ML20086U176

From kanterella
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Testimony of Mc Cordaro,Ca Daverio & ML Miele on Phase II Emergency Planning Contention 51 Re Preselected Dose Sampling Points
ML20086U176
Person / Time
Site: Shoreham File:Long Island Lighting Company icon.png
Issue date: 03/02/1984
From: Cordaro M, Daverio C, Miele M
LONG ISLAND LIGHTING CO.
To:
Shared Package
ML20086U072 List:
References
OL-3, NUDOCS 8403070183
Download: ML20086U176 (21)
v • d • e


Text

'

d 0 /

.d LILCO, March 2, 1984 fi l 1 ;' UNITED STATES OF AMERICA il NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION Before the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board In the Matter of )

)

LONG ISLAND LIGHTING COMPANY ) Docket No. 50-322-OL-3

'i '

) (Emergency Planning (Shoreham Nuclear Power Station, ) Proceeding)

Unit 1) )

f TESTIMONY OF MATTHEW C. CORDARO, CHA A. DAVERIO,

.l AND MICHAEL L. MIELE ON BEHAL d THE LONG ISLAND LIGHTING COMPANY ON PHASE II EMERCENCY PLANNING CONTENTION 51 (PRESELECTED DOSE SAMPLING POINTS) i

's 3

Hunton & Williams P.O. Box 1535 l 707 East Main Street j Richmond, Virginia 23212

j. (804) 788-8200 o

,)

I

=f ii 2l

.' j r

B403070183 840302 PDR ADOCK 05000322

! T PDR u

n-

-j

I LILCO, March 2, 1984 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION Before the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board In the Matter of )

)

LONG ISLAND LIGHTING COMPANY ) Docket No. 50-322-OL-3

) (Emergency Planning (Shoreham Nuclear Power Station, ) Proceeding)

Unit 1) )

TESTIMONY OF MATTHEW C. CORDARO, CHARLES A. DAVERIO, AND MICHAEL L. MIELE ON BEHALF OF THE LONG ISLAND LIGHTING COMPANY ON PHASE II EMERGENCY PLANNING CONTENTION 51 (PRESELECTED DOSE SAMPLING POINTS)

PURPOSE Contention $1 alleges that the LILCO Transition Plan fails to comply with NUREG-0654, because the Plan does not identify preselected dose sampling locations for areas within an 11- to 50-mile radius of the Shoreham Nuclear Power Station.

This testimony will show that the LILCO Transition Plan does include preselected dose sampling and monitoring points for areas within 11 to 50 miles of the plant. These points are identified in Attachment 8 to OPIP 3.'5.3 of Revision 2 to the Plan.

Attachments NUREG-0654, I.C.2 OPIP 3.5.3, Attachment 8

l Attachment 3 NUREG-0654, Table J-1 Attachment 4 Map of a portion of the 50 mile ingestion pathway showing preselected dose sampling and monitoring points.

'er he is a

LILCO, March 2, 1984 1,

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION Before the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board In the Matter of )

)

LONG ISLAND LIGHTING COMPANY ) Docket No. 50-522-OL-3

) '(Emergency Planning (Shoreham Nuclear Power Station, ) Proceeding)

Unit 1) )

TESTIMONY OF MATTHEW C. CORDARO, CHARLES A. DAVERIO, AND MICHALL L. MIELE ON BEHALF OF THE LONG ISLAND LIGHTING COMPANY ON PHASE II EMERGENCY PLANNING CONTENT. ION 51 (PRESELECTED DOSE SAMPLING POINTS)

1. Q. Please state your names and business addresses.

A. [Cordaro} My name is. Matthew C. Cordaro and my busi-ness address is Long Island Lighting Company, 175 East Old Country Road, Hicksville, New York, 11801.

[Daverio] My name is Charles A. Daverio and my busi-ness address is Long Island Lighting Company,-100 East.Old Country Road, Hicksville,.New York, 11801.

[Miele) My name is Michael L. Miele and my business address is Long Island Lighting Company, Shoreham Nu-clear Power Station, North Country Road, Wading River, New York,.11792. -

4 l

l i

2. Q. Please summarize your professional qualifications and your role in emergency planning for the Shoreham Nu-clear Power Station.

A. [Cordaro} I am Vice President of Engineering for j LILCO and have held this position since the spring of 1978. My professional qualifications are being sepa-rately offered into evicence as part of the document entitled " Professional Qualifications of LILCO Wit-nesses." I am sitting on this panel to provide the LILCO management perspective on emergency planning and to answer any questions pertinent to management.

My role in emergency planning for Shoreham is to en-

l

! sure that the needs and requirements of energency planning are being met and that the technical direc-4 tion and content of emergency planning are being con-veyed to corporate management.

[Daverio] I am employed by LILCO as Assistant Manag-er of LILCO's Local Emergency Response Implementing Organization (LERIO). My professional qualifications are being offered into evidence as part of the docu-ment entitled " Professional Qualifications of LILCO Witnesses." In my capacity as Assistant Manager of LERIO, I'am responsible for developing and imple-menting the local emergency response plan for Shoreham.

l i

)

l l

i 1

[Miele] I am employed by LILCO as the Radiation Pro-tection Section Supervisor in the Nuclear Engineering Department. My professional qualifications are being

, separately offered into. evidence as part of the docu-ment entitled " Professional Qualifications of LILCO Witnesses." I am responsible for the overall manage-ment and technical direction of all onsite and offsite aspects of radiological protection for Shoreham. As such, I am familiar with the preselected dose sampling and monitoring points for areas within an 11- to 50-mile radius of Shoreham.

3. Q. Are you familiar vith Contentien 51?

A. Yes.

4. Q. What is Contention 51?

A. Contention 51 reads as follows:

Contention 51. The LILCO plan identifies preselected dose sampling loca-tions for(Plan, plant.

areasat within 11 miles of.the Table 3.5.1). 'The Plan thus fails to comply with NUREG-0654-Sec-tion II.~J.10.a, which requires the identi-fication of sampling and monitoring points for areas ~up to 50 miles.from the plant.

Sampling and~ monitoring beyond'the 10-mile:

EPZ is required to ascertain whether doses beyond the EPE cxceed the'PAGs, requiring the initiation of. protective actions. See-  ;

NUREG-0654 Section~I.D.'2.

1

5. .Q. What are the legal standards cited in: Contention 51?

. - -- . . . ~. . -

! A. The legal standards cited in Contention 51 are NUREG-0654, Sections II.J.10.a and I.D.2. NUREG-0654,

II.J.10.a provides as follows

NUREG-0654, II.J.10.a

10. The organi=ation's plans to im-plement protective measures for the plume exposure pathway shall include:

I a. Maps showing evacuation routes, evacuation areas, preselected ra-diological sampling and moni-toring points, relocation centers 4

in host areas, and shelter areas; (identification of radiological

, sampling and monitoring points shall include the designators in

Table J-1 or an equivalent uni-

- form system described in the plan). . . .

NUREG-0654, I.D.2 simply discusees emergency planning zones and is appended to this testimony as Attachment.

1.

G. Q. Is it true, as Contention 51 states,.that the LILCO Transition Plan identifies preselected dose sampling i

locations only for areas within 11 miles of the Shoreham Nuclear Power Station?

I A. No, that statement is incorrect. While Revision O of

, the Plan identified sampling and' monitoring points only out to 11 miles'from the Shoreham Station, preselected dose sampling'and: monitoring points for l

areas within an 11- to 50-mile radius of the plant were added in Revision-2 to-the Plan. These points -

l J

are identified in Attachment 8 to OPIP 3.5.3, which is appended to this testimony as Attachment 2.

7. Q. Would you please explain how these preselected sam-pling points are identified?

A. In the simplest terms, these sampling points are identified by distance and direction from the Shoreham Station. A circular area 50 miles in radi-us, with the Shoreham Station at the center, is di-vided into sixteen 22 1/2-degree sectors. These sec-tors are identified by direction from the Shoreham station (for example, "SSE," for the sector south southeast of the Shoreham Station). The 50-mile cir-cular area is also designated by distance from the Shoreham Station. Eeginning 10 miles from the Shoreham Station, five-mile distance zones are desig-ru ted . A sampling area is designated by sector and zone in accordance with NUREG-0654, page 62, Table J-

1. Table J-1 is appended to t'ais testimony as At-tachment 3.

A map of a portion of the 50-mile area surrounding Shoreham, which shcws how the area is divided into sectors and zones, is appended to this testimony as Attachment 4. Each area contains one or two preselected sampling points, which generally are identified by roadway intersections. Thus, for

example, a certain sampling location might be desig-nated 15 E 1. This would indicate that the sampling point is in the zone.that ends 15 miles from Shoreham, in the East sector, at Location Number 1.

The preselected points within a 10- to 50-mile radius of the plant are identified in Attachment 8 to-OPIP 3.5.3, which is appended to this testimony as Attach-ment 2. The map showing the preselected sampling points is too large (roughly 3 feet by 3 feet) to in-clude with this testimony. A portion of the map, however, ic appended to this testimony as Attachment 4, to show what the map looks like.

8. Q. What is your conclusion as to whether the Plan ade-quately identifies dose sampling and. monitoring points for areas within an 11- to 50-mile radius of the Shoreham Station?

A. The Plan provides for dose sampling and monitoring points for. areas within an 11- to 50-mile radius of the Shoreham Station in accordance with NUREG-0654, II.J.10.a.

i 1

v

E ATTAC&IENT 1 1

( I b, Emergency Planning Zones -\tt echment p 1 With regard to the area over whien planning efforts should be carrief out, " Emergency Planning Zones" (EPIs) about wach nuclear facility mist be defined both for the short ten. " plume agosure pathway" and for the longer ter-a " ingestion agosure pathways."

The Eswrgency Planning Zone concept is illustrated in Figure 1.

EPIs are defined as the areas for which planning is needed to assure that precipt and effective acticns can be taken to protect the public in the event of an accident. The criteria in NUREG-0396 are to be applied by the response organizations in these I.

0

'u i -

Attachment 1 Page 2 of 4 I

i D. Planning Basis (continued) zones as applicable. The NRC/ EPA Task Force Aeport on Emergency Planning (NUREG-0396, EPA 520/1-78-016) unticipates that State, rather than local, response organizationa will be principally l

responsible for the planning associated with me ingestion .

exposure pathway.

The choice of the size of the Emergency Planning Iones represents a judgment on the extent of detailed planning whica sust be performed to assure an adequate response nase. In a .

particular emergency, protective actions signt well be restricted to a small part of the planning zones. On the other hand, for the worst possible accidents, protective actions would need to be taken outside the planning zones.

The Task Force selected a radius of about 10 miles for the plume exposure pathway and a radius of about ,50 miles for the ingestion exposure pathway, as shown in Figure 1 and in Table 1.0/

Although the radius for the EPZ isplies a circular area, the actual shape would depend upon the charac*. eristics of a particular site.

6/ These radii are applicaale to light water nuclea. power plants, ratee 1 at 250 MWt or greater. The FEMA /NRC Steering Cossaittee has concluded .

i that small water cooled power reactors (less than 250 MWt) and the '

Fort St. Vrain gas cooled reactor may use a plume exposure emergency i l

planning zone of about 5 miles in radius and an ingestion pathway emergency planning zone of aoout 30 miles in ractus. In addition, the requirements for the alerting and notification system (Appendix 31 will be scaled on a case-by-case oasis. This conclusion is basao on the lower potential hazard from these facilities (lower racionuction inventory and longer times to release significant amount.s of activity for many accicent scenarios). The racionuc11oes consioereo in planning should be the same as reccanended in NUREC-0396/ EPA-520/1-78-016. ,

-w-, w,y-.--.-,-,._.,,,,--,,,,v,-y .

. - , - ,,,-,.---,-..,-.-e,-=--- we., e-.s s

t Atte-hment 1 Page 3 of 4 D. Planning Basis (continued)

The s.ze (about 10 miles radius) of the plume exposurs EPZ was based primarily on the following considerations:

a. projected doses from the traditional design hasis accidents would not exceed Protective Action Guide levels outside the zone;
b. projected doses from most cort unit sequences would not I

exceed Protective Action Guide levels outside the zone;

c. for the worst core melt sequences, immediate life threatening doses would generally not occur outside the zone; 1
d. detailed planning within 10 miles 'mid provice a substantial base for expansion of response efforts in the event that this proved necast,ary. l The ItRC/ EPA Task Force concluded that it would be unlikely that arty protective actions for the plume exposure pathey would be required beyond the plume exposure F.PI. Also, the plume espsure EPZ is of sufficient size for actions within this zone to provide for substantial reduction in early severe health effects (irduries or deatns) in the event of a worst case core melt accident.

The size of the ingestion' exposure EPI (about 56 ailes in racius, unich also incluoes the 10-eile radius plume exposurt EPI) was selected because:

Attachment 1 Page 4 of 4 D. Planning Basis (continued)

a. the downwind range within which contamination will -

j

. 1 generally not exceed the Protective Action Guides is limitad to about 50 miles from a power plant because of wind shif ts during the release and travel periods; I

b. there any be conversion of atmospheric todine (i.e., l iodine suspended in the atmosphere for long time perioas) to chemical forms which do not readily enter the ingestion pathway; .
c. msch of any partculata matarial in a radioactive plume 1 would have been deposited on the ground within about 50 miles from the facility; and

. )

d. the likelihood of exceeding ingestion pathway protective action guide levels at 50 miles is cogarable to the likelihood of exceeding plume exposure pathway protective action guide levels at 10 miles.
3. Time Factors Associated with Releases' The range of times between the onset of accident conditions and the start of a zador release is of the order of one-half hour to several hours. The subsequent time period over which radioactiv,e mater'al may be expected to be released is of the order of one-half hour (short-ters release) to a few days (continuous release).

Table 2 suunarizes the guicance on the time of the release, which

i i

i 1

i 1

1 i

l WZTACHMENT 2 1

(

l i

i Attachment 2 OPIP 3.5.3 Page 1 of 4 I

Page 27 of 30 ,

attachment 7 Page 1 of 4 PRESELECTED SAMPLING LOCATIONS (Between 10 & 50 Mile Radius From SNPS)

Tha designation symbol is composed of three parts: distance from SNFS (tiles), direction and sampling location number.

~

Lccation starts East (E) of SNPS and continues clockwise, ending with the Etst North East (ENE) direction.

Ext,mple (5ESE2): 5 ESE 2 Miles Direction Location No.

Location Designation

1. Northville, intersection Tuthill Ave. & Church La. 15 E 1
2. Jamesport, intersection Manor La. & Rt. 25 15 E 2 20 E 1

~

3. Laurel, intersection Aldrich La. & Rt. 25
4. Mattituck (approx. 5 miles north at Great Peconic Bay) 20 E 2
5. Robins Island 25 E 1
6. Tuckahoe, intersection Rt. 27 & North Sea Road 25 E 2
7. Scuttlehole (approx. I mile t est of Hampton Park) 30 E 1
8. North Haven, intersection Rt. 114 & Sunset Ave. 30 E 2
9. Sagaponack (approx. 1 mile north Sagaponack Pond) 35 E 1
10. Three Mile Harbor (inland 1 mile) 35 E 2
11. East Hampton, intersection Rt. 27 & Rt. 114 40 E 1
12. Springs (approx.1.5 miles east inland Three Mile Barbor) 40 E 2
13. Napeague Hither Hills State Park 45 E 1
14. Montauk, intersection Flamingo Ave. & Edgemere St. 50 E 1
15. Riverhead, Rt. 113, at fork, one mile north of Rt. 25 15 ESE 1
16. Squiretown, intersection Rt. 27 & Rt. 24 20 ESE 1
17. East Quogue, Rt. A27 (along Shinnecock Bay) 20 ESE 2 18.'Southampton Beach 25 ESE 1 '
19. Remsenberg, intersection Phillips Ave. & Main St. 15 SE 1
20. Riverhead, intersection Rt. 51 & Speonk Riverhead Rd. 15 SE 2 21.-Westhampton Beach, intersection Oak St. & Main St. '20 SE 1
22. Center Moriches, intersection Montauk Hwy. & Bay Ave. , 15 SSE 1
23. Mastic Beach, along Mastic Rd. . 15 S 1 Rev. 2

+ e 8 e 5

OPIP 3.5.3 Attachment 2 Pegs 28 of 30 Page 2 of 4 Attachment 7 Page 2 of 4 Location Designation

24. Shirley, intersection Middle' Island Rd. & Old Neck Rd. 15 S 2
25. Smith Point, and point of William Playd Parkway 20 S 1
26. North Be11 port, intersection Rt. 27 & Rt. 101 15 SSW 1
27. Medford, intersection Rt. 495 & Rt. 112 15 SSW 2
28. Patchogue, intersection Rt. 27 & Sylvan Avenue 20 SSW 1
29. Pire Island, Cherry Grove area 25 SSW 1
30. Pire Island Seaview area 30 SSW 1
31. Holtsville, intersection Rt. 495 & Rt. 25 15 SW 1
32. Centereach, intersection Rt. 25 & Gould Rd. 15 SW 2
33. Bohemia, intersection Locust Ave. & Church St. 20 SW 1
34. Ronkonk'ma, intersection Portion Rd. & Hawkins Ave. 20 SW 2 '
35. Heckscher State Park, end point of Southern State Pkwy 25 SW 1
36. Brentwood, Rt. 111 (2.5 miles north of Southern St. Pkwy) 25 SW 2
37. Brightwaters, along Rt. A27
38. North Babylon, intersection Rt. 27 & Rt. 231 30 SW 2
39. Robert Moses State Park, and point of Causeway
40. Massapequa Park, along Rt. 27 35 SW 2
41. Gilgo Beach, along Ccean Pkwy (4 miles NE of Tobay Besch) 40 SW 1
42. Wantagh, along Rt. 27 40 SW 2
43. Jones Beach, along Ocean Pkwy (4.5 miles east of Jones inlet) 45 SW 1
44. Lido Beach, one miles west of Point Lookout (on Lido Blvd.) 50 SW 1
45. East Setauket, intersection Sheep Pasture Rd. & Old Town Rd. 15 WSW 1
46. St. James, intersection Rt. 25 & Rt. 347 15 WSW 2
47. Nissequoque, intersection River Rd. & Long Beach Rd. 20 WSW 1
48. St. James, intersection Rt. 25 & Rt. 347 20 WSW 2
49. Kings Park, intersection Rt. 25 & Sunken Meadow State Pkwy 25 WSW 1
50. Commack, intersection Rt. 347 & Sunken Meadow State Pkwy 25 WSW 2
51. Greenlawn, along Rt. A25 30 WSW 1
52. Deer Park, intersection Rt. 231 & Rt. 495 30 WSW 2
53. Laurel Hollow Rt. A25 along Cold Spring Harbor 35 WSW 1
54. Plainview, intersection Rt. 495 & Rt. 110 35 WSW 2
55. Jericho, intersection Rt. 106 & Rt. 495 40 WSW 1
56. Massapequa, intersection Rt. 135 & Southern State Pkwy 40 WSW 2
57. East Hills, intersection Rt. 495 & Meadowbrook Pkwy 45 WSW 1
58. Rockville Center, intersection Southern State Pkwy Meadowbrook Pkwy 45 WSW 2
59. Sands Point, along Long Island Sound (near Port Washington) 50 WSW 1
60. Queena, intersection Rt. 24 & Belt Parkway 50 hSW 2
61. Setauket, intersection Ridgeway Ave. & Quaker Rd. 15 W 1
62. Asharcken, along Northport Bay 30 W 1.

63.'Stamford, intersection Rt. 95 & Rt. 1 35 W 1

64. Lloyd Harbor, along Oyster Bay 35 W 2
65. Stamford, intersection Rt. 104 & Rt. 137 40 W 1 66.-Lattingtown, along Long Island Sound ~40 W 2 ee Rev. 2 1

________________________J

  • Attachment 2 l Page 3 of 4 OPIP 3.5.3 Page 29 of 30 Attachment 7 l

' Page 3 of 4

- Designation Location

67. Greenwich, intersection Rt. 432 & Rt. 15 45 W I 68." Harrison, intersection Rt. 287 & Rt. 95 45 W 2
69. Armonk, intersection Rt. 22 4 Rt. 120 50 W I
70. Scarsdale, Hutchinson River Pkwy (near Saxon Woods Park) 50 W 2
71. Fairfield, 5 miles east of intersection Rt. 95 & Rt. 1 25 WNW 1
72. Bridgeport, along Rt. 95 (1 mile north Black Rock) 25 WNW 2
73. Westport, intersection Rt. 57 & Rt. 1 30 WNW I
74. Bridgeport, one mile NW of intersection Merritt Pkwy & Rt. 58 30 WNW 2
75. Norwalk, intersection Rt. 15 & Rt. 123 35 WNW I
76. Cannnondale, intersection Rt. 57 4 Rt. 53 35 WNW 2
77. Laurell Resevoir, along Rt. 124 40 WNW I
78. Ridgefield, intersection Rt. 35 & Rt. 102 . 40 WNW 2
79. Bedford, intersection Rt. 22 & Rt. 104 45 WNW 1
80. Cross River, intersection Rt. 124 & Rt. 35 45 WNW 2
81. Mt. Kisco, intersection Rt. 117 & Rt. 128 50 WNW I
82. Hahopac, intersection Rt. 22 & Rt. 116 50 WNW 2
83. Devon, along Walnut Beach 20 NW 1
84. Statford, along Rt. 3 (one mile SW of Rt. 108) 25 NW I
85. Oronoque, intersection Rt. 110 & Rt. 15 25 NW 2

< 86. Long Hill, intersection Rt. 25 & Rt. 27 30 NW I

87. Huntington, Rt. 108 (6.5 miles NW of Tapfalls Resevoir) 30 NW 2
88. Easton, intersectica Rt. 59 & Kt. 136 35 NW 1
89. Monroe, intersection Rt. 111 & Rt. 110 35 NW 2
90. Danbury, intersection Rt. 107 & Rt. 58 40 NW 1
91. Sandyhook, intersection Rt. 34 & Rt. 84 40 NW 2
92. Danbury, intersection Rt. 84 & Rt. 35 45 NW 1
93. Brookfield Center, intersection Rt. 133 & Rt. 25 45 NW 2
94. New Fairfield, intersection Rt. 37 & Rt. 39 50 NW 1
95. Bridgewater, intersection Rt. 133 & Rt. 67 50 NW 2
96. Milford, in Milford Lawns along Rt. 162 20 NNW 1
97. Rocky Tark, along Rt. 15 25 NNW I i
98. West Haven, intersection Rt. 122 & Rt. 95 25 NNW 2
99. Shelton, intersection Rt. 8 & Rt. 34 30 NNW 1 100. Woodbridge, intersection Rt. 63 & Rt. 114 30 NNW 2 l 101. Stevenson, intersection Rt. 34 & Rt. 188 35 WNW 1 l 102. Beacon Falls, intersection Rt. 8 & Rt. 42 35 NNW 2 i 103. Southford, intersection Rt. 188 & Rt. 67 40 NNW 1 l 104.,Naugatuck, intersection Rt. 8 & Rt. 68 40 NNW 2 105. Woodbury, intersection Rt. 6 & Rt. 317 45 NWW 1 l 45 NNW 2 l 106. Waterbury, intersection Rt. 63 & Rt. 64 l 107. Bethlehem, Rt. 132 (3 miles NW of intersection Rt 132 & Rt 47)~50 NNW 1 108.~Thomaston, intersection Rt. 109 & Rt. 6 50 NNW 2 109. New Haven Harbor . 20 N1 110. New Haven, intersection Rt. 95 & Rt. 91 . 25 N 1 Rev. 2
  • l

Attacrament 2 OPIP 3.5.3 Page 4 of 4 Page 30 of 30

! Attachment 7 Page 4 of 4

- Designation 25 N 2

( 111. Branford, intersection Rt. 139 & Rt. I 30 N 1 112.-Handen, intersection Rt. 15 & Rt. 10 30 N 2 113. North Haven, intersection Rt. 22 & Rt. 17 35 N 1 114. Wallingford, intersection Rt. 69 4 Rt. 42 35 N 2 115. Wallingford, intersection Rt. 91 & Rt. 5 40 N 1 116. Prospect, intersection Rt. 70 & Rt. 68 40 N 2 117. Meriden, intersection Rt. 91 & Rt. 15 45 N 1 118. Berlin, intersection Rt. 72 & Rt. 15 45 N 2 119. Southington, intersection Rt. 229 & Rt. 72 84 50 N 1 120. Plainville, intercection Rt. 229 & Rt. 50 N 2 121. New Britain, Rt. 178 4 Rt. 72 25 NNE 1 122. Leetes Island 25 NNE 2 123. Guilford, intersection Rt. 95 4 Rt. 77 30 NNE 1 124. North Madison, intersection Rt. 79 & Rt. 80 30 NNE 2 125. North Guilford, intersection Rt. 77 & Rt. 80 35 NNE 1 126. Chester, intersection Rt. 148 & Rt. 81 35 NNE 2 148 127. Durham, intersection Rt. 79 & Rt. 40 NNE 1 l 128. Ponset, intersection Rt. 81 & Rt. 9 40 NNE 2 i

129. Durham, intersection Rt. 68 & Rt. 147 45 NNE 1 130. Hoodus, intersection Rt. 149 & Rt. 151 45 NNE 2 17 131. Portland. intersection Rt. 66 & Rt. 149 4 Rt. 2 50 NNE 1 132. North Westchester, intersectica Rt. 50 NNE 2 133. Cromwell, Rt. 17 (2.5 miles north of Portland) 30 NE 1 i

134. Clinton, intersection Rt. 95 & Rt. 81 35 NE 1

( 135. Old Saybrook, intersection Rt. 154 & Rt. 95 35 NE 2 136. Winthrop, intersection Rt. 81 & Rt. 80 40 NE 1 137. Old Lyme, intersection Rt. 95 & Rt. 1 40 NE 2 138. Hadlyme, intersection Rt. 148 & Rt. 82161 45 NE 1 139. New London, intersection Rt. 1 & Rt. 45 NE 2 140. North Plain, intersection Rt. 82 & Rt. 156 50 NE 1 141. Quaker Hill, intersection Rt. 52 4 Rt. 354 50 NE 2 142. Salem, intersection Rt. 85 & Rt. 82 25 ENE 1 143. East Cutchogue, Rt. 25 25 ENE 2 144. Laughing Waters, (along Little Peconic Bay) 30 ENE 1 j

145. Greenport, Rt. 25 30 ENE 2 146. Shelter Island, Rt. 114 35 ENE 1 147. Orient Rose, Rt. 125 40 ENE 1 148. Gardiners Island

~

50 ENE 1 149. Fishers Island O

Rev. 2

_ _ _ _ _ . , , , . . _ - -., , .--_..,,,,,,.,,r

.~.m, ..-.,%y _. . , . m_,,. . . . ,

4 e

ATTACHMENT 3

TAELE J-1 SECTOR AND ZONE DESIGNATORS FOR RADIOLOGICAL SAMPLING AND MONITORING POINTS WITHIN EMERGENCY PLANNING ZONES

SECTOR NOMENCLATURE ZONE NOMENCLATURE CENTERLINE OF SECTOR IN DEGREES TRUE NORTH 22 1/20 NILES FR(M FROM FACILITY SECTOR FACILITY ZONE O & 360 *A N 0-1 1 22 1/2 8 NME 1-2 2 l

45 C NE 2-3 3

, 67 1/2 0 ENE 3-4 4 90 E E 4-5 5 112

  • F ESE 5-6 6 135 . G SE 6-7 7 l 157 H or SSE 7-8 8

! . 180 J S 8-9 9 .

202 1/2 K SSW 9-10 10 225 L SW 10-15 '

15 247 1/2 M WSW 15-20 20 2 270 N W , 20-25 25 i

292 1/2 P WNW 25-30 30 l 315 Q NW 30-35 35 j 337 1/2 R NNW 35-40 40 i ,

40-45 45 1 45-50 50 4

AREA SEGMENT - An area is identified by a Sector and Zone designator. Thus, area NL is that area which lies i between 348 3/4 and 11 1/4 degrees true north from the facility out to a radius of 1 mile.

Area SE4 would be that area between 123 3/4 to 1461/4 degrees and the 3- and 4-mile arcs from l the facility.

! *The letters I and 0 have been omitted from thes' ctor designators so as to eliminate possible confusion h i between letters and numbers. g.

! 5 l

I I

f I

O I

4 1

i l

i ATTACHMENT 4 i

l I

i l

l I

l I

l l l

PKf -

Attachment ~4 -

t

'l [}'A. p'g

,\ ..

{ ,

i . _ _ _ _

o ,1

't p

'] <

9'

, g, E*d5 a. $.'x' , , m~

\ Qx _+ .

/

3\.L -:, *. ':

\pt-/ . - 7 ;.gif 4g'T y k- .

, e. -

1 w~ 1 , e .

(4k

'j g ;.gj "' .

g

-n=;

4 ~- , yg. - .

[,) YI!> . a -

x ,a i _x t Ai !Dg,% ,

S'S .' 5 Ik Mg b a\]\g?g4-M d . d l jY

-  ?, ,

,c %%i:J

\. 1

.\.

1 q

1 _\-=

n.

n, .

)(),E;* g # f. .

t

-^

( Q'.I / ft l 'I J i

c ')

$F .e '?

t% s --

/$ s- , .

- '^ l; h y ih_ L..i 1 i

r u ume v

.e f s, o -7a s ~

q m(cg ] I% ,. \,,

x d,a#l . erg  %

p

\ g rit S

m. u%j4

_t V ,,f.o^ l. Q J e]*f -: f[\ .

,\ -

%, c .~J1,

/p 3 s, -

a. -

n .s f

v r.

2

i a'3 7 .

1- .rg e w -

ilnA.x \,/ \l '. isL :. ' -

_ 2, u .

Retrieved from "https://kanterella.com/w/index.php?title=ML20086U176&oldid=2732551"