure 103 provided.
Fermi 2 Nuclear Power Plant N16 KLD Engineering, P.C.
Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

NRC-22-0041, Evacuation Time Estimate Report

Contents

Text

Subject:

Enclosure:

SUMMARY

Navigation menu

NRC-22-0041, Evacuation Time Estimate Report

Text

Subject:

Enclosure:

SUMMARY

Navigation menu

Search