ML20086U224

From kanterella
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Testimony of Mc Cordaro,Ja Weismantle & Eb Lieberman on Phase II Emergency Planning Contention 66
ML20086U224
Person / Time
Site: Shoreham File:Long Island Lighting Company icon.png
Issue date: 03/02/1984
From: Cordaro M, Lieberman E, Weismantle J
LONG ISLAND LIGHTING CO.
To:
Shared Package
ML20086U072 List:
References
OL-3, NUDOCS 8403070198
Download: ML20086U224 (28)
v • d • e


Text

_ _ -. -- . .

l l

LILCO, March 2, 1984 l

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

)

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

) (Emergency Planning Proceeding)

(Shoreham Nuclear Power Station, )

Unit 1) )

l l

TESTIMONY OF MATTHEW C. CORDARO, JOHN A. WEISMANTLE AND EDWARD B. LIEBERMAN ON BEHALF OF LONG ISLAND LIGHTING COMPANY ON PHASE II EMERGENCY PLANNING CONTENTION 66 9

I i

i i

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

(804) 788-8200 l

l

\

l l

8403070198 840302 PDR ADOCK 0500032P T PDR I

- - - - _ - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -j

LILCO, March 2, 1984 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA l!UCLEAR 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 Proceeding)

(Shoreham Nuclear Power Station, )

Unit 1) )

TESTIMONY OF MATTHEW C. CORDARO, JOHN A. WEISMANTLE AND EDWARD B. LIEBERMAN ON BEHALF OF LONG ISLAND LIGHTING COMPANY ON PHASE II EMERGENCY PLANNING CONTENTION 66 PURPOSE Contention 66 raises a series of questions about whether the LILCO Transition Plan adequately addresses a number of contin-gencies that could occur during an evacuation of the Shoreham EPZ.

Specifically, Contention 66 questions (1) whether there are a suf-ficient number of tow trucks to enable LILCO personnel to remove potential obstructions from roadways, (2) whether the removal of those obstacles will be completed expeditiously, (3) whether mea-sures have been provided for evacuating people whose cars have become disabled, (4) whether snow will be removed during an evacu-ation, and (5) whether the fuel distribution plan will meet its objective.

This testimony demonstrates that these contingencies have been addressed, and that Contention 66 is without merit. First, the Plan provides for a maximum of twelve tow trucks during an

a

_2_

4 evacuation. This number of tow trucks is three times the expected number of accidents (four) during the entire evacuation. Second, these tow trucks have been strategically spaced along major evacu-ation routes to permit a rapid response to any roadway obstruc-tion. Third, a variety of measures exist for ensuring that evacuees whose cars have become disabled will be able to obtain a ride out of the EPZ. Fourth. the continued removal of snow during an evacuation should have no effect on protective action recommen-dations. Finally, the fuel distribution plan will more than ade-quately serve those evacuees needing additional fuel.

4

)

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 Proceeding)

(Shoreham Nuclear Power Station, )

Unit 1) )

TESTIMONY OF MATTHEW C. CORDARO, JOHN A. WEISMANTLE AND EDWARD B. LIEBERMAN ON BEHALF OF LONG ISLAND LIGHTING COMPANY ON PHASE II EMERGENCY PLANNING CONTENTION 66 TESTIMONY

1. Q. Please state four name and business address.

A. [Cordaro] My name is Matthew C. Cordaro. My business address is Long Island Lighting Company, 175 Old Country Road, Hicksville, New York, 11801.

[Weismantle] My name is John A. Weismantle. My business address is Long Island Lighting Company, 100 Old Country Road, Hicksville, New York, 11801.

[Lieberman) My name is Edward B. Lieberman. My business address is KLD Associates, Incorporated, 300 Broadway, Huntington Station, New York,.11746.

l

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

A. [Cordaro] I am Vice President, Engineering, for LILCO.

My professional qualifications are being offered into evi-dence as part of the document entitled " Professional Qual-ifications of LILCO Witnesses." I am participating 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 ensure that the needs and requirements of emergency planning are be'.ng met, and that the technical direction and content of emergency planning are being conveyed to corporate management.

(Weismantle] I am Manager of the Local Emergency Response Implementing Organization for LILCO. My professional qualifications are being offered into evidence as part of the document entitled " Professional Qualifications of LILCO Witnesses." My familiarity with the issues sur-rounding this contention stems from work in developing and implementing the Local Emergency Response Plan for Shoreham.

[Lieberman] I am Vice President of KLD Associates, Incor-porated. My professional qualifications are being offered into evidence as part of the document entitled

" Professional Qualifications of LILCO Witnesses." My familiarity with this contention stems from work KLD Asso-ciates has performed for LILOO on evacuation time esti-mates for the Shoreham EPZ.

3. Q. Please summarize the issues raised by Contention 66.

A. [Cordaro, Weismantle, Lieberman] Suffolk County Conten-tion 66 questions whether-the LILCO Transition Plan prop-erly provides for the removal of obstacles from roadways and for the dispensing of gasoline to evacuees needing additional fuel. Specifically, Contention 66 states:

Contention 66. NUREG 0654 Section II.J.lO.k requires that an offsite plan pro-vide "[i]dentification of and means for dealing with potential impediments . . . to use of evacuation routes, and contingency I measures."

In the event of a radiological emergency at Shoreham and subsequent evacuation (re:-

ommended and/or voluntary), it is likely that there will be many instances of automo-bile accidents and vehicle breakdowns caused by the large number of vehicles on the road, stop-and-go conditions, overheating while idling in queues, driver inattention, fail-ure to obey the rules of the road and other such conditions. In addition, it is likely that many evacuees will not begin the.evacu-ation with a full tank of gasoline. Many automobiles may run out of gasoline, both inside and outside the EPZ, as a result of extended operation times due to congestion, stop-and-go conditions and time spent sit-ting in queues. Such occurrences, along with abandonment of vehicles and construc-tion which may be in progress at the time an evacuation is ordered, will result in ob-structions and blockages on roadways in use during the evacuation. Taking such occur-rences into account would cause evacuation

time estimates to increase. (See Contention 65). In addition, it is essential that such obstacles be removed in a timely manner so that evacuation times will not increase even more due to substantial periods of reduced roadway capacity. Under the LILCO Plan, removal of obstacles will be performed by LILCO road crews using 12 LILCO tow trucks and line trucks. Gasoline will be provided by LILCO fuel trucks which are to be dis-patched to seven specific locations. (See Plan at 4.4-3; Appendix A at IV-176; OPIP 3.6.3 at 46a-46b).

Intervenors contend that the LILCO Plan fails to comply with 10 CFR Sections 50.47(a)(1), 50.47(b)(10) and NUREG 0654,Section II.J, because LILCO will be unable to provide for obstacles to be removed from the roads, or to provide adequate fuel sup-plies for evacuees for the following rea-sons:

A. LILCO does not have an adequate num-ber of tow trucks to enable LILCO personnel to remove all potential road obstructions.

(See FEMA Report at 11, citing non-compli-ance with NUREG 0654,Section II.J.10.k).

B. The tow truck deployment points pro-posed by LILCO are not located so as to allow rapid dispatch of the tow trucks to the aid of disabled vehicles. In addition, once they have been dispatched to an obstruction location, the tow trucks and other LILCO equipment will only be able to move as fast as the traffic flow, which will be extremely slow. Therefore, they will be unable to respond to the site of an obstruc-tion in an expeditious manner.

C. LILCO's Plan makes no provision for the evacuation of persons whose cars break down or are in accidents.

D. The LILCO Plan does not provide for snow removal. (See FEMA Report at 11, cit-ing non-compliance with NUREG 0654, Section f II.J.10.k). Rather, the Plan assumes that

" snow removal will be provided by local organizations in their normal fashion during

l l an emergency." (Plan at 2.2-5). This assumption is unwarranted. LILCO has no agreements with local jurisdictions or other entities within and around the EPZ to pro-vide snow removal services during an emer-gency, nor can it assure that local person-nel assigned to snow removal duties will perform those functions during an emergency, for the reasons cited in Contentions 15, 25 and 27.

E. [ Withdrawn.]

F. The seven fixed sites chosen for fuel distribution will be able to service only a small portion of the evacuating population.

Therefore, the fuel needs of many evacuees will be unmet. Furthermore, no provisions have been made to handle queues at fuel allocation sites which may back up into evacuating traffic, thus causing further congestion and delays.

4. Q. Could you briefly summarine the scope of this testimony?

A. [Cordaro, Weismantle, Lieberman] Yes. This testimony will address primarily the specific concerns raised in subparts A through D and F of this contention. The pref-ace to these subparts of Contention 66 contains broad statements about the potential effects of roadway obstruc-tions on the evacuation time estimates contained in Appen-dix A. These concerns have already been litigated in great detail in Contention 65, and for that reason, they will not be addressed in this testimony. In addition, Contention 66.D cites other Suffolk County contentions --

specifically, Contentions 15, 25 and 27. Those conten-tions are addressed in other pieces of LILCO's testimony, and their merits will not be addressed here.

Contention 66.A

5. Q. How many road crews are assigned the job of removing obstructions from roadways during an evacuation?

A. [Cordaro, Weismantle] The LILCO Transition Plan specifies that a maximum of twelve road crews will be assigned the job of removing obstructions from roadways during an evac-uation (Plan at 4.4-3). The number of crews that will ,

l actually be dispatched if an evacuation is ordered depends on the area ordered to evacuate. If a two-mile radius area is ordered to evacuate, eight road crews will be. dis-patched, while all twelve will be dispatched if five- or ten-mile radii are ordered to evacuate A listing of road crew deployment locations and identification of the loca-tions to be manned under varying evacuation scenarios are detailed in Attachment 8 to OPIP 3.6.3 of the LILCO Tran-sition Plan (Attachment 1 to this testimony).

These road crews will use LILCO-owned tow trucks in removing obstacles from roadways. If a sufficient number of tow trucks are not available, either for locational or mechanical reasons, then other LILCO vehicles will be used in their place (see OPIP 3.6.3,.p. 6). These alternate vehicles will be chosen because of their proximity to the EPZ and their physical characteristics. For example, vehicles located at the Brentwood, Patchogue and Riverhead Operations Centers will be the first used should an

evacuation be ordered. Another factor in selecting these vehicles will be the ability of the vehicle to perform the necessary road clearing activities. In making this judg-ment, the power, size, maneuverability and equipment (i.e., bumpers and winches) of these trucks will be con-sidered. Among the LILCO-cwned vehicles that fit these criteria are dump trucks, four wheel drive pickups equipped with winches and push bumpers, and derrick trucks with ballast bumpers.

6. Q. Why was this number of road crews chosen?

A. [Cordaro, Weismantle, Lieberman] Two major factors were considered in the selection of twelve road crews: first, the number of obstructions likely to need clearing, and second, the time needed to clear a given obstruction.

With respect to the number of obstructions that will need to be removed during an evacuation, we believe that twelve road crews provide a wide margin of excess manpower to accomplish this task. Obstructions in roadways will gen-erally be caused either by accidents or by vehicle break-downs resulting from mechanical failures or flat tires, or by automobiles running out of gasoline. As was detailed in this panel's earlier testimony on Contention 65, the available literature on evacuations indicates that the expected accident rate during an evacuation will be simi-lar to the national average (Testimony of Cordaro, et al.

on Contention 65 at 79-81). National accident statistics predict that approximately four accidents will occur dur-ing an evacuation of the Shoreham EPZ (id. at 81). As a practical matter, these predicted accidents will require road crew response only if they result in the disablement of a vehicle. Since vehicles will be expected to travel at low speeds during an evacuation -- generally less than 10 miles per hour -- it is likely that a number of these predicted accidents will produce no disabled vehicles, and hence, no need for road crew response.

With respect to vehicle breakdowns, it must again be noted that not all breakdowns will require road crew assistance. Some types of breakdowns will still permit cars to be driven (i.e., a flat tire) or to coast (i.e.,

an automobile running out of gasoline) off of the roadway onto the shoulder of the road. The number of vehicle breakdowns that would obstruct roadways during an evacua-tion of the Shoreham EPZ is therefore difficult to pre-dict. National statistics on vehicle breakdowns are nonexistent. The only testimony in this proceeding that provides any insight into normal vehicle breakdown frequencies is the 10,000 " incidents" reported on the Long Island Expressway (LIE) in 1982 (Testimony of Roberts, et al. at 55). This incident rate includes both accidents and breakdowns and does not attempt to distinguish between

_g.

them or to indicate their severity (see id.). By taking the length of the LIE examined in this assessment of inci-dents (43 miles) and the annual daily traffic flow aver-aged over this stretch of the LIE (approximately 65,000 vehicles / day), one can derive an incident rate expressed in terms of vehicle miles. The resultant rate is 1 inci-dent per 100,000 vehicle miles. Since a total of approxi-mately 300,000 vehicle miles is expected to be driven dur-ing an evacuation of the entire EPZ, it follows from these data that three " incidents" would be expected during an evacuation. Thus, these data suggest that the number of expected accidents and breakdowns requiring road crew re-sponse are far fewer than the number of road crews avail-able to respond.

A more important consideration in the selection of twelve road crews was the desire to provide sufficient road crews to permit a rapid response to any obstruction.

This goal was accomplished by locating road crews throughout the EPZ, principally at the intersections of major east-west and north-south evacuation routes (see Attachments 1 and 2). A review of the major evacuation routes and maps of the Shoreham EPZ indicated that twelve road crews would satisfy the goal of providing expedited response to roadway blockages.

Thus, contrary to the assertion of Contention 66.A, the LILCO Transition Plan specifies an adequate number of road j crews to remove roadway obstacles.

Contention 66.B

7. Q. Could you explain in more detail how the road crew deploy-ment locations will permit expeditious response to roadway blockages?

A. [Cordaro, Weismantle, Lieberman] Yes. The speed at which LERO road crews will be able to remove an obstruction from a roadway depends on the proximity of the road cr<v to the obstruction and on the congestion they will encounter in responding to the obstruction. The placement of LERO road crews was designed to minimize both of these factors.

First, road crews were placed on the evacuation routes having the largest traffic flows and thus, the highest likelihood of an obstruction (see Attachmen 3). This is true both of major east-west and north-south evacuation routes. Second, the road crews were spaced at distances of approximately two to four miles. This spacing will help to minimize the distance a road crew will need to travel to reach an obstruction even if the nearest road crew is unable to respond because of a prior assignment.

Finally, the predominant placement of the road crews is to the west and south of the Shoreham plant, normally at radial distances of five to ten miles. This orientation

l increases the probability that road crews will be able to move in a countercurrent direction to the main evacuation flow, thus permitting them to avoid the congestion and attendant delays of having to travel with that flow.

Contention 66.C

8. Q. How does the LILCO Transition Plan provide for the evacua-tion of people whose cars have broken down, or who have been in accidents that have disabled their vehicles?

A. [Cordaro, Weismantle) The LILCO Transition Plan does not expressly provide for the transportation of evacuees whose automobiles have become inoperative either because of a mechanical breakdown or an accident. The exclusion of express treatment for this very small group was premised on a desire not to clutter the Plan and Procedures with what is expected to be a minute detail.

As a practical matter, people whose cars have become disabled will have a number of available means for evacuating the EPZ. These people can either ride with other evacuees, catch one of the numerous buses providing transportation to the general public without access to cars, or ride with the road crew back to the road crew's deployment location, where they can either catch a bus out of the EPZ or evacuate with the road crew when the road crew finishes its duties.

9. Q. How are these people typically treated in other evacuation plans?

A. [Cordaro, Weismantle] Other evacuation plans with which we are familiar make no reference to providing transporta-tion for evacuees whose automobiles have broken down or been disabled by accidents. It is probably the general assumption of these plans that fellow evacuees will offer rides to these people. This assumption is consistent with LILCO's testimony in Phase I of this litigation, which showed that a spirit of cooperation prevails in community-wide disasters, and with the conclusion contained in the report entitled, "A Perspective on Disaster Planning" 3rd Edition, by Dynes, Quarantelli and Kreps. That report at page 19 concludes that "[m]utual aid rather than panicky abandonment of others is a very manifest characteristic of withdrawal behavior in the presence of danger," and that

"[f] light from a threatening situation involves playing traditional social roles including the taking care of others."

Contention 66.D

10. Q. How does the LILCO Transition Plan. propose to deal with snow removal?

A. [Cordaro, Weismantle] The LILCO Transition Plan states:

It is anticipated that snow removal operations within the ten mile EPZ will be_provided by local organizations in their normal fashion during an emergency.

Plan at 2.2-5. LILCO believes that local governmental bodies have a continuing responsibility to provide normal governmental services during the time of an emergency at the Shoreham Nuclear Power Plant. The presence of an emergency does not remove that responsibility from them, nor does it require LILCO to have a special agreement with local jurisdictions to guarantee that they will carry out their normal duties, as suggested by Contention 66.D.

11. Q. What would be the effect on the LILCO Transition Plan if snow removal crews did not perform their normal functions during an emergency at the Shoreham plant?

A. [Cordaro, Weismantle, Lieberman] In all likelihood, there would be little or no effect. For light to moderate (gen-erally less than four inches) snowfalls, the protective actio:. recommendation would be based on the evacuation time estimate for adverse, winter weather (see OPIP 3.6.1, pp. ld and 42). It is the practice on Long Island for snow removal activities to commence as soon as there is a reasonable accumulation, regardless of whether the snow-fall has ended. It can be reasonaoly assumed that snow removal will be ongoing up to the time at which the sirens are sounded. If the snow removal crews are then assumed to abandon their jobs, the roads will be in reasonably clear condition at that time and the additional snowfall during the evacuation will not affect the assumptions made in computing the evacuation time estimates for adverse, Winter weather.

For heavy snowfall or blizzard conditions, the protec-tive action recommendations are based on an evacuation time estimate for severe, Winter weather, in which it is assumed that, without snow removal, all roads will be lit-erally or nearly impassable (see OPIP 3.6.1, pp. 28-29).

In virtually all cases, the default value for the evacua-tion time estimate -- 24 hours2.777778e-4 days <br />0.00667 hours <br />3.968254e-5 weeks <br />9.132e-6 months <br /> -- would produce a shelter recommendation. This recommendation is unlikely to change whether or not road crews are attempting to clear road-ways, since that effort would be primarily focused on major roadways. Some local streets and many driveways would remain impassable. The conditions on these iocal streets would undoubtedly lead the decisionmakar to define the weather conditions as severe. In these circumstances, whether or not snow clearing operations were in progress during an evacuation would not affect the protective action recommendations.

Contention 66.F

12. Q. How will fuel be dispensed under the LILCO Transition Plan?

A. [Cordaro, Weismantle) The LILCO Transition Plan provides for fuel to be dispensed to vehicles at seven sites within or near the Shoreham EPZ. These fuel allocation sites have been located along the major east-west and north-south evacuation routes (Attachment 4). The location of

l these sites is displayed in Attachment 2 to this testi-mony.

Located at each site will be a fuel truck with at least 1200 gallons of capacity. The road crews that will man the fuel trucks will be instructed to place signs that will identify the presence and location of the fuel allo-cation site and to dispense only three gallons of gasoline to each car seeking such service. Thus, each fuel truck will be able to service over 400 vehicles, or almost twice the number of vehicles predicted to run out of gasoline by earlier Suffolk County testimony (see Testimony of Peter Polk on Contention 65 at 16).1/

13. Q. What steps have been taken in LERO's fuel allocation plan to ensure taat queues that may form at allocation sites do not back up into evacuating traffic?

A. [Cordaro, Weismantle, Lieberman] Three steps are being taken to ensure that should a queue be formed, it will not extend back into evacuating traffic. First, the alloca-tion sites will be located at areas that adjoin the evacu-ation roadway. Second, the sites will be carefully stud-ied to ensure that they have sufficient space to hold 1/ Mr. Polk's testimony suggests that 277 automobiles will run out of fuel. In unrebutted supplemental testimony, LILCO has demonstrated that there were several computational errors in deriving this value. LILCO's testimony indicates that had these errors been corrected, the predicted number of automo-biles running out of gasoline would be 96 (see Supplemental Testimony of Cordaro, et al. on Contention 65, pp. 29-31).

multiple vehicles. Third, the three-gallon limit on the amount of gasoline to be dispensed to each car, and the clear posting of this limit, should discourage vehicles from seeking fuel unless there was an immediate need.

This limit should reduce the amount of time required to service each vehicie and the likelihood of long queues forming at any fuel allocation site.

In rummary, the fuel allocation plan will provide ade-quate fuel supplies to evacuating traffic and will not cause delays on evacuation routes.

ATTACHMENTS ATTACHMENT 1 Road Crew Deployment Locations ATTACHMENT 2 Map, Road Crew Deploynient Locations and Fuel Allocation Sites ATTACHMENT 3 Map, Evacuation Routes With Highest Traffic Flow ATTACHMENT 4 Fuel Allocation Sites 9

ATTACHMENT 1 1

OPIP 3.6.3 Page 42 of 46 Attachment 8 Page 1 of 2 ROAD CREW DEPLOYMENT LOCATIONS l

l l Wind l l

Staging Areas l Zones l Direction l Patchogue i Port Jefferson l l l (From) l Riverhead  !

l l 0 - 2 Miles l l l l l I l .

l l l l William Floyd Parkway & l Port Jefferson Patchogue l Middle Country Road l l A, B, C, D, E l All I l l l Route 25 (TCP 62) l Road (Route 112) & Route l (Route 25) & Middle Island l l l 495 (TCP 77) l Road (TCP 11) l l l l l l l Wading River Manorville l l l

l l Road & Route 25 (TCP 10) l Patchogue Yaphank Road - l l l l l l l Sills Road & Route 495 l l l l l l Wading River Road & l (TCP 70) '

l l l l Route 495 (TCP 27) l l l l William Floyd Parkway & I l l l~ l l l Route 495 (TCP 126) l l l l l Edwards Avenue & l l l l l Middle Country Road l l l

l l l l l l (Route 25) (TCP 14) l l l 1 l l l l l l l l 0 - 5 Miles l The following Road Crew Deployment locations are to be activated in addition to those l

l l activated for the 0 - 2 mile area. l l l l l l l l l

l l Route 25A & Rocky Point l l A - E, F, G l E l l ENE l l l Road (TCP 38) l l l l l NE l l 1

l l Route 25A & Patchogue - l l l l l l l l Mt. Sinal Road (Route 83) l l

l l l l (TCP 56) l

! l l l l l l l

l l Patchogue - Port Jefferson l l l l l

l l l l Road (Route 112) & l l

l l l l l Nesconset Road (TCP 50) l l l l l 1 l l Rev. 2 I

10/15/83 I

OPIP 3.6.3 Page 43 of 46 Attachment 8 Page 2 of 2 ROAD CREW DEPl.0YMENT LOCATIONS (continued) j l l Wind I l

Staging Areas l Zones l Direction l Patchogue l Port Jefferson l l l (From) l Riverhead l l

l 1 l l 0 - 5 Hiles l Tha following Road Crew Deployment locations are to be activated in addition to those l

l (continued) l activated for the 0 - 2 mile area. l l 1 I l 1 1 l l l A - E, C, H, I l NNE l l Sunrise liighway & William l Route 25A & Rocky Point l N l l Floyd Parkway (TCP 30) l Road (TCP 38) l l l I 1 l l l l

l l Route 25A & Patchogue - l l l l l I j l Mt. Sinal Road (Route 83) l 1 l (TCP 56) l l l l l l l l l

l l l

l Patchogue - Port Jefferson l l l l l l l Road (Route 112) & l l l l l l Nesconset Road (TCP 50) l l l I I l 1 l l i

I I I I l

NNW l l Sunrise Highway & William l l l A - E, H, I, J l l NW l l Floyd Parkway (TCP 30) l l l

I I l l l l l

l l l l

l l A - E, I, J l WNW l No additional locations to the 0 - 2 mile area are necessary. l l l W l l l 1 l l l l l 0 - 10 Miles l Activate all Road Crew Deployment locations. l l l I l 1 Rev. 2 10/15/83

l l

l l

ATTACHMENT 2

r LONG ISLAND I a 6

9 Is .O

'N - t I

  • y ._

~

64 y e 'N g,4" -

,1 J t % ,, 1 x Qva v# , sa % g s ,.1 _ , u.,.ep g

'x ,

S'7 ,s"Emi\ Ls%X #

(

f N'* #4FD.* y, , +. } c*",  ; f* !

      • e g -s*

N

} \

t .#-.* k* ' .,,-a-a t= h ,y.% , . , m Esc ~ .& r ~

t n A-6- %. .v.' / _ . .~,

m g e n  ;

h, g'

'\...

N.

. #1 y

t.

n N p ,c.

') '; %

t N'".

w E  % s

.s ' w  %

!!\'n

./ )%i '

4i -

a 5, e b

A, A ej 3 '

g E  % ea j

  1. ' $ r l i s4(K') - *

. 'I *

-G) 5

.e ',

,e.

\ - - -

sv .

p

.., f .

e/ '7tQ lg , f~L\ ',

, 4 s -.G

(*. .?'

I

,~

p l

,J 7  ?

5 **E "'

i

-~

I N p. 4 . , ,

f -

j gi sewn ,

9 7

  • ,e v 'N assu

~$

n. ,

g v*[-r'} "

( ,

Y

~ " " ^

-T

%,a 5

_ (' / '

lwe .. ,

4 y g~  ;._

y

.,f,_. , w

"' t rou;

% p , 'x h t s s  % __ l Maw '

}{ Z A ~

  • p b, 'n-e v...

u -.

s 4 g -

, e -

/

[ . AQ, '

w E'

,n o i

sr ucwona .

NV a h  :

l R, o , e O

g h  : o

r ,,; , y ex>s,ce , *,.

' N' s f*y  ;

4 _ ~; yt \ y y 5 d  ?

-- f ,

g

v. sr A r

=

% .s ,

i

= Sl'-

  • l

. 2 d  : .; l

' *o '

l / g f ,f Y , v4;*

1 * *

,,,w rar, i <**

]

h:

q m /

m

\ a.s t <f, ." \'u > \

\h 'N 716 GREAT SOUTH BAY k .- l I .s~ %  !

l

, rv t & - l N

y i~a l

,n. /

[w - '

l l

SOUND j

~

teceno '

> --- ZONE BOUNDARIES LILCO PLANT PROPERTY

~

s..U ..

g ROAD CREW DEPLOYMENT LOCATION d FUEL TAMK TRUCK DEPLOYMENT w ;, l LOCATION

_1 l- .

, x.. .

i

'h: 1'(

\

,. .w s E -.(_

- s

/m Tk.'N

_m e n y% -.,-. ,_ ;,c .g.;

.. ;. r r e. l1 N s y. r Mv- s. p. .

x.- ip

-e- .

s.

< o - ,

g: ,t ,- -

. g 3- ., g ti < v u\1 .,. X 3.

\R H E A t.

_ - - - - ~

N'%

Tl '}

s .p' j ,.

2 \ c a. . , ..rw i

4 .i

'1,

'( \' l **'** '

b :\. ,w *0 "' s ,s '

, . i I ., s.,

s ji; . m :, p

't

';. ;q-;+

h. .

g.', # 4~-f L

&a

- 8

. ~ -Ln

u. a .

, 1 N' .

L

D' d '

I )g$g# '

f y f

g.,.

0 l

l

.. A m.

<r ,

g r

w P

<. a, 1

<cf N

f p.

1,

\ ,

_ , a.,

a

~

L L.

?

a _4 ..

3 ~,

m , \s

  • .h  %

a f

. f. ~ , s. l f ,

. ' ** o

.a, .,. *4 m '4.,

e' f

j .

1

"~."

':d,

%* e s

,=

,r ,

.L f ,

,4{

o.

  • , >t  ; <=

l t -

{ Q \

G j,

g gg'[,,,[

y g- T f.w L

/_ -

M O RIC H E S f,, BAY

, . J L' g ()3070MM

1 ATTACHMENT 3

y--m--w---y----r-----r-. .

1 '

l El de by 1!! l I!!

~

N

,g

&lll 11 I s ' s j.

g=

esi i13 3 ,;

i g".a\ O i

. t. ,

j

\

y

%s Y r**f .

, , e ev\  ; .,

y .\ s ,

s44'*

& 3 I . ' '.~o'-

. l=

=

e

~g a

2 INA 0 l' R

.- .a.

i .- .

Q,.

,. ,3 . , ', S

/

. /, lj l-

._ g _d ' I-

,*) ,,

'., ]u ,

I

=,.IQi l

~

.( r . '

? .-

s -:

s , / , h'

-./

i

/

/ .

y,n ..

p ,

lg(ir9

/ ,. ,- l ,

ie ,

.g

-s. a. -, .

s.(

c

~/

J' ~l p

7

\

g a

l l

l l

l I

l i

t ATTACHMENT 4 i

1 1

)

1 1

OPIP 3.6.3 Page 46b of 46 l Att.achment 13 Page 1 of 1 FUEL TANK TRUCK DEPLOYMENT LOCATIONS

1. Sunrise Highway (Ree. 27), east of Rte. 112 .
2. Rt. 25A, east of CR 83
3. Center Moriches Road, north of Long Island Expressway
4. William Floyd Parkway Median, one mile south of Longwood Road
5. Ree. 25, east of Coram
6. Rest area on westbound Long Island Expressway, west of Bellport.

Avenue ,

7. North Country Road, east of Pipe Stave Hollow Road l

l l Rev. 3

.- . _ . ._ . . ..

Retrieved from "https://kanterella.com/w/index.php?title=ML20086U224&oldid=2732542"