ML20214G405

Motion for Leave to Substitute Kld TR-201A for Kld TR-201 as Attachments to Lilco Written Testimony of 870330.* Kld TR-201 Is Capacity Analysis of Approach Routes to Three Lilco Reception Ctrs.Certificate of Svc Encl

ML20214G405
Person / Time
Site:	Shoreham File:Long Island Lighting Company icon.png
Issue date:	05/16/1987
From:	Miller S HUNTON & WILLIAMS, LONG ISLAND LIGHTING CO.
To:	Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel
References
CON-#287-3486 OL-3, NUDOCS 8705270058
Download: ML20214G405 (55)

Text

- _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - - -. _

c.

N LILCO, M:y.16,1987 h:

00LKEIEC USNPC UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

.g7 g 19 N1 $1 0FFICE Q WIN' Before the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board 00CKElggC In the Matter of

)

)

LONG ISLAND LIGHTING COMPANY

) Docket No. 50-322-OL-3

) (Emergency Planning)

(Shoreham Nuclear Power Station,

)

Unit 1)

)

MOTION FOR LEAVE TO SUBSTITUTE KLD TR-201A FOR KLD TR-201 AS ATTACHMENT S TO LILCO'S WRITTEN TESTIMONY OF MARCH 30.1987 I! or KLD TR-201 as f

LILCO hereby requests leave to substitute KLD TR-201A Attachment S to LILCO's Written Testimony filed on March 30,1987.E! KLD TR-201 is a capacity analysis of the approach routes to the three LILCO reception centers. The report was prepared by LILCO witness Edward B. Lieberman and his firm KLD Associ-ates, Inc. Since that report was filed with LILCO's testimony, Mr. Lieberman has pre-pared a revision, KLD TR-201A, that contains certain refinements and some additional data regarding background traffic and highway capacity not included in the original be-cause of time constraints. In addition, TR-201A contains a more refined capacity anal-ysis as a result of data regarding actuated traffic signal controllers that were not sent to LILCO by the State until March 25,1987, just five days before LILCO's testimony was due.3/ In most respects, however, the two reports are identical. The methodology, 1/

A copy is appended to this Motion as Attachment 1.

2/

Written Testimony of Charles A. Daverlo, Dale E. Donaldson, Edward B.

Lieberman, Roger E. Linneman, Michael K. Lindell, Dennis S. M11eti, and Richard J.

Watts On The Sultability of Reception Centers (March 30,1987).

l 3/

Part of Mr. Lieberman's highway capacity analysis requires consideration of traf-l fic signal phasing. Since Mr. Lieberman does not have independent access to this data, (footnote continued)

~

0705270058 870516 g

PDR ADOCK 05000322 p

con o

i

I o

. t, '

as well as most of the language, has not changed. The results of the two reports are also the same. For instance, both show identical service times for evacuees reporting for monitoring at each of the three reception centers. Thus, substitution of KLD TR-201A for KLD TR-201 will change neither Mr. Lieberman's conclusions nor his testi-mony.

A copy of KLD TR-201A was sent to counsel for Intervenors, FEMA, and the NRC by overnight express on May 8,1987. The worksheets used by KLD in preparing the report were sent by overnight express to counsel for the State on the same date.

Copies of these documents were offered to counsel for Suffolk County in a telephone conference on May 8, but counsel for the County declined the offer. Given that the re-visions do not change the methodology or conclusions of KLD TR-201, and given that the hearing on the reception center issues is not scheduled to begin for at least a month,4I intervenors will not be prejudiced by the substitution of KLD TR-201A for KLD TR-201 at this date.

(continued from previous page)

LILCO requested this information from the State. LILCO's Request to Inspect and Record Dial Settings on Certain Actuated Traffic Signal Controllers, dated March 9, 1987, requested that KLD be allowed to record the data itself on March 11,1987, or at any other time up until the close of discovery on March 16. The State, however, chose to send LILCO the data instead, and the data did not arrive until a few days before LILCO's testimony was due. Thus, Mr. Lieberman was not able to incorporate the actu-al phasing data into the capacity analysis filed with his testimony. Instead, he was forced to rely on reasonable estimates. Af ter the testimony was filed, Mr. Lieberman reviewed the State's data and concluded that he needed some additional material to ex-tract the necessary data from the State's documents. LILCO requested this information on April 14, 1987. Letter from Stephen W. Miller to Richard J. Zahnleuter (April 14, 1987). The State supplied the additional information by letter dated April 16, 1987.

Letter from Richard J. Zahnleuter to James N. Christman (April 16, 1987).

4/

Indeed, under the proposed hearing schedule (11ed today by LILCO, traffic issues would not be heard until the week of July 6,1987...

w

+*

1 s3 Respectfully submitted, James N. Christman Stephen W. Miller Hunton & Williams 707 East Main Street P. O. Box 1535 Richmond, Virginia 23212 DATED: May 16,1987 l

i

)

u-p KLD TR-201A S

' Capacity Analysis on Approach Routes to the SNPS Reception Centers Revision A prepared for.

Long Island Lighting Co.

Melville, N.Y.

4 prepared by KLD Associates, Inc.

300 Broadway Huntington Station, NY 11746 o

April 30, 1987

o 6

TABLE OF CONTENTS Section Title Pace 1.

INTRODUCTION 1

2.

BACKGROUND 1

.3.

DESCRIPTION OF CAPACITY ANALYSIS 5

3.1 Capacity Analysis Methodology 16 Results for the Case Study 16 3.2 3. 2.~ 1 Monitoring Capacity 26 3.3 Results of Queue Analysis 27 3.4 Service Time 27

'3. 5 Case Study of 20% Evacuation Demand 29 3.6 Case Study of Nine-Hour Arrival Period 29 3.7 Inclement Weather 31 3.8 Traffic Control 32 i3.9!

Evacuating Buses 33 s.4

- 1 L

4.

SUMMARY

33 i,

APPENDIX A - Representative Output from the HCM Software 39 e

aJC-f.

t

. 7 g.,

- +

t 9

I

'r f

a 6

e

,c.

p l'

l r

i l

4

l

- f oi 6'

LIST OF FIGUREE H2, Title Pace 2-1

. Highway Map in the vicinity of the Reception Centers 2

2-2 Evacuation Routes to Hicksville,

.Bellmore and Roslyn Reception Centers 3

t 3-1 Approach Roads to the Hicksville Reception Center Showing all Major Intersections Analyzed 9

3-2 Approach Roads to the Roslyn Reception Center Showing all Major Intersections Analyzed 10

.3-3 Approach Roads to the Bellmore Reception Center Showing all Major Intersections Analyzed 11 3-4 Ramp Capacity Analysis & Ramp Volume 14 3-5 Ramp Capacity Analysis & Mainline Volumes 15 LIST OF TABLES 4

HEA Title Pace 2-1 Evacuation Paths to the LILCO Reception Center 6

3-1.

Monitoring Rates at LILCO Reception Centers 7

3-2 Intersections Analyzed 8

3-3 Available Storage Which Will Avoid i

Interference of Queues with other Evacuating Traffic Streams 17 3 Sample Printout of Traffic Data 19 i

3-5 Results of Capacity Analysis:

Roslyn l

Reception Center 21 1

3-6 Results of Capacity Analysis:

Bellmore Reception Center 22 l

3-7 Results of Capacity Analysis:

Hicksville l

Reception Center 23 3-8 Maximum Queue Lengths along each Path 28 3-9 Total Service Times 30 1.

3-10 Signalized Intersections on Evacuation Paths to the LILCO Reception Centers 34 t

11

y.

4-1.

INTRODUCTION-

.e*,

This report describes the procedures used, and summarizes the results obta'ined, in a comprehensive study to analyze the-

. capacities of major intersections along the roads connecting the-east-west controlled-access highways, with the three.LILCO reception centers.

As such, this report is a. revision of a prior el report, TR-201 with the same title, dated March 28, 1987.

These-revisions -- and extension -- are described'aubsequently.

f This study employed the standard procedures specified.in the i

1985 Highway Capacity Manual (HCM) which is.Special Report 209, published by the Transportation Research Board.. These. procedures have been programmed for the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA).

of the U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT).

This software, which has recently been distributed, was used for this study.

l-2.

BACKGROUND LILCO has identified three reception centers for persons-evacuating from within the Shoreham Nuclear Power Station (SNPS)

Emergency Planning Zone (EPZ).

These centers are located on LILCO property in Nassau County:

1 e

Bellmore (B) facility, located off Sunrise Highway and Newbridge Road e

Hicksville'(H) facility, located off Old Country Road, opposite Park Avenue e

Roslyn (R) facility, located off the eastbound Service j-Road of the Long Island Expressway (LIE), east of Willis Avenue.

Figure 2-1 indicates the locations of these facilities and the highway network in the area.

Figure 2-2 details the evacuation routes leading to these facilities.

A prior report, KLD TR-192 entitled, 7

Capacity Analysis of Highways in the Vicinity of Reception Centers for Evacuees from within the Shoreham Station Emergency Planning Zone l

documents previous work.

Specifically, TR-192 focused on the need to distribute evacuation traffic from each of the 19 zones within the EPZ to these three reception centers, and to assion these trips to connecting routes (i.e. paths of travel).

These connecting routes originate at the EPZ boundary and terminate at one of the reception centers, as shown in Figure 2-2.

L

[

To' achieve these objectives, it was necessary to calculate estimates of capacity along the " access" routes connecting the 4

l 1

f

7. > ~ [~ rfe \\

~:

g y'"' '~.,L,,,.

. W g

_ _ _ > (Q P. :

. N. %.

,g.. r. e'"'"s.. m s,

?

' d [ T ws.

7

. 1..-

g.,'

y $ "~

x..

s

-3 ig' m,

<p;.

u.v..

..Ju-e y.......:,. _.

r /s ',

\\ u.c,

~

5 ~.

y:

9 q [.e g

a o.

i.

/ M e%(,

" b' y, [t,,

-i

,y i

w.-

.. s.r c

.t

.(jf

[.."

). f.. 'l d

^\\

\\

2 s

.s a

s

/ >

r x= 5, c

/.

. :, s.

1 c

~

.n

~..>.c

.,,/.

4 3

,j u

,,,e

s..,..

Vg,...y.

-,.... ~

_3,._. u.as,.

i,.

~.,..

e m.

.e-..,...

s s

y'3-es o.s.

e<_

mJ..

. 'i..., M,.- p p

, !f

., ' '9

~

..

.. ;. "~

1 p.;;.1 1

'"+

- r'.

u

.=:

.\\ w.t c

9.s. L.,< H

-.y -

- 1,u

.w ~~. c.

. T 4,

s g

1 r4 s

o Pl.re j,

t, g

Settip.ge

,,,,,,c,,

"r b~.)

[

,,,,ig Dt I k c5 E

, "~ (L*.

~ 3, u'9

,w 2

.. 1.

j t %

i

.s.

ms.

$Y. N C. *. N l

.....F.>~

,(.k

... <' i.

t...:.

.~..

.n. c.A. 1'., ;=2....... ~ s s

,IA U

1 c

s.

\\,.

E e,.

W

, a.w:..

v..,.

,,.a $.,.

'uu 1

c

. - a.

~

r,.

~.

.. g u..O g-s,.,.. c c. s,.

\\,

a.s r.

re g

s.

+

s.

.f..

..&A'

.~.

\\e ~~%/= =.. 3.....

~...%. '"'"%

f V

M 7* *,,,.,,,,,,,,,,

f E.-

m.

3 t

i

..... y

. car

.. ~... r asnieu., hs',

m s-g

._N _ _ J '..,....',

q.,a*l.

1 k

t

t j

f'

.i j ***-

h

, 5 0.

1

\\.

S.,

S

. }g

.i t

,,g.

3 t

g..,.4.

t.,.

t h..,j.g y,,,, :::.. (,,.

g..

}

4 l '

.~

s t'

.c cy. c.r>

.x y.

m,,

,4 N.,. }1a.

• s<;

y./...

yy ym.

~.

, ~..,

. ~..

.m

... a.-

l y..s.

s.

.e,

r - e,._

=.

f,.. s,,

"., p,f.,-,,,,o-J,.!

~ -_.

e z l n ] ~'" ~

g

;;w =.

le. /, ' ~,m.

K '.,

.m',., 3

~~~

2 e':'.-

g.

s, r.

e

,,.. v.

,./

,+

m.

-i j. e il s

.f f. p' 81

-.1

.aou.e..

r

" c'%.

88 5

a,,,,

t it i.__

eg...

u.

I'-

t

,wess-S H".l,'**

i 1

, s.nere l

s e'

m.une.

.s

~

l

.r m,uenu

/ Figure 2-1.

liighway Map in the vicinity Of "I

d '

.-N Legend:

,,.,......=3,-;

of the Rece tion Centers I

l a

/

-~-m v

g

,' ;,,,[

j i

,,,,a

,s k l f /."

h.!

8'*"

"'*8" B

Bellmore

,s b

r, +ef.

t '

11 liicksville

,,,,, h

. J.

L_..

~. J i

-..~... it.' p-t s.

g y

so,.

.r

! ' *; t. g '"*? g,-

-.I 5 R

Roslyn EDCuille Centre f,,,,,,,,, k ijfreeport ' _,,

',g g

I{

ip gQ 7

===*

j M,M'**ll:-. 'y, & #'."-Q&~;h

, ',9,)

~

""~j h ::.L L

L.

g

M,. cia,.h=,,

5"'"'""'

a L

=

o h

coto

f...

[

4 2

T:,

.=..n egy p

m

.i

/ si.A<s Y

/

s

,.,I,.

N'*

b $

n ii i

/,,

555 '

N

/

f

.u s

~~

ROSLYN f.'/

Jh

~

_,,,,,, _, y - @ i RECEPTION e

,,,,5

~

CENTER y

g g O

-p

" y'

1. lj w

uns

..=hHICKSVILLE f

8 i

i S',,. % 5 Q.- g RECEPTION I E '4*MCC V 't__ f g "~~ L ~'/ ~ CENTER ' ids. i I 6, '5 g o .' Afl. 7~ -. m

=

. /y,.,,,,, /'"~ -= i e.s w.= b,i \\.1 G,.. % \\ ) l pl 2f;} l l ,~], ____4 1 FIGURE 2-2 k -' 1 i O < a =*" EVACUATION ROUTES TO l O=="r **' HICKSVILLE, BELLMORE AND ROSLYN l BELLMORE RECEPTION scatt se ut[$ IAPPROu CENTER o ? 3 4 9 RECEPTION CENTERS

.= o 4 three' major east-west highways (Northern State Parkway (NSP), Long Island Expressway (LIE), Southern State Parkway (SSP)) to-the three reception centers-(see Figure 2-2). At the time the previous analysis was undertaken, the rates at which vehicles (and their occupants) could be monitored at the reception centers were not well-defined. Consequently, the assumption was made that highway' capacity would be the limiting factor in determining the number of evacuees which could be serviced. Furthermore, the HCM software was not available; thus all capacity calculations had to be performed manually. In designing the trip distribution and assignment documented in TR-192, the following factors were considered: 1. The need to direct all evacuees originating within a given zone in the EPZ, to the same destination (i.e. reception center). 2. The need to route traffic on highways which are familiar to all evacuees, to avoid -- or limit --_at-grade interaction with conflicting traffic streams, and to limit the number of route-decision which must be made by evacuees en route to the reception centers. 3. The need to disperse traffic on the available highways so as to equalize the demand: capacity ratios to the extent practicable. The first need was treated as an essential set of' constraints that were required to be satisfied by the trip distribution process. The second need was addressed by considering only access-controlled highways as the major westbound conduits of travel from the EPZ boundary to the reception center access roads, to the extent that such highways are available. The final need was analyzed by allocating traffic volume to each reception center in accord with their respective sizes and by assigning traffic to their access roads, appropriately. The capacity analysis documented in TR-192 was undertaken to support the assignment process which, in turn, was designed to satisfy this final need. Consequently, while the capacity analyses performed in TR-192 satisfied the primary objective of supporting the trip l distribution and assignment analyses, they were limited in scope and detail. The capacity analyses described in TR-201 are based j on a complete inventory of traffic data for all approaches to all intersections studied; the-data collected for the previous work reported in TR-291, were limited to those approaches along the evacuation path plus selected other approaches. Furthermore, the t. monitoring rates, which are required in order to perform a thorough capacity analysis, were available at the outset of this effort. I f 4 I, ,,-wrw ,_,m---.-- .,-,e.-,- -,--.---..-,,,z,

..O The revisions made to the analysis documented in TR-201 include: 1. ' Refinements to the prior capacity analysis which were J-based on additional data taken in the field. 2. Route 1D was altered to separate evacuees in autos from those in buses, thus benefitting the operational performance of both traffic streams. 3. Additional discussion on the subject of traffic control. 4. Receipt of data from.the State describing signal controller settings at several locations. Table 2-1 identifies the paths of travel to each of the reception centers. The expected volumes of traffic assigned to each path on the assumption that the entire EPZ is evacuated and that all evacuees travel along their assigned paths, are also presented. This assumption will be discussed subsequently. -3. DESCRIPTION OF CAPACITY ANALYSIS This section describes the capacity analysis and the results obtained. Table 3-1 presents the estimated monitoring rates at each of the three reception centers. These data were initially provided by LERO personnel and then revised during the course of this activity. Table 3-2 identifies the major intersections along the access routes where capacity analyses were undertaken. Figures 3-1, 3-2 and 3-3 are schematics which identify the locations of these intersections. The previous work which was documented in TR-192, included the collection of traffic data at most of these intersections for a period ranging up to 4 days. This period included weekdays plus the two week-end days. One purpose of this data collection was to determine when background traffic. volumes peaked. It was found that traffic volumes were higher during a mid-week day than over weekends. Consequently, the traffic data acquired for this study, which augments the previous data set, were taken over a 24-hour period in mid-week. The previous capacity analysis also considered a single 12-hour period; total traffic volumes were averaged over 12 hours to obtain per-hour values. While this was adequate for I supporting the trip distribution and trip assignment analyses, the current analysis is conducted at a higher level of resolution. Here, the analysis breaks the 12-hour period into 5

[ l e Table 2-1. Evacuation Paths to the LILCO Reception Center Path Descriotion Vehicles lA -LIE 6 Exit 48 onto westbound Old Country Rd. 6,262 via Round Swamp Rd. 1B LIE @ Exit 44 onto southbound Seaford-Oyster 4,040 Bay Expressway, then onto westbound Old Country Rd. 1C LIE 9 Exit 41S onto southbound Broadway 2,500 (Route 107), then onto eastbound Old Country Rd. 1D NSP to Exit 37A onto LIE and, at LIE Exit 44, 1,789 onto southbound Seaford-Oyster Bay Expressway, then onto westbound Old Country Rd. lE NSP e Exit 35 onto southbound Broadway (Route 4,270 107), then onto eastbound Old Country Rd. 1F SSP 0 Exit 28A onto northbound Seaford-Oyster 4,906 Bay Expressway, then onto westbound Old Country Rd. 1G SSP 0 Exit 29 onto northbound Broadway-5,667 Hicksville Rd., then onto eastbound Old Country Rd. 2A SSP 0 Exit 27 onto southbound Wantagh State 5,513 Parkway to Exit W5, then onto westbound Sunrise Highway J 2B SSP 0 Exit 22 onto southbound Meadowbrook 11,356 State Parkway to Exit M8, then onto eastbound Sunrise Highway 3A LIE @ Exit 37 onto southbound Willis Avenue, 7,588 then onto eastbound LIE South Service Rd. 3B NSP 9 Exit 28 to northbound Willis Avenue 4,512 58,403 l Notes: Paths 1, 2 and 3 travel toward the Hicksville, Bellmore and Roslyn reception centers, respectively. The vehicles shown are estimates corresponding to 100 percent of the population within the SNPS EPZ. l l 6 l l ,-,,-.n.-

Table 3-1. Monitoring Rates at LILCO Reception Centers Reception Monitorina Rates, veh Center Entrance Primary Secondary Hicksville Old Country Rd. West' 504 1428 Old Country Rd. East + New South Rd. 648 1836 Bellmore Sunrise Highway 360 1020 Newbridge Road -180 510 Roslyn Willis Avenue 216 617 LIE Service Road 360 1020 l l 7 I L'

. s -1 Table 3-2. Intersections Analyzed Int. h Intersection Description Path B1 -Sunrise Hwy & Merrick Rd. 2B B2 Sunrise Hwy & Babylon Tpk. 2B B3 -Sunrise Hwy & Newbridge Rd. 2A B4 Sunrise Hwy & Bellmore Rd. 2A B5 Newbridge Rd. & Merrick Ave. R1 Willis Ave. & WB LIE 3A R2 Willis Ave. & EB LIE 3A,B R3 Willis Ave._& N.~ State Pkwy. 3B R4 EB LIE Service & Roslyn Rd. H1 -Broadway.& Scott St.' 1C,E H2 Broadway & Newbridge Rd. 1C,E H3 Broadway & John St. 1C,E H4 Broadway & Old Country Rd. 1C,E,G HS Hicksville Rd. & New South Rd. 1G -H6 Hicksville Rd. & Hempstead Tpk. 1G H7 Old Country Rd. & LIE 1A H8 Old Country Rd. & Manetto Hill Rd. lA H9 Old Country Rd. & NY135 NB 1A,F H10 Old Country.Rd. & NY135 SB 1A,B,D,F H11 -Old Country Rd. & S. Oyster Bay Rd. lA,B,D,F H12 Old Country Rd. & New South Rd.- 1A,B,D,F H13 Old Country Rd. & Park Ave. 1C,E,G H14 S. Oyster Bay Rd. & Woodbury Rd. D e 3 8

1 Jericho Tpke. ,/ $P N -[ S.O.B.R. S.O.B.E. . LIE leute 107 x N/ Analyzed H14 () m e d ms W Manetto H3 Park Hill Rd. [\\) Ave. U Old Cbuntry Rd. / A IIg H4 (jHll 111 0 '/ HS S.O.B.E. Henpstead Tpke. / (not to scale) Southern State Parkway Figure.3-1 Approach Roads N to the Hicksville \\ Reception Center Showing all'. Major Sunrise Highway Intersections Analyzed

<, ;l Ibslyn Ibad i + Img Island Expressway R2 R4 7/ ) = m Northern State Parkway y ~W I ~ i Analyzed Intersections U i Willis Avenue i (not to scale) Approach Roads to the Roslyn Reception Center Showing All Figure 3-2. Major Intersections Analyzed

Analyzed Intersection .e Bab lon Nrrick Newbridge Bellmore Meadowbrook f Parkway Ave. Ibad v Sunrise g B1 B2 Y B3 B4 \\ B5 (not to scale) U mrrick Ibad Figure 3-3. Approach Roads to the Bellmore Reception Center Showing all Major Intersections Analyzed

1 four contiguous 3-hour-periods, computes demand and capacity for each such period,1then aggregates the results to obtain the sought values over 12 hours. This approach properly accounts for the peaking characteristics of traffic demand. This analysis is limited to the 7AM to 7PM time period.:The previous study, which considered three 12-hour time periods, identified that the 7AM to 7PM' time period contained the heaviest background traffic volumes, and therefore constitutes the worst case condition. In a congested _ environment, queues form which extend upstream from the bottleneck. Here, a bottleneck'is defined as any location where traffic demand exceeds' capacity, i.e. the demand for service exceeds the ability to provide service. The difference between arrival (demand) and service (capacity). rates along a path creates an inventory of vehicles in the form of a queue. These queued vehicles occupy space on the highways. The amount of space occupied depends on the number of vehicles queued and on the density of vehicles within the queue state. This density, in turn, depends on whether the queue is motionless, or is moving slowly. In general,.the maximum queue length will occur at the end of ^ the " arrival-period". The arrival period is defined as the elapsed time between the arrival of the first substantive number-of evacuating vehicles in the vicinity of the reception centers, and the arrival of the last evacuating vehicles in this vicinity. It is well known that traffic tends to disperso along a route; as a result, the arrival period will be somewhat longer than the time to evacuate the EPZ. The extent of traffic dispersion is a function of the distance travelled, the number of vehicles in the " platoon" of interest and the number of vehicles l outside the EpZ that are able to enter the controlled-access highways, used by the evacuating traffic travelling from the EPZ boundary to the reception centers. The maximum rate at which vehicles can enter a controlled-access highway via entry ramps depends on the density l of traffic already traversing the controlled-access highway. The greater this density on the " mainline", the smaller the gaps separating vehicles in the same lane, by definition, and the more l difficult the task for drivers on the entry ramp to insert i L themselves into these' gaps. l The HCM procedures (and software) express relationships between ramp volume entering the facility, the total volume on the mainline approaching the ramp and the volume of traffic in the mainline lane adjoining the ramp (" Lane 1"). Where other ramps are located nearby, additional factors must be considered. T 12

.The HCM software was applied to provide the relationship between ramp volume'at Level of Service E, which represents capacity conditions, and traffic volume on the mainline, over a range of mainline traffic volumes. These results are shown'in Figures-3-4 and 3-5. Figure 3-4 shows that ramp capacity, vr 0 LOS E, declines .with increasing mainline volume upstream of the ramp, vg, as was discussed above. This same analysis reveals that Lane.1 volume upstream of the ramp, V, increases with total mainline volume, i Vg, as should be expected, and that Iane 1 volume downstream of the ramp, V, decreases slightly as mainline volume increases. m The reason for this-decrease in V is that the increase in V m i_ with mainline volume is more than counterbalanced by the decrease in ramp volume, Vr* The heavy volume of evacuating traffic gain access to the major westbound access-controlled highways, at or near, their respective eastern termini. Vehicles attempting to enter these i, congested. highways will be serviced at low rates, as discussed above. Thus, while evacuating traffic is expected to encounter heavy congestion alona these highways, thereby slowing their movement, traffic attempting to enter these highways will also encounter heavy congestion on the entry ramps and on the street system upstream. As indicated on Figures 3-4 and 3-5, ramp capacity when the mainline is congested is a small fraction of mainline capacity,- i thus severely restricting the flow of vehicles on the ramps. Consequently, the impedance encountered on these ramps will form queues.which extend upstream through the arterial street system. It is reasonable, then, in light of a 5-hour evacuation time l within the EPZ, to assume that the arrival period will lie somewhere between 6 and 9 hours. Therefore, we will study both possibilities. It is advisable to estimate the number of queued vehicles. l that can be stored such that queues extending along.different paths, do not conflict with one-another. While interacting queues often occur in normal traffic during peak demand conditions, it is instructive to determine whether this condition can be avoided. These data are found by: Estimating the distance along each path from the reception e centers to the farthest point where the queue will not interfere with other evacuating travel streams. This was done by scaling distances off the Hagstrom map of Nassau County. Determining the number of lanes that would be occupied by l e l the queue over each section of this path. 13 i

T ~ i. j o i o N ~ 6 .c ' Q. _. o 'l o .o V o to - w N i in e4 oo e to ud ID C eo O4 o -m o cm b-l-T to = W W wa o3 00 ~ -r-1 w> oO 5 W De T C cc A ON En co c 3 c4 o 4 m o y ex N a. 3 M s um jw 9 m9 a r-e (O O P o e u> .o-e O. Y e4 N C., Ch E a; e K toE* o-W w m e .u oo .,4 (D N I I I f I I f I I I I I o o o o o o o o o o o o o-o o -o o o o o o o o o cu e o al cn 6 to in v tr> cu e w-w w ( A4 t oede3) 3 Sul 48 (4dA) amntoA dweg 14

i\\I'lil

]

~ 7 0 s 02 e 7 g e r g h e r p M e v M 0 s e 0 0 r r 4 0 o e 6 4 f t 2 e f s b a i e e e 0 m m m i u u 0 e u V V l l 6 r o o 5 d _~ V V ec 1 1 or e e n 0 P n n 0 a a 8 M L L 4 Ce s Hm = i u = = rl E y m I s oo V V a 0 L y fV = 0 l 0 n de o a 'n n 4 n ui ) = ~ A ol h Bn p s i v ( 0 y e ra s 0 m eM

• t e

u w 2 m i l of 3 u c o Lo* l a V oV p e e a n = n 0 i 0 i n C l 4 l n 2 n i i p M a a mM aR& e 0 06 1 5 3 e L 0 r 0 ~ u 8 g ir 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 6 4 2 0 8 6 4 2 1 1 1 1 w E",a 2E-O> e ,g -W I{l l l1lllll f1ilil!l 'Iil ll1 i l l l l

q a 1 .a--.s...- -.x. ..a - =, .-x. x. Applying an: average density of 150' vehicles per lane per e mile to convert lane-miles to queued vehicles. The results of this analysis are detailed'in Table 3-3. 4 3.1 -Cacacity Analysis Methodoloav The' data required for the capacity analysis includes: e Traffic volumes on all approaches e Approach geometry and. channelization e Traffic composition and turn movements 4 e Pedestrian intensity e Traffic signal phasing 1 As noted earlier,' traffic counts on all approaches were - acquired via automatic traffic recording (ATR) equipment. This data is provided over 15-minute intervals for a continuous 24-hour-i period, or more. Table 3-4 is an example of such a printout. Approach geometry and channelization treatments of all approaches were recorded from field surveys. Likewise, traffic i composition and turn movements were observed and recorded, along with pedestrian intensity. Traffic signal phasing was observed - and timed. Turn percentages were taken in the AM and PM periods. A request was made to the State to provide the signal-timing settings for all controllers at the selected intersections. This information was sought so that the minimum and maximum phase 1 durations for all actuated controllers could be used in the l analysis. This information was not provided until after the analysis documented in TR-201 was completed. Subsequent review of this data revealed that it does not cover all intersections analyzed. To the extent that the data.was' applicable, it-does not-appear that our analysis violates minimum phase constraints. Appendix A presents a representative set of outputs produced by the FoM software, for Intersection H6, and the time interval 7:00-10: G) AM. 3.2 Results for the case Study Information provided by LERO indicated that it is reasonable to expect that approximately 20% of all evacuees would travel to-reception centers. On this basis, we defined a case l . study which assumed that 30% of all evacuees would travel to the reception centers and that the background traffic would remain at normal levels. This posture was assumed because: L I i l [ I' 16 -. ---... - - ~

.f Table 3-3. Available Storage Which Will Avoid Interference of Queues with Other Evacuating Traffic Streams Facility: Bellmore Est. E sA., Path Roadway Section Miles Lanes Vehicles 2B Sunrise ~ Hwy. from Meadowbrook 1.58 2 474 Pkwy. to Newbridge Rd. 2B Meadowbrook Pkwy. from Southern 2.24 1 336 State Pkwy. to Sunrise Hwy. 2B Southern State Pkwy. from 3.26 1 489 Wantagh Pkwy. to Meadowbrook Pkwy. .2 2A Sunrise Hwy. from Wantagh Pkwy. 1.13 1 ~169 to Newbridge Rd. 2A Wantagh Pkwy. from Southern 1.91 1 287 State Pkwy. to Sunrise Hwy. 2A Southern State Pkwy. from Route 1.97 1 295 107 to Wantagh Pkwy. Facility: Roslyn 3A Long Island Expressway from 6.13 1 920 Route 107 to Willis Ave. 3B Northern State Pkwy. frcm 8.04 1 1207 Route 107 to Willis Ave. Facility: Hicksville 1C,E, Old Country Road from Route 107 .32 2 96 G to Park Ave. 1C,E Route 107 from Northern State 1.89 1 283 Pkwy. to Old Country Rd. 1G Route 107 from Southern State 4.88 1 732 Pkwy. to Old Country Rd. 1C,E Route 107 from LIE to Northern 0.45 1 67 State Pkwy. l 1A,B, Old Country Rd. from S. Oyster 0.32 2 96 D,F Bay Rd. to New South Rd. 17

-Table 3-3. Available Storage Which Will Avoid Interference of Queues with other Evacuating Traffic Streams (concluded) Est. Est. Path Roadway Section Miles Lanes Vehicles lA Old Country Rd. from Round Swamp 2.45 ~1 368 Rd. to NY 135. lA,B, Old Country Rd. from NY 135 to-1.11' 1 167 D,F South Oyster Bay Road. 1B LIE Service Road plus ramp . 0.25 2-75 NY135 from LIE to Old Country Rd. 2.00 1 300 1F ' NY135 from Southern State Pkwy. 5.31 1 796 to Old Country Rd. l l l l l I 18 c -.m .+ ,,__7.,,----y--..,e--m9- ---.g ,..,e-- --.99 97-,n,.. -_%g y.,, p99 y 7 .9.-.-,,yy-,- yr 9- --,,wwww,,y --9,--.-- -y

DEF.!CAN TEAFFIC IV 0F1Ai!GN 15 Ml WTE, 2 CHANhEL AILE C0uti FEFERENCE: 8707 ti C06EECTION FACTOR: 1.94 LOCAT!;N: HENSTEAD TFLE % HICESVILLE FD - WB FILENAME: 878919 WEATHER: TUESDM MARCH 18, 1987 0FEGIOR: HOUR 'THRU N0ft LEFT HOUR COM81NED EEGIN5 0 15 33 45 TOTAL B 15 38 45 TOTAL TOTAL AM 12 53 44 3e 34 167 6 2 3 0 11 178 27 27 19 13 86 8 1 1 1 3 89 2 13 8 12 14 47 0 3 2 2 7 54 3 24 17 25 77 1 3 1 I 5 82 4 16 19 12 22 69 1 2 0 1 4 73 5 28 36 62 82 288 1 I 2 1 4 212 6 92 125 217 247 681 1 7 8 1 9 698 7 211 285 278 312 1986 6 5 13 16 48 1126 8 383 349 375 271 1295 17 9 18 12 48 1343 9 229 236 236 235 936 15 11 7 11 44 986 la 216 239 224 238 989 6 14 11 4 35 944 11 227 237 221 259 -944 11 19 15 13 58 1962 PM 12 255 281 258 271 1857 12 3 15 22 52 !!I9 1 269 22I 276 272 1937 19 21 6 19 65 1102 2 228 257 247 244 976 18 2 23 9 44 1928 3 257 287 268 261 1973 6 8 12 16 42 1115 4 281 33B 309 362 1282 16 17 12 2 47 1329 5 331 337 348 346 1354 6 7 10 19 42 1396 6 294 256 234 218 998 12 5 5 14 36 1834 7 226 202 218 248 846 8 12 10 9 39 885 8 195 198 168 159 712 6 11 8 17 42 754 9 155 151 147 127 588 21 13 12 8 54 634 10 158 193 !!5 95 471 12 13 9 2 36 547 11 105 82 68 60 315 5 13 7 6 31 346 TOTALS 17206 798 18004 AM PEAK HOUR 15 7:45 TO 8:45 VOLUME THRU 1336 LEFT : 52 COMBINED: 1368 91RECil0NAL SPLIT 961 41 PEAW, HOUR FACTOR 3.89 8.76 8.98 FM FEAK HOUR IS 5:00 TO 6:09 VOLUME THEU : 1354 LEFT : 42 COMBINED: 1396 DIRECTIONAL s?Lli 971 31 PEAK HOUR FACTOR 9.98 9.55 8.96 Table 3-4. Sample Printout of Traffic Data 19 i

a. .~. .n n > ..s.. -.a a.-a n ,3--.. e' --The 30% postulate for evacuation traf fic, which ~ is 1 1/2 times the expected.20% demand, provides a. degree ofo reasonable conservatism to the analysis. In addition any imbalance of demand among the paths can be accounted for by inflating the total demand from 20 to 30%. The 100%-postulate for. background traffic volume is also e . conservative.. It is reasonable to expect that discretionary trip-making in the area would be curtailed if EBS messages requested the public to avoid the area. Nevertheless,~this study assumes no'such reduction in i background traffic volumes. We assume, at the outset, that the a'rrival period for evacuation traffic is 6 hours. Tables 3-5, 3-6 and 3-7 present the results of the capacity analysis. The table headings are explained below:- / Path: Path of travel for evacuees; see Table 2 Int.: Intersection identification; see Table 3-2 Time Inter.': Three-hour time intervals, 7:00-10:00, etc. 4

Background:

Mean background traffic volume over 3-hour interval Evac.: Projected evacuation traffic demand-Total: Total traffic demand, background plus evacuation. Evac. Capacity: Capacity available,for evacuation traffic; Total capacity minus background demand Monitor Rate: Rate at which vehicles can be serviced at the reception centers; See Table 3-1. i Evac. Flow: The actual evacuation service rate, which is the minimum of: Evacuation Demand Evacuation Capacity j Monitoring Rate Note that the arriving evacuation traffic demand extends over the first two time intervals which total 6 hours. of course, if L this demand cannot be serviced over this 6 hours, then some l portion of the evacuation traffic demand will remain to be serviced in the third (and, possibly, fourth) time interval. This subject is discussed below. l l l i. ( 20

l ! ~- Table 3-5. Results of Capacity Analysist Roslyn Reception Center Traffic Demand along Time the Fath (veh) Canacity (vnh1 Monitor Evac. M

IgL, h

Backaround h 19131 19181 h Rate (vnh1 Flow (vnh) 3a R1 7-10 182 379 $61 573 391 360 360 10-13 155 379 $34 761 606 360 360 13-16 237 0 237 825 $88 360 38 16-19 292 0 292 720 428 360 0 3A R2 7-10 271 379 650 771 500 360 360 10-13 246 379 625 948 702 360 360 13-16 282 0 282 802 $20 360 34 16-19 312 0 312 703 391 360 0 38 R3 7-10 76 226 302 551 47S 216 216 10-13 33 226 261 4 90 455 216 216 13-16 49 0 49 428 370 216 20 16-19 77 0 77 306 229 216 0 R4 7-10 117 576 .693 1304 1187 576 S76 10-13 161 576 737 2481 2320 576 576 13-16 307 58 365 2020 1713 576 58 16-19 Sol 0 501 1481 900 574 0 r, b 21

1e[ ,f Table 3-6.. Results of Cepecity Analysier Se11more Reception Center Traffic Demand along Time the F.t5 (vnh1 Caneetty (vnh1 Monitor Evoc. Z83h. - h h Backaround Ey.81. 19.Lil 121.tl h Rete (vph) Flow (vnhi 28 31 7-10 979 568 1547 2925 1946 360 360 10-13 970 568 1538 2707 _1737 360 360 13-16 1349 0 1349 28J8 1689 360 360 16-19 1863 0 1863 2838 975 360 56 28 82 7-10 1164 568 1732 2817 1653 360 360 10 1025 568 1593 3135 2110 360 360 13-16 1352 0 1352 3317 1965 360 360 16-19 1896 0 1896 3363 1467 360 56 2A B3 7-10 30 276 306 436 406 180 180 10-13 22 276 294 427 405 180 180 13 85 0 85 427 342 1 80 180 16-19 109 0 109 215 106

ter, 12 2A B4 7-10 1742 276 2018 2851 1109 180 180 10-13 876 276 1152 2718 1842 180 180 13-16 960 0

960 2624 1664 140 180 16-19 1245 0 1245 2539 1294 180 12 i-l- 22

Table 3-7. Results of Capacity Analysis: Micksv111e Reception Center Traffic Demand alon6 Mean Time the Fath (vnh) Caneetty (vnh) Monitor

• Evac.

IAlh lllb.

1DatL, Beckarovrid EggL. 1911k M.

h Rate (veh) Flow (veh) 1C, E H1 7-10 1512 339 1851 3172 1660 274 274 10-13 ~ 1785 339 2124 346' 1657 274 274 13-16 2021 0 2021 3442 1421 274 130 16-19 2085 0 2005 3375 1290 274 ~0 1C, E H2 7-10 666 339 1005 1544 876 274 274 10-13 826 339 1165 1742 916 274 274 .13-16 933 0 933 1742 809 274 130 16-19 1050 0 1050 1703 653 274 0 1C. E H3 7-10 682 339 1021 1118 435 274 274 10-13 865 339 1204 1315 -449 274 274 13-16 1020 0 1020 1447 427 274 130 (' 16-19 1081 0 1001 1546 465 274 0 1C, E H4 7-10 77 339-416 596 519 274 274 10-13 92 339 431 642 550 274 274 (58;Left) 13-16 123 0 123 604 481 274 130 16-19 161 0 -161 616 455 274 0 l I 1G H4 7-10 80 283 363 500 420 230-230 10-13 75 283 '358 512 437 230 230 (NB: r18ht) 13-16 93 0 93 524 431 230 106 16-19 93 0 93 547 454 230 0 The total monitoring rate of 504 vph is apportioned to the two enterins streams of l evacuating traffic 274 vph (1C, E) and 230 vph (1G). 23

x .-e-Table 3-7. Results of Capacity Analysis: Micksv111e Reception Center (con't) w Traffic Demand along Mean Time ~ the Fath (vehi CanecitY (VDh) Monitor

• Evac.

ZALh InL,. h Backaround. h 19181 '19181 h Rate (veh) Flow (vph) 1G HS 7-10 942 283 1225 1465 ' 523 230 230 10-13 659 283 942 1390 731 230' 230 13-16 584 0 586 1334 748 230 106 16-19 .515 0 515 1188 673 230 0 10 86 7-10 243 283 526 681 438. 230 230 10-13 219 283 502 700 481 230 230 13-16 274 0 274 823 549 230 .106 16-19 258 0 258 512 254 230 0 1A H7 7-10 597 313 010 1247 650 239 239 10-13 343 313 656-1426 1083 239 239 13-16 391 0 384 1247 856 239 148 16-19 678 0 665 1341 703 239' O 1A H6 7-10 531 313 844 1076 $45 239 239 10-13 436 313 749 1049 613 239 239 13-16 458 0 495 1136 678 239 -148 16-19 505 0 546 1088 583 239 0 1A 50 7-10 968 313 1281 1632 664 239 230' 10-13 960 313 1273 1795 835 239-239 (WB; thru ) 13-18 1166 0 1166 1754 588 239 148 ~ 16-19 1138 0 1138 1672 534 230 0 1F E9 7-10 334-245 579 693 359 187 187-10-13 201 245 446 594 393 187 187 (NB; left) 13-16 231 0 231 535 304 187 116 16-19 235 0 235 535 300 187 -0 1A. ' F B10 7-10 1068 558 1626 2170 1102 426 426 10-13 952 558 1510 2050 1098 426 426 (W5; thru) 13-16 1146 0 1146 2050 904 426 264. '16-19 1126 0 1126 2170 1044 426 0

18. D N10 7-10 155 291 357 456 301 222 222 10-13 197 291 399 502 305 222 222 (58; right) 13-16 193 0

193 502 309 222 138 16-19 226 0 226 456 230 222 0 .1A.B. H11 7-10 882 849 1731 1647 765 648 648 D.F 10-13 718 849 1567 1483 765 648 648 (W5; thru) 13-16 629 0 629 1431 801 648 402 16-19 667 0 667 1427 760 648 0 6 24

f. / *.. Table 3-7. Resulte of Capacity Analysier Hicksville Reception Center (cone.) s l Traffic Demand alons Hean Time the Pat.h (voh) Canacity (vohl Monitor *. Evac. -ZgM1-h h Bacharound h I2111 I2.t.al h Rate (vnh) Flow (vnh) 1A,8 H12 7-10 910 425 1335 2293 1383-324 324 - D.F 10-13 640 425 1065 2363 1723 324 324 (WB;thru) 13-16 708 0 ' 708 2310 1602 324

251, I

16-19 725 0 725 2340 1615 324 0 1A,8, H12 7-10 114 425 $39 547 433 324 324 D.F 10-13 80 425 SOS $39 459 324 324 (WB; left) 13-16 72 0 72 510 438 324 202 16-19 73 0 73 437 364 324 0

• The total monitoring rate of 648 vph to apportioned to the entering stream of evacuating traffic: 239 vph (1A); 222 vph (13. D); 167 vph (1F).

f e 'f 25 i

As is indicated in the Tables, the monitoring rates are the limiting factors for all paths to all reception centers. That is, in all cases, the monitoring rates are less than the evacuation traffic demands, which are less than the intersection capacities available for evacuation traffic. In general, there is a wide margin of excess available capacity at these intersections. In general, evacuation traffic demand exceeds these monitoring rates. Thus, queues will form at the entrances to the evacuation centers and extend upstream along the various approach paths. These queues will continue to grow over the arrival period of 6 hours, and then dissipate at the monitoring service rate. Thus, the evacuation service rate during the third (and, possibly, fourth) 3-hour time interval, will be equal to the e monitoring rate until all evacuation traffic is serviced. d For example, the evacuation demand at intersection R1, (Table 3-5), which is 379 vph, and is less that the available capacity of 391 vph, exceeds the monitoring service rate of 360 vph. Thus, over the first 6 hours a queue of 114 vehicles develops. This queue dissipates over (114/360)=0.32 hour or about 20 minutes later. (The Table indicates a mean Evacuation Flow of (114/3) 38 vph when averaged over the third 3-hour time interval).

3.2.1 Monitoring

Capacity The previous analysis considered the case of 30 percent of the total population within the SNPS EPZ travelling to the reception centers, with 100 percent background traffic.. It is now possible to estimate the actual number of evacuating vehicles which could be serviced with 100 percent background traffic. These estimates are obtained by simply assuming that all available monitoring capacity for evacuating vehicles is fully utilized. The percentage values are obtained by dividing the monitoring capacity for each center by the value of assigned traffic: 12,100 for Roslyn; 16,869 for Bellmore; 29,434 for Hicksville. The results are shown below: Monitoring Total Center Path CaDacity (veh) Percent Roslyn 3A 360 x 12 = 4320 3B 216 x 12 = 2592 6912 57 Bellmore 2A 180 x 12 = 2160 2B 360 x 12 = 4320 6480 38 Hicksville 1C,E,G 504 x 12 = 6048 1A,B,D,F 648 x 12 = 7776 13,824 47 26

A r overall, about 46.6 percent of evacuating vehicles could be lht serviced at the Primary Monitoring rates with 100 percent my background-traffic over a 12-hour period starting with the arrival of th's first evacuees at_the reception centers.-- n.' 3.3 Besults of Queue Analysis "hable 3-8 presents the results of the analysis to 4 " F,

] calculate the maximum queue lengths along each path.

As indicated there,ttthe available queue storage capacities are ' adequate' to-avoid any queue from one path intefering with evacuation flow traveling on another path. when the,of_these queues approach the available storage capacity Fouri L arrival period is 6 hours. Should-some of these queues exceed storage capacity due to fluctuations in demand rate relative to the monitoring rates at their respective reception centers, any re'sulting transient-interference with other evacuating-traffic streams will be short-lived and will not influence the evacuating traffic flow because: It will occur near the end of the 6-hour arrival period. e Following this period, all evacuating' traffic demand will fall to zero and the queues will begin to dissipate. o The excess queue length, if any, will occupy only one 4 lane; the remaining lanes on the LIE would be available to service other traffic. e The interference, if any, could only impede _the rate of' flow of those evacuating vehicles which'will arrive near the end of the arrival period and who will-eventually join the tails of their-respective queues. Any delays associated with this activity do~not influence the monitoring service rates at the heads of these queues. Based on these calculations and on the above considerations, there is ample room to store the queued vehicles awaiting service at the reception centers. Note that any extension of the arrival period beyond 6 hours alleviates the queueing problem: see ~ differences in queue lengths fer the 6 and 9 hour arrival periods .in Table 3-8. l 3.4 Service Time The time required to service evacuating vehicles at the reception centers, using the primary monitoring techniques, only, may now be calculated. We have been informed by LERO that the average time spent by a vehicle within a reception center is approximately 15 minutes. Thus, the total elapsed time to service demand is: 4-f 27

Table 3-8: Maximum Queue Lengths along each Path a) Six-Hour. Arrival Period Max. Queue Available Rate of Queue after six Storage (veh) Path Growth-(vehi Hours (veh) See Table 3-3 1A 74 444 471 1B,D 69 414 442 1C,E 65 390 402 1F 58 348 .878 1G 53 318 776 2A 96 576 751 2B 208 1248 1299' 3A 19 114 920 3B 10 60 1207 b) -Nine-Hour Arrival Period-Max. Queue Available Rate of Queue after nine Storage (veh) Path Growth (voh) Hours (veh) See Table 3-3 1A 0 0 471 1B,D 0 0 442 1F 0 0 402' 1C,E O 0 878 1G 0 0 776-2A 4 36 751 2B 19 171 1299 3A 0 0 920 3B 0 0 1207-Notes: Rate of Queue Growth applies only over the first 6 hours (i.e. during arrival period). This value is l-obtained by subtracting the " Evac Flow" from " Evac. Demand" in the appropriate Table 3-5, 3-6, or 3-7. J In calculating available storage, allowance must be made for the fact that queues on some paths share the same physical roadway. For example, paths lA,B,D,F share Old Country Road from S. Oyster Bay Road to the Hicksville facility. We therefore have to apportion the storage on this section of roadway to the vehicles on these paths, in accord with their respective evacuation demands. For example, the storage allocated to the queue from path 1F on this roadway is 4906/(4906 + 1789 + 4040 + 6262) = 0.29 of 96 = 28 vehicles. (See Tables 2-1 and 3-3 for figures). 28 .. - ~.

e Arrival period plus ,e-Dwell. time within reception centers plus e Time to service queues which form at the end of the arrival period That is, ST = 6.0 + 0.25 + Q/M Where ST = Total Service Time, hours Q = Queue length at 6 hours, veh M = Monitoring rate, vph Table 3-9 presents these results. 3.5 Case Study of 20% Evacuation Demand As noted earlier, the anticipated number of evacuees-seeking service at.the reception centers is approximately 20% of the SNPS EPZ population. By examining Tables 3-5, 3-6 and 3-7, and multiplying the Evacuation Demand volumes by 2/3 (i.e 20%/30%), it is seen that the resulting evacuation traffic demands can all be serviced, with no queue formation, at the Hicksville and Roslyn reception centers. At Bellmore, a maximum queue of-((2/3) (568) - 360) 6 = 114 vehicles will' form. The total service timo at Hicksville and"Roslyn will therefore be'6:15, while that at Bellmore will'be 6:34. Thus, it is seen that the three reception centers are designed to process the' anticipated traffic demand with little, if any, delay. 3.6 Case Study of Nine-Hour Arrival Period-If evacuating traffic arrives in the vicinity of the reception centers over 9 hours rather than'6 hours, then this traffic demand can be serviced at the reception centers with virtually no delay, except at Bellmore (see Table 3-8b). For example, referring to Table 3-5, Path 3A would have an evacuation demand of (2/3 379) 253 vph over 3 time intervals. This demand is less than the monitoring rate of 360 vph, thus ensuring no queue formation of any consequence and no resulting delays to evacuees. For the Hicksville and Roslyn reception centers, the service l time would be 9:15; at the Bellmore center it would remain 9:43. Note that these figures apply to the 30%/100% case study. 29 L

.. e Table 3-9: Total Service Times Queue'at Monitoring Total Service Path Six Hours (vehl Rate (veh) Time (hrs) 1A,B,D,F 1206 648 8:07 1C,E,G 708 504 7:39 2A 576 180 9:27 2B 1248 360 9:43 3A 114 360 6:34 3B 60 216 6:32 Reception Center Service Time Hicksville 8:07 Bellmore 9:43 Roslyn 6.:34,.. l l l-30

.~ 1 .3.7' Inclement-Weather. The, major effects of inclement weather are: e Extends the evacuation travel time within the EPZ, due to decreased capacity. Extends, somewhat, the travel time from the EPZ boundary e oto the vicinity of the reception center and, possibly, increases the dispersion of traffic, Reduces the capacities of the approach roads extending ~ e- -from the east-west highways to the reception centers. The first of these effects is documented in Appendix A, the Evacuation Plan for SNPS. The second effect, is probably i. ~ limited, since the effect of reduced capacity has already taken the form of longer evacuation time. This longer evacuation time-is " preserved" and exacerbated somewhat during the travel to the reception center. That is, the delay associated with reduced capacity.within the EPZ, lowers the evacuation flow rate,. commensurate with the decline in highway capacity.- f The net result of the first two effects'is that the arrival period under inclement weather conditions will be somewhat longer than that during clear weather. We wil1 assume a 9-hour arrival ~ period as a reasonable expectation. The third effect would influence the rate of evacuation flow only if capacity is reduced below this lowered evacuation flow rate and below the monitoring service rate. For example, consider Path 3A, Table 3-5. For an arrival period of 9 hours, rather than 6 hours, the mean evacuation demand is (2/3 379) 253 vph, over three time intervals, rather l than 379 vph over two time intervals. Assuming that inclement weather reduces capacity 20%,'then the capacity available'for evacuation traffic during the first time interval is: f. 0.8 (573) - 182 = 276 vph. f It is seen that in this case, the evacuation demand is less than'available capacity and is also less than the available monitoring rate of 360 vph. Thus, the decrease in available capacity from 391 to 276 is academic. Note that the evacuation flow at the reception center is now 253 vph which is below the monitoring rate. This analysis was conducted at all intersections listed in ]- l 3-6 and 3-7. With two exceptions, none of the Table 3-5, The evacuation flow rates was limited by intersection capacity. From Table 3-7, the two exceptions are intersections H3 and Hil. following data describes the condition there during inclement l weather at these intersections: i 31

Y 1 2 Intersection H3: ~ Cacacity Monitor Evac. Time Int. Evac. Dem. Total Evac. Rate Flow 7-10 226 1088 212 274 .212 10-13 226 1139 187 274 187 13-16 226 1113 138 274 138 16-19 0 1190 156 274 141 Intersection Hil: Canacity Monitor Evac. Time Int. Evac. Dem. Total Evac. Eate Flow 7-10 566 1318 436 648 436 10-13 566 1186 468 648 468 13-16 566 1145 516 648 516 16-19 0 1142 475 648 278 .t is seen that evacuation traffic flow through these I intersections are affected by inclement weather conditions during the first three time intervals. The Service Time at the Hicksville reception. center is therefore extended from 9:15 to 11:57 due to inclement weather. Snow would reduce capacity by another 5 percent. However, it 3 is reasonable to expect background traffic to decline by a much larger percentage, as compared with rain conditions, since discretionary trip-making would be-largely deferred or cancelled. i Thus, the analysis shown above for rain is the more restrictive case. 3.8 Traffic Control Throughout this analysis it was assumed that normal background traffic would be seeking service at the same time as evacuating traffic. As a practical matter, however, it is reasonable to expect that the combination of EBS messages requesting the public to avoid travel to the areas around the i-reception centers, together with traffic control measures L favoring evacuation flow movements and discouraging other traffic l demand, would lower background traffic volumes. The lower background demand coupled with control designed to expedite evacuation flow, should provide assurance that capacity F constraints will not reduce demand for service at the reception l centers, below the monitoring rates. This demand should prevail l. until all evacuating vehicles are serviced, given clear weather conditions. L Note that, in the interest of maintaining a conservative posture, the above analysis does not armume an expectation of t l 32

lower background ' traffic volume. Nor does it include consideration of active traffic control-beyond the installed ' traffic signal control. Both factors, acting in concert, would serve to expedite evacuation traffic movement beyond the levels computed in this-analysis. Since the calculations have shown that intersection capacity is.not a limiting constraint on evacuating traffic movement, no-special controls were considered in this analysis.

However, those controls specified in Appendix C of TR-192 are recommended e

and further controls are recommended at all signalized intersections along the access routes. Table 3-10 is a list of all controlled intersections where police personnel would be helpful in expediting the flow of evacuating traffic. 3.9 Evacuatina Buses Buses servicing the transit-dependent general public within the EPZ travel along the LIE, then south onto South Oyster Bay Road. At Woodbury Road, buses turn west onto Woodbury and travel to Park Avenue, then south to the Hicksville reception center. Since this path is reserved for bus traffic, there will be no interference between buses and other evacuating vehicles on this approach-to the reception center. Analysis of the intersections at South Oyster Bay Road and Woodbury Road (H14) and at Park Avenue and Old Country Road, indicate that capacity is not approached by the average bus volume of some 55 per. hour. 4.

SUMMARY

This report described an analysis of evacuation flow along the access routes from the major east-west highways, to the three LILCO reception centers. This analysis indicates that the elapsed time needed to service 30% of the EPZ population is well within 12 hours, relative to the time of first arrivals at the reception centers. In fact, up to 46 percent of the population within the.EPZ can be monitored in clear weather, in 12 hours, even in the absence of active police control at signaliged intersections along the access routes. Any queues tha' form can be stored on the approach highways without interfering with one-another. It is recommended that, since the monitoring rates control the rate at which evacuees can be serviced, consideration should be given to provide additional personnel at the reception centers for monitoring purposes, as an additional safety factor.

Also, additional attention will be given to designing control tactics, beyond those documented in TR-192, as appropriate.

We recommend that implementation procedures include the participation of Nassau County Police to provide active control of traffic along the access routes. 33 4

Table 3-10. ' Signalized Intersections on Evacuation Paths to'the LILCO Reception Centers - Path 1A --LIE 9 exit 48 onto westbound Old Country Rd. via Round' Swamp Rd..to the Hicksville Reception Center. Path 1B - LIE 9 exit 44 onto southbound Seaford-Oyster Bay Expressway, then onto westbound Old Country Rd. Path 1D - Northern State Parkway onto LIE at exit 37A and 9 exit 44 onto southbound Seaford-Oyster Bay Expressway, then onto westbound Old Country Rd. Path 1F - Southern State Parkway 9 northbound Seaford-Oyster Bay Expressway, then onto westbound Old Country Rd. PATHS SIGNAL LOCATIONS 1A LIE westbound exit & Old Country Rd.'/ Round Swamp Rd., lA LIE eastbound exit & Old Country Rd. / Round Swamp Rd., L 1A Round Swamp Rd. & Old Country Rd. lA Entrance to the Nassau County Medical Center & Old Country Rd., lA Ramsey Rd. & Old Country Rd., lA Plainview Rd. / Manetto Hill Rd. & Old Country Rd., lA Lester Pl. & Old Country Rd., lA Margaret Dr. / Central Park Rd. & Old Country Rd., lA, 1F Northbound Seaford-Oyster Bay Expressway & Old Country Rd., lA, 1F, 1B, ID Southbound Seaford-Oyster Bay Expressway & Old Country Rd., lA, 1F, 1B, ID Grohmans La. & Old Country Rd., lA, 1F, 1B, ID Stauber Dr. & Old Country Rd., lA, 1F, 1B, ID Maple Ct. & Old Country Rd., 34

1. 'I Table 3-10. . Signalized Intersections _on Evacuation Paths to the LILCO Reception Centers (cont.) PATHS SIGNAL LOCATIONS IlA, 1F, 1B, 1D Panadena Dr. & Old Country Rd., lA, 1F, 1B, 1D. .Patton Ave. & Old Country Rd., lA, 1F, 1B, 1D Orchard St. & Old Country Rd., lA, 1F, 1B, 1D Floral Ave. & Old Country Rd., 1-1 1A, 1F, 1B, 1D Universal Blvd. & Old Country Rd., lA, 1F, 1B, 1D Garden St. & Old Country Rd., lA, 1F, 1B, ID South Oyster Bay Rd. & Old Country Rd., lA, 1F, 1B, ID New South Rd. & Ol>l Country Rd., 1A, 1F, 1B, 1D Entrance to LILCO &_Old Country Rd., - 1A, 1F, 1B, ID Entrance to LILCO / Park Ave. & Old Country Rd. Path 1C - LIE 9 exit 41s onto southbound Broadway (Rte. 107), then onto eastbound Old Country Rd. Path 1E - Northern State Parkway 0 exit 35 onto southbound Broadway (Rte. 107), then onto eastbound Old Country Rd. PATH SIGNAL LOCATIONS 1C South Marginal /Birchwood St. (LIE 4 eastbound) & Broadway, 1C, 1E Scott Ave. & Broadway, i - IC, lE 17th St. / Burke Ave. & Broadway, 1C, 1E Bethpage Rd. & Broadway, 1C, lE Nevada St. & Broadway, 1C, lE Exit of Mid Island shopping center / Entrance or exit of " Sears" & Broadway, Entrance of Mid Island shopping center / 1C, lE exit of " Sears" & Broadway, 35

Table 3-10. Signalized. Intersections on Evacuation Paths to the LILCO Reception Centers (cont.) EATH SIGNAL LOCATIONS 1C, 1E Newbridge Rd. & Broadway, 1C, 1E John St. & Broadway, 1C, lE Barclay St. & Broadway, 1C,.1E Marie St. & Broadway, IC, lE Nicholai St. & Broadway, ic, 1E Old Country Rd. & Broadway, 1C, IE Raymond St. & Old Country Rd. IC, 1E Nicholai St. & Broadway, 1C, IE Old Country Rd. & Broadway, 1C, 1E Old Country Rd. & Raymond St. 1C, lE Old Country Rd. & Park Ave. Path 1G - Southern State parkway @ northbound Broadway / Hicksville Rd., then onto eastbound Old Country Rd. PATH SIGNAL LOCATIONS Westbound Southern State Parkway & 1G Hicksville Rd. William Rd. & Hicksville Rd., 1G 1G Duff Pl. & Hicksville Rd., IG Horne Ave. & Hicksville Rd., 135 northbound exit / Brewster Gate & 1G Hicksville Rd., 1G Old Post Rd. & Hicksville Rd., 1G Boundary Rd. & Hicksville Rd., 1G Union Ave. & Hicksville Rd., 36

. ~. r. Table 3-10. Signalized Intersections on Evacuation-Paths to the LILCO Reception Centers (cont.) PATH SIGNAL LOCATIONS 1G~ Hampstead Tpke.-& hicksville Rd., 1G Wantagh Ave. & Hicksville Rd., 1G Central Ave. & Hicksville Rd., 1G Courtney La. & Hicksville Rd., 1G " Bon Ton slipcovers" shopping center & Hicksville Rd., 1G Old Farmers Market & Hicksville Rd., 1G Southbound South Oyster Bay Rd. & Hicksville Rd., 1G Bloomingdale Rd. / New South Rd. & Hicksville Rd. / Broadway, 1G Lewis St. / Marvin St. & Broadway, i-1G Fourth St. &' Broadway, 1G Old Country Rd. & Broadray, 1 7-1G Raymond St.' & Old Country Rd. 1G Park Ave. & Old Country Rd. Path 2A - Southern State Parkway 9 exit 27 onto southbound l Wantagh State Parkway to exit M8, then onto eastbound Sunrise Highway to the Bellmore reception center. l. PATH SIGNAL LOCATIONS 2A Old Mill Rd. & Sunrise Hwy., L 2A Bellmore Ave. & Sunrise Hwy., 2A Bedford Ave. & Sunrise Hwy., 2A Centre Ave. & Sunrise Hwy., l 2A Newbridge Rd. & Sunrise Hwy., 1 37

!~

Table 3-10. Signalized Intersections on Evacuation Paths to the LILCO Reception Centers _(conc.) Path 2B - Southern State Parkway 9 exit'22 onto southbound Meadowbrook State Parkway to exit M8, then onto eastbound Sunrise Hwy. PATH SIGNAL LOCATIONS J 2B Babylon Tpke. & Sunrise Hwy., 2B Merrick Ave. & Sunrise Hwy., 2B Hewlett Ave. & Sunrise Hwy., 2B Henry St. & Sunrise Hwy., 2B Newbridge Rd. & Sunrise' Hwy. Path 3A - LIE 9 exit 37 onto southbound.Willis Ave. into Roslyn reception center. PATH SIGNAL LOCATIONS 3A Powerhouse Rd. (LIE westbound service road) & Willis Ave., i 3A Parkside Dr. (LIE eastbound service road) & Willis Ave., Path 3B - Southern State Parkway 9 exit 28 onto northbound Willis Ave. i l PATH SIGNAL LOCATIONS 3B Westbound Northern State Parkway & Willis i l Ave. 3B Gateway & Willis Ave. t l l r 6 38 l.t

P. 4 e-4 4 APPENDIX A Representative Output from the HCM Software 1, / a 9 4 s i 1 l 39

+ e 3 5 ' '^3 '8C M ; OIGN ALIZ' D IN 1 CCELC TIOfi',a Pagel

t * * *

• k t * * * *
• t i t * *
• 4 ? t t k t t t i f 5 J if * * * * *
• t t * * * * *
• 4 * *
• k * * * * * * * * * *
• A 41 k * * *

.~..D :NTI""7ING IrlFORMATIrd

=====---:::=,_====..~_.,---..:=;- -:=-.2=:.=.:_===================- .=:====

'!E E AG T /ijE.GT STG!TT......... Hen p u teod Tu rnpik e

' ~ ' ~ flM :' T T:tC NOT;TM/ SOUTH STiiELT....... Hick sville Rd. (Route 107) orEA l'E............................OTilER T"DESinIAN WALMING SPEED............. 4 (feet /sec) NAME OF THE ANALY5T..................A. Ro th i l' ATE Di THE ANALYSIC...... ......... 4/7/07 TIME TERIOD ANALYZED................. 0700-1000 OTHER INFCOMATICH: 30 percent evacuation; 100 perc.=n t bockg round TRAFFIC VOLUriES

====================-:=====================================

EB UD ND SD LEFT 45 69 222 101 THRU 662 1012 326 622 RIGHT 200 69 208 4 RTOR 65 9 63 0 (nTCR volume neust be less than or equal to RIGHT turn volumes.) 40 o

t INTER: EC TION CE0iiE~IRY Poge.2 uu:======a========.:===2:===-.=================x.au===========u2.====_== JUriBrn OF" LANES PER DIRECTION INCLUDIflG TURN DAYO; E/.;TDOUND = 5 WESTD0UND = 4 N0nTHDOUND = 3 SOUTilDOUt'D =3 ED WP ND SD .A, TYPE WIDTil TYPE WIDTH TYPE WIDTH TYPE WILTH L 12.0 L 12.0 L 10.0 L 10.0 2 T 12.0 T 12.0 LT 11.0 LT 12.0 T 11.0 T 12.0 TR 12.0 TR 12.0 4 T 12.0 TR 12.0 12.0 12.0 5 R 12.0 12.0 12.0 12 0 6 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 L - EXCLUSIVE LEFT LANE T - EXCLUSIVE THROUGH LANE LT - LEFT/THROUGH LANE TR - THRCUGH/RIGHT LANE LR - LEFT/ RIG!!T ONLY LANE R - EXCL'JOIVE RIUllT LANE LT. - LEFT/T!!RD'JGH/RIGlii LANE ADJUSTf'ENT FACTORS

,.=========.i:==============-:========================================

CRADE HEAVY VEH. ADJACENT PKG BUSES (%) (%) Y/N (Nrn) (Nb) PHF EWTDOUND 0.00 2.00 N O O 0.00 yrOTDOUND 0.00 2.00 N O O O.75 NOr>THDCUtlD 0.00 2.00 N O O 0.97 SOUT!!DOLitlD 0.00 2.00 N O O 0.99 number of buses stopping /hr t. = naaieer of porhing trioneuvers/h ; Nb = CONFLICTING PEDS PEDESTRIAtl BUTTON (peds / hour) (Y/N) (min T) AnP.IVAL TYPE IACTBOUND 50 il 17.3 3 /ESTDOUND 50 N 17.3 3

10RTHDDUND 50 ft 27.3 3

30UTilDOUND 50 N '27.3 3 ain T = tr,in i ri u rn g reen t i me for pedoitrions 41

E IGi' AL ".CTT I;iG'd - D Z5 I2;-) ANtiYOI's Pege-3 a

==-:===-.z.=========.===========x.u =.=======r====-..:==-=.==:.~ AC'TUi :L D LOST TIllt,'C'.".! E e 12:.0 CYCLE LE?!GT;l -: 110,0 f

? ;T,"cEST rI!f",3 G l

PHACE.1 ~" ! A C E-2 PHASE-3 PH AS E--4 1:AC,~i 0LfC _ EFT X X T!!nu X .e,,,u v.n s PEDE X 'JC5T DOUND LEFT X X 't TlIflu RICHT /s PED 3 X NORTHf4GUND RT SOUTH 3OUND RT NORTil/SCUTil PHASING FH ASE-- 1 PHSSE-2 PH ASE-3 PHASE-4 NORTHPCUND X LEFT X THRU X RIGHT X PEDS SOUTHDOUND X LEFT X THRU X RIGitT X PEDS EAGTDOUNU RT WESTDOUND RT / 42

l _ o O E,"EC lI'/L GT:EEN3 - DESIGN ANALY3:5 Page-4

=====.========_.==============.===:.u

===au

=============r.=======:

= CFFCC T I'JE G'iCEN, g r ^.t, ; D',U te LEFT Permitted 36.00 oratected 7.00 T ; 1U 36.00 i,IGitT Pe r.iii t ted 36.00 ( Protected 0.00 WESTBOUND LEFT Permitted 36.>0 Protected 7.00 THRU 36.00 RIGHT Permitted 36.00 Protected 0.00 NORTilDCUND LEFT Permitted O.00 Protected ,31.00 THRU 31.00 RIGHT Pe rrii t Led 31.00 Protected 0.00 GOUTilDOUND LEFT Permitted 0,00 Protected 24.00 T!!RU 24.00 RIGHT Permitted 24.00 Protected 0.00 43

a 4 I t '!N U;fE

JL'S T SEil! ;4G;~KL: E !

Po y e--S =s ..:.:. r: = = = u : a - =.= : = u. :: = = :. u = = = = : - e .. ::< 2 : : = =.c a : = = - = =. =., -: - m :.n = = = = -- m =. ::. L f..lE LME M:J. l l',V T. e' I; J. Ln;;i' GCP. NO. UTIL. GROWTH GRP. PROP PROP '? L. N ;' ')C L. Gn. V0'. Lt1 FACT. FACT. VOL. LT RT ~ 4-0.00 56 L 56 1 1.000 1.000 56 1.00 0.00 T.- 642 0.00 020 T C20 3 1.100 1.000 710 0.00 0.00 . ';~ T0^ 0.00 16? n 167 1 1.000 1.000 167 0.00 1.00 L;. Y 0.75 92 L ?2 1 1.000 1.000 92 1.00 0.00 TH 1012 0.75 1349 TR 1429 3 1.100 1.000 1572 0.00 0.06 RT 67 0.75 1.000 1:2 .T 222 0.?? 2 7.. L 65 1 1.000 1.000 65 1.00 0.00 TH 526 0.?? 531 LTR 036 2 1.050 1.000 078 0.19 0.17 RT 200 0.97 1.000 CD LT 101 0.7? 102 L 65 1.000 1.000 65 1.00 0.00 T'l 622 0.77 620 LTR 669 2 1.050 1.000 702 0.05 0.01 RT 4 0.?? 1.000

• Donotes a Defecto Left Turn Lone Group

+ 44 i +1 1

7;_ m -. f4 i e -; - +

,; ^

77 - a, r SATURATION' FLOW ADJUGTMENT:WORKUHEET Pagc.-a x===========p========================m================2u=============ua ADJ. TIDEAL -GAT. NO. r F .f: .f nf ' f 't .. r -. CAT. ~ FLOW: LNS-W HV O .- p

DD A

RT LT ~ FLOW. 'ED' ~ 'L. 1000 '1 : '1.000 0 990 1 000 1.000:15000 1.000 1.000-0 950-1693 T '1000-3 0.990'O.990'1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 5293: R' 1000 '1 1.000 0.990 1 000 1 000 1.000.1.000-0.026 1.000 1472: WD' L 1800 1 1.000 0.990'1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000.1.000 0.950 1693 TR 1800 3 .1'.000 0 990 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 0.990.1'.000 5294 - ND 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 0.750'1574.. L-1800- .1-0.93010.990~1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 0.970 0.991 3372 ! LTR ~1000 2 0.985 0.990 V SD L' L1000 '1 'O.930 0.990 1.000 1.000'1.000 1.000 1.000.0.950 1574 LTR 1000 2 1.000.0.790 1.000 1.000 1 000~1.000 0.999.0.997 3551 r r 45 -i w

a. s,. 2c? ..._y c + CAPAC!TY AtlALY:,13 WCRi:'. ;IECT Pige-7 e _ a = u = a :: = = = = = u u m m.., a = = = = a.c..n = e =.u = =. = : : :. = :.= =.:.n = =: = = = = = =.= = = = = = = = = = = = = = =. ~ ADJ.- A D,J. GA :.- s o'! LANE GROUP FLOW f: ATETLOW RATE DATIO GRCCN RATIO.CAPACITYL Lv/c, -(v)! (s) '(v/s). (g/C) -(c). RATIO L p s. r u.. - 2 '1 0.021 0.064 .100' .0.325

• l

p 7 : t,.

35 1673 T 910-5273 0.172 ~0.327. 1732 'O.526 R-ic91 1472 0.115 ').327. 482 0.351 a;B '

Lperm.

50 Lprot.

34 '1693 0.000 0.064 108 0.312 TR 1572-5274 0.277 0.327 1733 0.907-* NB: L 65 1574 0.042 0.282 444 0.148 LTR 070 3372 0.260-0.202 950 0.924 -03 L 65 1574 0 042 0.213 344 -0.191: 1 LTR 702' 3551 0.190 0.210 775 0.907-* ); Cycle Length, C = 110.0 sec. Gum (v/s) c ritical = 0.781 8ost Time Per Cycle, L = 12.0 sec. X critical = 0.077 b 4 l l 5 ? 46 l a .. -.. ~. - -

- eO .A ^ ge c . T/ C L - C. 7 Cre/ ICE' WOR'3DECT .i =. m .r:, _.= =. = : : =. = =- = c.

e = = = = e_.= = = a = u u =.= = = u = = = = c_

_ m.a. e DELAY t t.t!.- DELAY LANE L/tlE DLLA'( LOG v.'c gC C '/ ;tE d GROUP c' PROG. GRP. GhF. DY DY U '.10 n/, T ~ D LCil, i CAP. 2 FACT. DELAY LOG APP. APP. 0,225 0.371 110.0 17.0 100 0.6 1.00 10.4 C 17.4 C T 0.526 0.327 110.C 22.9 1732 0.2 0.05 17.6 C T; 0.3G1 0 327 110.0 21.4 402 0.2 0.05 10.3 C UD L 0.312 0.'391 110.0 17.7 103 0.6 1.00 18.2 C 26.? D TR 0.707 0.327 110.0 26.? 1733 5.4 0.05 27.4 D ND L 0.140 0.232 110.0 22,5 444 0.0 1.00 22.5 C 32.0 D LTR 0.724 0.202 110.0 29.2 950 10.3 0.35 33.6 D CD L O.191 0.210 110.0 26.7 344 0.0 1.00 26.7 D 35.0 D LTR 0.707 0.21C 110.0 31.9 775 10.3 0.G5 35.3 D 27.6 (sec/veh) Intersection LO3 = D Intersect,1cn Deloy = p wg 'N e 47 r

O _ LILCO, M:y 16,1987 00f.EE TEf' USNPC '87 11AY i9 N1:51 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE [0Chib3MbivlN BRANCH In the Matter of LONG ISLAND LIGHTING COMPANY (Shoreham Nuclear Power Station, Unit 1) Docket No. 50-322-OL-3 I hereby certify that copies of MOTION FOR LEAVE TO SUBSTITUTE KLD TR-201A FOR KLD TR-201 AS ATTACHMENT S TO LILCO'S WRITTEN TESTIMONY OF MARCH 30,1987 were served this date upon the following by telecopier as indicated by one asterisk, by Federal Express as indicated by two asterisks, or by first-class mail, postage prepaid. Morton B. Margulies, Chairman ** Atomic Safety and Licensing Atomic Safety and Licensing Appeal Board Panel Board U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C. 20555 East-West Towers, Rm. 407 4350 East-West Hwy. Atomic Safety and Licensing Bethesda, MD 20814 Board Panel U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Dr. Jerry R. Kline ** Washington, D.C. 20555 Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Richard G. Bachmann, Esq. ** U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission George E. Johnson, Esq. East-West Towers, Rm. 427 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 4350 East-West Hwy. 7735 Old Georgetown Road Bethesda, MD 20814 (to mailroom) Bethesda, MD 20814 Mr. Frederick J. Shon ** Atomic Safety and Licensing Herbert H. Brown, Esq. ** Board Lawrence Coe Lanpher, Esq. U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Karla J. Letsche, Esq. East-West Towers, Rm. 430 Kirkpatrick & Lockhart 4350 East-West Hwy. South Lobby - 9th Floor Bethesda, MD 20814 1800 M Street, N.W. Washington, D.C. 20036-5891 Secretary of the Commission Attention Docketing and Service Fabian G. Palomino, Esq. ** Section Richard J. Zahnleuter, Esq. U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Special Counsel to the Governor 1717 H Street, N.W. Executive Chamber Washington, D.C. 20555 Room 229 State Capitol Albany, New York 12224

Mary Gundrum, Esq. Jonathan D. Feinberg, Esq. Assistant Attorney General New York State Department of 120 Broadway Public Service, Staff Counsel Third Floor, Room 3-116 Three Rockefeller Plaza New York, New York 10271 Albany, New York 12223 Spence W. Perry, Esq. ** Ms. Nora Bredes William R. Cumming, Esq. Executive Coordinator Federal Emergency Manafrement Shoreham Opponents' Coalition Agency 195 East Main Street 500 C Street, S.W., Room 840 Smithtown, New York 11787 Washington, D.C. 20472 Gerald C. Crotty, Esq. Mr. Jay Dunkleberger Counsel to the Governor New York State Energy Office Executive Chamber Agency Building 2 State Capitol Empire State Plaza Albany, New York 12224 Albany, New York 12223 Martin Bradley Ashare, Esq. ** Stephen B. Latham, Esq. ** Eugene R. Kelly, Esq. T Twomey, Latham & Shea Suffolk County Attorney 33 West Second Street H. Lee Dennison Building P.O. Box 298 Veterans Memorial Highway Riverhead, New York 11901 Hauppauge, New York 11787 Mr. Philip McIntire Dr. Monroe Schneider Federal Emergency Management North Shore Committee Agency P.O. Box 231 26 Federal Plaza Wading River, NY 11792 New York, New York 10278 kz/M b James N. Christman Stephen W. Miller flunton & Williams 707 East Main Street P.O. Box 1535 l Richmond, Virginia 23212 DATED: May 16,1987 ______}}