ML20245A935
| ML20245A935 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Shoreham File:Long Island Lighting Company icon.png |
| Issue date: | 04/10/1989 |
| From: | Leonard J LONG ISLAND LIGHTING CO. |
| To: | NRC OFFICE OF INFORMATION RESOURCES MANAGEMENT (IRM) |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20245A938 | List:
|
| References | |
| CON-#289-8518 OL-3, SNRC-1572, NUDOCS 8904250452 | |
| Download: ML20245A935 (2) | |
Text
..
~.
.g/[
arATED CORREsf03DR5it
.sw p g.M LONG ESLAND LIGHTING COMPANY SHOREHAM NUCLEAR POWER STATION !
.. x.s., =.nyn .uarny no . . w neven. a 4 25 - PS :5L .
9
- a = .. ==o.= u om n.=e n..m..
Mi.6 ;$ !sk eanui
. SNRC-1572 APR 10 B89 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Conaission ATTN: Document Control De.sk
. Washington, DC 20555 LILCO's Submission to NRC Staff on Reception Centers Shoreham Nuclear Power Station - Unit 1 Docket No. 50-322 - Cl ' 3
. l Gentlemen:
.LILCO submits, with this letter, both a description of its plan
'to provide radiological monitoring for evacuees of an emergency ,
at its Shoreham Nuclear Power Station and an. analysis of the appropriate planning basis for reception centers. ' The encloised analysis is entitled "LILCO's Submission to.NRC Staff on Reception Centers" aind 'is dated March 24, 1989. Thirteen attachments are included to support the analysis.
If you have any questions about this submission,-please call Mr. -
g Douglas M. Crocker, Manager of Nuclear Emergency Preparedness, at (516) 436-4238. ~
1 Very truly yours, v 4 5)
John.D.~ Leo f
d, Jr.
Vice President - Nuclear Operations .
DMC ck
- Attachments cca S. Brown *
- w. T. Russell F. Crescenzo R. Hogan
[ y. .. .
~N (0 '
~~,,,,...{
~~
g ffGf ,
b . - - -- **~~
x _ e. _ . .
3-
r y .;p I -
Huwrow 8e WILLIAxs 707 East Wew Stoccv. P.o.Som6535 l .t' l a no .c....w.. .vsava m. w. Rrcauown. Vrmorwr A aosts ioo . .venys I e.o.som.eaac atw *oma, htw vena ecost waemewovem. o. c ecomo echtmaons ais. sos.,oco l
f <
5ttammo=r sea ses.iece Tgggpwoug 3o4 788-8200' 't'E " *a.sw .v=, w -
ans, v.ee na san. vowsm TEL.cx 6 8442 54 cat =*=* oven sowams e o. ses asse e o. soa noe ton,o6n.vene . assa. **Lessa. menta camou=a avoca -
er6 pmous e.o.eos.scoo Trup=ent
,assao,o.. ors.sto' esese - - - - -
r..., ,c.. u u .. . e..Lo. .
. aoso cm... ...oes acao e o som s,s,
. o. . .*
. . . . ... ,o,.na.noo
. . . . .... 'uose March-24, 1989 "',*=.'a
.a o '.ea < a su'.*.o-e.........
nu.. -
ru ,o.
o.. e , o.... o. .o. ... 8 3 6 8 BY HAND Mr. William Travers Ms. Rosemary Bogan '
One White Flint North 11555 Rockville Pike Rockville, MD 20852
Dear Ms. Hogan and Mr. Travers:
{
^
LILCO has asked me to send you the enclosed paper, entitled "LILCO's Submission to NRC Staff on Reception Centers" and dated March 24, 1989.
Very truly your,s, f.0)dhrm
'L James N. Christman -
JNC/dlo Enclosure cc: Richard G. Bachmann, Esq.
O G
- WD
._.___-_._._...m____m_____._mm______
~1
-March 24, 1989
(,.
- s. >w o
LILCO'S SUBMISSION.TO NRC STAFF ON RECEPTION CENTERS
- 1. The Plan The LERO emergency plan (Revision 10) relies on three recep-tion centers for'the public: Hicksville, Roslyn, and Bellmore.
Approximately 52,100 people (those located in Zones K.and N)'are.
assigned to the Bellmore reception center. However, a state-court judge has enjoined LILCO from using the Bellmore facility as a reception center "without prior approval of the Town of Hempstead." Town of Hempstead v,. LILCO, Index No. 23779/87 (N.Y.
Sup. Ct. Aug. 22, 1988), motion to resettle iudament denied, Dec.
12, 1988, appeal pendino.
As LILCO.has already advised the Commission (see LILCO's Brief in Opposition'.to Interveners' Appe,al from LBP-88-30 at 35 (Jan. 23,1989)), LILCO's plan is to keep the Bellmore facility in the emergency plan. LILCO will comply with the state judge's injunction by requesting state or local permission to use the fa-cility before using it in an emergency. The following legend has
' been added to the map showing the Bellmore reception center in ,
LILCO's public information brochure:
A New York State court has ruled that, be-cause of local zoning laws, the Bellmore Re-ception Center may not be used without prior rpproval of the Town of Hempstead. If this Reception Center is needed during an emergen-cy at the Shoreham Nuclear Power Station, LERO will request the permission of the ap-propriate official (s) of the Town of
- Hempstead, Nassau County, or New York State before it is used.
-___m.______m___m_____ ________.______._____________.._____._.____.__..__.____.________m_ _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ ___..d
\'1
+ f ' 1
- The LERO Planfprovides a mechanism for getting; permission from-State.and local' authorities. .See.LBP-88-13, 27 NRC 509, 545 (1988) (LILCO plans to request the assistance of'the Nassau Coun-ty Police. Department),. remanded on other arounds, ALAB-905, 28'
- NRC 515 (1988); LBP-88-24, 28 NRC 311, 381 (1988) (LILCO plan provides procederes for communicating with responsible County.and State officials); LILCO Ex. 1 (Crocker'et al, written direct.tes--
E timony on reception centers, dated Mar. 30, 1987) at 62 (if nec-essary, LILCO would seek approval of the authorities); LILCO Offsite Plan at 1.4-2b (Nassau County might be called on to sus-pend zoning ordinances); LILCO Offsite Plan Implementing Proce-dures OPIP 3.1.1 p. 6 of 90 (procedure provides for calling Nassau County Executive at " Alert" stage of emergency); OPIP 3.1.1 p. 8 of 90 (procedure provides for, sending liaison people.
to Suffolk and Nassau County Executives and the State Emergency Operations Center in Albany); see also Attachment 1 to this paper, an interim procedure for activating Bellmore in an emer-gency.
As " interim compensating actions" these are adequate for the I following reasons. The Governor of the State of New York is re-quired by New York State law to declare a disaster emergency when a disaster is imminent for which local governments are unable to respond adequately. N.Y. Exec. Law 5 28.1 (McKinney 1982). The Governor may then suspend any statute, local law, or ordinance that would prevent, hinder, or delay action necessary to cope with the disaster. Id. 5 29-a.1. A County executive or
_.w-_ - _ - - _ _ _ _ - _ . - _ _ . _ _ . _ - - . - - . - - _ - - - - . - - -
t-4 supervisor or manager of a town also may suspend local laws. Id.
5 24.1.f.
It is established that the State of New York would follow the LILCO plan in a real emergency. Memorandum.and Order (Granting LILCO's Motion for Summary Disposition with Respect to Compliance with Section 50.47(c)(1)(i) and (ii)), ASLBP No. 86-535-04-OLR (Mar. 3, 1938) (unpublished); LBP-88-24, 28 NRC 311 (1988). It can therefore be concluded that the State would, if necessary, suspend. local zoning laws for the approximately 12 hours1.388889e-4 days <br />0.00333 hours <br />1.984127e-5 weeks <br />4.566e-6 months <br /> it would take for evacuees from Zones K and N to be moni-tored.
.There remains the problem of getting the necessary moni-toring and decontamination equipment to the Bellmore site in an emergency, because the New York State judge also enjoined storage of such equipment at'Be'llmore"in advance ~. As an interim compensating measure, LILCO has placed the necessary monitoring equipment on a trailer, which is stored at Hicksville and can be .
driven to the Bellmore site in about 30 minutes following the declaration of a Site Area emergency. Likewise, the decontamination trailer'for Bellmore will be stored at Valley Stream. It can be driven to the Bellmore site in about one hour and readied for operation in another 1.5 hours5.787037e-5 days <br />0.00139 hours <br />8.267196e-6 weeks <br />1.9025e-6 months <br />.
The first evacuees are expected to begin arriving at the re-ception centers following the declaration of a General emergency and about two hours after an evacuation is recommended. LILCO Ex. 1 (Crocker et al. written direct testimony on reception
c
-4_
centers, dated Mar. 30, 1987) at 8. The trailer will be ready for operation when they arrive.
The State court injunction also requires the removal from Sellmore of the electrical connection for the decontamination trailer. As an interim compensating action LILCO will bring to Bellmore at the time of an emergency all equipment necessary to provide electric power to the trailer.
In the meantime, while these interim compensating actions are in effect, LILCO vill continue to attempt to persuade the Town of Hempstead to approve in advance the use of the 3ellmore facility for emergency purposes. LILCO has filed with the Town the appropriate permit applications for such permission. See At-tachments 2-3. All LILCO is asking the Town is that LILCO be permitted to use its own property for the benefit of the public in the extremely unlikely event of a shoreham evacuation.
- 2. If Bellmore Were Not Available Assuming Bellmore were nct available in a real emergency for some reason, LILCO's back-up plan is to reassign evacuees from Zones K and N to the Hicksville and Roslyn reception centers.
This back-up scenario requires the unrealistic assumption that.Bellmore town officials refuse to allow evacuees to come to the Bellmore reception center. LILCO has arranged to collect all vastewater generated by the trailer during the decontamination process. Although this was done originally to eliminate the issue from litigation, it also has the effect of giving Town of
c m, .
P W +
Hempstead' officials little reason'to deny use of the facility in.
~ ~
3 an emergency. With all'potentially radioactive waste contained, the onlyLimpact on the Town.would be increased _ traffic for a pe-
-riod of six to twelve hours..
This back-up scenario also asks us .to assume .that both p
Nassau County and'the State of New York wouldfrefuse to implement the N.Y. Executive Law Article 2-B. mandate to protect the public
't -by refusing to override local zoning laws in an emergency. =As-suming all these unrealistic problems, if Bellmore were unavailable LERO would reassign its Bellmore monitoring personnel to Hicksville and Roslyn. ' In an emergency LERO calls out enough monitoring personnel to man 15 monitoring stations at Bellmore, plus a 50 percent excess. If permission to use Bellmore were not given, these monitoring teams would be-directed to report to the Hicksville and Roslyn sites.
If Bellmore were unavailable, LERO would issue an EBS mes-sage (with the. concurrence of State or. county authorities) advis-ing evacuees from Zones K and N to proceed to the Hicksville'and- .
Roslyn reception centers instead of the Bellmore reception cen-ter. Routes to the Hicksville and Roslyn facilities (which are not far from the Bellmore facility -- for example, Hicksville is only about 7% miles from Bellmore) for people from Zones K and N would also be announced by EBS message. Those routes are de-scribed in the attached KLD analysis TR-223A, entitled " Capacity Analysis on Approach Routes to the SNPS Reception Centers Using Traffic Guides and Route Diversion" (Mar. 17, 1989) (Attachment 4). .
- - _ _ . - _ - - - - _ _ - _ _ . _ _ - - _ _ . _ _ _ .....---___._n- __ __--_ . _ - _ _ _ - . _ . . . _ _ _ . - _ , . . _ _ - - . - _ - _ - - - _ ~ - _ _ - - - - _ - - - _ _ . - - _ . - _ _ _ _ _ - - - _ . - - _ . - _ . _ _ _ . - - -
f
, 1
_.6 -
This new traffic analysis by KLD, unlike previous analyses, takes into account. active traffic' management to control the flow of traffic to and away fr'om the reception centers and to divert
~
background traffic'from the major routes to the reception cen-ters. The analysis assumes, in short, that Nassau County Police would make a "best effort" to expedite the flow of evacuees to the reception centers, as indeed the Licensing Board has found.
See LBP-88-13, 27 NRC 509,545 (1988), remanded on other arounds, ALAB-905, 28 NRC 515 (1988). ,
l The KLD analysis concludes that even if the Bellmore Recep- !
tion Center were not available for use, 100 percent of all i
evacuees could still be processed at the remaining two Reception Centers, using LILCO's backup, driver-only monitoring method, within 13.0 hours0 days <br />0 hours <br />0 weeks <br />0 months <br />; seventy percent of the evacuees can be pro- l cessed within 9.1 hours1.157407e-5 days <br />2.777778e-4 hours <br />1.653439e-6 weeks <br />3.805e-7 months <br />. Attachment 4 at 37. As-might be ex-pected, evacuees would have to wait in long lines if Bellmore J vere not available. See Attachment 4 at 25-37; see also LBP !
13, 27 NRC 509, 540 (1988).
1 The roads leading to the three LERO reception centers have now been the subject of.three detailed traffic analyses, namely )
KLD TR-192 (LILCO Ex. 1 (Crocker et al. direct testimony), At- !
l tachment M), KLD TR-201A (LILCO Ex. 1 (Crocker et al. direct tes- l l
timony), Attachment T), and KLD TR-223A (Attachment 4 to this paper). The Licensing Board found that "[v]hatever uncertainties i
)
still remain, we are now confident that traffic performance in an emergency has been prbobed to bedrock." LBP-88-13, 27 NRC 5C9, 547 (1988).
1 l
1
i e
f d j
-7._
The KLD traffic analyses show that, even without active -
j
\
traffic management, at.the basic monitoring rate (which would in 12 hours1.388889e-4 days <br />0.00333 hours <br />1.984127e-5 weeks <br />4.566e-6 months <br /> process 46.6 percent of the EPZ plus about 7 percent ar-riving in buses -- a total of about 54 percent), all the traffic would reach the three reception centers in time. See KLD TR-223A. The analyses also show that with active traffic management and the faster driver-only monitoring method, 100 percent of the EPZ can be processed, even without Bellmore, in 13.0 hours0 days <br />0 hours <br />0 weeks <br />0 months <br />, though the traffic queues would be long. The LERO Plan is thus flexiDie enough to handle a wide spectrum of accidents ranging from the more likely ones (in which no one is contaminated and about 13 percent of the EPZ arrive at the reception centers) to the most extreme case in which the entire EPZ has to be processed through only two of the three centers.
- 3. The Plannino Basis for Shoreham The appropriate planning basis for Shoreham is'that the plan should be prepared to monitor 20' percent of the EPZ vithin about 12 hours1.388889e-4 days <br />0.00333 hours <br />1.984127e-5 weeks <br />4.566e-6 months <br />. This 20 percent basis is founded on the professional judgment of emergency planning experts that 20 percent provides a substantial planning basis that can be expanded if necessary.. At the evidentiary hearing LILC'O, FEMA, and the NRC Staff all empha-sized that what is important is that there be a " planning basis" of detailed planning for a portion of the EPZ population, with the capability to expand the response if necessary. NRC Staff Ex. 5 (Kantor direct testimony) at 3-5, Tr. 18,369, 18,374-75 (Keller), 18,357 (Husar), 19,202-03, 19,222 (Kantor), 17,744
_.-_._.m _ _ . _ _ _ . - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ . _ - _ _ _ - - _ _ - - _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ - - _ _ _ _
~
4 w -
(Dreikorn), 17,481-83 (Crocker), 17,485-86'(Donaldson). This explains why the 12-hour period should not be regarded as a dead-line but rather as a criterion to delimit the planning problem..
See Tr. 19,203, 19,218-19, 19,214, 19,225-26 (Kantor), 18,390-91 (Keller), 17,477-78 (Watts). Twenty percent of the EPZ popula-tion provides a substantial planning basis, in the professional judgment of emergency planning experts. Tr. 19,221 (Kantor),
18,357-58 (Husar).
This concept of an expandable planning basis is~ consistent with the philosophy of federal emergency planning rules. For ex-ample, the Commission in San Onofre stated that "[t]he emphasis is on prudent risk reduction measures. The regulation does not require dedication of resources to handle every possible accident that can be imagined. The concept of the regulation is that -
there should be core' planning'vith sufficien~t planning flexibili-ty to develop a reasonable ad hoc reponse to those very serious low probability accidents which could affect the general public."
, Southern California Edison Co. (San Onofre Nuclear Generating Station., Units 2 and 3), CLI-83-10, 17 NRC 528, 533 (1983) (em-phasis in original), vacated on other arounds, GUARD v. NRC, 753 F.2d 1144 (D.C. Cir. 1985). NUREG-0396 recommends that "inJg special local decontamination provisions for the general public (e.g., blankets, changes of clothing, food, special showers)" and no special* decontamination equipment for property and equipment need be provided. NUREG-0396 at 14-15 (emphasis in original);
LILCO EX. 1 (Crocker et al. direct testimony) at 4-5. Similarly,
l p !
the NRC requires dptailed planning for only a IV-mile plume expo-sure EPZ, while at the same time recognizing that an as hoc ex-pansion of response efforts beyond this distance might be re-quired. 45 Fed. Reg. 55,402, 55,406 col. 2 (Aug. 19, 1980).
Likewise, when the NRC promulgated the regulation that requires no advance planning offsite F.c operation up to five percent power, it recognized that some offsite, response might be required even at this low power level but reasoned that an as hoc response would be adequate. 47 Fed. Reg. 30,232-33 (July 13, 1982) (pre-amble to low-power emergency planning rule); see also 46 Fed.
Reg. 61,132, 61,133 col. 1) Dec. 15, 1981) (notice of proposed rulemaking).
- 4. The. Extent to Which the Planning Micht Need to Be Ernanded While 20 percent of the EPZ is the appropriate planning basis for Shoreham, LILCO recognizes that this basis might have to be expanded in unusually serious accidents. Although FEMA guidance says that this expansion would be "As hoc," LILCO has planned for it. The following. analysis addresses how large this expansion might have to be.
Conceptually, the people who might need to be accommodated at reception centers and monitored during a radiological emergen-cy are composed of three groups: people who simply need shelter, people who have been exposed to the plume and are advised to be monitored, and people who want to be monitored to ease their fears. The number of people who might be monitored (M) can be represented by the following expression: _
nt 4
[ 4-
- 10'- .
c.. <
M = people.who + people who + unexposed people need shelter have been 'who want to be
! exposed monitored to.
to the' plume. ease their i; and are advised fears to be monitored-
= S + E. + F LILCO estimates the size of there three groups as described.
below.
.a. People Who Need Shelter The people who are expected to need shelter.are about 13 percent'of'the population that evacuate. Recently Professor Dennis Mileti.has reviewed the existing set of social scientific studies of evacuation. These studies provided statistical esti-mates of the use of public evacuation shelters in 22 evacuations.
Professor Mileti added seven additional evacuations from anecdotal reports of. shelter.use, though.he regards the accuracy of these estimates as questionable. Relying on.both the behav-ioral surveys and anecdotal dpta, Professor Mileti concludes that the average shelter use in past emergencies has been about 13 percent of the evacuating. population. (The mean shelter use de-rived f rom survey data ,is 13.4 percent; from survey and anecdotal data combined it is 13.1 percent.) See Attachments 5-6.
Professor Mileti's work also shows that shelter use is some-what higher for " city" evacuations (greater than 25,000 popula-tion) than for " town" evacuations (less than 25,000); for hurri-canes than for floods, peological emergencies, and industrial emergencies (average shelter use in hurricanes was 19.0 percent, compared to 9.4 percent for industrial emergencies); and for night evacuations than for day evacuations.
L .
~
More.important, Professor Mileti found that shelter use can increase if the evacuating population is (1) elderly or (2) low in income. In Suffolk County, however, census data reveal that the percentages of elderly people (over 60 years of age) and of l poor people (under $10,000 per year income) are less than for the U.S. as a whole:
Percent of Households with Annual Income Below S10,000 l
- Suffolk County (1979) 17.7%
U.S.A. (1980) (1986 dollars) 20.1%
U.S.A. (1986) 19.1%
Percent of Persons Above 60 Years of Ace Suffolk County (1980) 12.7%
U.S.A. (1980) 15.7%
- U.S.A. (1986) 16.6%
1 Sources: U.S. Dept. of Commerce Bureau of the Census, 1980 Census of Population', Vol. li Chapter C, Part 34 at 34-1005,34-983, 34-989 (July 1983); U.S. Dept. of Commerce Bureau of the Census, Statistical Abstract of the United States 1988 at 17,422, 435 (108th ed.). ,
Professor Mileti has also investigated an actual evacuation on Long Island resulting from an overturned propane tank truck on May 24, 1988. Of the estimated 2000 people who were evacuated, only 275 (13.75%) used the tvo public sheltr s that were made available. This agrees well with the 13 percent figure derived from nationwide data.
(
c 4
.The 13 percent estimate;is also consis' tent.with'the earlier.
' record in the Shoreham case. LILCO's written. testimony in 1984 was that'*10-20. percent"'of'the population use relocation cen-ters:
Studies of persons.who evacuated from:disas--
ters show that only 10-20 percent'of the pop-ulation use relocation centers, and in.no esse examined _did over.23 percent use the centers.-E. L. Quarante111 & R. R. Dynes, Im-ages of Disaster.Mehavior: Myths'and Conse-quences (Ohio State Department of Sociology
. Disaster Research center) 14-16 (Attachment 6 to this testimony).
Cordaro et al., ff. Tr. 14,707, at 18-19.
.Accordingly, for Shoreham 13 percent of the population that evacuates'is a reasonable estimate of shelter use.
- b. People Who Are Exposed to the Plume The second component'of the expanded response is the number of people (E) who are advised to be monitored because they have been in a zone through which the plume has passed and may there-fore be contaminated. ,
In most accidents'this numbe. would be zero or very low.
See LILCO Ex. 1 (Crocker et al. direct testimony) at 10-11. One reason lies in the philosophy of making protective action recom-mendations at an early stage that became accepted after the Three Mile Island accident. Since TMI the accepted approach is to make protective action recommendations based on plant conditions, not by monitoring and plotting a radioactive plume. See Tr.
19,216-17 (Kantor). This means that in all but the most extreme, fastest-breaking, least likely accidents, people would be advised
i to evacuate well before any plume reached them. This in turn means that no one would be contaminated or need monitoring, ex-cept for those few people who were unaware of or chose to disre-gard the recommendation to evacuate. Such people are expected to be many fewer than the 7 percent of the EPZ remaining in the 20 percent planning basis after the 13 percent who need shelter are accommodated.
Assuming a much worse accident and the need for an ad hoc expansion, however, LILCO has analyzed the number of people who might be advised to be monitored for each of the 16 wind direc-tions in the compass. This analysis uses the Hewlett Packard 85 computer and the dose assessment model actually used during emergencies to project whole-body and thyroid exposures and as-sist in formulating protective action recommendations for the general public. See Attachments 7-9.
For all but three wind directions, the percent of the EPZ that would be advised to be monitored is less than about 30 per-cent of the EPZ population. For the " worst-case" three wind di-rections (wind from the NE, ENE, and E), the percentages range from about 55% to about 70%. The mean percentage overall is 26.1 percent.
Attachment 9 to this paper shows, for each wind directien, the numbers of peop1r who would be advised to be monitored plus l
20 percent of the people advised to evacuate but not to be moni-tored. This calculation assumes that 20 percent (rather than 13 percent) of unexposed evacuees would need shelter. Using this
'r e
assumption, the mean number of people who either need shelter or are advised to evacuate would be 33,3 percent of the EPZ.
The wind near the Shoreham Station blows predominantly to-ward the less densely populated north and east (and indeed blows offshore about 39% of the time), and so the likelihood of it blowing in a " worst-case" direction is quite small. The wind, as measured at the Shoreham meteorological tower, blows from the three worst-case directions (NE, ENE, and E) only 11.9% of the time. See.LILCO Ex. 2 (admitted Tr. 17,756), LILCO Ex. 3 (admit-ted Tr. 17,756); Tr. 17,752-53 (Crocker); see Attachment 10.
Concerns have been expressed in the past about a windshift that might contaminate lafger numbers of people than are ac-counted for in the above analysis. There are two answers to this concern. First, the LERO plan takes into account the possibility of vindshift. LBP-85-12, 21 NRC at 778-79. It provides means for predicting windshifts by monitoring weather forecast informa- ,
tion so that people can be evacuated or sheltered and thereby kept out_of the shifting plume. Second, actual wind shifts at Shoreham are less frequent than for many other sites. Id. at 779; Cordaro et al., f f. Tr. 8760, at 43 and Att. 19; Tr. 8957 (Cordaro); see also Tr. 19,229 (Hulman).
- c. People Who Are Fearful Finally, there is a hypothetical group of people (repre-sented by the number F) who are so fearful that they would want to be monitored, even though public information would have reas-sured them that they had not been exposed. Whatever this number
rn -
is, only .87 of it should be added to the total, because, other things being equal, 13 percent of the fearful people would also need shelter and are therefore already included in the 13 percent of the EPZ needing shelter.
The only experience with monitoring-seeking behavior that has been found is the Three Mile Island accident. In the weeks af ter the accident, only a very srs:11 percentage of the popula-tion took advantage of the offer of whole body and thyroid moni-toring. LILCO Ex. 1 (Crocker et al.) at 15. To be specific, about 736 whole body counts and about 200 thyroid counts were done. Id. (NUREG-0636 reports 753 people monitored and 762 whole-body counts.) Compared to the number of people who lived near TMI (about 35,000 people within five miles, 127,000 people within five to ten miles, and 209,000 within 10-15 miles, id.),
or the number of people' who evacuated (144,000 by"one estimate,
~ ~
Tr. 17,499 (Mileti), 19,195 (Kantor)), it would appear that less than one percent of the affected population sought monitoring.
Even if all the people who were monitored lived within five miles of the plant and the whole-body and thyroid monitoring was of different people, only 936 t 35,000 = 2.7 percent sought moni-toring.
The small number of people who sought monitoring after TMI is consistent with the weight of the other evidence from the Shoreham hearings. That evidence shows that,"for the most part, people will act rationally based on information they receive at the time of emergency, if the information is accurate and
- i. ;
b i consistent. fThis ~was the conclusion of the Licensing Board in
~
1985, and it was the conclusion of.the Licensing Board in 1988 with respect to reception centers in particular. PID, 21 NRC at-669-71;LLBP-88-13, 27 NRC 509,.523-24, 551 (1988), aff'd as to a related issue, ALAB-905, 23 NRC 515, 533-34 (1988). Thus the number of: people F is expected to be negligible, provided good i emergency information is provided. Taking the maximum number'of
-people who might want monitoring, based on the TMI numbers, we can add 0.87 x 2.7% = 2% of the EPZ as a (conservative)' estimate of F.
In short,'the 20% planning basis for'the Shoreham reception centers might have to be expanded to the following (based on At-tachment 9):
= .35 EPZ where "EPZ" stands for the population of the EPZ. A more conser-vative estimate would assume that the entire EPZ evacuated, in which case M = .13 PE + .87 E + .87 F
= .13 EPZ + '.23 EPZ + 0.87 (.027) EPZ
= (.13 + .23 + .02) EPZ
= .38 EPZ where "PE" stands for the number of people who evacuate and "EPZ"
~
equals the popu)3 tion of the EPZ. For NRC planning purposes, PE is a maximum of the population of the 10-mile EPZ (that is, PE =
EPZ).
____._-___.____.___.__________m_ ____.
.. i
- 1 In short, LILCO estimates that in a very serious accident
]
the 20 percent planning basis might have to be expanded to pro- -i i
vide monitoring for perhaps 35-33 percent of the EPZ. FEMA guid- ]
ance provides that this expansion can be a_d hoc and need not nec-essarily be provided within 12 hours1.388889e-4 days <br />0.00333 hours <br />1.984127e-5 weeks <br />4.566e-6 months <br />. FEMA Ex. 1 (Krimm Memorandum of Dec. 24, 1985) at 2; NRC Staff Ex. 5 (Kantor direct testimony) at 5.
- 5. What LILCO is Prepared To Do The monitoring capacities of the three reception centers under the basic (unexpanded) plan are as follows:
Number of Monitoring No. of No. of Stations Monitoring Vehicles People Percent (Basic Plan) Rate In 12 Hours In 12 Hours of EPZ Hicksville 32 1,152 veh/hr 13,824 32,707 24%
Roslyn 16 576' 6i912 19,354 12%
Bellmore 5 1_5, 540 6,480 18,144 11%
Total 63 1,620 27,216 76,205 47%
- All the above figures are based on a monitoring rate of 36 vehi-cles per hour per monitoring station, or 432 vehicles per station in a 12-hour period. There are 160,000 people in the EPZ, and an average of 2.8 people are expected to be in each car, for a total EPZ population of 160,000 t 2.8 = 57,143 cars. The KLD traffic analyses use a figure of 50,403 vehicles. See LILCO Ex. 1
- (Crocker et al. direct testimony), Att. M at 13, Att. T at 6.
These figures show that LILCO is prepared, with the 63 moni-toring teams in the basic plan, to monitor 46.6 percent of the
EPZ in-12 hours, more than double the 20 percent standard that FEMA has been applying. Even without the 15 Bellmore monitoring stations (leaving 48 stations) LILCO could monitor about 36 per-cent of the EPZ.
In addition, LILCO is prepared to monitor all members of the public who arrive at the Hicksville reception centers by bus.
LILCO Ex. 1 (Crocker et al. direct testimony), Addendum; LILCO Ex. 26 (Lieberman rebuttal testimony) at 38; Tr. 18,416-17, 18,436 (Keller). The 24 LERO monitors devoted to bus monitoring are capable of monitoring 17,280 bus passengers in 12 hours1.388889e-4 days <br />0.00333 hours <br />1.984127e-5 weeks <br />4.566e-6 months <br />.. The planning basis assumes that about 11,080 people will arrive by bus, 8 percent of the permanent (winter) population. LERO Plan, App. A, at III-35. This amounts to about 7 percent of the peak (summer) population of 160,000.
LILCO's plan explicitly provides for expanding the number of monitoring stations at its three reception centers from 63 to 140 as additional monitoring personnel (from INPO,.for example) ar-rive. The expanded numbers of stations are as follows:
No. of Stations No. of Stations (Basic Plan) (Expanded)
Hicksville 32 69 Roslyn 16 31 Bellmore 15 40 Total 63 140 I
LILCO's plan provides for calling in additional monitors from INPO, the Department of Energy, LILCO consultants, and State and local governments. The record shows that on one occasion, mm - _ _ - - - . _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - _ _ _ _ . _ - _ . - - - -
L .
for example, INPO could have provided 88 people in about six hours. LILCO Ex. 1 (Crocher et al.) at 52. This would amount to 29 additional monitoring teams that could, in the remaining six hours, monitor about 11 percent of the EPZ population.
LILCO deliberately overstaffs by calling out 50 percent more monitoring personnel than are needed under the basic plan. If credit is taken for this 50-percent overstaffing (the hearing record shows that LILCO does not take credit for this but sug-gests that other plans do, Tr. 18,393 (Keller)), then personnel to' monitor another 23.3 percent of the EPZ could be counted.
More conservatively, a 10 percent excess can reasonably be counted on. At drills LERO typically finds that 110-20 percent of the number of people needed actually report. LERO also stocks
~ 10 percent'more' monitoring equipment than it needs. Therefore it
~
is reasonable to add'10' percent (4.7 percent'of the EPZ) to the number of people that LERO alone can monitor in 12 hours1.388889e-4 days <br />0.00333 hours <br />1.984127e-5 weeks <br />4.566e-6 months <br />.
As a fillback, LILCO also provides for a faster monitoring method that monitors the car and driver only, plus anyone in the car who expressly requests being monitored. This fallback method reduces monitoring time'from 100 seconds per vehicle to 35 sec-or.ds, for a monitoring rate of 102.8 vehicles per station per hour or 1234 vehicles per station in 12 hours1.388889e-4 days <br />0.00333 hours <br />1.984127e-5 weeks <br />4.566e-6 months <br />. Using the 63 mon-itoring stations under the basic plan and 35 seconds per vehicle,
- this would allow (leaving aside traffic considerations) about 132 percent of the EPZ to be monitored in 12 hour1.388889e-4 days <br />0.00333 hours <br />1.984127e-5 weeks <br />4.566e-6 months <br />s:
= --
g.. . ,
h,.
Q 4 -
i 3, .
[j )
rNumber of 1 Monitoring Monitoring Vehicles in' % EPZ in j
. Stations 12 Hours Rate (vph) 12 Hours _ j i
- - Hicksville 32 3264 39,168 67%
1
-Roslyn' '16 1637 19,644 34%' j
.Bellmore 15 1530 18,360 31% ;
I 132%
These rates are the ones used in the latest KLD traffic analysis, !
Attachment 4 at 1. ;
As the next fallback, LILCO would advise people to go to- l their' destinations, shower, bag their clothing, and return later j i
for monitoring.. LILCO Ex. 1 (Crocker et alt direct testimony) at 53-59. This last approach is endorsed by the Environmental Pro- l tection Agency's draft Manual of Protective Action-Guides. J_d_ .
at 59. If this fallback method were used, LERO would keep the 1
'L reception centers open.so that people could ,be monitored over a period of days, if necessary. ;
The "about 12 hours1.388889e-4 days <br />0.00333 hours <br />1.984127e-5 weeks <br />4.566e-6 months <br />" benchmark of Criterion J.12 would not j be applied to these fallback eff$rts, as FEMA and the NRC Staff both testified. Kantor, NRC Staff Ex. 5 at 5; Tr. 19,219, !
19,225, 19,227 (Kantor), FEMA Ex. 1 at 2, Tr. 18,390-91 (Keller);
ree also Tr. 18,293-94, 18,295, 18,415 (Keller). Moreover, LILCO proved that the 12-hour period is not crucial to public health 4 and safety. LILCO Ex. 1 (Crocker et al. direct testimony) at 38; j i
. see LBP-88-13, 27 NRC 509, 551-53 (1988).
None of the above analysis takes credit for the hundreds of )
trained monitoring personnel that are available in New York State ]
because of the other nuclear plants there. See LILCO Ex. 1
.= ,
ii y.- .
.s n - 21 .
.New. York State witnessw
~
(Crocker et'al. direct testimony) .a*-54. 1 p ~ es.teatiiied that the following' numbers of trained monitoring g
personnelt are available for"other plants:- .]
Indian Point 550-Nine' Mile /Fitzpatrick
' Oswego County 575 Ginna Wayne County 91 Monroe County 140
-Total 1356 Tr. 18,069-75.-(Czech, Papile). LILCO's plan provides'for~commu-nication and' liaison with the State, and-this would allow for the'
- calling in of monitoring personnel relied on for.other New York-State. plants. See Tr.,18,424-(Baldwin) (as a general matter, "if you get.the state involved, they can involve the' monitors thait are in ...". other c.ounties")_, .. ,
Nor does the above analysis take credit for volunteer fire departments on Long Island, the personnel of which could be trained to perform radiological monitoring in perhaps 3-4 hours, according to the estimate of a New York State witness. Tri 18,085 (Czech). .
l
_-_,-___a..-__u ---..-_-________--_-______.-_-_-_-_--.__--___-_r-____.__- _ _ _ . _ - - - - - _ _ . _ _ - - _ - - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - - - _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ . _ _ _
~? '
i r
- 6. . Analysis of the " Realism" Rule As It ADD 1ies to Reception Centers
- a. LILCO's plan to ask State and local L officials to override the zoning laws-in an emercency depends on State law, not federal.
L1LCO's~ plan is to ask the loca? (Town of Hempstead) gov-ernment, the Nassau County government, or.the State government in an eme.rgency to suspend zoning restrictions that would interfere with a response to a Shoreham emergency. This part of the LERO plan depends on New York State law, not federal law.
Under State law the Goverr.or of New York must declare a'di-saster emergency when a disaster is imminent for which local gov-ernments are unable to respond adequately. N.Y. Exec. Law S 28.1 (McKinney 1982). The Governor may then suspend any statute, local law, or ordinance that would prevent, hinder, or delay ac-tion necessary to cope with tha disaster. Id. 5 29-a.1. A coun-ty executive or supervisor or manager of town also may suspend local laws. Id. 5 24.1.f. The judge who imposed the injunction on the Bellmcre site recognized that her decision could not over-ride these state laws. See Attachm'ent 11.
If the NRC's " realism" rule is necessary to the legal analy-sis at all, it is only to the extent that it establishes that the State of New York, and as a , backup Nassau County, would follow the LILCO plan in an emergency. Before the realism rule even existed, the commission had held that
[I)f Shoreham were to go into operation and there were to be a serious accident requiring i consideration of protective actions for the l-public, the State and County officials would be obligated to assist, both as a matter of law and as a matter of discharging their L - - -- - - - - - - - --- - _-_- - _ _-_- __ _ _ ___-__-_ __ ___ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ ___ _
public trust. . . . Thus, in evaluating the LILCO plan we believe we can reasonably as-sume some "best effort" State and County re-sponse in the event of an accident.
Lono Island Lichtino Co. (Shoreham Nuclear Power Station, Unit 1), CLI-86-13, 24 NRC 22, 31 (1986). It is established in this case that the State of New York would follow the LILCO plan in a real emergency. See Memorandum and Order (Granting LILCO's Mo-tion for Summary Disposition with Respect to Compliance with Sec-tion 50.47(c)(2)(i) and (ii)), ASLBP No. 86-535-04-OLR (Mar. 3,
. 1988) (unpublished); LBP-88-24, 28 NRC 311 (1988).
It is also established that LILCO has long sought the coo-peration of Nassau County, and that the County has in recent years refused to participate. See the attached letters and reso-lutions f rom Nassau County news clippings, and other documents in Attachment 12. The Licensing Board has found that the Nassau County Police would use their best efforts in a Shoreham emergen-cy. LBP-88-13, 27 NRC 509, 545 (1988). -
- b. The present legal problem with the Bellmore site wholly or substantially results from the decision of state and/or local governments not to participate further in emeroency plannino.
Section 50.47(c)(1) provides that a license may be issued notwithstanding governmental noncooperation if the applicant can show that its " inability to comply with the requirements of para-graph (b) of this section is wholly or substantially the recult of the nonparticipation of state and/or local governments." 10 CFR S 50.47(c)(1)(i) (1988). Such is the case with the Bellcore reception center.
_____.____..-_____-___--___-___m__-__._______-______U
It is an undisputed matter of record that LILCO'has'desig-nated many other reception centers b'efore being forced to turn to its own private property. See Cordaro et al., ff. Tr. 14,707, at 13-14; LBP-88-13, 27 NRC 509, 511 (1988).. For example, in Revi-sion 0 of the LERO emergency plan, the primary relocation centers designated were Suffolk County Community College, BOCES islip Oc-cupational Center, and the State University of New York (SUNY) at
' Stony Brook. Cordaro et al., ff. Tr. 14,707, at 13. These were the same centers designated in the original draft offsite plan prepared by Suffolk County planners. Id. The State University of New York at Farmingdale and St. Joseph's College in Patchogue were designated as backup relocation centers.
In its Contention 24.0 on Revision 0 of the plan, Suffolk County stated that Suffolk County Community College (a Suffolk County institution) "wi11 not-be available for use in imple-menting the LILCO Plan," citing Suffolk County Resolution Nos.
456-1982 and 111-1983. 14.; Revised Emergency Planning Conten-l tions at 66-67 (July 26, 1983). Then the Red Cross informed LILCO that SUNY - Stony Brook (a New York State institution) would also not be available, due to the State's political posi-tion on emergency planning for Shoreham. Cordaro et al., ff. Tr.
14,707, at 14.
As a result LILCO, working with the F.ed Cross, identified the BOCES Islip Occupational Center, SUNY - Farmingdale, and St.
Joseph's College as primary relocation centers and Dowling Col-lege as a secondary relocation center. Id. This change was included in Revision 4 of the Plan. ,
- _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - - - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ , , , , _ _ , _ _ _g
j '.-
On June :26, 1984 Suffolk County filed revised relocation center testimony responding to the change. 14. The County's testimony consisted primarily of two almost identical letters from BOCES Islip (a State facility, see Tr. 15,000 (Seaman)) and SUNY - Farmingdalc (a State institution) stating that they had not entered any agreement to serve as relocation centers "for a Shoreham emergency." Id . .t Harris & Mayer, ff. Tr. 14,870, Att. 2
& 3. Both letters say that "[i]n accordance with the Governor's position," the facility "will not be available . . . for use in implementing the LILCO Plan." Harris & Mayer, ff. Tr. 14,870, Att. 2 & 3. The first draft of these letters was written by New York State counsel. Tr. 14,922-29 (Cipriani), 15,003-013' (Hines). ,
Next LILCO turned to Nassau County and executed a-letter of agreement to use the Nassau Veterans Memorial Coliseum. See Af-fidavit of Elaine D. Robinson on Nassau Celiseum, ff. Tr. 15,870.
l Subsequently Nassau County refused to participate in planning and withdrew the Coliseum. See Attachment 12. Nassau County Resolu-tion No. 782 of June 16, 1986, was passed after lobbying by rep-resentatives of New York State and Suffolk County. According to the Long Island newspaper Newsday, State representative Richard Kessel intended to appesi before the Nassau County Board of Su-pervisors to press for additional Nassau County moves against Shoreham. Newsday, Feb. 20, 1987, at 7 (in Attachment 12).
Beca;use it was evident after this experience that no State or county building would be made available for LILCO's emergency
.m I -
4 plan in advance ofHan emergency, LILCO was forced to use property that it owned'itself. The record shows, despite New York State's-efforts to prove otherwise, that there are no other LILCO facili-ties as suitable for reception centers as the Bellmore, Rosl?n, and Hicksville sites. See Tr. 18,341-44.(Baldwin, Keller),
17,700-03, 17,765, 17,783 (Crocker).
Accordingly, to the extent that local zoning laws cause LILCO to be unable.to comply'with Section 50.47(b), noncompliance is wholly or substantially the result of nonparticipation of state and/or local governments.
- c. LILCO hes made a sustained good-faith effort to secure and retain the Darti_cication of the Town of Hemostead.
As the attached affidavit of Ira L. Freilicher (Attachment-
- 13) demonstrates, LILCO has made a sustained good-f aith effort to resolve the zoning issue by discussions ~with'the Town of
~ ~
Hempstead. It is quite clear, however, that the Town is opposed to efforts to include the Bellmore facility in the Shoreham emer-gency plan, and as a result the zoning issue has not been re-
" solved. LILCO has formally requested from the Town permission to use the Bellmore facility as a reception center. See Attachments 2-3. Meanwhile, as an interim compensating action LILCO has made arrangements to bring the equipment needed for monitoring and decontamination to the Bellmore site only at the time of a real emergency.
________.,_m_ _ _ _ _ _ _ ______m _______m._ _ __ _ _ . _ _ _ . _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ __mm___.__m. --
[T,f r- >
- Y * .-
f - 271- ]
O
' Attachment .1 -- Interim Procedure for Activation of 6 Bellmore Reception Center under Realism f
2 -- Permit: application for placement of tem-parary mobile trailer at Bellmore 3 --
Building permit application for. addition
of showers to Bellmore facility 4 -- KLD.TR-223A, Capacity Analysis.on Ap-proach Routes to the SNPS Reception Cen-ters Using Traffic Guides and Route Di-version 5 -- Mileti graph of Shelter'Use Estimate from Behavioral Surveys 6 --
Mileti graph of Shelter Use in All Events ]
7 -- Analysis of number of people who might be advised to be monitored 8 -- Graph of populations arriving at recep-tion centers per RHC recommendation method 9.-. .Grap.h of popula.tions arr.iving at recep-tion centers per RHC recommendation method + 20%
10 --
Chart of historical vind direction at Shoreham meteorological tower .
11 -- Transcript of conference of counsel be-fore Justice Collins, Nov. 2, 1988 12 -- Documents chronicling history of Nassau County and Town of Hempstead position regarding reception centers for Shoreham 13 -- Affidavit of Ira L. Freilicher Regarding LILCO's Efforts to Resolve the Town of Hempstead Zoning Issue, Mar. 23, 1989
'* 3ttachm:ntjl E [
[ , ,
A q j 4, , 6 ,' '
j >,
.t
\h by;
~s ^i, .G t~ ,
t il ,
OPIP_4.2.3 '
Page,44d ofL44 Attachment 10 Page 1.of 8
~
INTERI
N. PROCEDURE
FOR ACTIVATION OF'BELLMORE.-
RECEPTION. CENTER UNDER REALISM 4 ~1. Director,of Local Response
- a. Upon SAE'orLhigher. classification,4 requiring thel e
activation-of the reception centers,Jthe! Director'
.of Local Response will contact the; Town Supervisor (or his designee) representing the Town of.
.Hempstead'to secure authorization for'the use of.
L LILCO's facility in Bellmore as an evacues-
'p reception center in the-event that an evacuation of
'the public>is recommended by LERO.- Under realism, '
should a delay occur in securing town. approval,
- firstLcontact the Nassau County. Executive (or his designee) fellowed by the Governor of New York-State,(or,his designee)'if Nassau County is notL
. prepared;to authorize.
- b. Upon receipt of authorization to. activate Bellmore Recept 19n Canter, the Director of Local Response.
informs the Decontamination Coordinator to arrange for transport of the decontamination' trailer stored at the Valley Strahm Substation to the'Bellmore Reception Center and locating the trailer as-shown in OPIP 4.2.3 Attachment 3.
- 2. Decontamination Coordinator
- a. Upon notification by the Director of Local Response that authorization to activate the Bellmore Reception Center has been received, the -
Decontamination Coordinator will call the Trailer Transport Team Leader at the Valley Stream Substation and inform him to transport trailer to Bellmore Reception Center and locate the trailer as shown in OPIP 4.2.3 Attachment 3.
- b. After notifying t e Trailer Transport Taam Leader, the Decontamination Coordinator will contact the Nassau County Police Department to explain that there is an emergency at shoreham and ask if a police escort is available to accompany a g decontamination trailer being transported f. rom
[ Valley Stream Succtation to the Gallmore Ssception Conter.
Rev. 11
g b 4 OPIP 4.2.3 Page 44e of 44 Attachment 10 Page 2 of 8
- c. Should a police escort not be immediately available call back the Trailer Transport Team Leader and inform him not to wait for police escort.
- 3. Trailer Transport Team
- a. Upon ALERT classification, Trailer Transport Team (from LILCO's General Shops Department) will go on
. ' Standby'.
- b. Upon SAE or higher classification, Trailer Transportation Team from LILCO's General Shops Department reports directly to the Valley Stream Substation where the decontamination trailer with tractor already attached are stored.
- c. Upon arrival at Valley Stream substation, the Trailer Transport Team Leader calls the Decontamination Coordinator at the EOC and provides him with a phone number with which to call back the Valley Stream Substation.
- d. Upon completion of initial contact with Decontamination Coordinator, Trailer Transport Team Leader directs crew to check for proper inflation as tire sidewall prior to jacking trailer off support blocks.
- e. Prior to transportation off substation site confirm copy of unlimited transport permit is available for tractor / trailer,
- f. Upon arrival of Nassau County Police Escort or upon direction from Decontamination Coordinator that.
Police escort is not required, proceed with transport of tractor trailer to Bellmore Reception Center using Sunrise Highway as the primary routs.
C A'U T I O N AVOID OVERLY SHARP TURN MOVEMENTS WITH TRAILER SO THAT TRACTORS, REAR WHEELS DO NOT COME IN CONTACT WITH THE TRAILER'S EXTERNAL ELECTRICAL RECEPTACLES.
Rev. 11 -
4, 4
! '-c
.OPIP 4.2.3~
Page 44f of 44 Attachment 1.0 Page 3 of-.8 f
- g. 'Upon arrival'at Bellmore Reception Center,' check'in with Decontamination Imader for decontamination trailer or Reception Center Supervisor prior to final placement of-Decontamination Trailer.
- 1. Park Decontamination Trailer ~as indicated in:
the Reception Center Traffic Flow and Activation Ditiram,, Attachment _3, OPIP 4.2.3.
g Reception Center Activation and operation.
h 2. Usin as appropriate external jack under the-l
'traifer'stongue,detachtractorandsetdown on tongue _ jack.
~
- 3. Install detachable perimeter jacks at all locations and level trailer.-
F C'A U.T I O N THE PERIMETER JACKS.ARE MEANT TO DISTRIBUTE.THE WEIGHT OF THE TRAILER IN CONJUNCTION WITH THE TRAXLERS WHEELS AND TONGUE JACK. DO NOT ATTEMPT TO JACK TRAILER-OFF OF ITS WHEELS.
c
- h. After decontamination trailer has been parked, unhitched, and leveled, the Trailer Transport Team Leader calls the Decontamination Coordinator at EOC for reassignment if necessary. If no reassignment is required,-provided return tractor with team tn Valley Stream Substation and return to standby mode.
- 4. Decontamination Imader for Decontamination Trailer
- a. Uponarrival)placementandlevelingofthe decontamination trailer at Bellmore Reception Center the Decontamination Leader notifAes the Reception Center Supervisor who will inform the Decontamination Coordinator at the EOC.
- b. Decontamination' Lander directs the Trailer Activation Staff to activate the trailer as follows; l-I Rev. 11
____m- .__.._____._ _ . . _ _ _ _ __ _-___.
wr. ..
J- c y
OPIP 4.2.3 Page 44g of!44 L Attachment 10 Page 4 of.8
- 1. Installation of trailer water service
- 2. Installation of trailer electric service
- 3. Activation of NVAC units
- 4. . Connection of waste water collection system
- c. Decontamination Leader notifies'the Reception .
Center Supervisor of decontamination trailer readiness when all systems check out as operational. Request Reception Center Supervisor
.to inform the Decontamination Coordination at EOC of. trailer status. .
- 5. Reception Center Supervisor
- a. Upon notification by Decontamination Leader that decontamination trailer has arrived the Reception Center Supervisor will inform the Decontamination Coordinator at EOC.
- b. Upon notification by Decontamination Leader that decontamination trailer is operational, the Reception Center Supervisor will inform the Decontamination Coordinator at EOC.
- 6. Trailer Activation Staff .
- a. Upon direction of Decontamination Leader to activate the decontamination trailer, install or activate the following services:
- 1. Installation of trailer water service
- 2. Installation of trailer electric service "
- 3. Activation of HVAC units
- 4. Connection of waste water collection system Move staircases into position prior to starting any service connections.
b.
Installation of T{ailer Water Service o Ensure all sink and shower faucets inside the trailer are turned off.
o Close 58KW hot water heater drain valves located under trailer in both the front and rear.
Rev. 11
OPIP 4.2.3 Page 44h of 44' Attachment 10 Page 5 of 8 o Iayout water supply fire hose as indicated on OPIP 4.2.3 Attachment 11,-Decontamination Trailer Site OPIP 4.2.3 Details Drawings o connect supply hoses together using spanner wrenches.
o Connect hose to fire hydrant, use adaptor if necessary.
o connect hose to quick disconnect fitting'of water inlet located at the rear of the trailer.
o Open fire hydrant all the way to pressurize system and check for leaks. Tighten loose fittings as required.
o Open sink and shower faucats to bleed air from
. hot water heaters.
o close (turn on) the circuit brakers for all of the hot water heaters.
CAUTION DO NOT LET LARGE QUANTITIES OF WATER GO DOWN DRAINS BEFORE WASTE WATER SYSTEM IS SET UP TO AVOID OVERFLOWING THE HOLDING TANK. -
- c. Installation of Trailer Electric Service
. CAUTION BZFORE ATTEMPTING CONNECTION OF ELECTRIC SERVICE OPEN (TURN OFF) ALL CIRCUIT BREAKERS INSIDE TRAILER AND AT TRANSFORMER PANEL BOX.
Ensure' transformer panel box circuit breakers are open (turned of f) .
Ensure trailer circuit breakers are open (turned I off).
Rev. 11
OPIP 4.2.3 Page 441 or 44 Attachment 10 Page 6 of 8 Attach ground wire to trailer frame and ensure good contact.
l Insert 225 amp plug (largest one) into the i corresponding receptacle mounted on the front (tongue side) of trailer.
Insert the four 175 amp plugs into the i corresponding trailer receptacles.
Activate electric to trailer at transformer panel box only after ensuring all breakers in trailer are open.
Turn on circuit breakers inside trailer at small panel located in the front on the door side as follows:
activate breakers labeled " Lights and Receptacles" and " Quartz Heaters" if necessary.
- d. Activate large HVAC units on both ends of trailer only if the two thermostats in the center monitoring room.are~in the "OFF" position.
CAUTION THE TWO IARGE HVAC UNITS MUST PRE-HEAT WITH THE POWER ON AND THE THERMOSTAT "OFF" FOR FOUR (4)
HOURS PRIOR TO SWITCHING THE THERMOSTAT "ON".
ENSURE THE TWO CIRCUIT BREAKERS FOR THE HVAC UNITS MOUNTED ON THE FRONT AND BACK OUTSIDE WALLS ARE CLOSED (ON).
4 Do not activate " Water Heaters" or " Pumps" before water service is connected to the trailer.
Large 58KW circuit breakers (separate from the main trailer panel) located in final monitoring areas in both the front and rear of the trailer are not to be activated before water service is connected to the trailer.
Rev. 11 m_____._________________ _ . _ _ _ _ . _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . . _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ . _ _ . - _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ . _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ . - - . _ . - _ . - _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ . _ _ . _ _ . _ . . _ - _ _ _ . _ _ . _ _ . - - _ _ . _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ - . _ _ _ _ ___ _ . _ _ _ . _
i OPIP 4.2.3 Page 44j of 44 Attachment 10 Page 7 of 8
- e. Connection of Waste Water Collection System o Lay out collapsible storage tanks on top of ground cloths as indicated in OPIP 4.2.3 Attachment 11, Decontamination Trailer Site Detail Drawings.
o Install vent pipa and fill tube on tanks.
~
o Layout waste water fire hose as indicated in 1 OPIP 4.2.3 Attachment 11.
o Install all necessary fittings, valves and dry disconnects as indicated in OPIP 4.2.3 Attachment 11.
o connect waste water hose to collapsible tank and trailer holding tank underneath trailer.
o close drain cock on underside of trailer holding tank.
o Turn on pump circuit break at trailer's main panel.
O 9
O Rev. 11
i l-p ..
I OPIP 4.2.3 l
Page 44k of 44 Attachment 10 Page 8 of 8 l
DECONTAMINATION TRAILER SITE DETAIL DRAWINGS (under separate cover)
A. Pintle Hook, Tongue Jack, Perimeter Jack Details B. Location Drawing - Transformer Panel Box HVAC Circuit Breakers 58 .
50 KW Circuit Breakers C. Transformer Panel Box Diagrams D. Groundwire Attachment Detail E. 225 Amp Plug Detail F. 175 Amp Plug Detail G. Vent Pipe Installation Detail H. Waste Water Hose connection Detail I. Location Drawing - Holding Tank Drain Cock Collapsible Tank Inlet Globe Valve Collapsible Tank Gate 'Y' Valve J. Location Drawing - 58KW Hot Water Heater Drain Valves K. Hydrant Adapter Detail L. Location Drawing - Quick Disconnect Fitting Water Inlet M. Location Drawing - HVAC Thermostats Rev. 11 .
_ _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ ._____-m_. _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ -u
<ascuste-uns e L
1660 Walt Whitman Road, Melville, NY 11747 (516)420-6073 January 24, 1989 Mr. Bert Mayer, Commissioner Department of Buildings Town of Hempstead Town Hall Plaza Hempstead, New York 11550 RE: Temporary. Mobile Trailer LILCO Bellmore Site Sunrise Hwy. and Newbridge Rd.
Dear Commissioner Mayer:
Attached is Long Island Lighting Company's completed application for a permit for the referenced project along with two sets of the following drawings:
- 1. Survey-Aerial Photo 9. Coastal' Trailer
- 2. F-51485 Site Plan 10. . Coastal Trailer
- 3. F-51486 Site Details 11. Coastal Trailer
- 4. F-51851 Electrical 12. Coastal Trailer
- 5. Coastal Trailer 13. Coastal Trialer
- 6. Coastal Trailer 14. Coastal Trialer
. 7. Coastal Trailer 15. Coastal Trailer
- 8. Coastal Trailer 16. Coastal Trailer If additional information is necessary, please call.
Very truly yours, Original Slaned by D.J. MURRAY Donald J. Murray Real Estate Department DJM/me bec: Edward J. Walsh, Jr. Esq. (Cullsn and Dykman)
A. J. Fischer, Jr. Esq.
M. P. Fitzgerald, P.E.
t 1660 Walt Whitman Road, Melville, NY 11747 (516)420-6073 ,
January 24, 1939 Mr. Bert Mayer,' Commissioner Department of Buildings Town of Hempstead Town Hall Plaza Hempstead, New York 11550 RE: Temporary Mobile Trailer LILCO Bellmore Site Sunrise Hwy. and Newbridge Rd.
Dear Commissioner Mayer:
A building permit application has been filed for the proposed-placement of a temporary mobile trailer at our Bellmore Operations Center.
This trailer will be only used in conjunction with the Local Emergency Response Plan (LERO PLAN) filed with the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (N.R.C.) and the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), in the unlikely event of an emergency at our Shoreham Nuclear Power Station.
As the trailer is a temporary addition to the existing Operation Center facilities, I hereby rec,uest that the requirement of Section 305 of the Town's Building Zoning Ordinance be waived.
Your attention to this matter will be appreciated.
- Very truly yours, Original Sinned tv D.J. MURRAY
~
Donald J. Murray Real Estate Department DJM/mc bec: Edward J. Walsh, Jr. Esq. (Cullin and Dykman) <
A. J. Fischer, Jr. Esq.
M. P. Fitzgerald, P.E.
9eusaueusetsese
. ' eue om mps.y shb _J sw.op w sh .s wn , d , , d headhei, em e.she. d ih. s.se hem y d .h.ek >.d by sh. 4,pamens. fem o z m o d p., d - sn s sempism ano piem erih.
ps.o.ar om hs ague.d- e m ass'd.
SU1LDING PERMiY APPL 1 CATION mrosTANr- Alust h.Jyp rses.erprks dIseihir. ;
heh- eEd ==Es $38. eth. Isa. . flge 8th L 2400 Sunrise Eidney M4 e 56 W
&ste 1295 LdCATION O, atkim sid. of Aarrima 88b*= =y ; _ .few N.E.LW... .'
sumDues *r -.-. - ~ .wam ef N#4d49% Acad -. . & . .. i N. TYPE AND COST OF SUILDING - Af oppfisems sempisse Ports A #fww D a rues er u z . -
- e. p penas ses sw .e n.as men esses a=
80*=h.ad .a n=m ng -
E
- D ad8m==f8-- 1 ass- a=me., e.n es. F4 er == n===e === eases s ear. D 88 0 e. e==ar D is O *====== =======s8
= 8ma e. ass een 3 g aantes. san.s ab.=s g 38 O .S= .e= ==* enmar er amm" o e' O cm.Aasmeseas D # D awns,ess
- St ms D ** D 1.===e humL emmL g 33 g ,,m ,,,,
s a w.=nne fw msmus,- . e- y - ame .- m"
- ==" D # D ar== mm m.
==- ===e- e8 === d. *=.hme
- O # D a=.auf.: 1 ===. t===
sD Nhc '
lD ** h Q,*,",' ". een *""'
F 0 8===e=m= amar O tr D **= - as ms' as O se-L m. y E eu a P O 8P O am mus2 e D 'm==( h*==*==L - -
O 8s O '='h 8===
===a' ~
=*3 o a a o.- -a,=ur
- O Pinsk p.m =L a==. , -
tusmi __ . _
- c. s.or so =ms wona e. s s 6.a*.e .. s-s - ,e es==.
. .- . m , .==
.oeceio - e..w.. 6 . .m w. ===s- =a-w. ,
is. c= s n ,=== s a - - ==w e.- e.ma e.
. =a sa. 6.*n
~~
= 4 *.w -i-
~
i.*.w.
en==.- m. * == s ==== n.*me
- 6=. == =s.
- *,' ,,," , , * " " " " P1 ace nob 11'e trailer cr. site as shenen cm
*"*"' attaah d marvey
. == a. * ==e===e sL ene : . em)
- 11. Tutu cost of L -._.2- a en. ssLaCTao CNARACTERl5fX5 0F SumDuse - 9er new b.Wenes. osW#. ens east solesweem, sempisee Peres f soww b sw wrechne. eemplee enirrerr Mar eu wkun she se W.
- s. ee=cem ryes a casamuevo. s em se wwaas sinaosu s.sme s esnor a e.n. s.
OasOe, e-wde O ' '""" ss. *sen ersm.=
e o , w st v.w a s a=, e g, g si
. g .t,.. =
s a s #.
as O a=* da'ad saas'a '=' h. em.)
" - i+*d.= -h== e , esses u;
D 33 Q Tspe 3 - sees.y enh.e sa t bear a=.. h D ** O 'm a i ** *d O **he - r=== ====r a.
,.e.,a,, .g m., awr D 38 0 tw 24) ====e= , , , , ,
O as D 'm t - Ph. *==== es O mid-.s.s e-m> ,,,,,,,,
- p. p.mcyu type .e senarians pust s. Tves er "a~ """' se omessa at O em we m 6. ==mel e* ==d===e' a assaaesma anmames e.av as u os as O i. at C
- y. sn 8' D *=.=ar
- w. n. . sw ,
,, ,,,,,, ,,, ,,,,,, o
- D ced 8 O fa # D
dl Q osher 3 sdr St. Deumber of fuE se D v. Si 0
- h=='=== -
IV. SENTIFICATIOed - To be .- _f by off esplisents seem s asses ese - *=m . s=.e. any, and tes. '
ser ud. t.:. tem aan .e . LHID 1660 Walt Whitman Road, Melville 11747 420-6073 e==- LuiD 175 East Old Qxantry Rand, Micksv111e A.AuvA so-wi.1 -
o tnm 175 East Old Cbuntry Road, Ricksv111e 11801 420-6073 7 works Campen.eeien C 8808 e 2 - Des
. C. _etmt1.e.tifiasse,.N.o. ....m 1._z.o_.ar__._._ce._. _.
D bm,y a rn s ,ws tinedi veo N.
7, e .. p m ...e1 .,s
% . . e4, e .
~'
W16db====F 266 M.2* n'"is; 5" DC knot WAITI DN THts $9 ACE - 90t 099XE 195t s
- n== p-es em==s ammesse can poes e- - in - s.d - so. e =m mew !
6 Asure up tr 88. mar fan. .
h DepL 6,f Engsfusertrag . Houes fee. Assayistl MIM OFFICE COPY
- ws -
i 3
'l WORKERS' COMPENSATION BOARD
- TATE OF NEW YORK 1
(Standard Fann Approved by the Chainnan, Weeken' Compensation Board)
CERTIFICAT1. OF WORKERS' COMPENSATION INSURANCE This is to certify that 1 lo.!!S le,,,gtn,d,,,,L,,1gh,t,1,p.g, Com,ga,pI-
<w.m. .r sewe,er> __ Is insured with the UTI!JTIES MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY. under Policy No. NYC 17.QI _ _
covenng the entire obligstion of this Employer for Workers' Compensation under the with respect to the operations desenbed in the foregoing application at the location the period from - -- 01-01-89 .
to 01-01-90 If said policy is changed or cancelled during its term la such manner as to affect
. of such change or cancenstson wal be given to .Isl ol.N.e.=n.Ess.4 . isiMisz.hnnessJ -
ttwess. Deperuness. Carpereson, Mem er laeMessi)
Town Hall Plaza 350 Front Street,,f,;H,emp,gead, Iff 11550 (Ameress) _ , , , _
in accordance with those requirements, this Certificate has been imuod. Notloe by .
ficient compliance with this provision. UTILTTIES MUTUAL INSURANCE COMP event of faGure to give such notice.
Countersigned: UTILITIES MUTUAL INSURANCE CO.*
se Ptwa sinstr Date !.*.".uaig,,},3,,,1989 MEW YORK. W.Y.10008
.:.k h e. l_ b. W
. 4 su-~w A
en esoswr Section 57: Workers' Compensation Law as amended:
I:
l- ,
eine er ofnee authertast er regnared by low to issue any permit for er la son ,
a beamreous employment sensed by this chapert. and norwithsteading say someral or spee6et statute re persuda, ahnu met leses such permit enies proof moder eeth is produced in a farin settsfactory to the Chear emplorous has been secwed as presseed by this chapter. Meth6ns herein. however. shen be coast,Do auch state er muhosipal departm ent, board,seemisessa er ofries te pey aey eentponestaen le ser sect emp6e
Attcchoent 3-
. 1660 Walt Whitman Road, Melville, NY 11747 (516)420-6073 January 24, 1989 Mr. Bert Mayer, Commissioner. '
Department of Buildings Town of Hempstead.
Town Hall-Plaza Hempstead, New York 11550 RE: Shower Addition LILCO Bellmore Site Sunrise Hwy. and Newbridge Rd.
Dear Commissioner Mayer Attached is Long Island Lighting Company's. completed application for the references project along with two sets of the following drawings: ,
- 1. Drawing Q.4027-0 General Site Plan.
- 2. Drawing Q 4026-0 Part Plan - Floor Plan
- 3. Drawing F 25276-22 Plot Plan 4 Drawing H 7498-1 Sanitary Connection to Sewer (Existing)
- 5. Drawing F- 54160-0 Plumbing Sheet 1
- 6. Drae!.ng F 54161-0 Plumbing Sheet 2
- 7. Drawing F 54162-0 Floor Plan - Part -
- 8. Drawing M 3893-2 Piping
- 9. Drawing M 3905-3 Finish Schedule
- 10. Drawing M 3906-3 Diagram-details
- 11. Survey-Aerial Photo w
If additional information is 'necessary, please call.
Very truly yours, Original Sioned by D.J. MURRAY Donald J. Murray Real Estate Department DJM/mc bec:
~
Edward J. Walsh, Jr. Esq. (Cullfn and Dykman)
A. J, Fischer, Jr. Esq.
M. P. Fitzgerald, P.E.
1660 Walt Whitman Road,.Melville, NY 11747' (516)420-6073 January 24, 1989 Mr. Bert Mayer, Commissioner Department of Buildings Town of Hempstead Town Hall Plaza Hempstead, New York 11550 RE: Shower Addition LILCO Bellmore Site Sunrise Hwy. and Newbridge Rd.
Dear Commissioner Mayer:
A building-permit application has been filed for the addition of
. general showers to our Bellmore Operations Center.
.These showers will be located within the existing building
.therefore, I hereby request that the requirements of Section 305 of the Town's Building Zoning Ordinance be waived for the project.
Your attention to this matter will be greatly appreciated.
Very truly yours, Or!ginal Signed by D.J. MURiMY Donald J. Murray Real Estate Depcrtment DJM/mc -
bec: Edward J. Walsh, Jr Esq. (Culle and Dykman)
A. J. Fischer, Jr. Esq.,
M. P. Fitzgerald, P.E.
N .
_ _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ - _ _ _ - - - . - - - - - - - - - - -~"-- J
DD.19 P1.G.S SEWERS .
NOT VALO UNTIL STAMPED DEPARTMENT OF BUILDINGS HEMPSTEAD TOWN HALL Town Hall Plaza - Main Street Hempstead, N.Y. I1550 PlumbimrO Permit AnnlicatiOH 1f Plumbing Permit Building Permit No Date:
Fee:5 C/A #
Number and street LOCATION or Phrsical 2400 sunH ma M4 ghway OF BUILDING Unkorporated Area Bellmore S'C 56 B!k. g his 1295 owner Long...Is. land... Lighting. Company . 175 East Old Country Road
. . Owner's Address .gg.eggyg.1.gg;."hT~~TT807~~~~~~~~~'~"
l ,, Ao. n -
.v . unev=y No.cf Fatures 29 Type of Occupancy. . Pub _lic Utility NO LEAD SOLDER FOR POTABLE WATER LINE FIXTURES It shall be unlawful to extend or alter any existing plumt i m AT1oN B ha 2nd 3rd 4th sih1 or install ally new P lumbmg or drainage work until a permit EATr u riosas i l
been duly issued therefore and then only in conformance v
- t. Atmou v 1 t'es the provisions of the Construction Code of the State of h KIT ( ilEN Sl% K u.yA runn s a License No-.---- .....~....-.h.--..- - ... .- - --... ,
54TH TOHs Name (Please Print) . ..Irwin...Ilotto... . . . .... .... .. ...
[t lE ",',*g 3 :-
Busmess Ad i ss.. .. 3 2,. H.g a n,,,B 1,y d.,,, ..,,,, , ,,,, ,,,,,.
~
SHO%TRS _ Sn kg y
- Nrnaet r w AsTts$Q}
3 ,y Diss wasui xs 3;gn,,,,, ,,, _ , , , , , , , , , , , _ , , , , , , , , , , , . i 0111r R $ i go,,, p3,, ! s.. . b.v.,. in...J.. .. ......,et c. - ..W.y. s 1N41%<J. . . . . . . . . . ... l . u.<erv euwa. u.. coumv.u.v u. 2 2. !dk.. M .L l NotaryPusi::.Sisticiifewye No. EM650261 Qualifndin Nassau Count Commission Espiresyn.gy,y 1 Q DO NOT WRITE BELOW THIS LINE Plumihing Applicataca as Pisas Approved by Date
- nn n__ - -- -
h, (Uf *6 - x WORKERS' COMPENSATION BOARD STATE OF NEW YORK (Standed Fonn Approved by the Chabman, Workers'Corspenstien Board) CERTIFICATE OF WORKERS' COMPENSATION INSURANCE nh is tisen'ty that - h.tP.s lf.1.ei.k.i.sh.t.i.ns. 9.entaar - -- _ is insured with the (Name of smederer) g, UTILITIES MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY. under Poucy No. NYC. D#.I covering the entire obligation of this Employer for Worken' Compensation under the New York with respect to the operations desenbed in the foregoing application at the locations named th the period from : 0,,1-01-89 g, 01-01-90 . If ". aid policy is changed or canceBed during its term in such manner as to affect this Canif of such change or cancellation will be given to ..T.er!! s.f .!!!=P.e.E!!4.
).V.iMAPA Rf2&J.!E.eP.E (Dureeu. Department. Carperosion. Fine er lestedesel)
- Town Hall Plaza, 350 Front Street,. Hemp,e,,t,eada NY' 1 15,5, 5 0,,,,
(Aaeress)
. in accordance with those requirement, this Certificate has been issued. Notice by registered ma Scient compliance with this provision. UTILITIES MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY does n event of faDure to give such notice.
Countersigned: ' UTILITIES MUTUAL INSURANCE CO. a plusstnsst Date l.a,n,ua,y,g 1.1989 htW Y On K. M.Y. 130e8 A7 A _ b h. ! L.- er - 1 L_ - Pm passNT , Section 57: Worken' Compensation Law, as amended: I sv. mesetenen en me er permin vasem mponenties cured. The 6 d er a otete er suasdyes departmeet. pers. esmage. o heaerdeus empieyment defined by tais shapter, and notwithsteading say generet pensda, shau not issue such permit males proof under est$ is prod eed la e fresa notisfactory se she Chairsman, thes nosponessi.a
. emp63rees has been secured as preendei by this chapte. Nothing heram, homer theM be seestrued as creating epy lietnufF es t swea state or musutipal espersment, board. cesemession er efflee to per say enmapeanaissa le say such oneployee it w eenp6 eyes.
L
~
r l l
? SCfbMc sense of se 1.se is in h'ee n. sen esis .WWFs TOWN OF WTEADT
_ sw.y ener she. d seining and ,,ep d
' ' . men hulhanei, mesempeer d aeshesha. and shh she ,/ frase yo.d ese he:L e.g wed by she Apphaselon New
-. zening o,dmenee. Per a somm-cier -- s emnpie= ese pie of she
, p, psay .at he seguired. Deir ased.
+
RUiLDINO PERMIT APPLICATION sworrANT - A6st he Typewresse er Mmedlegibly. m.m. d === ._za em. e. n . see.an.
- 1. 2400 Sunrise Higtzday . Bellacre 56 W 6 1295 i LOCAfl0N
- 05 IE E LW *id' 'I- IN3EAM IONMlY - ; . lese N.E.5.W. . .. .
BusLDINO " - ---- ---.--****'*I- NIO9'M----- ---- E - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - It. TYPE AND COGY OF SulLDING AN epplisents coms lese Pens A shev 0 l
., . _ _ . .. e. e,, _ , , e s D ** b.ed=ew *= emd - '-
D anda sa t. m. s . o ne. e . em {-
.a a -o .med, s ,. O in D o., e ar D 88 0 --
1.
. sen s ass . os a -r 4.- D l' O CM mh- mage 8 0 an tam aeh ; O is O .t. * * ' ' " ' " D 88 0 e.d=msed a D us. D 84 0 1.== a' *=.d. .==*=L D ** O a s a Wemhat f# m.8W
=.- a.=6- W ==
- 8, >=en ".e = d" """"*"I*'""**** - Q Pt O 8 e., moh , e.g.6. o sup g O as 0 anoast. h==.a-.L .===e h.m.
! 8D
- D su.d.a= mir h
o r 0 **= - 8e=
"a '
k " h $,*,,,, "*"' O se D am L an ,..n- ee-me d D 37 0 e e--me.
- a. eomme:"
D ** d nue.is f. m.pmeh'h D 88 0 8=2s. a.==.
= d* .=J --0WDon--a,mer e O p.nn. pw L a.m. .
se,_ - -
- c. east to ms woes reorosso - e .*. e e.=a *= .8 6.ea .. 4 s ;
6 6 . w , 6.w e . 6 w. -, . mm.w. w.m. s,w.4.,---.- a c., ,, s .w .. w
- w e e- . w .a.= m.am.e.
- 4. ff .f g bene.g b bug ene.d,
*88** 4$"'W'"I. W d 8'el P.
.k b..m
. e. myse.d =. b.P .W M ,--
an e 20,000 M1 general showers in antist.ing tuilding
, 40,000
~'~~'
s ca m.m. s .smAm mo sL ouh 61 e . .ss) si. vo 4 cost es inesowemswt a60,000 IN. SELSCTED CHARACTERl5 TICS OF SUILDING - for new build.nps, eeldifiens and relecofiens. sempiece Ports f thry L for wreckhsg._ remplene only Port 2;ler all erkere ship ee IV.
- s. reinscus Type or coasteucnoss o type of sewaes eenPosu 4. anansameses of not a O tm 8 - *=d h dt O ^ ~** 8a' """'" *t '""
1, e 4a a we d w 4 m.k. m. "'**',****',',",#1*"** 8 =s 8 t a bo.6.-,=.e. ,,,,.
.m o ,, o , ,- _ ,=, - - o- e. .e. c n 24 m t,,. as) se 44 C *.th.
- pa " ""'""'
- s. souneas os oss staart 5 as 5 t, 24) **** '"*'
D as O tree t 8 as D e d n a.d.-s
- p. meLsps type op ses4tesse fes5L 4. T7P0 OF N 3a. o g ,,,
sr Q em WJ m-e b. e #.1 e. .t L entleenne esfmeesse6 OsET as D 08 ** O '= 8 O "' sr. m.=h- .# t.s -= a' D a== av wm 6. .w -t de O C 8 ,,,,,,,,i,,,,,,,,, e6 4e a on- - s d, as O vn # D h. ,~
,, , sr. m.n- d ha so a v. se O n. b.m.-. -
fV. IDENTIP6 CATION .. To bir comple#ed by off esplicents ee.- m.i.e end - me hn, e . any. =w se asp eme. id. en. m e his 13tm is60 Wate ud+nen th =a liia? no-u m e-.- I?nID 175 East Old Ctuntry M. Ridtsville 11801 420-6073 o c- I.s4D '175 East Old Ctuntry M. Eicksville 11801 420-6073 "2 Wcrkmens Componestion Conificose No. 2838. , Empechen Dese beurence Co. I NDN MM .$.t. D.eus,y nonen, in n.e fii.4, v X No
~
The ownerAthis buiiding erif the f undersigned egree to tenferm se all appl.ceblo laws of the Town of : ,
.t 7 ao uor wnert nu rues srAct ron ames un l e ,c %...- a. t.. - --
5 asy d by P fan. Dept Of (Jigineering Houes leo. Assegreed
. YY? .
Attccha;nt 4-
+ -
L. p l KLD TR-223A 1 Capacity Analysis lon Approach Routes h to the SNPS Reception Centers Using Traffic Guides and Route' Diversion Prepared For Le.ng Island Lighting company. Melville, New York Prepared By KLD Associates, Inc. 300 Broadway
. Huntington Station,-NY 11746 March 17, 1989 4
O e
M i. 4 i TABLE OF CONTENTS section Title F.agt
- 1. ' Introduction 1
-2. Traffic Assignment 2 3, Traffic Diversion Plans 2 4 '. Capacity Analysis 4
- 5. Results 20
- 6. Analysis of the Redistribution of Traffic from the Bellmore Reception Center to the Hicksville and Roslyn Reception Canters 30
- 7. Conclusions 37 Appendix A . Traffic Management Plans- A-1 l.
i
.-________________m___
LIST.0F TABLES Number T.1115 EngB 1A. Background Traffic Diversion Plans I
-(Hicksville Reception Center) 3
- 15. Background l Traffic Diversion Plans l (Roslyn Reception Center) 6 {
l 1C. - Background Traffic Diversion Plans j (Bellmore Reception ~ Center) 7 , l
- 2. Estimation of Background Traffic Volumes Under Traffic Diversion Conditions (Time Period:'0700 - 1000) 8 3A. Results of Capacity Analysis: Hicksville Reception Center 15 3B. Results of Capacity Analysis: Roslyn Reception Center -
18 3C. Results of capacity Analysis: Bellmore Reception Center 19 4A. Maximum. Queue..Lengthe Along Each Path (Mic.ksville Reception Center) 26 4B. Maximum Queue Lengths Along Each Path (Roslyn Reception Center) 28 4C. Maximum Queue Lengths Along Each Path . (Bellmore Reception Center) 29
- 5. Reallocation of Evacuees from the Bellmore Receptien Center 31 6A. Queuing Analysis for Two Reception Centers (Hicksville Reception Center) 34 -
6B. Queuing Analysis for Two Reception Centers (Roslyn Reception Center) 36 11
-- _--___-__-------____-________e- _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ , _ _ , , . _
. l l . j
- 1. Introduction I
This report describes the procedures used, and summarizes the ! results obtained, in a study to determine the capacity of approach i routes between the major east-west highways and the Hicksville, Roslyn, and Bellmore Reception Centers. Previous analyses (KLD TR- 1 201A) were predicated on the assumption that the control policies applied on these approach routes would not include traffic management strategies to divert " background traffic". i i In addition, the analyses documented in KLD TR 201A assumed, in general, that 30 percent of evacuees would elect to travel to the Reception Centers. These analyses are based on the assumption l that 70 percent and 100 percent of evacuees would travel to the l Reception Center. The purpose of the present report is to explore the consequences of a traffic management policy which actively seeks to reduce background traffic travelling on routes to the three reception centers, on the basis of the realism argument. That is, if an accident at the Shoreham Nuclear Power Station (SNPS) were to occur, local governments would make a "best effort" to expedite the flow of evacuees towards the reception centers:
. Traffic guides would be assigned to control the flow of traffic to and away from the reception centers e These traffic guides would divert background (i.e.
non-evacuating) traffic fres the major evacuation routes to the reception center areas, to the extent practicable Another important difference between the design considered herein, and the prior design documented in KLD TR 201A, is the number of monitors assigned to the various reception centers. For this study the assumed monitoring rates are as follows: Monitoring Rates, vph Recention Center Entrance Present Study KLD TR-201A Hicksville Old Country Rd. West 1428 504 Old Country Rd. East 1836 648 Roslyn Willis Ave. North 617 216 LIE Service Rd. 1020 360 Bellmore Sunrise Hwy East 1020 360 Newbridge Rd. 510 180 1 _
i
- 2. Traffic Assiennent A previous document (KLD TR-192) defined ths assignment of -
evacuation traffic from the major east-west highways to various reception center approach routes. During the course of the present work effort, a number of routing modifications vare considered in l order to better utilize both the available approach route { capacities and the available monitoring rates. Changes to ' evacuation routing assignments are discussed below: Phth 1A This path was previously assigned to LIE Ixit 48 onto westbound Old Country Rd. via Round Swamp Rd. Thic path was reassigned to LIE Exit 44 onto southbound Seaford-Oyster Bay Expressway and then to westbound old Country Rd. - Path 1D This path was previously assigned to the Northern State Pkwy onto Exit 37A to the LIE exiting at Exit 44 onto the southbound Seaford-Oyster
~
Bay Expressway and than to westbeund Old Country Rd. This path was reassigned to the Northa2/n State Pkwy, Exit 36S to southbound South Oyster Bay Rd. The evacuees turn right onto westbcund Woodbury Rd. and travel to Elm St., then Scuth on Elm St. to eastbound Old Country Rd.
- 3. Traffic Diversion Plans, .
Plans to divert background traffic from the several of the approach roads to the reception centers were formulated. These plans are summarized in Table 1. Appendix A presents the detailed traffic management plans for each location identified. Analysis of the background traffic diversion plans and of the traffic counts obtained fros. the previous field studies, yields estimates of the remaining background traffic volumnas on the approach routes. The results of this analysis are summarized in Table 2. 2
F .
)
Table 1A. Background Traffic Diversion Plans j (Hicksville Raception Center)
- 1. Jericho Turnpike and Routes 106/107 -
Discourage turns from eastbound and westbound Jericho Turnpike onto southbound Route 106/107. Disec,urage through movements on southbound Routes 106 and 107; direct this traffic onto westbound Jeriche Turnpike.
- 2. Long Island Expressway and Route 106/107 l
~
Discourage eastbound traffic on the Long island Expressway from using Exit 41S onto southbound Route 106/107.
- 3. Northern State Parkway and Route 106/107 Discourage eastbound traffic on the Northern State Parkway from using Exit 35S onto southbound Route 106/107.
- 4. Jerusalem Avenue and Old Country Road Discourage left turn movements 'for southbound flow on Jerusalem Ave. and right turn movements for northbound flow.
Discourage through movements for eastbound flow on Old Country Rd. ; divert traffic to soutabound Jerusalem Ave.
- 5. Broadway and Old Country Rd.
Implement procedures to permit continuous aovement of southbound, left and right turning traffic; vestbound right turning traffic only; and eastbound right turning traffic (low volume) only. Override existing signal controls to allow continuous flows.
- 6. Old Country Road and Park Ave.
Route traffic exiting the reception center either northbound on Park Ave. or westbound on Old Country Road. Eastbound traffic on Old Country Rd. enters the facility using a right turn. All movements are continuous; override existing signal controls. 3 t . _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ .- . _ - - _ _ __---_ - - _ _ _____ _ -
,' x.. ;
j Table'1A. Background Traffic Diversion Plans _ (Hicksville Reception Center) _ contd. . j i
.7. Park Ave. and Plainview Rd.- j Facilitate northbound traffic . on . Park Ave. Discourage southbound. traffic on Park Ave. except for' evacuation ~ )
buses
- 8. Old. Country Rd. and South' Oyster Bay Road Discourage left-turns from northbound South Oyster Bay.
Road. ' i
- 9. Hicksville Road and New South Road Encourage the use of 2 laft turn laner from westbound New
' South Road onto southbound Hicksville Rd. . Discourage right turns fro westbound New South Road
- 10. Old Count %y Rd. and New South Rd.
Discourege westbound background (very low volume) traffic on Old Country Rd. Override signals to allow continuous turn movements.
- 11. Old Country Rd. and Manetto Hills Rd.
Discourage all westbound traffic on Old Country Rd. at Manetto Hills Road .
- 12. Old Country Rd. and Northbound Seaford-Oyster Bay Expressway Discourage (low volume) westbound traffic on Old Country Rd.; divert traffic onto northbound Seaford-Oyster Bay Expressway. Override existing signals to allow continuous l
left turns from northbound Seaford-Oyster Bay Expressway' . off-ramp to westbound Old Country Rd.
- 13. Old Country Rd. and Southbound Seaford-Oyster Bay Expressway L Divert all traffic from the southbound off ramp to west bound Old Country Road in a continuous movement override signal indications.
- 14. Jericho Turnpike and Seaford-Oyster Bay Expressway Discourage eastbound and westbound traffic on Jericho Turnpike from entering the southbound Seaferd-Oyster Bay Expressway.
4 __________________._._______________________m_
'4 Tabic 1A. Background Traffic Diversion Plans (Hicksville Reception Center) concl.
- 15. Long Island Expressway and the ISeaford-Oyster Bay Expressway Discourage eastbound traffic on the Long Expressway from entering the Seaford-OysterIsland Bay Expressway southbound.
- 16. Northern State Parkway and the Seaford-Oyster Bay Expressway Discourage eastbound traffic on the Northern Stgte Parkway from entering the Seaford-oyster Bay Expressway southbound.
- 17. Hez;pstead Turnpike and Hicksville Road.
- 18. Hicksville Rd. and Stewart Ave.
Encourage northbound background traffic to divert to northbound Stewart Ave.
- 19. South Oyster Bay Rd. and Woodbury Rd.
- Encourage evacuation traffic to turn west onto Woodbury Rd.
- 20. Woodbury Rd. and Elm St.. - -
Assist evacuation traffic to turn south onto Elm St.
- 21. Elm St. and Plainview Rd.
Assist evacuation traffic in crossing Plainview Rd.
- 22. Elm St. and Old Country Rd.
Assist evacuation. traffic to turn east onto Old Country Rd. ~ e 5
I Table 15. Background Traffic Diversion Plans . (Roslyn Reception Center)
- 1. Willis Ave. at Westbound LIE Service Rd.
Divert all southbound traffic on Willis Ave. to the westbound LIE Service Rd. This diverted traffic . can . continue south on Saaringtown Rd.
- 2. Eastbound LIE Service Rd'. at Exit 36 L Close the eastbound LIE Service Rd. All eastbound traffic i is diverted onto the LIE.
3.. LIE Exit 37 Eastbound close eastbound LIE Exit 37 off-ramp. ;
- 4. Northern State Pkwy at Willis Ave.
Close Exit 28 off-ramp servicing eastbound Northern State Parkway traffic.
- 5. Willis Ave. Northbound at the Northern State Pkwy Divert northbound traffic on Willis Ave. onto the eastbound Northern State Pkwy. Diverted traffic can continua north on Roslyn Rd.
~ ~
- 6. Westbound LIE Service Rd.'
Divert westbound traffic on the LIE Service Rd. onto northbound Jefferson Ave. which is east of the LIE offramp. l 6 _____.__.--__._____._______-_m_.- W
2 Table 1C. Background Traffic Diversion Plans l (Bellmore Reception Center) 1
- 1. Meadowbrook Parkway and Sunrise Highway
~
Use traffic cones to move eastbound traffic on Sunrise Highway to the two left lanes, reserving the right lane l for evacuation traffic entering the eastbound Sunrise Highway from southbound Meadowbrook Parkway. Close the i eastbound Sunrise Highway on-ramp to northbound Meadowbrook Parkway.
- 2. Sunrise Highway and Newbridge Rd.
Discourage southbound traffic on Newbridge Rd. from continuing south or turning east onto Sunrise Highway. Northbound traffic on Newbridge Rd. Will be directed to use the left lans for through and left turn movenants; the right lane will be reserved for traffic turning east onto Sunrise Highway i Protected right turns from Newbridge Rd. will be permitted during the exclusive left turn phases for east and westbound Sunrise Highway.
- 3. Newbridge Rd. and Merrick Rd.
All traffic will be discouraged from proceeding north on Newbridge Rd. ' ~ O O O e 7
iljl1 !) q! l ' t dF mnedst ,egentee nEoohninssnboash eo=ss ht ri uIrita erei ihet t u oLfs ccuhvttth d3o b rt Eirotioa st o fe3h hW tu Ey ;ivb euIfehn Lfp rnu a 6o ala c ea o r n nt o g1 tr a e. m om wds dr0 e lv m sn.t n u : 6 u l )e sok e unt4re ue ofrPehodot uyw imu ie sees ce o. o v cd o r r nRrve b t hcbntf Tatud qlteh huqu e pe t a o so e A ln mt tleo sde.r osh 0 isef gAc e e ay p wer g ucs. i u t w y, eet le i i hr vb 5 d if s cetap k de wq s le csu6 s e ad Swaec oi d ha emc rui es h levi i f tcir.f( i o a fb4a o t rs pn altB lfn t gt fo i f h fw6rter s eofo t ae6 e m o N po.ra acM B oy ol m.bvaC n oiereo ca rd drN) 1 z r t ftzi u 5er mf r et y desfktarwolt m 6 l o faWnss n .t P duso sn o n rp s ntlne Ede e udoGdl Vnso o yEolmt ,uopee t ui p et m u t c. u o al su /uv c la a a o 6oi i i aw bcaaa eaaq ir r t m h u re f gs v rt6rt s gr6 gc f it td h f r o a m t n Si tc afblacmr s e f k pi ike(ke cv5cf a dn e toouaf rrolf .t sfvfubraar tai.af r o) t ABf S poN e o e o s atb r a Ibd0be T C0 n 0 e d n0 C n u o1 n - o is- o r r ) n i g t k v0e0 ho p 4 3 pi 6 3 c i7 vs e 6 1 c BaD0 ( r e e c: cv R f o id fo ii fD e , l n fi f a l o ar i i re r- v t TP Tn o s a re di k m em ns c 1 6 i i t di ur H 6 6 s nT oe 6 6 E U( rv gi 1
. kD 2 c ao e BN l
b a t T - a y a " w _ d _ r a e o t r . un B d oo d R Ri e t n . g hc ut - ce as o b S d i - or h t r re t t b pt u o w e pn o c N AI S S - i' il l iIlll!!lilI
oc3 rk ta1 ,a O Jo1nfP nw s t y65
.l .o . ude:
+ic ~e) oah d t r a c6 dn m ti tw Cot r e e dw1 ed
_ o) a f6iaSe ufao r6bf tl dB nl i v ta l Osep p
- op i
d re o= r d's 6rr.b tt - dv u a t vB a n or n d e na s Ne i 6 e d s00 ods Ret 3c n n( aedi le t m cn1 n 3 ua t .s, a. ii s e eo o g e (7 hrEr ec ei a s ec ri fo fj e d t gI e rf ber' tf ae i c= ,k Ls rr. s t o r i. c -- tf Sa,u0 w fa t e m e N b f 0sads r e i g0 l o tr f v w f 0 :- bne u e a2u um hnt gf a )2 f od.A l o N tr odoo oet 3 sd t R m) Vnso - hnbc
- - ute Jmnn3 o eo7 un ou n e5 e
c n,s6osb nsci/ e uo nr c yl 6 i i ett eeerhws be e,e r9 rs3 ig r ra8 f it weeet p w d pe 5 tk ets( pnu5 f a dn trrtuem ta v( nc ur7 r o) ettfoha eo i oa 5oe. BSsAatr B R A d'= Cb 2CJ0 T C0 0 d n0 n o1 ' ui-o r g r sde ) -n k e0 u ho 0 2 0 6 v0 n pi 0 6 0 c i7 vs 2 1 0 BaD0 i t ( r e 1 f c:n i d o cv ii
* ' 1' '
ofofi C fD f n ar a o i re r t TF Tn o a re di im em ns 3 3 5 5 t nT di ur 3 9 6 6 s oe 7 5 8 6 E U( rv gi 1
. kD 2 c a9 l
e B1 ' b a t T a y a w d
. a e d o.
t R rd un y BR oo r y Ri dr hg . t n nt ce t S u u o n o u t as bo S or C h t C n re pt n d rd h h o pn o l ol AI J O NO J l i
rh aa hl BBog r vaeys eh rb vet dw tc//fko u EWec r tiMr nd rt pte t i t ed . oe u xEuryo ne s de ta re or d e sr m ra e o ebz o Csn d ot O he g o a rhehTs iu tr vB n t yf ry d o r Cs-do s a ,T .,u l it a wS i ld be d r d s h c e 'we .y. n oehv e Oah h lso ot t Osf ic n cn n cX nRu o on oa f h ii u n k p i fo fo ay pw o6t o s _o cst ree _c s e aJ fj ae i s rt aT Pk s re cs/yc r n Bo ee ef il s t teh rr ntf dni e o t e erh ei fe flnA fiu fmhv fot i N dt m gte ic taA ar m n f .d u aHo r u uo odR n sram b rf g l l i yete.s toh o rot t R e o w O J Sr0i tt .t ns V s n v c io n glt kan c ue e ydg c c l l oW,.c)h3 c. d 1 dn trdddi u eoRneh o nn utc oca, i t aqm r ri i o rENa5i) o fe ba f i beev etr pnb f f fo fm r/fv 1 sbeoyo ts Moltlraf f a d n e uw a r e a o B p( ao tl sl pw a r hso 5oe her/p rb etnieop T o) l' im 2CN T TSfEa=ta W a o H w c a 'X C0 0 dn0 n u io1 o r g r sde ) n k v0 e0 u ho 4 9 9 2 0 pi 8 6 c i7 n vs 4 4 9 7 8 BaD0 t i ( r e 1 fc:nid o cv ii ofofi C fD f n ar o a i re r t TP Tn o a re di m em ns 1 4 9 0 8 i t nT di ur 5 2 7 1 6 s oe 7 7 0 3 9 E U( rv gi 1 kD . 2 c t ao a e BN _ l .S b e d Ry a a T yw _ r' tX ny d ua a B _ B oB o r __ / / C R _ e N E r _ t . . de a un d d lt l . oo R R Os y l Ri i e _ t e . dO H hc g g t n- _ ce d d S ud o - as i i or t or r r t bo t e re b b t o tf sa n pt w w pn e u c ee a AI N N S RS M
o of o e u ic
' ( r fX An o p o d d f
_ s.dde.o t m yi a t d: e r d e t e d f ua x orRc z t r- ea sB i
- e R e yf y r.
ed e. c ut r e vaf l vR ve d iv hrt ydiBae i ed tea r rrv d h t dA rnu sst th nittsetit i o cu sn io so iy u sdc fS i ib h s c OciCiDuf ocyne f aw cn iU ct e i df f of re f ir s t frf fo adaf tg hre tN fr fo. fn o ao a e e N afrlr r uks dn t r tr fp k l m u teatOt S oci Sa bsp u a o t dv e d oT o s d d dd r la n ndnn m g nA nnd Vn uBunuu,a. kv u uoa
~ o ci o r/rorbrouoos r ci ot oie i g N gb gh u y
-)
a r br rst grc f it k ktktoav e b r a ha tw kep f a dn cdcscrhwo l re cvm r o) anaeao 'b lo ot aie Babwbn6Xa At NS BdH T C0 0 dn0 n o1 ui o r g r sde ) n ho 6 O O 1 k e0 u pi 3 5 c i7 v0 n a i vs ( r 4 7 B D0 t e f c:no id cv Ji ofo C fD f n fi ar a io TPre r Tn t o a re di . im em ns 2 1 0 8 t nT di ur /~ ? 7 G s oe 0 0 6 1 E U( rv gi 1 1 A kD 2 c ao e BN
- l d b R a
T e i l l i vs r d k . e R ce t y ik . un a d
. Hp T d oo B R R Ri d t r h nd h hc e t ua t ce t u oe u as s o bt o or y S hs S re O tp rm w pt w pn . e oe e AI S N NH N l
1
_ e ew e e ia ve ic vk iP t r g hu a sec di d e riva v e v ul v sr ie st ia i d ol ci n de S t s nW e u . c cS i oh i E i drt f I f c s n gi f L f W i i oc ukw a ad f s rdn r n f a ic ba e t u t u r f h be t o o f tr,g l s o db db t a osn e N nt nt d r nri m u us oe us oa n t us u o l o bw be o doh Vnso h h b nt . te te rh t un 6otse t c uh ot ot s6 oo r nl i i s n a3 f it op s' g r c f o t kne i a dn lt ltm li crtnh r r ln lna lx aufae - T o) e Ao Aor AE BtAcv C0 t d n00 n n o1 e u i C o r g r sd e ) n n o k v0 e0 u ho i 0 0 0 A c n pi t N i7 aD0 i vs ( r p B t e e n cv c fc:oid ii R e ofofi C fD f n ar a n y o re r i l t TP Tn o s a o - m reem di ns R 1 1 6 A i t di ur 6 9 1 N oe - s E U( nT rv gi 7 9 7 kD c t t 2 ao a a e BN . t . . l t_ aRd ay d d b w R R a .k e.e T e e veP c vi c c Ae i i Avr v v
- s. e s.ta r r i i e e
; l S l t S S S e l iE l .
E t i. E un WIL W N I L I L oo . e _ Ri d d e _ t nd nd dv dv hc un un nA nA ce ou ou u u as bo bo os os _ or hb hb bi bi tl re tt tt rs tl pt pn us oe oa sl ai sl ei AI SW NE EW WW P" . ' (
fooo a rb airalo l u rno eil r e gt tuks rhhelv tetr a d va ims ece v .tf d y. s ic det n e a o uaw dnodne r qb e n f cw s . i uinwh f uh dg i tnnh arrt otuot a r a od y r ei e c c uuu o gubc t yb t :H ctt t a kc vaHasw dp s ies iff 3' vttd a ba eE s e effeeet
,lLrt
. .h t
se em iur ca ci ir fn r td . t R en s e m o N rs e'. vime sw.rd r
,i uepu e
n rdn s fu aS r d n uhd r ukt u otR de v ol mS s u u t t a o l o h so hgarni n o r o d bci Vns ~ seim 6 eg i o p gh nn uo hrn tru - c o i it tdch aii g 6s ecm kc 6 oi bs r o o . f i rnrfu eibfo rotthia en fr f ab r e hr te nN f ae uv a dn r tmwar fo2rh tn fanrhnf t oi l ltao r o) e AdNtt Acottia Sd Aabs T C0 0 t n dn0 e n o1 C ui o n r g r sde ) -n i o k v0 e0 d ho t A A 0 0 c i7 u pi D N N 5 0 aD0 lc vs ( r e 1 1 B e c c:no cv e f id ii R ofo fi C fD f e n ar a r o re r o i m t TP Tn o l a m re l di e i em ns B A A 4 9 t di ur oe N N 5 3 s nT rv 2 3 E U( gi kD 2 c ao t t e BN a a l t . b a - t . . a a d d T
. R R v o e e w m H - a a a R d d e y i i s r r r i w b by e
t r. t k P w e wa ew un rd u . N N hg oo S R k y . Ri o Hw dd d i t de o nR nH hc ng r u u ce ud be ok oe as oi ws bc bs or re br oi dr hi tr hi tr tb pt sw an ur rn pn ae eu oe ou AI EN MS SN NS U
- 4. Canacitv. Analysis Intersection capacity analysis was performed using the 1985 Highway capacity (HCM) procedures. Computations were performed for each of four, three-hour periods. The procedures were consistent with the methodology presented in the report " Capacity Analysis on Approach Routes to the SNPS Reception Centers, Revision A" (KLD TR-2Q1A) dated April- 30,'1987. The evacuation scenarios. considered were:
e One hundred percent of the SNPS EPZ is evacuated e The " arrival period" (i.e. the time-frame over which evacuating vehicle arrive in the area . of the approach routes to the Hicksville, Roslyn, and Bellmore Reception Centers) is estimated to be 6 hours e Evacuating vehicles etart arriving at the Reception Centers at 7:00 A.M. e and either
- 100 percent of all evacuees assigned to the Reception Centers actually travel there or
- 70 percent of all evacuees assigned to the Reception Centers actually travel there.
Where intersection signals are overridden to provide continuous movements, the movement capacities are defined by the following vehicle headways: through and left turn movements, h=2.4 seconds per vehicle indicating a capacity of 1500 vph. Right turn movements, h=2.64 seconds per vehicle indicating a capacity of 1364 vph. The capacity of afframps from limited access highways was estimated using the data presented in Table 5-5 of the HCM. Results of the capacity analyses for the 100 percent evacuation scenario at 'each of the Reception Centers are presented in Tables 3A through 3C. These analyses are based on the following assumptions: e
- Intersection capaci y estimates include the effects of evacuation traffic inbound to the reception centers and evacuation traffic outbound from the reception centers.
No capacity constraints were identified to evacuation traffic departing reception centers klong the specified routes. 14 _ _ , _ - - . _ - - , _ _ , - - - , - , - - - - - . _ _ - - , - - _ _ _ - _ . _ _ . - - - _ - - - , - - - -- -. __ _a-.. - - _. - _ _ - .
n o v, ol A i h 61 to 3 av 8h uf - 1t c 6667 1111 6667 7507 7507 a aw 9994 4441 9994 3435 3435 ,P r vo 4441 0003 4441 5356 5356 r( e El 111 111 111 e t F tnph n ev e 1 h l C 1 C ro n ov - n4 o ti 6666 1111 6666 7777 7777 i o01 i i e 9999 4444 9999 3333 3333 t nt 4444 0000 4444 5555 5555 t: p oa 1111 1111 1111 ps e MR . ew c , c elo e ) . R R hc 6900 l pa 1344 6900 8500 0000 o hef e 6900 6366 6900 4433 0000 l vv 1255 2233 1255 5355 0000 l iE 1111 1111 1111 1111 3333 ts i vs y o a t tc i i k cl 0000 sf c aa 0000 4444 6666 0000 0000 9100 4133 0000 0000 ef i N pt 5555 3333 5555 7555 0000 ha ao 1111 1111 1111 1111 3333 cr CT at s o rg i )l 2900 2000 2900 0700 7507 pn s ha 51 03 51 81 3435 pi y ;pt 10 at 22 10 22 5356 l a . vo git 11 22 11 22 111 du a n n nc A oh ua y l c. 2 ov be t aac 8800 7700 8800 9100 7507 t i oa 11 11 11 75 3435 sf c drv 88 77 88 00 5356 eo a nDE 11 22 111 w p aD m) a mA raF C e d o eI Ddn frth f eu " o cto 4100 3100 4100 1600 0000 est a iar 30 03 30 06 t s fca 32 11 32 21 a gP t fik adc r i n( l u rna grh s TIB - n ep i e i tv R . ro ne6 r 0369 0369 0369 0369 0369 t 9 A ee 1111 1111 1111 1111 1111 i he4 3 mt - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - n in 7036 7036 7036 7036 7036 o t; e TI 111 111 111 111 111 l m to )D
. l I b d ad a ; RS y .t teh T n 5 a df ont o y3 B Re toa i r1 L iP t tY r h et(
ch nN e td hr ec ) u tB un Toh sa N) St ot s/ yW oa I pp 2 pv ro 5t 5h Ca S er 3f 3g O u a tp np 1e 1i dB
.d
. wr eh s9 9
Yl Yr l/ IA N( N( OW SR NT i2 5 , , l
j a
' e
,; T h) s pE v, e .
n) s oh C u 8I b i o 2 tv 4h af 1t n u 9900 117O 1170 7730 a o cw ao 992 222 558 665 558 770 r(
,P i t
665 777 r vl e a - e EF th u - t np c n e
) ev a v
3 h C7 C re ov '.[1111 n7 e n' tf 9999 1111 7777 o7 r o ie 9999 5555 5555 7777 i o i t nt oa 2222 6666 6666 7777 tp :s f p MR ew e co s c . el t e' ) c
. R l o n R' h 6097 0933 7985 25?0 ef e o a 7200 0188 5874 7971 l
- s. v v 7655 5888 0443 9755 h tsa a l
l ( E 1111 1111 2233 i v y o t ic u i v t q s i sf e k cl 9717 0933 2435 7070 ef c a a 7298 0188 4144 7171 ha r i H D t a o 4377 11 5888 1111 6854 1111 5555 3333 c at r a
) C T o c
- d s
rgn i e l 2620 6600 1150 3200 p r s u
)
h a 1188 44 3760 34 p it e yi n o t 1122 99 52 1 78 a a g n g(v l o 11 11 11 du e a tn T nc s n o n ua s Ac oh lc . 4 beov a p y(- aa c 9900 6600 6600 8800 t- o a 00 44 44 22 ts f i c dr v np E 44 99 99 11 11 a o 0 1 a ap em 1 p a mA e d ro ear s C Dd n f t e. e u f o ct o ia r 3720 0088 0000 5550 8260 5500 01 e s d D uI fc a 1 tg l s fi k 7722 53 67 a ri n ch t ad c nt l u rn TIB a ger ia P s nt e in d R . ro e nw ao r 0369 0369 0369 0369 te ml
. ee 1111 1111 1111 1111 i h el A mt - - - - - - - - - - - - - - nt dof 3 in 7036 7036 7036 7036 o .
TI 111 111 111 111 e m to )G ns l y l 1 oe b r t . . ad is a ; yu h d . d teh tu T n ab g Rk Rh ont ab o Bd i p t t toa u
. i t
ch ro eW o R d l eT l . eu lo lS a. yt et( hr iP cn ao vi ec t Bn ip i aS Toh Et sa st/a vm se vw se w 3 pp 4 pv a u ro yaS dt er tp np O
..u
.ddh r
kH c it/ B kN c B i t/ at ooB rc/ a1 s5 c a v IA SRRT H. a N HaN BSS i6 E pm
n) _ oh iD tV af - u 7730 7730 7730 1170 c 'w 770 770 770 558 ao 777 777 777 665 r vl - e EF t n 1 1 e h C rD cv n tf 7777 7777 7777 1111 o ie 7777 7777 7777 5555 i nt 7777 7777 7777 6666 t p oa MR e c e ) . . R hc 7770 4341 0000 4444 Da 1142 9991 0000 6666 e Vv 6686 2457 5555 3333 l I E 1111 1111 1111 1111 l i Y v t s i k cl 0270 0306 0000 4444 c aa 5842 8417 0000 6666 i Dt 7786 4777 5555 3333 H ao 1111 1111 1111 1111
) CT
- d s
i e 1 l 1300 4865 8800 6600 sd y lu ha 69 1716 22 44 Dt 22 331 11 99 l c Vo 11 11 11 a n gI T n o n - ' . , Ac oh lc. y( aac 8800 8800 8800 6600 t oa 22 22 22 44 i drv 11 11 11 99 c nDE 11 11 11 a aD p mA a e d c Ddn eu - f cto 3500 6065 0000 0000 o iar 36 8516 fca 11 121 s fik t adc l rna - u TIB - s e R . r 0369 0369 0369 0369
. ee 1111 1111 1111 1111 A mt - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
3 i n 7036 7036 7036 7036 TI 111 111 111 111 e - l b a ; . T n d o tR t ty ty i a a ar ar t e y. t tt ch yg ynt ynh ec ad at auf aug sa wi wS woe woi ro dr d an dcl a dcr er ab a tD owB ohB odB odB nD re/ ro/ rl/ rl/ IA BNS BJS BOS BON lJ l l l
_ n) oh ie tv af - u 0090 0090 7700 cw ao 228 004 228 004 117 662 vl 11 11 - - r EF e ) _ t - h n rp _ e ov ~ C
- tf 0000 0000 7777 n ie 2222 2222 1111 o nt 0000 0000 6666 i .oa 1111 1111 MR t
_ p . e c l . . e hc 8500 0000 5500 R ea 1400 0000 7155
.v v 3355 5555 1222 n f E 1111 1111 1111 y
l y s t
- i ~ '
o l R cl 0000 0000 0000 aa 0000 0000 5555
~
pt 5555 5555 2222 s ao 1111 1111 1111 i CT ~ s y ll 7000 55O0 7700 l hg 42 66 28 a e t,. 44 22 87 n .v o 11 11 A gf T - y n t oh + ' . & i lc. c aac 5500 55O0 2200 a oa 66 66' 55 p drv 22 22 77 npE 11 11 a ap c mA-
- f e d o Ddn eu s cto 2500 0000 5500 t iar 85 73 l fca 11 u fik s adc e rna R TID -
B r 0369 0369 0369 3 ee 1111 1111 1111 mt - - - - - - - - - - e in 7036 7036 7036 l b TI 111 111 111 a T
- E t y n I a w o L . . k i d s d P t dR v R d nep ch n AE ec ue Ie utm oaa sa ro oc sLc btr bi i i er tvt l/vt lBrf tS s ff t
tD srf nD eee i /ee a.fe IA WSl WESl Enol l y %
nl oh i e tv af ~ . u 0005 0005 0005 0008 0008 cw 2222 2222 2222 1110 1110
. ao 0007 0007 0007 5553 5553 r vl 111 111 111 EF e - t )
n h e rp C ov tf 0000 0000 0000 0000 0000 n ie 2222 2222 2222 1111 1111 o nt 0000 0090 0000 5555 5555 i t oa 1111 1111 1111 p MR e c ) . e hc 2507 1874 7565 3317 5704 R pa 2855 8381 4515 4491 3441
- e vv f E 3249 111 8339 1221 9985 1111 2285 1211 7553 r
o y m t l i l cl 0000 5597 5555 5912 5904 e B aa 5555 4691 2222 8156 6641 pt 4444 0343 9999 9187 7553 ao 1111 3333 2222 2322 s CT i ' s ) l 1800 6023 0590 1505 9100 y 25 8910 0507 6964 44 l ha pt 00 4214 3213 6792 99 a Vo 22 2211 2211 21 1 n gI T A n y oh * - , t lc. i aac 3300 2500 2500 9900 9900 c - oa 99 28 28 11 11 99 a drv 88 32 32 99 p npE 11 11 11 ap a mA C e d f Ddn o eu 8500 4523 8090 2605 0200
. cto iar 26 6210 7707 4764 32 s fcg 11 1014 9913 7892 t fik 1111 -
11 1 1 l adc u rna s TIB e R r 0369 0369 0369 0369 0369 C ee 1111 1111 1111 1111 1111 3 mt - - - - - - - - - -
^ in 7036 7036 7036 7036 7036 e TI 111 111 111 111 111 l y b we t t t t T
a n ks Pi r a a a a.
.d o kn yk ye yd yR i ou wp wv H wR w t oS HTd HAd d Hed ch r n n en gn ec bo enu eku eru edu sa wt soo sco soo sio ro o i lb iib imb irb er dp. rytu rrtu rltu rbtt tp amy nbsr nrsr nlsr nwsf np eaw uaah ueah ueeh ueee IA MrH SBEt SMEt SBWt SNWl l S li
L . i e- Intersection capac!,ty estimates are based on the assumption that queues, arising from downstream intersections,.do not affect the capacity of the intersection being investigated.
. The Evacuation Flow, presented in the tables, explicitly includes the effects of the formation rond propagation of queues from downstream intersections. In most cases, the monitoring rate at the reception centers is less than the intervening intersection evacuation capacities and, hence, defines the evacuation flow rate.
- 5. Results This section discusses the results of the capacity analysis-and presents estimates of the time required to process evacuees and the extent of queuing associated with each evacuation path.
Time Recuired to Process Evacuees . Micksville Recention Center Evacuation Traffic via Broadway Results of the capacity analysis indicate that there are no roadway capacity constraints on inbound evacuation flow from either southbound or northbound Broadway onto Old Country Road eastbound. Nciwever, the monitoring rate for this flow (1428 vehicles per hour) is exceeded by the rate at which evacuating vehicles can approach the facility, over the estimated six-hour arrival period. Consequently, the monitoring rate controls the servicing of evacuating traffic along Paths IC, 1E and 1G. Traffic approaching tho' Reception Center from the west will therefore be restricted to flow at this monitoring rate. The estimated time required to process these vehicles is: Demand is 100 careent of the evacuation flow (6,770 vehs E 5,667 vehs) = 12,437 vehs/1428 vph Broadway S/B N/B
= 8.7 hours Demand is 70 cercent of the i nvacuation flow (4,739 vehs + 3,967 vehs) = 8,706 vehs/1428 vph Broadway: S/B N/B
= 6.1 hours 20
Evasystion Traffic via Woodbury Road There are no roadway capacity constraints on the inbound approaches to the reception center along South Oyster Bay Road or Woodbury Road. The evacuation flow rate along this path is higher than the avet?able monitoring rate at the 100 percent flow level, but is lower than the 70 percent flow level. At the 100 percent level, the estimated time to service the demand is (6 x 409).vehs/299 vph = 8.2 hours. At the 70 percent flow level, the demand can be serviced in 6 hours. Evacuation Traffic via Westbound old' Country Road The evacuation traffic demand over the six-hour arrival period which approaches the facility along westbound old Country Road, exceeds the available roadway capacity at both the 100 percent and the 70 percent evacuation flow levels. Roadway capacity constraints exist at several locations along the evacuation route, as is evident in Table 2. There are capacity constraints at the ramp from westbound LIE onto southbound Seaford-Oyster Bay Expressway and at the southbound off-ramp from the Seaford-Oyster Bay Expressway onto westbound Old Country Rd. At the first location, Table 5-5 at the Highway Capacity Manual indicates an estimated ramp capacity (at LOS E) of 1600 vph. (Note that there is no merging operation at the downstream terminals of the ramp.) Using an average of 117 vph of background traffic over the six hours, the capacity available for evacuation traffic, is 1483 vph: Evacuation Evacuation Evacuation' ~ Flow Level Demand Canacity 100 percent 1717 vph 1483 vph 70 percent 1202 vph 1483 vph At the second location, the evacuation demand over 6 hours, and the capacity for evacuation traffic are estimated as: Evacuation Evacuation Evacuation Flow Level Demand Cacacity (one lane) 100 percent 1483 vph 1247 vph 70 percent 1202 vph 1247 vph 21 ,
i i 1 A subsequent constraint occurs at the westbound approach along Old Country Road to South oyster Bay Road, servicing the evacuation ' flows entering westbound Old Country Road fron the northbound and southbound - Seaford-oyster Bay Expressway approaches. At this location, the evacuation demand over 6 hours and the capacity for evacuation traffic are estimated as: Evacuation Evacuation Evacuation Flow Level Demand camacity (two laneJQ, 100 percent 2065 vph 1447 vph 70 percent 1775 vph 1447 vph As a consequence of these constraints,. the available monitoring rates for the westbound Old Country Rd. approaches of 1836 vph cannot be fully utilized by the combined demand of paths IC, 1E and 1G (1447 vph) plus the demand along path 1D (299 vph). The total time required to process these evacuating vehicles from the west can be estimated at: Demand is 100 nercent of evacuation flow
. (10,302 vehs + 4,906 vehs) = 15,208 vehs/1488 vph S.O.B. X'way: S/B N/B
= 10.2 hours h nd is 70 nercent of evacuation flow (7,211 vehs + 3,434 vehs) = 10,645 vehs/1474 vph S.O.B. X'vay: S/S ' N/B ~
= 7.2 hours
. Mean evacuation flow service rates over 12 hours and 9 hours, respectively, are used. These figures indicate that all the evacuation vehicles assigned to the Hicksville Reception Center can be processed in under 11 hours.
Roslyn Recentien center Evacuation Traffic via the Lone Island Everessway l Capacity analyses indicates that all intersection approaches on the path to the Reception Center have sufficient capacity to service 100 percent of the evacuating traffic flow. However, the monitoring rate for this approach (1020 vehicles per hour) is exceeded by the rate at which evacuating vehicles can approach the facility over the 6 hour arrival period. Consequently, the monitoring rate controls the rate of service for vehicles approaching the Reception Center along this path. The estimated time required to service these vehicles is: 22
.._...._i
Demand is 100 Dercent of the evacuation flow 7,588 vehs / 1020 vph = 7.4 hours Demand is 70 carpent of the evacuation flow Elow rate = 5,312 vehs / 6 hours = 885 vph Since this approach rate demand is less than the associated monitoring rate, the entire demand can be serviced within the estimated 6 hour arrival period. Evacuation Traffic via the Northern State Parkway
. Traffic approaching the Reception Center along Path 3B oncounters no readway capacity constraints. The rate of flow approaching the center is higher than the associated monitoring rate (617 vehicles per hour) . Consequently, traffic flows at the acnitoring rate. The estimated time required te service the evacuation demand is:
Demand is 100 cercent of the evacuation flow 4,512 vehs / 617 vph = 7.3 hours Demand is 70 eercent of the evacuation flow Flow rata = 3,158 vehs / 6 hours = 526 vph S$nce. this approach rate demand is less than the associated monitoring rate, the entire demand can be serviced within the estimated 6 hour arrival period. It should be noted that the complete diversion of background traffic is not required to service 100 percent of the evacuation demand. Since the monitoring rates are less than the approach route capacities, some background traffic can pass through the area without affecting these results. BellmoreiReceetion Center Evacuation Traffic via Eastbound Sunrise Michway Results of the capacity analyses on the ramp from Meadowbrook Pkwy to eastbound Sunrise Highway and the intervening intersections (Babylon Tpke, and Merrick Av.) has shown that sufficient capacity is present to service the evacuation demand. However, the 23
M 44 i
-evacuation demand is higher than the available monitoring capacity
[' (1020 vehicles per hour) for this approach to the Reception Center. consequently the acnitoring rate controls the rate at which vehicles are serviced by the facility. The estimated time required to service these vehicles is: Espand is 100 narcant'of tha evacuation flow 11,356 vehs / 1020 vph =.11.1 hours Demand is'70 nereent of the evacuation' flew 7,949 vehs / 1020 vph = 7.8 hours Evacuation traffic via westbound Sunrise Micrhway Results of the capacity' analyses on the ramp from the wantagh Pkwy to westbound Sunrise Highway and the intervening intersections (Es11more - Rd. , and. Newbridge Rd.) has shown that sufficient capacity is present to service the evacuation demand. However, the evacuation demand is higher than the 'available monitoring capacity (510 vehicles par hour) for this approach to the Reception Center. Consequently the monitoring rate controls the rate at . which vehicles are serviced by the facility. The estimated time required to service these vehiclas is: Demand is 100 earcent of the evacuation flow i 5,513 vehs / 510 vph a 10.8 hours Demand is 70 earcent of the evacuation flow 3,859 vehs / 510 vph = 7.6 hours 9 O l-24 l l L. .
Analysis of Oueues Associated with Each Evacuation Eggh Hicksville Recention Center Table 4A documents the calculations applied to estimate maximum queue length along each approach. As is indicated there, the queue on westbound Old Country Road at South Oyster Bay Road contains vehicles frca both the northbound and southbound Seaford-Oyster Bay Expressway. Thus, the queue originating at this bottleneck (i.e. on the westbound approach to South Oyster Bay Road) will extend upstream along Old Country Road and spill back onto both northbound and southbound approaches to Old Country Road, of the Seaford-Oyster Bay Expressway. Also, the queue on the southbound 5.0.B. Expressway could spill back onto the westbound LIE for some period of time which depends on the percentage of evacuees travelling to the Hicksville Reception Center.~ In fact, this queue, added to that originating I at South Oyster Bay Road, will certainly spillback onto the westbound LIE. The queue formed on southbound Broadway will consume approximately, - (1128/2074) 25.8 = 14.0 lane - miles of storage at the and of the six-hour arrival period if 100 percent of evacuees travel to the R&ception Center. This queue may briefly spillback onto the westbound Northern State Parkway and/or Long Island Expressway; such spillback will-vanish in about an hour. The queue on northbound Broadway will consume about 11.8 lano-miles at worst and should not cause an appreciable spillback onto Southern State Parkway. If 70 percent of assigned ovacuses travel' to the Hicksville Reception Center, the queueing problem is greatly alleviated. Rosivn Reception Center Table 4B presentis the queuing analysis for the Roslyn Reception Center. Queuing exists for the 100 percent evacuation flow scenario only; no queues are present when the demand is 70 l percent of the evacuation flow. Bellnore Reception Center Table 4C presents the queuing analysis for the evacuation paths associated with the Bellmore Reception Center. Significant queuing exists for both the 100 and 70 percent evacuation demand levels. 25 ______-_m_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - - _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ -
I , Table:4A. Maximum Queue Lengths Along Each Path (Hicksville Reception Center) a) 100 percent evacuation flow rate Max. Queue Required Storage Rate of Queue After 6 (La-Mi) at Eg,t,h Growth ~(VPH) Hours (Veh) (150 Vah/La-Mi) 1A,8 At LIE off-ramp: 1717 - 1483 = 234 1,404 9.4 1A,3 At S.O.B. X'way off-ramp: 1483 - 1247 = 236 1,416 9.4' 1A,B,F At S.O.B. Road: 2065 - 1447 = 613 3,708 24.7 1D At entrance to the Reception Center: 409 - (1836 - 1447)* = 20 120 0.8 1C,E,G At entrance to the Reception Center: 2074 - 1Q8 = 646 , 3,816 25.8 5The 'available monitoring rate is the total monitoring rate for this approach (1836 vph) less the monitoring rate utilized to service the vehicles approaching along Paths 1A,B,F. 26
e- :. . l l Table 4A. Maximum Queue Lengths Along Each, Path (Hicksville Reception Center) Concluded b) 70 percent evacuation flow rate Max. Queue Required Storage Rate of Queue After 6- (La-Mi) at P,gth Growth (VPH) Hours (Veh) (150 veh/La-Mi) 1A,B At LIE off-ramp: 1202 - 1483 = None 0 0 1A,B At S.O.B. X-way off-ramp: 1202 - 1247 = None 0 0 1A,B,F At S.O.B. Road: 1775 - 1447 = 328 1,968 13.1 1D At entrance to the Reception Cantar: 319 - (1836 - 1447) = None 0 0 1C,E,G At entrance to the Reception Center: 1452 - 1428 = 24 144 1.0 Note: The volume for Route'1D is: 0.7(409-110) + 110 = 319 o . 9 9 9 e 27 _ _ . _ _ . . _ . _ _ _ _ _ -_m______ _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ _
4 Table 4B. Maximum Queue Lengths Aleng Each Path (Roslyn Reception Center) a) 100 percent evacuation flow rate Max. Queue Required Storage Rate of Queue After 6 (La-Mi) at Eg,1;h Growth (VPH) Hours (Veh) (150 Veh/La-Mi) 3A At entrance to the Reception Center: 1020 = 245 1265 1,470 9.8
~
3B At entrance to the Reception Center: 752 - 617 = 135 810 5.4 b) 70 percent evacuation flow rate Max. Queue Required Storage Rate of Queue After 6 (La-Mi) at Eg,tih Growth (VPH) Hours (Veh) (150 Veh/La-Mi) 3A At entrance to the Reception Center: 885 - 1020 = None 0 0 3B At entrance to the Reception Center: 526 - 617 = None 0 0 E
~.
I 28
- j. .
1 Table 4C. Maximum Queue Lengths Along Each. Path
-(Bellmore Reception Center) a) 100 percent evacuation flow rate i
Max. Queue - Required Storage Rate of Queue After 6 (La-M1) at Path Growth-(VPH) Hours.(V A D 50 Veh/La-Mi) 2A At entrance to the Reception Center: 919 - 510 = 409 2,454 16.4 2B At entrance to the Reception Centert 1893 - 1020 = 873 5,238 34.9 b) 70 percent evacuation flow rate Max. Queue Required Storage Rate of Queue After 6 (La-Mi) at 2,gj;h Growth (VPH) Hours (Veh) (150 Veh/La-Mi) 2A At entrance to the Reception Center: 643 - 510 = 133 79& 5.3 2B At entrance to the Reception Center: 1325 - 1020 = 305' 1,830 12.2 . 4
*e 8e O
l I I 29 _ i
b ' b - .._
- 6. Analysis of the Redistribution of Traffic frem the Bellnore Recention Center to the Micksville' and Resivn Recention Centers ,
This section discusses the results of an analysis of the effects of redistributing evacuation traffic from the Bellmore Reception Center to the Hicksville and Roslyn Reception Centers. The redistribution places additional eva uation traffic along each of the previously discussed paths. Using the existing capacity analysis, estimates of the time required to process evacuees and the extent of queuing associated with each evacuation path are presented. Table 5 presents the results of the evacuation traffic redistribution. Note that EPZ Zone K, which was originally subdivided into 5 subexeas, is assigned to both the Hicksville, and Roslyn Reception Centers. Further, to fully utilize the available east-west highway capacity, wtensive use is made of the Southern State Pkwy to move evacuation traffic to the general vicinity of the Reception Centers. Major north-south highways (Meadowbrook Pkwy, Seaford-Oyster Bay Expressway) are used to move evacuation traffic from the Southern State Pkwy to the Reception Center approach roads. Time Recuired to Process Evacuees Hicksville Reception Center Evacuation Traffic via Broadway _ . Evacuation traffic originating in EPZ Zone K2 will be added to Path 1E. A total of 2,62Ei additional vehicles will join this path. Traffic originating in Zone K5 (1,092 vehs) will join Path 1G. As previously noted, there are no highway capacity constraints along .the westbound approaches to the Reception Center. Consequently, the monitoring rate (1428 vehicles per hour) controls the servicing of evacuating traffic along Paths IC, lE and 1G. Traffic approaching the Reception Center from the west will therefore be restricted to flow at this monitoring rate. The esti:2ated time required to process these vehicles is: I se k 30 ______._____________m_____ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _w
o nE hPh o l eh t . h tt to
.toe o o ont u t oni rwtsr 2 .ot t to re oto 2 tow e tnoet uae ir xo ir xP 2
h t d . Zh Na s 2 h td srs nen yu En E tAe e F t - tdS d tsn Otnr rC od o tr9e v io2cA o Ea n ne tr io wo eu u- te t t e ou re Exn dh r xn eso b .duTn yc yw e SnT .io wo t E tr s h bec. et w d iP i ,a .d t kr ks n e t eeEx y.ll tet ho trd u es rP R
.d ee cor 5 .t Rp PP Pe C ac e ai mn te ac ron 3 e e. ep n
o o swW
'y r Us rt o.r oiw N y y y r oPo t 4 dSyc R re mt R td aR txaE i wP snd fn e ea t oh hw n w P.t y8 i yl n x urEu e t
Sel t Sy t k . eor Ct td uo k P yk .w2 boCoh p P .yr 5 E e nl nB
~
e y w ph e 2 on oC t ri r c wkxtc ey.to r ekwP .it odt o dr ev e e R ekPEui tP t w yt B d tPe x t o.l e hs. he a edov ukws l a t E E WdO t t kd t tk tnsr oP ked O R n u cR u e r So aa e R Pwnu dn tka Sot o I Lot yto e oi S Hyr o o otlnS e eo oS t S rSsrIuh r e r m gte ubo u y eyt nbn h hu de n d e l nbn r w rg uo ota it T t nat nh b r w t ud tb e a ha n hr l e n eo en lSt t e wrk oeP c twu do to B o h d ho.S a S tu no s a h dh tate noo oso rd o. naC n e i t tat u e LevE w w os e u ert W pR oord o h t i p SoMonrdA L I to o C ,o sd d SoMoa Nt te s u nd y tBl s O t s r d Nu s ea ay 5 t we d S eno natr ed ed w m o c e nd boid M Mk 3 ew y hunn e nd wi te n wndun s e hun t ln lu ta tour dnu.u dou do enn P iw r tou d f D bo si o eeeexd boe hbh eonto eCiSC ebo ehb eb eh s h ttt hbweWb t ckktEa tttt . c t ctt ct e t irse,s onna o irsre o.nmd ors or e a xoeh7a ruutor xoeov rd o ll roa ro u P Enwt3e PSSStB EnwNA PRCEO Pne Pn c a v .. E
- o. '
N f _ o h C E D D G F wt 3 l 3 l 1 I n ea _ i o NP t -_ a - c o n e e e l l i o l
- e. l l l a t l l l l i
e da i n i v i v vs R en n v y s s si y s
. it l k ,
l k k k vs s c s c c c _ 5 e ee RD R o i H R o i H i H i H l b a s 1 2 6 T e 7 8 5 8 9 9 2 l 4 2 i c 6 6 8 2 8 0 1 7 3 h 5 2 _ e V , _ e 2 3 4 5 N Zn 1 Po K K K K K EZ lI
Demand is 100 eercent of the evacuation flow (9,398 ,vehs + 6,759 vehs) = 16,157 vehs/1428 vph-Broadway: S/B N/B
= 11.3 hours Demand is 70 eercent of the evacuation flow (6,579 vehs + 4,731 vehs) = 11,310 vehs/1428 vph Broadway S/B N/B
= 7.9 hours Evacuation Traffic via Woodbury Road Traffic from EPZ Zone K4 (891 vehs.) are added to Path 1De At the 100 percent level, the estimated tire to service the demand is:
(2,680 vehs + 660 bus equiv.) = 3,340 vehs/,299 vph
= 11.2 hours.
At the 70 percent flev inval, the demand can be serviced in 7.8 hours. Evacuation Traff 3 e via Westbound Old Country Road Evacuhtion traffic from Zona N (3,726 vehs) is added to Path 1F, from the northbound Seaford-Oyster Bay Expressway. The total time required to process these evacuating vehicles from the west can be estimated at: Demand is 100 eercent of evacuation flow (10,302 vehs + 8,632 vehs) = 18,934 vehs/1488 vph S.O.B. X'way: S/B N/B
= 12.7 hours pgpand is 70 Dercent of evacuation flow (7,211 vehs + 6,042 vehs) = 13,253 vehs/1474 vph S.O.B. X'way: S/B , N/B
= 9.0 hours l Mean evacuation flow servica rates over 12 hours and 9 hours, respectively, are used. Ther.e figures indicate that all the evacuation vehicles assigned to the Hicksville Reception Center can be processed in under 13 hours.
32
-- -_--._a----- _ - - -----__--__a.-_--.__a_--____aa_ A
.- 1 L
Rosivn Recettion Center Eyfeuation Traffic via the Loncr Island Exeressway
. Evacuation traffic from Zone El (5,647 vehs).are added to the traffic approaching Roslyn from the Long Island Expressway. - The estimated time required to service these vehicles is:
1 Demand is'100 narcant of the evacuation flow 13,235 vehs / 1020 vph = 13.0 hours Demand is 70 narcent of the evacuation flow
. 9,265 vahs / 1020 vph = 9.1 hours ,
Evacuation Traffic via the Northern State Parkway-Evacuation traffic from Zone K3 (2,885 vehs) is added to the traffic approaching the Roslyn Reception-Center from the Northern State Pkwy. The estimated time required to service the evacuation demand it: t Demand is 100 eercent ef the evacuation flow 7,397 vehs / 617 vph = 12.0 hours Demand is 70 cercent of the-evacuation-flow l 5,179 vehs / 617 vph = 8.4 hours These figures indicate that the total demand at the Roslyn l Reception Center can be serviced within 13 hours. Analysis of Queues Associated with Each Evacuation Path l l Hicksville Receetion Center Tables 6A and 63 dob:uments the calculations applied to estimate maximum queue length along each approach to the Hicksville and Roslyn Reception Centers. As is indicated there, substantial queues exist along all approaches to the Reception Centers. l 33 _ . _ - _ _ _ . -_______________m_____ _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
4 Table 6A. Queuing Analysis for Two Reception Centers (Hicksville Reception Center) . a). 100 percent evacuation flow rate Max. Queus' Required Storage Rate of Queue After 6 (La-Mi) at Egj;h Growth (VPM) }[purs (V,, GAL (150 Veh/La-Mi) - 1A,B At LIE off-ramp: 1717 - 1483 = 234 1,404 9.4 1A,B At S.O.B. X'way off-ramps 1483 - 1247 = 236= 1,416 9.4 1A,B,F At S.O.B. Road: 3156 - 1447 = 1709 10,254 68.4 1D At entrance to the Reception Centar: 557 - (1836 - 1447) = 168 1,008 6.7 1C,E,G At entrance to the Reception Center: 2693 - 1428 = 1265 7,590 50.6 S l . 0 34
- - - _ _ _ _ ________._______m_ _ _ _ . _ . _ _ _ _
1 s .
]
i c. 1 i Table 6A. Queuing Analysis for Two' Recept. ion. Centers (Hicksville Reception Carter) Concluded b) 70 percent evacuation flow rate Max. Queue Required Storage Rate of Queue After 6 (La-Xi) at Path growth (VPH) Hours (Veh) (150 Veh/La-Mi) 1A,B At LIE off-ramp: 1202 - 1483 = None 0 0 1A,3 At S.O.B. X-way off-ramp: 1202 - 1247 = None 0 0 1A,B,F At S.O.B. Road: 2209 - 1447 = 762 4,572 30.5 1D At entrance to the Reception Center: 500 - (1836 - 1447) = 111 666 4.4 1C,E,G At entrance to the Reception Center: 1885 - 1428 = 457 2,742 18.3 Note: The volume for Route 1D is: 0.7 (667-110) + 110 a 500 0 0 35 I
' Table 6B. Queuing Analysis for Two Reception Centers (Roslyn Reception Center) a) 100 percent evacuatien flow rate .
Max. Queue Required Storage Rate of Queue After 6 (La-Mi) at Ea$lih Growth (VPM) Hours (Veh) (150 Veh/La-Mi) 3A At entrance to the Reception Center: 2206 - 1020 = 1186 7,116 47.4 3B At entrance to the Reception Center: 1233 - 617 = 616 3,696 24.6 b) 70 percent evacuation flow rate , Max. Queue Required Storage Rate of Queue After 6 (La-Mi) at Path Growth (VPH) Hours (Veh) (150 Veh/La-Mi) 3A At entranc6 to the Reception Center: 1544 - 1020 = 524 3,144 21.0 3B At entrance to the Reception Center: - 863 - 617 = 246 1,476 9.8 I i 36 m_______-___-.-____-___-mm___ _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
l
+ 4'
- 7. Conclusions Several. conclusions can be drawn from this study:.
- 1. If traffic-guides can be deployed, as discussediin-this report, to divert background traffic during the time that evacuation traffic is queued while awaiting processing at the three Reception Centers, then all evacuees can. be processed within 11.1 hours.
- 2. If 100 percent of all evacuees; elect to' travel to the three . Reception Centers, then queued vehicles will accumulate over the " arrival period" of six hours at all. ,
Reception Centers, then dissipate subsequently. The maximum queue. lengths will be quite substantial.
- 3. If 70 percent of evacuees travel to the three Reception Centers, then all can be processed within 7.8 hours---
only 1.8 hours longer than the . expected arrival of the last evacuse. There will be fewer queues accumulated at the end of 6 hours; these will be of reasonable extent and 4 will dissipate rapidly.
- 4. If the Bellmore Reception Center is not available for use, then 100 percent of all-evacuees can be processed at the remaining Reception Centers within 13.0 hours. Queuing associated with this scenario is substantial.
- 5. If the ~ Bellmore'. Reception Center is.not available for use, and 70 percent of the evacuees travel to the remaining Reception Centers, than ' the evacuees can be processed within 9.1 hours. Substantial queues exist for this scenario as well.
6.. The queueing analysis results suggest that the postulate that 100 percent of evacuees will actually travel to the Reception Centers, is probably not realistic if the Bellmore facility is not used. e 37
- - - _ _ - - - _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ -___m____.___.__ __m_____.__m_
t I-APPENDIX A Traffic Management Plans
- e d k
4 h 1
.s.
I' [L. [. - . 6 p e- , 93 ti.5 E 5 E le
- A wa
& f a.
V ' z E g N E ka
. mi il e 1
<~
e; a( ) _m 18 n Y 6' b b E j j 2, C
%vg j i
{p w .i f -
!.B c
2 g6
> 0 t e "g 4
~
15 .6 4 '
.!S SE
.~
de E - z $3 oo cc P ~ 3} J 4 (8 'i'li Q o :n :
- =
o _m 8 u jE4 E un
~
ugalI
., g 8
g... te E i: I E. E. E. ~
.. c c A A - g xThEOox 8 B-R. . . . -_ _ _-___. -_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ ___ _
n1 j'
... gp i -.
g .. ' E E gi 2 m N B ls - E j' ~ t S $ v 3 ' f$
=
_t ~ t ; g 3
~~ h e
- m 6 o .
E $ E b g X5 b) $ b Tto ( . I, L m
-to
~
'. gm -e
-j g'{e
~
~
)3
.Dh
*j S0 .
55 1l" 3 J 't ij g U M (- -z l 'I 4
'5 IB 23 g b.b.
y 5 ! ' O N .. . ii . 4.I E e dk hh> .. U U U 8 o
- a > . Y. Y. *""
C C x f h li O O x g , _ %91. _ _ _ _ _ _ - - - - _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ -
n_- - _ . _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ (.
' + -
j ., ie t: 9 e s .. 3
- m 5 e kr d3 g
L m dl W M
) g.
g
= $
2 e m s I $ CN a
~
s s 2s d s , g a e a b $ b,
- b:
- A x :l
$0 r 8 h1 U
-o U ,
-** i s
m se e 1 ., a e c o e 1; d l l g f 8E hl em f
= It g- ps M
~
% = h UU
- a g --
s -
-z . # kk U
" : au . S *1 4A 822 &
'aa' a !'.'! 8 a
8sas3 - W Ilbbt
>>8 8 8 E
hhh
't x L E O o x 8
j 1
- 1 s
b f, 5 .. 1
..C .
E E E - 5 . 8E ? s < A E l u 2
- i: 3 l j
. o z d ooo $
1 2 i V (, u l o u l
\
0[ 3 o 3 ' O g 3$u . T T t s - r i
- i
! 4 4 l .
'g .
c " I ? . l- .( .
.. . Ja a e as P .
is ,& 9
" si 1 el B ul z
"'aog-
~
..E. 4 g. ~
E 3d
=
j "g E E E o o o I. E
.. E E N O N h
? c
- x. h J, O O x g A-4 _ . _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ . _ - - - _ _ _ _ . _ - _
1 2 1 .. .g
.. p x
- =
5 h i g O sn f = u a
? ! , b c
7 io s , I A y i d ~d 0 k-n i 8
- s. .
O O O C - o 0 Of s
$ & s- - 0g x 8 2 3C ' 0 "?
Ed s 3$3 u T Slu c
~
o is
's 4: F is 5 .i
! 81 .
A !: ii
.. p o
aa 5 1 ,. ,r, 23
- ui
-z 1i ;l 's's
' .g b
s -
=)..
33* n aka $ E As
-= a!.!' 8 a
;- W ii!!E
>>It. t. t. a.
i ee444l h ii O O x 8 2 x A-5 _ __ _. -___ ___-__-_--__--__ - _ -
e *e ewe
+ . '.
i ,. Z .. E
.. h 2 h
5 g iE . u 3 g ; 3 8
.. < o t- =k i: f 2 o 3N i O E?
s g _~ u g "e
- . si
' 4 - s .?
@000or 3 g o
D=l 3 i L o r- t U L, g a . U 9 4 Fl o .g . -s c 6
= I . .
3: CD 2
- E 3 1 ,
- s' l
u I es :. 2 i Lt '! 5 "! &8 5,' . 22 5" : - ep ee 1I iv 11 l
-z
- I 324.I
.s ad b E
um ~ d.;g3h .. g as EE22ep
*^8 .
5 n. Igg I b. b. b. - c c A A A Q-f x h ]i O O x 8 c A-6
jl1 l :'
~
- ?a
=
1 1 v e h - c s H : Y
- T R I .o E R .
et T IO d R un N bo E R w rd C P = on 7 v Fu 8 o
- n . Lb T- i
( a ee H . l ce
. e P xm o v e N A o
, en l k va o
o a r ,f Ar i c P ku P rL a l d Pe o R @ o t r w e / N n i
' ec o v sa C n h c
i rr a a - , oe l i re F P tL r e 8 dn r no T e v ui ot A ba hu h tc c ue e e ov. d P sed n
- eR naw u
o N d d eoe e I e e rri uuv t T . l o r A a e . oon T r C L c d cca N e O : uo e e=e E e 1 e sl L c e s M L c sd e r P
.N e in n e I i
_ rd u o n : U o cb N O t l O n n e o c e I N t rrr i i T R m e errr P E v v e e e I V o o r r r R O S MT T T C S P b
,&M@OX E
. D A
A x D li!lIl lll(l i
-- i i
- )
I g I a . ; k d ' 2" 82 gt
-G. .
&*h N w
IgEl - d i I 2
.h
} =
lg E. - A I I l E< .e t T' h I i u G lu 2 d i i h 2 o
'c d ", 8' I I si z . .v cc
, m ui I L L n.
h U U\ A 4Ed 1 _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ 2 _ _ __ _ __
?E 1 ui
__________- / ._./ @ b [ 5 - ---- ll5 kl c - - s.u o d l l h!3 c z . .
..o .
'd i" l I
- IE 4
l 1
/ l -
!I' wul i s i S o I l e. o.c
'Z
)\ l 2
.s 52 au b
E Ii1 o, PE ouu P .! 3& LE! bbt 3;o g Atre g ~ iu u g EE C o 0 *$ . L 00u L m-= e
.; a u5k 2 ..
g 8
- l. W gg35st Iette
,, c c r r -
eet F h u. OOx c 1 L________--------.------__ a-@
4 , r
\
1 ' 1 i 5_
.x a
I .. d ;
.2 -
G : m.c
.s J i
/
l'
.gl
=
I 3 / so
? 2 .
la
/ /
i s i "g o 8 2 = / / 4-i
- x s
E o/ / / "'t [5 i / o r @ =l> 1 1 .- 18 a .
-A I 4 &s c u 4 >- .
cs.- x .2
$~
/ / i, f!
/ / l.. I!3-
_l iisa
/ / .
e4 4: g ~ 58 5 , 1g m.! P : il. 8 i 1 0 .. 8 1 0
....t m
J4jun 5h .? - 8
=
sa g 2 FEE 23 - W t I>>i t. t. t. - JeAAA$
- IhhOOx 8 u
c
- - - - - - ' - - - ----.-mm_ _ , _ _ , _ _ _ _
b-4. a t u z .. . gc h
..# - 1 1 v s g
6 o Y>wt 5
- " gs u Z
E 5 g E ' 1 j h #
& G z v
' i i 4 w 4
5
) OO O
0 Oo C % $ 8
$ h 0 0
) '
- p 0 P E e a Y: 8 k
~
j, = s 3 s u - st .
"\ .h ti is
~
l E 4 , g m S
.- u g E g s
2 s o 's % I 5
# ! 35 S*
1 @' 3 ouu 3 ccc 3J i [ :g 4..i ie h s
)))
~e-Z .
niog d d EEu a u - g CCC l I is . . [ - k$444 % xinneox 8 = ed A-10
_, , -._,.._,,___m._ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
. j
*. 4
'9 i
l l l l l .
- l
\
e i \ i
.. C -
E I Q e E
- \ \ ?
s e i . x a 1 2
. E -
% m
$ ? "o a
?
a ' b O . o- u 'h u 1 3s 1
~~ g 37 g b b
-f E
( -- a 3
- a $
x $x -
. * <x a
" l !
A . s e ' 'I 4 S a c I
- 4I
- -y
.. L 3 I oo cc 1} g g4 a
1 1
- )
's
- . 3' ,3 i
o
- E g
33 32 -
- ^
u5 s , i g
.(og -
g g {ejk...
$ $'i444 i
[ d Eg -( g 4 i
} h ii 0 0 *5 h.
x '
1
-~
6
- E
.. g i
=
}I l ;
E ? k .jE u g l r
'gr ce=o r u l.;, - 3l-e I
a C nd
.d6 L-= lu gD' Y **
1 g d)v -o 8eb l)21 g
~
c- o ts 5 0 $3 0 u I I .cc o d E! 2 r g go u . .. 3 8 $! o 1 I !s gga g 5 g3 .. SS E - z j g I$ bb i b
" $I s 4.- -
55 b e 55 d 5 { E ll ..
.$! w ll!E.E.E.~t gg ,
l ccAAA@ ihE00x g c u A-12
?
E e- j
]
L'c e-lE 8 E l l i
? D
~
? E ' b 5 3 11 a
E vi 5? 11
$l 15
(\ $ 3 3 p il E 3 ' ik
$E OO o" o tbo it 1- "
a - f'y N i b, A)fU 3 y }E. a m AI 5 . 334 e aou FI ST !! l I 1,g ;;.3 tt g i [g t!
.-h z -t =.i.-a.h .iI ,t -
as g 3a
,a a -
I
\ \1[$$ %%%-h
$$445 t a sox 8h 1
M. _____-_._...__af'%A . _ _ ________-_.__-_._____.._-_________-________-m._-.m.m._ _ . _ - _ - - -
L m, e m _r . . E z .. i_ c
.. # - .c
. I I w
i Q u g - E - L f wg U 4 L
. a.
t- g z ,. b i ' Q b v b 3 0 0 O d D o g b W I D D C- n.
. O U d o C 5 6 0
e goO ,
. 4 t
- 4 ,
' - ~
's L
i
& .m.m C
r .m - 2 0 0 "D i
.c a <> e .o u 8 eo. m-c n e s .
t m.s.a>. t- a .. :
' 2 4 ; ;
M!n5 38
.. . =a 1
u" s
- "D.
H d g
- k. e
< a .O . F h
'2 .* #
~
h ]" ,u
]
, M a . o c u,~
.= c . t. Q.
u.
~ c -
- t. !
. L 1 3 0 . ** D 1 O u .D Z C
, J a1 Q y
~
.. l e awss
. . 6 6 Q-
> > L.
O O L L L
,, C C & H &
1 x thEsox 8 i l l A-14 I
, lI l1
)J
~
?
u_ 1 1 v y e . o h . c B a H : d c. n e9
- Y Ie B3
- T S, l L.
y R I
- cY E R N O-T O N I L.I y
d r E R O .9 o 5 C P v r 1 d= e
- r= e T- o= S rc ep e H ex h S
5
? SE t N
L. o 3 I Y N l 9*
'/
. o n
i. d 1 u o n P a m o l y . r C t o r n e
/ @U1 e i
o 2 r C r r p e x e c L i E - , f d E f - I r a n e ? L d T l. dn nu . e I uo d o ob e n bh c o L.t u
.a L .o dr
.. nr ua y ob m oe cc d
e .- r. i ii e d. T A t o e e u rr rr d
. oe T ee T L r
- u e cr
.p N rr L 1 o c x E tt s . n DE A e .c dn . e P 15 e a n r I
- r d u o e : U l l o cb N D n c c c O E
- n. . i i i I / '
. .rrr T R
. e r r r P E v v e e e I V o o r r r R O nM T T T C P S N y
e yM@OX E D A A K
!l(l !
g"
e t. _ l l t o i S n a v e n h ; c. c . t H e: n e Y p o - : T e R I r E R T O g N I w E R k C P P 6 1 . T L.
- ; t H S N
o DD p@l n c. S h L. 5 3 l L J f L I [ t r o o Y N P N g I 1 e l 8 h o t r y t . n n w o o k C P c f 9. "" i c e 5" r i t ' r a e F t E
- r r S : 5 t a [ 3 r n a
- T d T r e
"gyg n u
- h t r hy b5 L3 o. o =1 N .Y _ .N
.d on N
I d e d.
.u ro T N ub A .
L. .o . oh ct C L r O : u d. u L 1 o e o a c . Ds c . d n. e o a n r rd u o o : l l m cb N n c o e O
. n. i i i I
T
. r rr P
. r r r v v e e e I R
o o r r r nnT T T C 4 S y
> @OX E
+ D e
K - [
x s. 5 ; a xe . z D= ZEs
.. t-l 5 g g
- 1 !
- G '
@ z uf '
m h. 4
" E l
, x z .
. x a
. L d m Q > g z j i
- i 3 ,
1 m v f ; i 8 i i - o y N- _ _r Q. j L e
'" @ [,-s \
u z
}> @
jiJL C.
~
l U .
' 1 C
a { ?.
,_ I c f L E F- T. - o
. L i u
- a. .
G. E a h ,. .. e ,
.. -CG j
, so- ;
g , , a au. : b$ UUU ; W ' ccc ; X -z j* * . 1o o 5 - I . m.u.u.
- !.t 6 e 333 u . .. NT" f I "O " 8 ;
aa 5 W i EE3s3 -
- e t e
>>6
. e.6 s c uu. Q.
w I 1 i 0 0 L L L \
. C C H H &
j' h s.O O x 8 < c l 4 x l i
= l l
I
s. 9 W
>- S 9 >
,, y
> h, <
g'=
>=
.e .i . a 8 , PL I.
@r emi s h.
o
.i Se !
& s a
[" Je 0 l
'. U,
'g i
i s
._ e g o
L t., -
.)
a n , e C *8 3 O M @ U U ac U . o' , g b
.d . .
g C 8 L .a 5 \ l T
>= == c 5 h i i ;.
z 3 1 's 3-C Ge Z g. UU
==
Q 1 1 e e O 66 p s G e e e e 66 ae 4 L 1 LL
" 3 8 0 a8 d
-Z
" 6 "
l!4. E f 6 1 3 h ** "3 O U .D Z Q
.J .ss O W e e ??? ~ %
!!bbb a E
>>S S O
>=
EllLE x1 OOx8 2 1 l A-18 ,
c i .52 h 1 4 8 % ;w
*. m ut
** 2 w
f N m g = 5 L g m E i. m' T 8 > 8 r
- o, I
e m c i V - z i m
),
. --- a k
o k / J
------s
= 5 1
], 1 (i
u
.m - >
a m _ u.
- a. t
- I L L g o s r ,
m
. i -
8 8 x b I m 40 I i O .' g l . oc _ .. -a n
. a. s-
- s. . - a.
4 a
~
'Z ^l
~
u .u .L 8 i b C Q. 22 Gk 66
~
E ff 2 4 a u .ho g 8 ss
!!ss3 - W E
I ! b. b. t. ee4446 m l h h.. @ o x 8 e
e i
.no N
> $ Ee=
a k .Btw v
.. C s
E -b<. i
-
- 5 uE
, \ a 2
?
- w
\ s o T \
1 s 1 -
\ g
- c
\
- b O '
z \ w
\. N dg i
$ \ -
N
\
q s
\\
1 e m s 3 4i a w O
.. k E
.g .
N t F u si h
\
\(\
s g S i .
\
\
\
i E
\
%+ \
\
g ,, E-is
- \ \ s s-
- v. -
- 3. .& 3 **
\ 4 ou 8
a tg a c CC
~
i E aoe
-' ', i l ..
5 55 z g w 11!!E i~ i It$$ h B ikI4h h
} h ii O O x 8 %c x
\ t g,, _ _ - - - - _ _ _ . - . - _ _ _ _ _ _ - - - - - " - - - "
l l i v _ o h c a H : Y
- T ,
s R I d E R R T O N I E R e C P i L. 1 v e 2 L. n r
- a
. t T- r l
. S t
H S P m l m E o l N E L. P o mV g l h t n o u l o d R O' o o r w n t e i n i i v o v o C n s m c e , ' , e 4N i l i f P r f a E' F. r r T
. t t
S , n o m i l E L. u c v N e O I ., d. d. T i o e . L. A L r C : u d. O o e AN 1 -. L -
- c . i A c .d . r o a n n r rd u o . :
t l o cb N c e c O n I e .n i i i T m . rrr r P e e v v F. r. o I o o r r e R M nT T T C
- S g *
. >* i@OX ED K
_ . i
- 'X'
s e
.I
- 3 z
- t. ..
g 2
- 8 3 .
~
-b5 i .
l N L U e
'J T ,
T @ .g z .e $ E
*- 2 g b a8 U
I T' e - o
?
iO 5 00 E U e y a a U T e 0 C u 8. O 0 se c L " C
.b m
a E U U Ee ,. L . h 1 T g y , .3 & , a e g g "g 4 e e m ' 2
- 4.3 4
~
a , s i
'Z di~g!)8 gses3 m
8 c- E I>>I b. b. b. - g
.. E E ir h ]i O O x 8 kc x
~
A-22
9 4 i b. 5 o E .. E
- H* . .l&.rd g
-{ .J
- "5 :
li 3 uE i 5 #) k A . : . k b e'> Z >C j
<o a W t.C Q -d
- n. "J"* -s
.g -o
~*
C 8 j O j {0 - 7 Ej
$ 0o g g3 c
* - Oo (- -
is "b
's N
i oh ?E b
=
2 8' Y .
.og 4
C- -8
-> a- ,e s,
> >< h - C.
.. '8 38 U
h 11 O es cc" l, n a a ww ss 1j .: i i " si g II
-z se e ~m
- e t.
-. o go" '
sa C C U U U 5 W k w" Y
? "> 'li 't 4 E 4 444 in5 i' h h, 0 0 x 8 u e S
.o . % 'l e
h rrn
*E ..
5 f E : a bE i 4 A w
- e
. ]
- x%++0! !
1 t.
%n++- .g s- -
. N 3 a
, j -
o . J g N - g J a
- l. g b
e
)s m
y 6 3 s 4 _ . 3 em a 18
\
\ e l -!
i nU
! 3 r, 6-
< cc o.
t 2-s
.J
=k l!
g ss 32 li U 4 e ~5 E -e d5{* as h* -
@w c
g s s s ;8 - > ltbbb E ccA:: ~ Q x i h ]Is o x 8
-m E
_____$________---__------------ - - - ^ -
n y l e o R g b Y e
- T e R I e E R e T O e r
N I p E R x 3 C P E 5
- d T n - a R l s
I o o ~ N n o t L e X P l o X0$ X X
/
t C o r n o t o h X /
/
7 3 L x e m E r E F E 7 I F 3
- L e
r L d T x n u E o b E I L / l e m _ m
- 7 d d h
t e e i e e T t g m e A a e e o C . L r d O : u n l L 1 o e C a c e i e sd e i en r F d u o e n r : AN m cb t t n n e e na m i e e i i T m mrrr P e ef r f v v e e e I o o r r r R M nT T T C
- S
_ y e K
+ *@OX M
_ ei
4 11 Si
~
0' **3 8 3 ' E ..
)
5
? *4>i E $
.. . 3.". .
?
r . 1., fZ.: 3.- i A E g j
>. $l5 smo D
- LO****
Z C .g h a s z =,
- s.
- A .u, 2 f. Oo k,. 5-' b "o
j 8 0' O o n g}8C,t c L ; e 5 in e '!E i
- u. i y o .g.,
h, j U
- L o i C .-
c !C ; c u : c L <
> \ j' -
os . 5 s o o L, , > C wo
.o . - ..._
k. 5 ? '
.. si g *aol.o.t l g j g .5> ooo :
$3' ccc I 1i =l' .Ci 's's's
( s ,. .s - oco 8 a - m
- o .
a *h' Ge4 .
; sse
=xo j
=.m . t a A
. - z .! i j 8a h.=
., g g !
i e ga o o - W 5 I I> !> E. E. E.E 1 t ee444l a sox s
. . l x
l l l i l A-26 l
~ ..
s I
. .L. ,
l i y T
& .. i
.. p
\
5
- f.
, uE I ,
=- k i
=
A 4 A i 7
. i 5 i 1 m h
i - O 8 W
~
o 8
- a. !. a
- t i
? , A
.a C C l O '
3 6 e o ; te
> 00 - .h g
A s
' j d i w 1r N
J > l
. e -$$
! 38 E au p 11 d O UU
- 3*
4 : cc ww 3 4.! E jj
\ J43a=h o s 5 ..
g' @
+
i !a 32 - 9 .z i> E> t. t. t. W - eebbb Q jhE@ox y e 1 i
c h' 2 l' 1 4 ..
.. R I b d
g 5 g tl t _ aj
= E .E '
= .A.
m l 14 W: i Ic1 e
,1
=
.)
"lh f
a a e b yj ' ' f.. i d ; u i as b -
$i A 7
- ~
I'
'E
.$ i
4:t 5
8h au.o r o l '} s g
$ }!o li b h.h.h.
a j 0 0 -
$.I,li
. I=
' ' & u .h o 8
bbb
+m b
fc z j'uccc u a u W lje e e b
. . ..ccAbh h x-FhE00x 8 l
l i l L________.____.-___ _ _ Acd2R . --
~
1 t i 2 .. II I I la 5 g I I I I
)$
"E 1 1 I i 'l
' % ii .h
- !!% N ll l !!.
n 1 i. t1 t' b.1 u z M _, O i c o og U *'l 'I Ud
!!t A
, )I I I I h!
33e l l l \ 1 1 a I I
\N\ ii 2- .
\N
\
'd5 .:
g ii
\NX I I ,, !$ 5 l
3a m:: . I }- I 3= s zg k g c a l I I I
.: 1 : =-
- 4.- e 3 l Ih i I f '~ 5 ! .! g h s
i s e e e ;-
'Z iIbbb o. E
.. .& .E E E E--@. {
ThEOOx & u E
-M
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - - - - - _ _ - - - - - - - B-8@
8 ,
.. h .
4 E oE i i
? & !
? 3 c
= t f
. 48 x 0 .
Z Z O 1 I i oO '/ i C C
! f~ 8 g
d a N A cb - w . . - - a S b T A 3 l L f - j l c si
& 88 ii
. r .
I cc t 's's
'Q a =g.. i e
c ss l Z e
! ,s 3
- g E -
%o .
gg,5 .. g as w sss32 - 1Itbb n.
~
, ,, e c - r r ~Q
? h ]i O O x g l
c, x A-30 - ______ - __-_ - _-_ _ _ _ -
1 1 SHELTER USE ESTIMATES FROM { BEHAVIORAL SURVEYS -
)
EVENT c DENVERACID 24.8 CARLA 23 ELENA 22.9 FC C E ST E 19.6 ABILENE 13.2 DAVID 12.3 IWA 12.1 ~ CLARKS8URG 10.3 PALO DURO 8.5 MT.VERNON 7.9 MT. ST. HELENS 6.4 FFEDERCK 6.3 MISSISAUGA 5 DENERFLOOD 3.5 SLMER 3.4 SNOWOUALME 2.5 COALNGA 0.4 l WI 0 l . , , 0 to 20 30 40 SHELTER USE (% OF SAMPLE)
SHELTER USE IN ALL EVENTS EVENT CAMILLE ' ^ ^ 'W'aie'- ^^ "" ^ ~ ^" ^ ~ ^ =:===m:r ce ~*>u 31.4
~
VALLEY L 4. Na'i -- ~ .n & : % v %- -';'DUE .M 29 pgm . :m;;; x.pm ~ w r :x fr:ni. -,Q 26.4 KATE u sec x x :/
- 2 * - -2'. n aara 25 DENVER ACID ar--'^ we- = wrea 24.8 BETSY 24 CARLA, 23 ELENA 22.9 RDCHESTER 19.6 NANTICOTE , 14 ABILENE , 13.2 GRAND ISLAND 12.5 DAVID 12.3 IWA 12.1 TAFT 11.8 CLARKSBURG 10.3 MINUTILLI 10 WILKES BARRE 10 PALO DURO 8.5 MT. VERNON 7.9 MT. ST. HELENS 6.4 .,
FREDERCK 6.3 MISSISAUGA 5 DENVER FLOOD 3.5 SUldER 3.4 SNOWOUALME 2.5 XENIA 2.3 COALINGA 0.4
- TMI o
. . . i 0 10 2.0 30 40 SHELTER USE (%)
~
. Attachm:nt 7 4
Analysis of Numbers of' People Sent to Reception Centers I. -Calculations are to be made defining total numbers of people sent to Reception Centers for monitoring-in the event of a r' radiological release from SNPS.
'A. This calculation is based on wind direction of the time of the release, and should be calculated for each of the 16 compass rose directions.
II. Assumptions and methodologies A. Assumptions
- 1. Wind direction does not change during the release of radioactive materials.
- 2. Plume width at 10 mile EPZ boundary is = 5 miles (approximately stability Class "C").
Note: Stability Class A would have widest plume width; Stability Class G would have narrowest.
. (Stability Class C is predominant and is present approximately 60% of the time.)
- 3. Wind speed is 10 mph.
- 4. Release is elevated (exhaust systems functioning normally).
- 5. Plume edge-to-centerline ratio = 0.01.
B. Method
- 1. Calculation of all data will be performed using equipment available at the EOC.
- a. HP85B Dose Assessment Computer using ACDOS Mod 11.
- b. 10 Mile EPZ zone map with compass rose overlay.
- 2. A qualified Radiation Health Coordinator will per-form all work in accordance with LERO procedures OPIP 3.5.2, 3.6.1 Revision 10.
- 3. Zone populations are taken from LERO OPIP 4.2.3 Att. 2.
?: .. . l? f, D' , s.n -E2 - - p c
' 4 . .. Wind ~ directions will be from:
N a.10* S .i. 180*~ j' NNE b. . 22.5* SSW :j. 202.5*
~*
'NE c. 45' SW k. 225*
-ENE d. 67.5* WSW 1. 247.5*
.- E e. 90* W n. 270*
ESE f. 112.5* WNW n. 292.5*- SE g. 135 d- NW o. 315' SSE h. 157.5* NNWf p. 337.5*
- 5. 'Using.one 27* plume width gives an approximate 5.1 i
mile width.at 10' miles and also' closely corre-
'sponds to the compass rose sectors.
- 6. Evacuating population will be determined using:
la.: Wind direction at time of. release.
- b. Compare wind direction to OPIP 3.6.1 Att. 6 using condition III
'c. Determine zones to be evacuated using the
-table listed above.
'U'sidg'OPIP 4.2.3 Att.'2 d'etermine' total popu-
~
d. lation evacuating (some populations from each zone).
- 7. Population sent to Reception Center for monitoring vill be determined by:
- a. Using 10' mile EPZ zone map:
- 1) Plot a straight line from SNPS to the 10 mile EPZ boundary.
- 2) Using the value determined from HP-85 calculation for plume width, plot two more straight lines from SNPS to 10 mile EPZ boundary showing the width of the plume at 10 miles (5.1 miles).
- 3) A qualified Radiation Health Coordinator will determine the zones which should be sent to the Reception Centers.
e
3-- III.-Summary A. Populations-
'l. Using the date from all calculations and compari-sons a graph will be formed.
- 2. A comparison will.be made showing a '. . Evacuating population vs. vind direction.
L
- b. Population percentage sent to Reception Cen-ter vs. wind direction.
. c. Evacuating population vs. population sent to Reception Centers.
O e % $ W 9 l
i m.. q 1 [3E3E3[3E3L3030303E3E3E303E3EJE3 [3E3E3E30303E3E303E3E3L3E3E3E3E3 SHPS'- 0FF5ITE DOSE RSSESSMENT. SNPS - OFFSITE COSE RSSESSMENT CHIQS.(MOD 11-10/E7)LILCO/ENTECH. Cg{g_S ((gg((;{g_/{7(((({g,/E[{,E((_
.DATE OF~ ENTRY DRTE: 03/21/89 TIMER 14:03 03/21/89 33 T WI D SPEED (MPH) 1l'8 EDGE TO EDGE PLUME WIDTH (MILES) 150-FT WIND SPEED (MPH)'10 FOR STABILITY-R (PLUME EDGE TO.
33-FT WIND DIR. (DEG) 22.5 CENTERLINE RATIO = .010 TO.1)
~" 150-FT WIND DIR. (DEG) 22.5 33-FT DOWNWIND SECTOR SSW 150-FT DOWNWIND fECTOR SSW DIST- WIDTH DIST~ WIDTH-ATMOSPHERIC ST6BILITY R EXCL .263 5.e- 4.<--oc STRTION VENT FLOV-(CFM) 366600 RBSVS FLOW (CFM) 1160 l-l5 -
*jg
{g' 5 . gg OUTSIDE TEMP (DEG F) 55 gg 3'gg- 15 12'168 DELTR TEMP. (DEG F) -1.5 1 5 l 568 20' 15'561-20 2.173 25'. 18.876 [3[3[3E3E303C3E303E3E3E3E3E3E3E3 lg lI6 3.5 3.442 40. 23 275 4.0 3.906 45. 31.288 4.5 4.323 50. 34.255 E3E3E3E3E3E303E303E3E3EJE3E3E3E3
~
[3E3E3E3LJt3[3f3E3E'I'3E303EJE3E3 J SNPS - OFFSITE COSE ASSESSMENT
. CHIQS (MOD 21-10/57)LILCO/ENTECH
[3E3E3E303E3E303E3[3[3[3[3EJE303 DATE: 03/21/89 TIME 14:01 SHPS - 0FFSITE COSE RSSESSMENT EDGE TO EDGE PLUME WIDTH (MILES) CPIQS (MOD 11-10/f7)LlLC0/ENTECH FOR STABILITY C (PLUME EDGE TO CENTERLINE RATIO = .010 TO 1) DRTE:0F ENTRY 03/21/89 TIME OF ENTRY 14:01 DIST' WIDTH DIST" WIDTH 33-FT WIND SPEED (MPH) 18 EXCL .156 5.0 2.776 150-FT WIND SPEEC (MPH) 10 0.25 .192 7.5 4.041 33-FT WIND DIR. (DEG) 22.5 0.5 .336 10 5 19e 150-FT WIND DIR. (DEG) 22.5 1.0 .626 15 7.147 33-FT DOWNWIND SECTOR SSW 1.5 *17 20' 3 055 150-FT DOWNWIND FECTOR SSW 2.0 1$191 25$ 10.879 ATMOSPHERIC STABILITY C 2.5 1.452 30. 12.639 STATION VENT FLOL (LFM) 366600 3.0 1.713 35, 14.348 RBGVS FLOW (CFn) 1160 3.5 1.994 40 16.014 OUTSIDE TEMP (DFG F) 55 4.0 2.266 4 5 .' 17.643 l DELTR TEMP. sDEG F) -1 025 4.5 2.525 50. 19.240 E3E3E303030303C303E3EJE3E3EJE3E3 E3E3[3030303L3030303C303E3EJE303 _____m_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ - - - - - - -
,9 J
s E3E3t3E303E3C3E3E3E3E3C3E30303E3 E3E3[3['3[3[3[3C3[3[3[3[3[3[3[3C3 SNPS - 0FFSITE DOSE RSSESSMENT SNPS - 0FFSITE COSE RSSESSMENT CHIQS (MOD 11-10/E7)L1LCO/EHTECH CHIQS (MOD 11-10/f7)LILCO/ENTECH P~ ______________ _________________
" 03/21/89 DHTE: 03/21/09 TIME: 14:05 DRTE OF ENTRY TIME OF ENTRY 14: 05 le EDGE TO EDGE PcUME WIDTH (MILES)
- 33-FT WIND SPEED (MPH) FOR STABILITY G (PLUME EDGE TO 150-FT WIND SPEED (MPH) 10 22.5 CENTERLINE RATIO = .010 TO 1) 33-FT WIND DIR. (DEG) 22.5 150-FT WIND DIR. (DEG) SSW 33-FT DOWNWIHL SECTOE DIST. WIDTii DIST. WIDTH 150-FT DOWNWIND EECTOR SSW
.591
~ G EXCL .05T 5.0 ATMOSPHERIC STABILITY 0.25 .067 7.5 .038
- STATION VENT FLOF (CFM) 366600 1160 0.5 106 10. 1.065 RBSVS FLOW (CFrD 1.0 .259 15. 1.494 OUTSIDE TEMP. (DEG F) 55 3- 1.5 .215 20. 1 905 DELTR TEMP. (DEG F) 2.0 .271 25. 2.270 2.5 .327 30. 2.645
[3E3E3E3E3[303E303E303E303E3E3E3 3.0 .381 35 2.998 3.5 .435 40. 3.341 4.0 .467 45. 3.677 4.5 . 540 50. 4.005
~ '
E3E3E3C3E3EJE303E3EJE3[3EJE303C3
- . . . - - . . - . .= . . . _ . --. . -..
l 7 . ...--- . . . - t
J un ns r nwneen J Hi?V iisH lhi s i ? } , wemm_ A eig8
.nmipnglmga uma6m ~
Elfil!!ihiiti$il!$!#! ^ ~ ~ f?1 f.f///.?////////// ~
& !!!!!n nsuilu E I3d
& ru$w ra tttttt :E$k4 : t ji 'l!!!l!Hi!!!!!!!$
1T jj ?se!IiMr iN!N ml. m se r
- j. [el l.jili !i li!
~~
Mi bi '.. 1 .11 1.
;i .: . .
Il egrece=*= geree 3 ta n
=, m r,.g a e q? .R .l M.f_ <
ra t j te , .e
.p o.1 mar.;.s= m ue i 21a M q s%4 '131 !
0 % 6 0 p ~ - o P - Z
# P E
f o d i t e r o n N % M o Kn o ) p o Ei t - mPZ o c r P E ye r F ( bi D ; n o i t c M sd e nni i D r n i t oW d i n i l t o a u d ay ' W P p o h t l b u p d t e c i e o t f s f d d - A _ P n a s u o Mm h e T 0 0 0 0 0 C 4 2 0 8 H 1 1 1 R r e P
,! I
? [
P Z p o
~
0 6 c
# P E
f o gi d t e r o n N o Kn o g)mP M p o Ei t o Z ye r c gF ( r n P E bi D . o i t c M sd ie nni i D r n o 0 i t oW in d i l t a u 2 d
+
o ay i p
. W P o h t
e l b u p i d t e c i m n o e o t s f a gMm f d d A n P n a s u e m o o
~ c h e r
T - - ~ - 0 0 0 0 C 4 2 0 H 1 1 1 R r e P
. l lll
Attachment 10 7 HISTORICAL WIND DIRECTION (IN PERCENT)
- WIND TOWARD YEARS 3 YEAR DEGREES ** SECTOR 1978 1979 1980- AVG.
348.75'-81.25' N 5.6 8.2 4.8 4.2-11.25' - 33.75' NNE 8.8 11.4 11.2 10.5 33.75' -56.25' NE 9.0 7.7 9.0 8.4 56.25' - 78.75' ENE 5.8 5.6 6.2 5.9 78.75' -101.25' E 8.2 8.4 7.9 - 8.2 101.25' -123.75' ESE 12.I 11.1 12.5 11.8 123.75' -146.25' SE- - 9.7 11.3 12.7. 11.3 146.25' -168.75* SSE 8.4 . 6.6 8.4 7. 8 168.75' -191.25' S 5.2 5.5 6.1 5.6 191.2 5' - 213.75' SSW 4.8 4.2 3.8 4.3 g 213.75' -236.25' SW 5.5 3.3 4.3 4.4 236.25* -238.75' WSW 4.6 4.1 3.7 4.1 258.75' -281.25' W 4.0 3.5- 2.8 3.4 281.25* - 303.75' WNW 2.5 1.8 1.9 2.1 303.75' -326.25' NW 2.7, ' 2.6 - ~ 2.1 - 2.5 326.25' -348.75' NNW 3.1 4.7 2.6 3.5 TABLE I
- Dato Source: Shoreham Meteorological Tower (400 foot level)
** Eoch 22 f/2' sector is centered on one of the sixteen cordinal compass points; north is at O* east at 90',
south of 180* and west at 270' ' II-3 ,
h - Attachment 11 S 1
. SUPRENZ COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK COUNTY OF NASSAU : TRIAL 2
........................ TERM, PART 22
.... ............ ..g 3
Town OF'EEMPsTEAD and mERT A. MAYER, a 4 commissioner of the Department of Buildings of the Town of Hampstead, - 5 s Index #237795 , Flaintiffs, 8
..E -against-l' 7 2
- LONG ISLAND LIGHTING Co. and any of its
! 8 agents, officers, servants, employees, t successors and assigns, and anyone 9 acting by, through or under the Long Island Lighting Co., .:
to De 11-
.. ............. .......fendant.
.................x 12 100 Supreme Court Drive 13 Mineola, New York 11501 November 2, 1988 .
14 3efore: 33 EON. PATRICIA D. COLLINS, 16 Justice Appearances 17 gg CHARLES 8. KOVIT, ESO. Deputy Town c Attorney for Plaintiffs {. 19 I BRAD R. REGENBOGEN, ESQ. 20 Attorney for Plaintiffs DENNIS STSK, ESQ. 21 Attorney for Defendant 22 EDWARD J. WALSH, JR., ESQ. Attorney for Defendant 23 24 Ellen Fischer 25 Official Court Reporter _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ - - - - - ~
1 , 1 i 2 MR MAL 8R: Thank you, Your Bonor, for seeing um, ; a this morning. I know you have a busy schedule and Z 4 will try to be quite short. The purpose of it.he motion 5 that is on before you this morning is to bring to your 8 attention the provisions of Article 2-5 of the Executit ' 7 Law. This statute we believe to be applicable and l 8 controlling on the issue and believe it to be controlli-s on the issue of whether or not the Rempstead soning 1aws can prevent the use of the te11more site in-time 11 of radiological emergency. We believe that the statute 12 ' applies and is contro11ing on that issue. 13 Article 2-3, in essence, provides the Chief i '# Executive of the State or of a local municipality [ 16 4 must declare an emergency if there is a a radiological
! 18 esorgency in the particular municipality and if ha 17 I
finds a radiological emergency is pending or instinent, la and if he finds that the Bellsore site is needed to I 18 I cope with that emergency then the chief Executive can
! 20 2 suspend the soning laws or any other local law that wool g prevent the use of that site as necessary to copy with l 22 the emergency.. Therefore, as a result of the appli-23 cation of that statute, no use permit or other permit 24 would be required in order for the lighting b epany 25 to use the se11more site as an evacuation center.
4
- - , . _ . . _ . , _ g. ,
1
.1 1
U 2 gte , e clear that if there is a radiological 2 emergency and if the chief Executive proclaims such.an 4 emergoney and if he finds.that the Bellsore site is 5 needed to cope with the emergency, then he could sus-4 pond all the local soning laws and other laws widok 7 would impede or hinder the use of N site for that' l 8 purpose. My impression is that the Town recognises 8 that Article 2-3 does apply. The question would be to 10 i the extent to which I believe it controls. I thtak thes 11 resist mostly the motion that Lilco can represent 12 that it can use the proptrty it the way I've described 13 I 14 and under the scenario of facts I described to the 1 public or to the Nuclear _megulatory commission, but if 15 it's lawful to use the property for the purpose which 14 I've described under the statute as I've described it, 17 , then it is lawful for the lighting company to represent is that it can use it in that fashion and I think that any it atteopt 'to restrict the see of, or the representation 20 of the lighting company to that effect, abould not be 21 enjoined. 22 TEE COUNF: If I may interrupt, there's a condition 23 precedent to the use; that is, the chief trocutive, the 24 covernor, declares there either is an emergency or one 25 is about to happen, but that's something that ha'an't O e _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - - - - - - - - ~
----_ _ m _ . _ . _ % e.m g,g
.s
~
1 7' o 2 happened yet. 3 NE. WALSE: Yes, and the statute that was enacted, 4 the Ezeoutive Law, Article 2-4 was enacted for that-5 very reason. It assumes that an emergency happeaa. It 8 assumes that if an emergency happens the state and the 7 local governments are going to met. l - 8 TRE COURT: Bow does that relate to the decision 8 that the court made that those things which were 8 installed without. a permit and beyond the scope of 11 the special exception should be removed? 12 act. WALsEr now, with respect to the trailer, 13 which I will concede for the purpose of this argument 14 is in use br- a- storage of -- piece ;of' equipment, { 16 4 probably doesn'.t come within the provisions of the l 16 permit. sowever, what we are saying, only, is that if 17 f there was this emergency and the scenario followed that i it I outlined, than the soning laws would be suspended and I # we coul'd use the property for a reception center. 1 20 TEE COURT: At that time. a 3 30t. WALSE: At that time. l 22 TER courts 21' the Town disagreed at that time ther 23 have to run in here and try t.o get a restraining order - M NR. WAIAR: Exactly. 8 TEE COURT:
-- for service on the Attorney General.
0 ,
- ~ ._ _
1
- 2 MR. mLSI: Yes, they would, and on the Governor, ;
8 or whoever -- ' 4 THE CCCRT: Yes. 5 gg, unLss -- issued it. We don't quarrel with ' 8 that. That's the point. we make. This Article 2-5 dos 7 authorise the use under the circumstamoes. 8 l TRE COURT: At that time. 8 MR. WALas: At that time in the future, we're talking about. For instance, we're talking about an 11 accident. That is assumed. The Nucioar mogulatory 12 commission assumes the worst possihie kind of accident. 18 It makes you then to prepara an evacuetion plan to cope with that accident. The statute we are concerned. [ 15 with here does virtually the same thing. It assumes is that there will be'an accident. It tells the Governor n f and the chief Executive what has to be done, what they i 18 can do. We think the statute should be reflected in the 18 Court's decision. i TRE coORT: a
- You mean, the decision should 6ay this 8
g would not apply should there be a -- should Article 2-3 l 2lt of the Executive Law be invoked by the proper individeal 23 MR. MhL83: That's right, if there was an emergency M THE COURT: ' I think it's sort of implicit in there. 3 If the law is in existence at that time and hasn't been
g i. 1
- m J 2 anseded or changed or added to or subtracted from, I 3
~ think that,it would be somewhat like saying the grase 4 is green, you knowt s set. WAL8m: All right. Now, Your monor, how about 8 the representation that we can use it under those l s.ri.. .f .ir. _ t _ ...
s l 15E COURT: The statute speaks for itself. 9 act. WALaus so the representation would also be 10 subject to the provisions of Article 2-3. 11 TBE COURT: You mean, yp 're representing that you 12 could use it for that?..Well, what you're saying is tha' ;
< 13 we could use it should that emergency ocae up because 14 we're relying on Article 2-3 of the Executive Law.
16 #ct. WM.85: Right. I g is TEE COURT: I still don't connect this, unless
~
17
*there's something in here that you can point to that I
ts you think would be a problem for you at.that time - to set. WhLSE: We're concerned, Tour sonor, with the I,, 30 flat -- what appeaced to be a flat injunction on our 21 g using the promises or our representing that we would us<
.l 22 it under the circumstances, but as Tour Ionor is now 23 -
eaying to me, yodre --
. 24 THE COURT: Iwouldn,'tcountermandthestate5.aw U 25 in which the state is not going to interfere with local
)
3 - :.a.pc
____m -_ _ ~c
+-
1 c' 2 ordinances et this junoture which prohibit installation 3 of facilities without a permit and beyond the scope of 4 the seming law. That's for sure. That is what was 5 meant by the decision, what you have there now. Cae, 8 there was no permit, and, two, it was beyond the , 7 special exception, but I certainly didn't inteed to [ 8 imply that in the future if there should be an emergeac e I usan, if I did, it would be needless, I would think, l because it would be beyond the scope of my authority. 11 Mn, WAL8E: That is, of ocurse, what we wanted 12 clarified. 13 TRE cocmT: well, maybe we can arrive at some mutually agreeable lacguage which would cever such a I 15 contingency although, as I say - I should have looked 2 - t 18 at my order again this morning, but I haven't reread it i 17 , I cartainly only intended to tell you you oculdn't 1 18 keep what you had there without going for a permit. I 18 MR. WAL85: I was concerned that the language I.
- E seemed to be a flat prohibition on the use.
a g
" 255 COURT: Maybe it m e. Maybe Z ==
l 22 MR. WALSE: This is not Wt you intended. 23 THE coDNT: what I intended is I might not be M around'when you have need of finding out what I meant, se let me see what my order says here. We closed that
) .
__ _ _ _ _ _ _ - - - - - - -l
.-)
a file and opened a new one. i l We opened a new file. 3 MR. WALss: I have the judgment here, Your sonor. 4 MR. REGENaoess: Bere is the judgment. (BandiaW 5 t' TW3 COURT . When this application osaa we created-e a second file and I don't have a oopy. chay. Let me-I 7 just see what I said. From using or purporting to vae 8 or representing that it will use the promises == I see. 8 Well, I suppose what could have been put in there, 10 except as might be permitted under Article 2-3 of the 11 Executive Law. 12 MR. WALSE: Except where - 18 TER COURT: If the Town agrees and concedes that i 14 that law is.in effect. - { 18 MR. REGENBOGEN: 4 Tour Bonor, we don't agree to that 1 3 to point now. 1 - 17 ~ TEE COURT: You don't agree the Governor has a 18 right in an emergency -- l 18 MR.' REGENB0 GEN: E . We do agree that anyone currently ! 20 3 in violation,of the soning laws might argue that -- h E h THE COURT: They are conceding, I thlak, at the 22 present time you have a right to exercise your soning 23 authority. So has the United states supreme court M stated and the state courts. They are talking about 25 the condition precedent coming about where the Governor i
-__-_ _ - _-__ _ _ _ _ _ - _ - _ - - - - - -- I
- - - . ~ _ .
~
a
. . .i, q
L 1 i
. 2 osa invoke Article 2-8 of the Executive Law and E a
think -- 4 > MR. REGENB0 GEN: Tour Bonor, I think we're not 5 really considering here that'even if the Governor does
* ~
invoke Article 2-3, he might use the Bellmore site, bet 7 E have a signed, sworn affidavit from the Governor that l . 8 attached to there that says that even if he didn't 8 invoke Article 2-5 he would not inglament Liloo's 10 emergency plan of procedures. We might pick any site. 11 This particular site, Your Bonor -- 12 TRE COURT: we can still cure that.
. 18 MR. REGENSOGEN: -- is right next to residential 14 property. - - '
16 TER COURT: I know where it is. I, 18 MR. REGEN 50 GEN: Even if Article 2-3 was precept.ad, 17 was invoked, I don't believe that that site would be one I 18 of the sites picked for that emergency. t 18 TER COURT: should it be picked, the trailer has 20 , i been removedt 21 g Mm. tenLau: Yes, it has. l 22 33 COURT: I went over there one day and roamed . 23 around and I couldn't see any trailer.
. M MR. 9thLE5: I would add this, Your Nonor.
.< If there 25 was an emergency and if there were facts indicated that_
.~ ;l dix & :a.iH
e; ?.Y : '.A 1 -
.. ,,i. Y. .\.,) .
2
' se12more site should be used, the Governor or any..other 8
chief Executive would be delinquent in their duties if 4 he didn't allow it to be utilised to cope with the emer- . E semoy. 8 TEE COURT: The Town is representing that the 7 oovernor is going to use your site. 8 l gg, agCENsoGENs That's correct. e ' THE cocRT: And he said -- 10 MR. REGENBOGEN: I have a sworn affidavit that 11 says no state response for a nuclear accident will 12 include Liloo's plan. This is not a site that would 13 be used if Article 2-3 was invoked. It's a site next 14 to all residential property. . Let Lilco apply to the
.{ 15 Town.
Lilco -- the counsel for Lilco has told this j to Court over three months ago it's going to make appli-i 17 cation to the Town. It's trying to get some kind of i 18 de facto preemption now. i 19 TEE COURTS' Let Mr. Walsh finish. I don't think ' 20 i i that's his procedure. I think raw he's trying to
; 21 obviate a problem in the future, should there be a p ; 22 for it, and we will give you a chance to tell as what 23 the Governor said when he finishes. I interrupted him.
24 Go ahead. 3 MR. ItkLSE: Your Honor, we're going to make appli=
s
- s
~ *i.
- Z .
... Va, q. g '. .. sy. p
-3. w:.^ ;.-
. af ;.y7.. -r' ,-
y .
, t . i :p '.
2 cation to the Town Board for - Soning Board f ,'for am. 3 enlargement of the special use permit. I am in'!.the' . 4 process of preparing those papers now. I think our:;
,.,;w_.;.
s-a , - 8 Soodi has' correctly gotten the point and that's,it. 8
^ Sy - <
...,y. . .
There's one otwr polat and that is with respect' to : I after the last number paragraph "d ,. s l dissantle facilities which have been installed, and Z 8 have no problem with that. It covers the trailer, or designated, the company was going to use existing 11 warehouse and some other facilities down there which ar i 12 permanent buildings since 196I or '62. We don't think 18 that was intended to be covered.
" THE cotntT: If you_'re going to designiita something g 18 that has no bearing on what the government may decide 4 e i 4 18 to do should there be a need, I think that if you've 17 got something there that's lawfully there, there's no i
is need to worry about it in this order. If you'.ve I # designated it for emergency evacuhtion, they're saying 20
. that they want you to withdraw'that designation because il 21 g the use they gave you the permit for was for(trucks or l 22 poles or wires and whatever Lilco is using it for 23 ws. mLas: If there is an amargency.
1 M THE COURT: If there's an emergency. You'll cross
~
25 that bridge when you come to it, I think. , g.- 8' W -
.. i
. !fNU.> , ; ., Ski.~ I[i l
1
1 2 gg, wALaus Designated we would use it in the 3 event of an emergency. Again -- 4 THE COURT: They are simply saying -- I. said la th 5 order any facilities which have been installed or a designated by you for use. Now, if you've designated 7 a lawfully established building for use, you better, if s l there's such a word, undsrignate it because they say 9 you can only use it for Whatever permit'they gave you. 10 At this time, but in the future wo MR. WALSR: 11' could use it. i 12 THE COURT: What do you have to say about the 15 Governor -- I assume it's in your opposing papers -- l 14 i Governor Cuomo's letter saying he has no. intentionct g 16 using Lilco facilities?
- 8
! is MR. PEGENsoctN: Procedures or plan.
17 MR. WALSH: I just got Mr. Regenbogan's papers thi i 18 morning. I would like an opportunity to review them. l 19 THE COURT: I will give you a chance to respond tc 1
- # it. Anyway, what you're concerned with here is that 2 -
21 g you wouldn't be precluded in the event of a nuclear l 22 emergency from letting the government use these 23 facilities under 2-B of the Exocutive Law. I have no 24 right to stop them from doing it, actually, and I don't 25 think my order, even if it said it, would hold any wate I
I 1 p 2 if the Governor decided to use that property. i 3 MR. MM.SR s And we're talking, as we well know, - 4 about something that happens in the future, and 5 certainly whatever Governor Cuomo says, I think that 8 if there was an actual emergency and if he concluded I
- and his' people concluded it was necessary to use the 8
l- Bellmore site, it's a facility that can be used and it' 8 prepared, ne would be delinquent in his duties -- 8 MR. REGENBOGENs Your Honor --
" THE COURT: Let me just say this, and it's 12 really,-I suppose, none of my business. If you're
'3 going to have an application to the Town Board or the toning Board, I think you're going to have half of 15 I_ Bellmore there if you're going to designate something I
for future use for a nuclear evacuation plan. 17 l MR. REGENBOGEN In a residential sone. i 18 TEE COURT: People will be up there with a bue. 8 I think if you're looking to keep a trailer there nobod
=
I think on that big piece of property, if you want to l put it back, just a trailer, would object. They l 22 wouldn't object, I think, because the property is huge. 23 If you're going to use the word designation, I think 24 y,,.re really safe in what you propose to do when the 3 emergency comes if you've got property that's adequate. \ ,
1-2 According to the letter from Governor Cuomo, which 8' you want to still look at,.he.says he has no idea and 4
.no plan to use whatever Lilco proposes. He's got his 8
own facility plans. 6 MR. REGENBOGEN: That's correct, Tour'Nonor. 7 MR. SISK Justice collins, if I might, the 8 f affidavit from the Governor is something that -- I haven't read the papers -e but I assume that's an. M affidavit that was filed in the proceedings'before 11 the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. I will point out ! 12 that what 'the Governor may or may not do in the event 13 of an emergency is a matter that may be hotly contestec 14 and in dispute in that proceeding and the NRC is not
- g 15 bound to accept the Governor's representation. In R
! is fact, the NRC has a rule which says that the government 17 f will protect the public and r e a p.o a1d to protect the i 18 public in the event of emergency and do whatever is I 18 necessa' ry, so I would hate for the Governor's affidavit' I 8 1
which has been filed in the NRC proceeding and which in 21 g really before that agency, to become an issue here. I l 22 don't think it should be.* I don't think it's material 23 to the issues before this court. M THE COURT: I will keep that in mind when I get tc 25 it.
~
1 p
.' 2 MR. WALSN: That's all I wanted to say.
3 THE COURT: Thank you, Mr. Walsh. 4' Mr. Regenbogen? 5 . ' MR. REGENBOGEN: Your Ronor, reargweent is in-e
, appropriate where new argument sought to be made could k
7 f.' have been made prior to the judgment. Lilco was well' 8 _l aware of the argument it now seeks to raise when this a' case was originally litigated before this Court. It 10 has offered no excuse for its failure to raise those 11 arguments when it was -- 12 THE COURT: I think_they have to -- they are hare 13 to, resettle th2 order, not to argument, whatever. 'Go 14 ahead, g 16 MR. REGENBOGEN: Lilco has relied upon this 4 l 16 argur.ient in other forums and raised these issues before I 17 IthasevennotedArticle2-8inthelettertohour i 18 Nonor dated September 7, 1988. I think Lilco made I to a tactical decision not to argue Article 2-3 and now I
!. 20 wants to be heard on this issue because they dont liks 2
21 g the results of this decision, that the Governor or loca l 22 Chief Executive might suspend zoning laws and might 23. permit Be11more's site to be used~as a reception center N That's all specialation, Your Honor. Anyone currently i
~*
25 violation of the Town zoning laws can argue that some i
o pl +, 4 .
'1 2 state law might preempt Town soning laws in the future, 3
That should not be'used to excuse the exciting and 4 threatening violations we have before us today. The 5- Town has a public responsibility to enforce the soning 8 laws and the right of ownership of the property does 7 not encompass the opportunity to use the property in s violations of soning laws, and this particular property
.l 9
is no more likely to be used for evacuation purposes ! 10 than any other parcel of real estate in the Town of 11 Hampstead despite Lilco's ownership of this property. E' 12 particularly not suited for such a use given its 13 close Isroximity to this residential neighborhood. Lile-14 is attempting to achieve the de facto exception of Town g 15 laws not' based on what it unilaterally surmises might l 16 be done in the future without permission from the Town 17 to conduct these activities. The Governor's own swora 1 1s statement states he would not use Article 2-3 to use
! 18 the implementation of Lilco's emergency plan or pro-9
! 20 cedures and that no state response to a nuclear acciden 2
21 will include Lilco's emergency plan, personnel or pro-22 [ cedures. 23 THE COURT: Was this location part of the plan the 24 was offered at the time of that other hearing? 25 gg, gggg, y.., MR. REGENBOGEN Your Honor, Lilco's counsel , l-
2 argues in his sworn affidavit that the special use 3 permit allows the property,and I quote, 'to be used to 4 preempt -- to be used to permit more effective, officie 5 and rapid service to customers during normal periods 6 and during times of emergency.' Counsel has inappro-7 priately deleted key words from the language and cited l 8 the quotations of the remaining words out of contaxt, 8 Your Honor. The words are as follows. 'The proposed 10 ' operations headquarters is intended to 2neble the 11 applicant to provide efficient, prompt and economical 12 service to the.. Southeast Wassau aram and to perud.t mers 18 effective,..afficient.and.. rapid restoration of electric 4 1# and gas service.' [ 15 Counsel'did not add those words. We were talking 8 [ 18 about restoration of electrical and gas service to earvi 17 - oonsumers in the said areas during normal operations i 18 periods and during times of emergency. The approved I 18 purpose of the facility was to act as a staging area B for the activities of Lilco personnel in providing elec 2 21 g trical and gas service to its customers in the Southea: 22
-l Nassau County and in rapidly restoring such service to 23 those customers. That's a far cry from using the 24 property as a reception center for tens of thousands of 25 ovacueen and for acnitoring radiological contamination
__.______-----_-_a----- - - - . _ - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
'c
- 3, 2
and decontamination, if necessary. The Town of 2 Hampstead opposes this resettlement. The 2bwa of 4 Eampstead wants the judgment to. stand as it is today. i
~
5 MR. NALSE: May I say two things? we are not a suggesting present use. It's future use we're talking 7 about. Secondly, with respect to the raising of the fj s issue, I think it's always appropriate to raise a 8 statute which is applicable and may' control the to decision. 17 THE COURT: Let me ask you, the trailer that was 12 there and is gona, is that where the plumbing was 13 fixed and had to do with the decontamination program? 14 MR. WALSE Yes. [ 16 ygE COURT: Assume,'if you wi,11,' for a moment 2
! 16 that there was an emergency and assume that the 17 Governor did decide to use this spot along with, maybe, i 13 many others. It would require bringing the trailer
{ is back and booking up plumbing which any competent I
! 20 plumber could probably do within an hour or two, so 2
21 g gge s not any' big thing. we are not talking about a j 22 hig building that has to be rebuilt. 22 MR. WALsH: It could be done with a fire hdse, any 24 number of ways. 25 Tut COURT: You're really not hurt by the removal
.___-___._____-_______--_-___.-m_ _ _ _ _
~
1 2 of that trailer. 3 MR. WALSH: We removed the trailer and we may . 4 provida -- we may suggest to the Board that there are 5 ways we can do it as alternates to using a trailer. 8
, MR. SISK Justice Collins,- if I may, that's one 7
reason we haven't yet made application to the 'bwn. 5 l We are considering other types of options that might 8 be used in the event of an emergency that may or may 10 not involve the trailar. 11 THE COURT: I think the reason you aoved to 12 resettle was you felt at least make it explicit and 13 implicit there was an attempt on my part to attempt to l' preclude you from using it in the face of amargency. j 15 All I can say is I don't..have the power to do that. 4 j 16 I don't think the way the judgment site that you're 17 hurt in futuro. If there should be an .ethergency, Qod i 18 forbid, and if the Governor should decide to use your I 18 facility, nothing I would say written in the most 3
! # glorious language could preclude the Governor from a
21 g acting. l 22 MR. WALSH: Same applies to representing we can 23 use it under these circumstances. No inhibition on us. M THE COURT: You're saying Article 2-B would pro-25 tect you if you went ahead to do it?
j i 2 MR. WALss: We are saying to people now if this 3 happened we could use it. 4 Look, if you're going to be having THR' COURTS
)
5 arguments in other Courts and other forums attempting ] e to use shoreham or something else and you're going to ! 7 rely on this, I guess you wouldn't be able to do that. 4 You have to hang your hat on Article 2-3. 8 MR. RECENBOGEN Counsel is trying to have.this M language put in the judgment so it can stand for the 11 MRC and say this judgment doesn't mean anything here. 12 Even'the Judge.noted if Article 2-8 is enacted all
'3 zoning laws arp preempted. In fact, if the Judge said they are in vtolation now and cannot use the property
'8 now because-it's violating the soning laws, it doesn't 4 mean anything because even the Judge noted Article 2-2 3
" THE COURT: I have said that. I'm shaply saying
'f is I speak for the present and what they had there, and i to they've removed it.
I 3' f MR. REGENBOGEN: Let them make their argument. 21 Of course, the hhy does it hws to be in the judgment?
** are arguing Article 2-3.
#3
, THE COURTS I think Mr. Walsh already caught the 8"
drift. I don't think there's any need to change this
" judgment unless something comes up in some supplement 4
1 4 2 i papers to what the Town has just served you with this 3 morning which I will wait to see. 4 M. KOVIT: Tour Honor? 5 THE COURT: Test s MR. KOVIT: I would like to say with respect to 7 2-3 just in furtherance of what you were saying, it's a important to note that even if 2-3 is invoked by the 9 Governor, that does not mean the local soning laws are 10 then preempted. 11 THE COURT: I disagree with you. At that point -- 12 and I'm not speaking as an authority on Article 2-3 -- 13 I'm simply saying I think there are powers beyond the 14 Town and the County in an emergency that you would -- 15 MR. KOVIT: Absolutely, Your Honor. 16 THE COURT: -- that would maka you subservient in 9 . s 17 the interesists of generai good. Under the wording of the statutes l 1s MR. K0VIT: a Il 18 there's a declaration of a 2-B situation that does not Is 20 in and of itself preempt zoning laws. That is an g [ 21 ancillary condition which might be reached by the 22 ', Governor under certain circumstones. 23 THE COURT: Es is not saying he's agreeing -- if ( 24 there's a condition precedent met then 2-3 goes into 25 effect and then the Governor may put emergancy in effs l _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ _
1 2 in my backyard if he thinks it's necessary to protect. I 3 the general public. MR. REGENBOCEN: Es also may not use that particul 5 site in question. l 1 s TEE COURT: You know, I don't went to change this. I 7 wherein some false' reliance on it might be used to
- a bottom or supplement or support an argument to get 8 approval of something else.
10 MR. REGENBOGEN: That's exactly what it's being 11 used for. 12 TBE COURT: I think you're safe enough when you
'3 say, here's Article 2-B. I don't care what the Town of 14 Hempstead says or the village of Rockville Centre or t!
~ '
18 County. The Governor h'as tho right -- 4 I a MR. MALSE: I think, Your Honor, that does clarif: s
- 17 e it.
18 {; THE COURT: I would be the last person to tell yet j I can sign an order that couldn't be countermanded in 4 20 emergency. f That, to me, is ludicrous. I will read i e 21 whatever el'se you sent in and send in and, you know, 22 just speaking pragmatically, I think if you're going 23 for any permits or variances or anything, having been 24 counsel of the Ioning Board I know how people's emotions can get riled up and you've presented many an _ - - . _ _ . . _ _ _ _ _ _ - - - - _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ . _ _ . _ _ - - _ _ - - - - _ - - w
2 argument. You know Probably better than I you better 3 steer clear of any emergency evacuation language. If 4 you want buildings, you have enough land to put lots 5 buildings. e MR. mLsa: All right. 7 THE COURT: All right. You send in whatever you 8 want within the next ten days, Mr. Walsh. If the Tews 8 wants another week to put something in, fine. I am 10 not prejudging. I think I know where I'm going with-
'11 it because I think you're protected by Article 2-3.. t 12 only thing is.you can.'t point to this and y Judge 13 collins has said we can use it. I don't really have 14 that authority.
15 ~ MR. WALSH: Your H'onor,has clarified it I think
- 1s quite well. It may be unnecessary, t
U ' THE COURT: I wiM give time to send in papers. l- is MR. WALSE: I may have papers Friday.. 1 19 e e e i 30 f CERTIFIED TO BE A TRUE AND CORREC'. TRANSCRIPT OF TEE WITMIN PROCEEDIl I 21 - l l Ellen Fischer M A+ Y ' 22 Cfficial Court Reporter 24 TOTAL P.24
, 'E $, . CITY tr CLEN Covt FILO D. L UTIL FAC.,'. teachm:nt 12 4(a,g **
New Yonst 11 3 g 1 pq @.3
*:ENT A. SUO22J o aosurenys**a h I E
SERVED.NN T $ '*
. DOLKETED
- April 8, 1985 ,. USMC .
~~ ~ .~
9 #'n l At omic Safety & Licensing Board U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Woshington, D.C. 20555 LFT.tEOF1ElatW DOCAETM & SE6vir.- BRANCH RE: Shoreham Nuclear Power Station Unit i Docket No. 50-322-OL-3 2 .. . ..
. (Emergency Planning) ,
Centlemen: As the Mayor of Glen Cove I am also e Supervisor of the C ounty o f Nas sau. Correspondence has been received from individuals concerned with the Shoreham opening; specifically regarding the use of the Nassau County Veteran's Memorial Coliseuc as part of a proposed emergen:y plan. My review of the correspondence merely indicates that the County Enecutive would make any and all County f acilities available ' for any emergency whether within Nassau County or f or use by others that are not Couhty residents. Any legal agreement between the County cf Nassau and any
- individual, bu sine ss et c. mus t be approved by the Board of Supervisors before the County Executive can sign a specific contract.
As of this time, the Board has not received any memorandum or correspondence, etc. f rom the County Executive indicating that he seeks their approval f or a contract between LILCO and the County f or use of the Nassau County Veteran #s Coliseum. The Charter of Nassau County is very clear as to its intent. The following enumerates the powers of the Board as set forth in the County Charter (Section 103(b) :
"make rules and regulations, by ordinance, covering the us e o f. . .any county owned or c ounty-leased p r operty. . ,"
As the governing body of Nassau County, the Board of Supervisors must act under procedures set forth in $105(1) of the Charter, which states that the Board
" ...shall act only by ordinance or resolution. No...
franchise or privilege (shall be) granted, real property of ,, county alienated...except by ordinance." MAC-O S! ? -- Af
.w 500 otso Chertor $2206 chich providos that opca oxoctstida of. cn agroensat , contreets cust bo filed with tho Board's clork together with the " ordinance. . .upon which the - right to make such a contract r e s t s .
l L Further support for requiring legislative approval of the
' county executive's decision to allow LILCO to use the coliseum is found in $2103 of the Charter. This section gives the Board of Supervisors the power to regulate the use of county parks, play-grounds, athletic fields, and recreation centers.
! In conclusion, there is no legal agreement between Nassau l County and LILCO regarding the use af this facility. Should you have any further questions, please contact me. a carely, <* VINCENT A SUOZZI I VAS/1k Mayor and Supervi cc: Hon. Hannah Komanoff f
. +
Se
#e e
e
I 1
, - \ s -
Gilg of Ko"B peady b'
=Assau couwer. wrw vomic sessi j - ET mmce or am CWi'c HANNAM KOMANCFF C2 WNvf suPEnvason May 17, 19 stb 5 MY 24 A10:54 i U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission .
1717 H Street, N.W. Washington, D. C. 20555
- h. g-ji h .":
BUNCH Commissioners: Nunzio J. Palladino, Chairman Thomas M. Robarts SERVED MAY 241985 James K. Asselstine ~
' Frederick M. Bernthal Lando W. Zech, Jr.
Dear Sirs:
As Supervisor of the City of Long Beach and member of the Nassau County Board of Supervisors,I feel A special obligation to communicate my opposition t,o County Executive Purcell's decision to permit use of the Nassau Veterans Memorial Coliseum as a recep-tion center in the event of an emergency at the Shoreham Nuclear Plant. . May I state that I fully believe that Mr. Purcell was mot-ivated by humanitariari concerni much the ~same' ss I'would be in a true emergency situation. I know him to be an honorable and com-passionate man. .
. However, I believe the implications of the use of the Col-iseum are more serious than previously indicated.
In order for Shoreham to receive its license for operation, it was necessary for LILCD to have an evacuation plan which had to include a relocation center. Suf f olk' Coun~tiy had ref used to of f er any of its facilities for this purpose. LILCO then sought the assist-ance of Nassau County for such a site and received one. In effect, the offer of the Coliseum as the reception center became, either vitringly or unwittingly, an ' integral part of LILCO's evacuation plan;thus permitting the pessible licensing of Shoreham. In the event of an emergency, I too, would want to assist _ and shelter people in need. However, I would not presu'me to expect that such a humanitarian action,at the time of an emergencypvould become in advance a crucici part of any evacuation plan or reception center for LILCO to rely upon and to submit,as part of a specific plan to be considered by the NRC for the opening of Shoreham. g
Macbors of tho Nucloor Rogulatory Cecaission Mcy 17, 1985 P.2 A decision of this magnitude requires the approval of the Board of Supervisors which is, of course, the legis14tive body of the county-and the elected representatives of the people of the e,o u n t y . This decision far exceeds the County Executive's emergency powers. Since the Board has not agreed to the use of the Coliseum by LILCO, LILCO then does not have the legal right to make any such representation. I. applaud you for calling for additional hearings on amar-gency planning for Shoreham to determine whether the Coliseum can be used as a relocation center. , A matter cf such import does require public hearings, so that citizens can learn the facts and advise the NRC and the Board of their concerns, e.g.: what facilities are available at the Coliseum for decontam-ination purposes, how would radiated clothing and water used for bathing be disposed, what su=s of money do LILCO or Nassau County intend to spend to see that contaminated water does not enter the sewer system or the ground water supply, what portion of the Coliseum would be used for decontamination purposesf - - in what manner and which county personnel would be used in the planning, traioing and exercise of accident drills 3 how wil.1 the health, welfare and safety of Nassau County residents be protected in sue.h an emergency. what effect, if any, will such use of the Coliseum have on its f u t u re u s e as 'a business and recreation enterprise. Until such time as these and other questions are addressed and the Board of Supervisors makes a decision on the use of the Col-iseum as an evacuation center, I must respectfully request that you remove its possible use as a component of the LILCO evacuation plan. I thank you in advance for your consideration of these matter so serious to the well-being of my constituents. t Very truly yours. X - J K-y HK:es HANNAH KOMANOFF
Cot'NTY CF NASSAU Inter-Departments! Memo
' Thomas S. Gulotta T8 Presiding Supervisor Town of.Hempstead From: Edward T. O'Brien Acting County Attorney Due A;.ril ' 4, 198 6 52 '" LtEsc amendscr.t and Facility Mhnagement of Ncw York, Ir.;,
Ce l i st un/Shireh t-I understand a proposal will be made to amend the above lease to prohibit Facility Management Corporation's (formerly Hyatt,-tenant).use of the Nassau Veterans Memorial Coliseum as a disaster evacuation cer.ter in the event of a nuclear (radiologi-cal) disaster. The terms of the lease do not allow such a use by the tenant. The provisions of the New York State Executive Law preempts to the Governor and the County Executive the implementa-tion of all facilities within the* territorial limits of the disaster area in the event of a nuclear (radiological) disaster. Section 24, Executive Law. Some public concern has been directed to the letter agreement made between Hyatt and the Long Island Lighting Company (LILCO) which related to LILCO's application to the Nuclear Regu-latory Commission (NRC) for a permit to open the Shoreham facility
' in Suffolk County.
1 I have examined the record and find that neither LILCO ~ nor Hyatt made any representation to the NRC regarding the Nassau County Government's position and the NRC Licensing Board made no finding that the government of Nassau County supports (or opposes) a Shoreham evacuation plan uhich would involve the Nassau Veterans Memorial Coliseum or any other facility in Nassau County. The Nassau County Board of Supervisors has adopted no ordinance or resolution regarding such use. The proposed amend-ment to the lease agreement prohibiting the use of the Nassau Veterans Memorial Coliseum as an evacuation center in the event of a nuclear (radiological) catastrophe would be a nullity.
~
Mg. Y , - ETOB:tas EDWARD T. O'BRIEN Acting County Attorney ._ l * .
3 . . _ Q, [* _ _ g..
~
. .. f .[ 1 2
i I g 4 EXCERPT OF BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 5 f.
- c. .
8 9 -;. 10 i 11assau County Executive Building a -One West Street. I 11 Mineola, New York 11501
- l. 5th Floor
- j. , 12 April 7, 1986 11:00 A.M-13 l-l 14 1
15 16 B E F 0 R E: The lionorable TilbMAS S. GULOTTA, Vice Chairman l-17 Nassau County Board of Supervisors 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 0 $ WRTil S110HE HEP 0HTING AGENCY. INC. l s ..mean w wa a a ONE MURRAY AVENU( **"' PORT WASHINGTON. NEW YORK I1050
I, . q ac - (
". . 1 1 w 2, I !
AEEEAEAEEEE: 3 James D. Bennett, Supervisor Town of Hempstead
'4 Joseph Colby, Supervisor 3 Town of Oyster Bay 8
Bruce Nyman, Supervisor City of Long Beach 7 John B. Kiernan Supervisor Town of North flempstead 8 Vincent Suozzi, Mayor
, City of Glen Cove .
Peter King, Nassau County Comptroller Edward T. O'Brien County Attorney 11 12 13
'- 14 15 ! 16 17 JS i
19 20 21 - 22 23 24 25 NORTil Sil0HE HEPORTING AGENCY, INC. D*4w d * **w *
' ~ ' ONE MURRAY AVENUE ' ' * * * *
, ,,,, se.- 8
# 0RT WA$HINGTON. NEW YORK 11050 d L. . _ _ _ - -
o - - 1
~
, g. .
S** 1
~
I 3- {*
- ORDINANCE Number 182 -- 1986 authorizing the County 3 g Executive to execute an amendment to an indenture of !
4 ~ lease by and~between the County of Nassau and Faci 1ity 3
; !- Management of New York, Inc..-formerly known as Hyatt 6- !
Management Corporation of New York. Inc. , in relation: to
.j '7
! the use and operation of the Nassau Veterans Memorial
, -8 Coliseum.
- j. 8 .
I would appreciate the. I
. PETER KING: 3
; 10 opportunity to speak.
1 11 PRESIDING SUPERVISOR GULOTTA: We have 12 many people who have expressed an interest to speak on
'13 this item.
We would like to give everybody an opport-14 . unity to be heard. We ask that wherever possible, so 15 that ! l everyone does have an opportunity to be heard, that ! 16 there not be duplicative statements made. 17 . SUPERVISOR COLBY: 181 and 182 are being 18 heard. 19 !
. WALTER STERLING: I want to speak on 179 I 20 and 180, Mr. Gulotta, i
21 PRE' SIDING SUPERVISOR GULOTTA: You can l 22 speak on any item you want. ' 1 23 WALTER STERLING: 179. 24 *
- I PRESIDING SUPERVISOR GULOTTA: Would you.
?
25 Please, let me run the meeting.
" S NORTil Sil0HE REPORTING AGENCY. INC.
*** Z*,,7" ONE MURRAY AVENUE '*"**"
PORT WASHINGTON, NEW YORK 11050 L .. .. __
.,.4- F g .
4
-4 2,
WALTER STERLING: You are skipping.to
;3 ' 181. -
4. SUPERVISOR-KIERNAN: .They are all being. 5 called together; 6 PRESIDING SUPERVISOR CU'.0TTA: . In ~ 7 ' anticipation of some of the questions that were raised ' a previously' with regard to the issue of Ilyatt lease, some 9 4 of the members of_the Board and I, asked the County
-10 Attorney.co do an evaluation with regard to'the legalities 11 involved, in order to be able to make a more intelligent 12 determination within the context of the law.
~
13 Two issues were raised or.at least 14 brought to the attention of this Board; - one, was with-
- 15 regard to the use.of the Coliseum as an emergency 16 - evacuation center.
~
17 And, the question of whether a provision la could be p1 aced in the lease, that would exclude the i i 18 use of the Coliseum as .an evacuacion center. The County 20 Attorney has a memorandum which he has prepared on that. 21 The second issue which has been brought 22 to our attention is'a question of certain groups that 23 have come to the Coliseum and, particularly, the Black A 24 Watch, the concern that has been expressed by certain 25 segments of the
~
Irish /American community relating to NONTil Sil0RE HEPONTING AGENCY, INC. I
<-~--+a _
" * ' ' ONE MURRAY AVENUE
' ' * * * * ** " l PORT WASHINGTON. NEW YORK t 1050 i e
i__.__ - --
- c. ,
1, 5
, - 2
- f. m their appearance or the appearance of similar or related
, s groups.
4 ' The County Attorney'has also been asked-s to research the question of whether this Board could 6 amend the lease in_ order to prohibit such g'roups. 7 Mr. O'Brien, I would just ask you to, in s-that order, if you could, repeat,for those who are 9 present or read your legal' memorandum, for those who are
'10 present with regard to the Shoreh m issue and with 11 regard to the issue of human rights in Northern Ireland, 12 based upon the County Attorney's statements, some of 13 your questions may be anticipated, if not, perhaps you 14 may want to gear those questions or, statements to his 15 _ comments. Mr. O'Brien. '
16 COUNTY ATTORNEY O'BRIEN: Yes, Mr. 17 Gulotta. I understand a proposal will be made to amend 1 18 the lease at the Veterans Memorial Coliseum to prohibit 1 is the use of the, facility as a disaster evacuation center 20 in the event of a nuclear disaster or catastrophe. 21 The terms of the lease do not allow such 22 a use by the tenant under the terms, now. 23 The provisions of the New York State 24 Executive Law preempts to the Governor and the Legisla-25 ture of various Counties and the County Executive the NORTil Sil0RE HEPORTING AGENCY, INC. c sw a = ** * *
"' ONE MURRAY AVENUE '****"
PORT WASHINGTON NEW YORK 11050 w '
4-
- 1. g_
l 2 implementation of all facilities within the territorial i 1 3 limits.of a disaster-area in the event of a nuclear 4 disester. s And, I specifically refer to Section 24 e of the Executive I.aw of the State of New York. 7 Some public concern has been directed
. 8 to the letter agreement made between Hyatt and the Long 9 Island Lighting Company which relates to LILCO's to application to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission for a 11 permit to open the Shoreham facility in Suffolk County.
12 I have examined the record and find that 13 neither LILCO nor Hyatt made any representation to the 14 Regulatory Commission Licensing Board regarding the 15 Position. 16' Nassau County Covernment and the 17 Licensing Board made no finding that the Government of 18 Nassau County supports or opposes a Shorehem evacuation is plan which would involve the Nassau Veterans Memorial 20- Coliseuta or any other facility in Nassau County. The 21 Nassau County Board of Supervisors has adopted no j 22 ordinance or resolution regarding such a use. The 23 proposed amendment to the lease agreement prohibiting 24 the use of Nassau Veterans Memorial Coliseum as an 25 evacuation center in the event of a nuclear catastrophe, NORTil Sil0NE REPORTING AGENCY, INC. -{
- r.*una * ** wa ONE MURRAY AVENUE '"*a****
~
,,y- PORT WA5HINGTON NEW YORK 11050
__.____..m
~
k q
+ .
g L 7 I in my opinion, will be a nullity. 8 I understand further, that there is a 4 proposal made to seek an amendment of the lease to. 3 prohibit the use of the Coliseum by the Marching Units 6 of the British Army. This group, I understand, pre-7 viously performed and offers a program of close marching a formation in a military fashion with the accompaniment 9 of music. - 10 In my opinion, such a restriction upon 11 this group or any other similar organization, even if 12 such a restriction could be negotiated, would be
. 13 contrary to the use of-the Coliseum as intended and 4
14 declared by the Legislature of the State of New York and 15 by the Board of-Supervisors of this Co6nty. 16 Section 2206A of the Nassau County 17 Charter which forms a part of the lease agreement 18 net;otiated and signed in 1979 provides: 19 "The Coliseum's purpose has been and l_ 20 continues to be to foster or promote among, or provide 1 21 for the benefit of all the people of the County 22 recreation, entertainment, amusement, education, 23 enlightenment, c,ultural development or betterment and M4 24 events of trade and commerce, including professional,
; 25 amateur and scholastic sports and athletic events, NORTil Sil0HE HEPORTING AGENCY, INC.
r.+un * ** W'a
" " " ' ONE MURRAY AVENUE ' * 'a a
PORT WASHINGTON. N(W YORK 11050 ~ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - - .
y S.4 , r 3 8
~
.2 '
theatrical, musical and ,other entertainment presentations ! 3-and meetings', assemblages, conventions and exhibits for i 4- any. purpose including business and trade purposes and' l 5 other events of civic, community or general public s interest." , 7 Now, while personal views are also l m a encouraged and protected under the First Amendment rights 9 to the Constitution, they do not transcend diplomatic i to relations established between the United States and i 11 Great. Britain or any other foreign country, for those 12 are reserved exclusive to the President of the United ; 13 States and the Congress. I i 14 Furthermore, it is my view that this 15 facilitp involves'a special kind'of Government property { i 16 like parkland and has an historic identification in the i Anglo-American tradition for communication among t-18 citizens and for the cultural development or betterment to of all people, regardless of their differences and any 20 l attempt to restrict or prohibit the use of this facility } 21 by a group offensive to some, would be an unconstitut-22 Lonal impairment.of contract and contrary to the 23 declared Legislative intent. And, violates the rights ! 24 of other persons who would be denied the opportunity for l
; 25 the betterment allowed under the Legislative intent.
NORTil Sil0RE HEPORTING AGENCY, INC. r . enn = =aw ** ONE MURRAY AVENUE *"*"
' ' " " ' ~
PORT WASHINGTON. NEW YORK 11050 C .m_. _ __o 3
a
~
-~
1. 9 -*- 2 MAYOR'SUOZZI: Can I ask Eddie a
., 'l
^
3 . question, please? j i
'l 4
PRESIDING SUPERVISOR GULOTTA: Sure.. ! 8 MAYOR-SUOZZI:. Regarding the Shoreham' 81 problem, you are saying, now, that under'the present ' 7 lease agreement., Hyat't cannot give the Coliseum'as an s' ' evacuation center, is that correct? 8 COUNTY ATTORNEY O'BRIEN: -That is 10 correct. 11 MAYOR SUOZZI: I would make a recommend-12 ation, Mr. Gulotta, I think this Board should go on-13 '
' record, I know you knew about this, this morning,.the 14 memo, to the NRC stating that Hyatt and LILCO's 33 intentions and put it on record.
16 6 (Whereupon, applause ,from the audience l'I ' was heard.) 1
. Is -
COUNTY ATTORNEY O'BRIEN: I don't think 18 it prohibits,somebody from doing what they can't do,- 20 already. 21 PR'ESIDING SUPERVISOR GULOTTA: The 22 statement of the County Attorney is a matter of the 23 record and will be available to anyone who wants a copy . 24 of that for whatever purpose. 25 The County Attorney, by his ruling, as 3 ' ' NORTil Sil0RE REPORTING AGENCY INC.
- c. van = =av'+
" " * " ' ONE MURRAY AVENUE *$' w ' -
,4 g-, PORT WASHINGTON ,NEW YORK 11050 9
e _ _ . _ . . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - - - - - - - - - ^-
ws! ,
' '~
I' 10 2 I interpret it, Ed, unless I am incorrect, is that the I 3 declaration of an emergency evacuation center'is within
! 4 the exclusive authority of the Governor or the County 5
Executive in.the event of an emergency. 6 I COUNTY ATTORNEY O'BRIEN: That is ] 7 correct. 8 PRESIDING SUPERVISOR GULOTTA: That this 9 Board, Hyatt or LILCO has'no authority either to declare _0 a site as an emergency evacuacion center or in an-11 alternative to prohibit a site that the Governor may 12 designate or the County Executive in the event'of such an 13 emergency. 14 .i COUNTY ATTORNEY O'BRIEN: That is
' ~
15 correct'.' - 16 PRESIDING SUPZRVISOR CULOTTA: A copf of -i 17 that statement will be available to anyone, l l 1B (Whereup'on. the requested Excerpt was is concluded.) ) l' 21 - i l 22 23 24 ye MA
. 25 o ;a NORTil Sil0RE REPORTING AGENCY, INC.
, r.=vaa = -~a
~~~"" ONE MURRAY AVENUE '"""
PORT WASHINGTON. NEW YORK I1050 wt l
i.
. 1 11
- .; 2
. CERTIFICATION BY REPORTER'-
'l 3 3 .I Christine M. Ma' scia, A. Notary Public of the ] State of New York,'do he'reby certify: j 4
- t. 1 5
That the testimony in the within proceeding- l s was held t< fore me at the aforesaid time and place.
-7 That the requested Excerpt of the Board of a Supervisors herein was duly sworn before-the commence-g ment of the testimony, and the testimony was taken 3n stenographically by me, then transcribed under my supervision, and.that the within transcript is a true record of the testimony of said Excerpt.
12 - I further certify that.I am not related to any of the parties to this action by blood or marriage, 14 . that I am not interested directly or indirectly in the matter in contro'.[ersy, nor am I in the employ of any 16 ' of the Counsel.
# g..' -
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my 18 hand this 17th day of April, 1986. 19 o 20 21 , 22 , ), $k( $-
~
b/h Christine M. Mascia 23
. 24 25
~ i NORTil S110RE REPORTING AGENCY, INC.
; * **j;y" ONE MURRAY AVENUE + **
- a a
.{ -= mr l PORT WASHINGTON. NEW YORK 11050
.A
, ( . .
( EXHIBIT 1
' = :. =. {
- - = ,:.. .
cae a:Nc'O.,
~
- T ;
% V ~* . ,Q
+
/
g l% '. COUNTY OF NASSAU .' ~ OFFICE OF THE COUNTY ATTORNEY NAssAU COUNTY EXECUTIVE sulLolNG ( g ',,.** . MINEoLA. NEW YORK t 15o1 516 537 3055
' h k'e,g, -'
r i 9-f }' en-yti;'U?ASER Ph0D. k UTit FAC..
..g g c c 3 May 2, 1 'g, , , ' '
5 Nuclear Regulatory Commission eg gg p-Washington, D.C. 20555 *
- Gentlemen:
I have been requested by Presiding Supervisor Thomas Gulotta to write to you concerning the Long Island Lighting Compa use of the Nassau Veterans Memorial Coliseum at Uniondale in the County of Nassau, State of New York, in connection with its application for a permit-for the utilization of the Shoreham Nuclear Plant at Shoreham, County of Suffolk, State of New York. I wish to advise that the Board of Supervisors of the County of Nassau which is the Legislative branchof the County Government has not adopted a Local Disaster Plan and there has never been any designation of the Nassau Veterans Memorial Colir.eum for any purpose related thereto. I have rendered an opinion regarding this matter to the Board of Supervisors and I enclose herewith a copy of that opinion for your records and information. Very truly yours, a p y %
/
ETOB:tas EDWARD T. O'BRIEN encl. County Attorney 1 O/ r,r > / 4 '1_ - v wv.* i .? u ' i / _ i
.i.
5 DassauCOMty boardOf Supervisors EXECUTWs suiLause, west eTnest. tesseoLA, pLv.11 set
~
"J2El",-
. SM'.M M Mmma== F
=-a. . tw.un.r.-
contacts AnthonyJ.Santino For lamediate Seleases (o) 5L 4215 June 16, 1986 (h) 599-3748 i The Board of supervisors is, this day, considering-the adoption of a resolution that would reinforce the legal opinion of the county Attorney that the Nassau county Veterana j Memorial coliseum cannot legally be a part of Long Island ] Lighting company's evacuation plan *,.and that it's inclusion
. in such plan would be illegal and taproper. The resolution
' ~
on the s'lendar a today does not prec1ude th'is soard frea ) taking further steps with regard to this issue in the future. i i This resolution, inevitably, raises the broader question , l of thereham and all of its randfications. It should not l i be the role of this soard to seek to usurp the 3 jurisdiction of the various state and Federal regulatory agencies that ! have been vested with the power to make crucial determinations with regard to.Shoreham. It is, however, the proper role of this'soard to 'take these steps which are necessary to protect the health and welf aire of the residents of this County. Seing fully cognisant of Long Island'.a future energy needs, I applaud the members of this Board for proceeding cautiously and in a responsibis fashion evaluating each facet of the shoreham issue. 1 .. l 1
( l[ . From th3 v:ry ice:ptirn, many members of this Board have voiced the opinion that Shoreham should not open, unless it can do what it was intended to dos safsly provide an abundant supply of affordable electricity. The position of these Board members has not changed,'but the extrinsic information, data and facts with regard to Shoreham have. The Chernobyl incident has helped to crystalline the fact that safety.must be a first priority and it must be established
'beyond any reasonable doubt and not left to eaajesture.
This Board must uphold its primary responsibility to ther residenta of this County. Based upon all available data, , it is the opinion of this soard that the shoreham plaat j has not met the neessaary criteria to assure this Board of it's safe operation, nor has a reasonable evacuation plan been developed. Trankly, based upon all of the information available, it is doubtful that an effectiva svacuation plan can every be developed. While the ultimate determination, in this regard, will"be made by the appropriate Federal agencies, and not this Board, it is important that tne voice.of local government be heard. In the absence of a dramatic change of circuantances, that will provide convincing evidence that shoreham can provide an abundant supply of safe, affordable power, Shoreham should not open. i
. 3a -
a . . . . i
. .ese O
C
.a,_ s. -&
_ wu _ T e t
.-1*
. en d, ass..,au Board Is Moving .
!t o Ban. Jse~ of Arena in d-Plant Crisis
' * * ~ --
ByLausy Ught . rusheed to h Mamou Clarsaswhattheedges Muse, em NBC ;dtheeensema'sremoval lag toward bannia, Beam use dhd -~ M - . lea w. Qgg omta'he the she nufmD the b aboutthe
""g
** Francis Pureau entire plah,* ehe enkl.'It's a what ifeituadan to my e k 1. sness what it mesas to take out one piese gity esps he went[h
% aeden S . M ty. q .: wem tim een.
han
;,sinen g
haDal tb aah sworeal as *etnkaay M :~. trover.g. .
. sk . at the var- 1.:ar: Mab:+.m. It abgc a aet- -
' - ; ;et sk:, heard? . ..
.l tiveL=
'the who traditiemaHy' deer'to themse Guletta, .
heard' M maid,at a news sentarseen eeusty assautive, have been toward
- aew as the seHeems. Last they * -
w narward,
,a Oyster Boy go, and&arsham activists calling en thema to Mg and 8'
.the Coliasma
- u. "We've never made a b plan eart into Hyatt's the solisema them up trrenewal,aclease the nacuation plan.Iaet stud men est
'"'. reeds would handle an e=acuados however, Oslotta persemaHy enen. eda l
go d,d, who,,o*yN.>=. w =id. S er.any ha,e as m a e,he that tmat:ar wasb o.usma to ureau.er evne,.ades, h sale b tidetQe action at the than was to esad NBC as laternal ee8am a@said North " g, and " M we're Superv$. the taeme tema County Astermey Edward O'Bnas set. - j as, John I . ggda !alend I the Coliseum Lishtic Co., whig es.ig Q ,. can 'ha as that the head ar.wa=ad= sE anor had deedsmated tem atthe ftsshernian wasamien
- Oulecht's anneancuamat essa aner the tousual dPureen, a 3ergga, !~ nee at a Sat! bit sountarpart before the fa ssaking Sunth Nuclear to*y Comunteefen Noting how the SuKolk Legislature had was b pla b. a legal 8t h t with seir eriumy a.Itin w the l
N L*4 tb ets'.e and Evil County sedrse ev ..*tia .me !rst yer.r. Las - r.e Denne (D-Pat'ici te a emergency ni. . m. Yasianlay, bewever. harceH E!d he would H=L.to::s to:d she eupr<isers t'at they had me the streerneere anthori to rule en the oo'iseum. A seurt thwattad voted a be use dt!- Suffolk Esacutive Peter Cohalan's move to
.seum. "U the lumrd it desent yees to LIIEC/s evacuatica eommit asunty M
e t.to see the asi. eedrareau. Coliseum,Isaa4
,ar,aa,,e i. es set,e.nciu,d d,iu en Q e ound t eve a, n ,is-a, w. a .d greatly ., ,1sg g3,ti,e seat,wr, .
aseident at the Sevist nuclear UWhossid,"Chernobylhandah 88 " a would we w- - to. ded. ,orse , _
- - ,ee_
~ -
wuand esetataly ""== 3*" b
~~~~ ~
ma# 2a'tL'eL'ar'dn L MM
= ad.d * = uIc o and a .
y tin arena under a lesse,att with de Car,, ,h. esg,,sw= d* emtrut to smessit the utility to one tim seu'
. 1 _
- 0 4 k
u a j 3 l 1
'~ ~"
i.. [ a S
**r" 4 h. ,' . e,... ,3.,
. ,( .- ,, ,.
n .
*, 4 . .. n -
. je . -< . , , . , . .
....t'
' .j ~g., 3 .~
_- .~
^
~
..s -
.e
. m o ,
",', t
* #,. . gr .
,' . s g
4 -
. / ~ ,,
7 m' - , 1 f7 jh, a.). - . s- } .
~L f
* / . *g.}, .
'Y
~ ,:' .
L ', [ . l'. ' .. , 4, b. "Q ' ,
.s* .
< -$ . . ,J. .3 -a
~
'[
f, 2;vist f 1,12
- ~-
/ 4 m vi 2 s y 78 ~ '
% ) u % , ?.; 12 % ,J ; g. g g?I t
i ,. %i >Ci. w;. _ .3 b ; Lit fi&p% c v. - w . ;;.2 - 3
,. 7' ~
p o.fy,j.g'e? ,
,,j ~gF ' i. . ,, y ' W..
(> gcmm-XeL, f.. k* *[*g;* , /.' .i,E'.; ,m . a,,, : : i l-n l'
,t, Ouvine,(SulkA County legislaor, speeldog to the Nanasu Board of Supervisors yesterday e
h duuP e 4 _ b _
' NEWSPAPER f(.0 y 6\I DATE b ,
b b PAGE b)
...i --. . . . . . _
1 ~ TIow LILCO ' Lost' the i Nassau Coliseuni L-
..A. . . .h. . . . . ._ , c, , ,: A . .. .
* ~ ~ '
0 N Rest edert dse er moveme64 i Some pendaalisaders were even a> C T LaffT M /. *
' esas a week later, at anothat superv6- tJaing a la Pureell's support.
Nassen Coasty's neve toward ham- aers' mesnag at whid the pretastere Puruell.they letit be known that slag use af abn Naassa Causeum as a appeared, oulotta asked County An- beemass d Chernobyl, he t moreha.m evasustion senter rea was torn.ey a Edwa.rd .st O' . Brian uum .um er as, spani.sa Shareh.am's lisensing would be c !.-' u .a , rom ,ted'A *e.smsa. ..
- eeni 4 .re s Ceas,e.m an evas.a.sa .to. -
'"' issue la N (ya ll% as.t - .e.mai aCeums.m emperiveers guted tr one.
- n.dw-f.e in rCi,-ashri anaassa,he.lped ear as .at. as- along ..,.risae said at,that.osmid
.a. ve . only "'".be dame gg,as uUs.i. -a a- *-*-
,r *a .e Berd
-i* * *-
**'" L . m EN- ,.s g *
,ame bee d in a 1* '.sta't
'r
. m.may i.ed n- 1 2 0 f esata w ag o u se,w s be
..g-=je.:,m:g,wneg e ,s,a,,, s , o
- 4 r=,m'anaa_ ., ua sn l.,a, a,,as m,= wid. vote w . a::;a,,r.J; '.m"'u
*n, a.,ad .,
a
.e m** =
r -m-v ew - . Caa . = a e ca o u.a , _ .e b.ard w . .was.a s .ta. . . . i - .ri n g y -
- e -
pun anssa H i Saal -
. et a
. ,a, u. a ,,mte, ef.em e meat a vuu. or. . . c n.a r-ma=C a=,- - ._ ,
b c:ru.'".'sdL,emm .usw%wi and .but we n.t - en a p.u ,. a s a.r m swy r oui a t.u r. no.m.s. . .pm*me -m**d =
- tha at, ,s ned En:",m .t hes.il"a.'"u*".y felt th.atux,. tha vow Ill:hwithPuree.ll.satheimunewas .-d -w
.E.rg.
se plan - a.Rar,mt.he . sta.te
, CO'sa.ndbut lamstad the mana.e was
. sed tode k thma,* amid ses partisipanL
.Per months, beard had resisted up to ne supervisors went to their poboe
.eanne 6esa appensats of the nasi> Board members were newed a listle 'em6an, where Devine and was er power plant who hed arended.ita Airther toward action two weeks age, > not shaDenged. Sea. On-mastings, and 6em John Matthews, when SuSolk Espublicans desded act ' F iseta held a news enadsrema at whisk "the Domesrat who last to Pureell ta -
- to back the re election bid d Wil- he aansummed the ' bem.
. November. liam Carney (R.Hauppsuge), had As ressatly as Aprit, saly the amid Bernham abald openif the NBC t Purseu. - - " subt, "I
. boarfs two Democrata, Deuse Nymaa won't hamle.e bestem thin."
deemsd it enda. N Shareham appe- .. *'
' eflaug Beach ast Vlacent suass' et asses, as had met tWr goale
~ Olea Cove, the Colisenas's 'h said wouw shiA their State Censmear Protectien Bo wls in the plan. Da April 7, emphan3s to Nassau. -
ehief Richard Eassel alled e m the board brumbed aside the pietata Meanwhile, Naamaa Dessarem Naassa County and renewed the.essaty's lease with were sacring up to make ths more- g yessarday to askB.oardat lissanagof Supamsars pre-deres se ths herehm By:tt Cory., which manages the has question a mWuissue in the kli . ,-
- Uniondale essertaiamsat suspies, eminpaign. And UA Sen. Alfonse D'A. plaat be tarsidasted.
,an t in,unng a eianas Amean mate,anIsland Park mapuhuanaanh. r sam.1 moted that ilm board wm m-wsated barttag evacasaism hg soeleet'ad, was boonadag mere ' postadshartlyteremoveNassenVot.ar.
there. Tenkaisaur, that ~seen!in his anni 8horeham stemos.
- ment to aos the CeHasum as a ' Re assange to the supemsort was I. Berehanneramatiosplan,Heenid ans Memerul Causeum em e .e Then same the et the Samst Ua3sa's Charnabylansi*
as dsInt M when ever
".**1, MY f; time fw the y,,g
#N
; Asa7n*""*'w""'* , e.e,a 'Eld ,s
'fi .
,,,,,d. 5' *y other 3d*= =< "$ pdisdan
*d* " ** en Imag ; g'I"thatLangIslandcaan ism ,to Q"Pr= ag sa,--
C raade a pywor.d to the au-Yaaking tlw Collaeum Areas the ' .
#I8 D ' " .
9 asadset plan "was a wise political move to try
.b.r'i'are uight estthat be anaenslasively SuSelk to blunt Shoreham as .
- eseomen. "I need to think it aheald Dumacrats use a 'Mia= =. -
- 8EE' mid DescrathC Nyman.
e a i ame .a,u.- ..
. O .
x =a n 11 . O
p , M3CLUTION Wo. ?8231986 1 1 i A RESOLUTION AMrAp!M A ABSOLUTION ENTITL10s
- A RESOLUTION AELAT!YE TO Ts3 cs3 0F TEI MA88AU YETERANS MEMCAZA3, COLISEUM !N A LONO ISLAND LICITING CONFANT'S EVACUATION PLAN.*
(Fassed 4 Besed of Supervisors as M gg g
. Teles for 100 g votes asstaat, port , Beeems a resolutioe es
- Rs4 Ig g eith the approve 4 ettheAettasteustrEneestits.) .e WNEAEAs, t5e Long Island Lighting Company has entered irite an agreensat witA the Ryatt Managetent Cerporatiet of New York, Inc., which purports to designate the Nassau Veterans Menertal Ce11seus as a Nuclear Disaster Evacuation Center, and WNEAEAS, the County Attorney of Nassau County has advise the Board of Supervisors tAat the terms of the lease between Nassa County and tas facility Management Corporation of New York, Inc.,
de not a11ew for such use Of .the Wassau veterans Memorial-Ce11seta and tow, theratore be it AE80LVED, tAat the purported designation of the Nassau Veterans Memorial Ce11seus by the Long Island Lighting Cearany as a Nuciest Disaster Evacuation Center be and the same is hereby declared a nullity, contrary to law and voids and be it further AESOLVta, that no Nassau County f acilities, including I the Naas40 Veterans Memorial Coliseum, are er will be available for t.he 'se e by the Long Island Lighting Congamy, or by t.he Tacal Management Corporation of New York, Inc., as part of the Long Island Lighting Company emergaary plan, unless prior approval by resolution is first obtained from the Nassau County scard of supervisors # and be it further O l
pasotvss, that a copy of this resolutica shall be forth vi A served spes the Leaf Istud Lightlaf company and Facility Managsment of New York, Ime., formerly known as Ryatt Maaagement Corporaties of New Yo'rk, fas., and filed with notice of such
~
service, with tha office of Nuclear aststatory Commissies at washiigtes D.C.: and be it further AssoLyrs, that a copy of this resolution shall be forth with published la the official newspaper of the County of Nassau.
*tr'1 W
e .. O
3 NEUSPAPER g DATE PAGE g 7 Xassau Bars AllIts .
~* ** - . . . . , , . . .,
Facilities;From Use in
~
Shorehant Crisis ~ By Celeste Hadrick Anar sanaths ofiadaaiai== the Nas, i Kiernan. they're sup er the issues enreenDr.gesed to seasid. - b et at Shereham nuclear power
~
the diet
. erity,* 0eletta -
a >, voting amanimously to bar the . The resolutism sJapted by the Man, assau Co5eeum - and all other . aan Supervisors yesterday ' signals a sountyIbeilties-tem use as evacea, sharp break with County Enesative tion altes. Francis T. Purcell ever 8bersham. Unless d.amatic new evidense ofthe Puron11, a supportar of the plant's - plant's safety and affordability es:a he erstion, had origarlly urged the provided, *Shorehams abound met. . Featuty spea" "' =; " Presiding Supervi- ' soum's ad===- " af York las. ser mens Gulotta said In a )idet to esir use of the arena as an evassa, statsmaat tem allsia supervisors. ties alta aAer LH40.tried unsmosen> With this vote, the Nassau supervi- ' ~ sors join the Suffolk County IAg18Ia= , . Ihlly te laClude $aShlh CamWoWaity tare and Gov, liarie Cuomo in College and then the State University the ut. at Stony Brooklaits plan, a activists hailed the. Gulotta emphasised as the board resolution as a key link" la kaspang naseting and la a later news esadur* Shoreham closed. And Iang Beech Sa- ease that only the board seald sathe, pamane Brue Nymna presheted, "I rise the use of ther' ail ap= unless an think thisisthe ofthe end af actually oscurred and that the Shoreham a plant." *no uthorisation was given with men der the Lang Island Co, to nas of the Coliseum." ournerof the plant,and the ree- y at odds with PiaresR, alatory agencies involved .with liases*
- Gulotta at ,; J questians ing the facility did not utack the same about shether be was sayi'w the afgniberes to the move.
- esusty esecutive had earseded his au-N resolution as' ori thority. Iater he said that ParenH had io66 % ,,s.C $Isi an,Mayoren.m.ml ora. . I nN,had menH.tb
- eright
.ns - atohm.rai authorine its asa
' dthe 6 eausd the New York City and did att stared the Imag Isissed Comptism ist Living Vboard meeting, had me -===* about as weR as news that the Noelaar . Gulotta's remarks and planand as a>
Regeldary Ceauniceien planned B- . tion te vote the reclusion. esasing hearings this sumaur m, "Why abould I?"he said."It really is prompted the board tg adopt the stron- < a nullity. In an esmergency. I would ger #1=*=====* barring nas of any sous>- ' use the soliseum. There is as such ty bdiressa. . thing as barring anything ta an asaar-Ahhougird..s hos d is, ign. red in April requesta by the eaaktion to tda dFacin t"o'::r"es',"rday Ce're"My
,,ne.m, a iesrain , - ,
I "g'EarlSumerna,". . . . . ..
=
- b" a,,,
ai.ut ti , .uthority mad met unakingr a yo est atow ta reaction to the aD* sisar disasterin the Soviet Union. -
=r < i + ve bodies are not sugposed de' things by rut lastinct, said orth nempstand superviser John 3 .-....~- . .. .
na. .. , . . , . . . ,. . . _ . . .
LILCO, 50pterbar'30, 1986 l i
'N) 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) ) AFFIDAVIT OF ELAINE D. ROBINSON ON NEW RECEPTION CENTERS e
- 1. My name is Elaine D. Robinson. My professional?. qualifi . ggp cations are at Tab 15 after page 4068 of the hearing transcript in this proceeding.
- 2. . I managed the Local Emergency Response Implementing Organization team thEt is responsible for incorporating outside organizations, including the Red Cross, into the emergency plan-
,ning effort.
I have previously par ticipated in discussions with the Hyatt Management Corporation of New York, Inc., which leases and manages the Nassau Veterans Memorial Coliseum, that Itd to the letter of agreement between LILCO and the Hyatt Management Corporation for use of the Coliseum as a reception center.
- 3. On April 7, 1986, the Nassau County Board of Supervisors renewed the lease of Hyatt Management Corporation for the Nassau Coliseum. In so doing, the Board declined to include a provision that would have barred the facility from being used for evacua-tion drills for the Shoreham emergency plan.
4 Following the Chernobyl accident, the Board of Supervi- - sors reopened its consideration of the Nassau Coliseum. Among
7 - _
^ '
those appearing Defore the Board urging denial of tne Coliseum to LILCO for advance inclusion in the Shoreham Offsite Emergency Plan were Suffolk County Legislator Jane Devine and Richard Kessel, the heaa of the New York State Consumer Protection Boaro.
)
See attached newspaper reports. These efforts were successful. On June 16, 1986, the Nassau County Board of Supervisors passed a new resolution which declared LILCO's letter of agreement with Hyatt Management Corporation void anc which removed the Nassau Veterans Memorial Coliseum from use in the Shoreham emergency plan without.the Board of Supervisors' prior approval.
- 5. In place of the Nassau Veterans Memorial Coliseum, Revi-
.-g,
! 'i sion 8 to the Shoreham Of fsite Emergency Plan, filed September ,,
, 18, 1986 designates the LILC'O Operations Centers at Hicksville, Bellmore, and Roslyn as receptions centers. A map showing tne location of these centers is provided in Figure 4.2.1 of the Plan. EPZ residents are assigned to a given reception center based on the emergency planning zone in which they reside. Indi-
~
vidual planning zones are paired with single reception centers. Roughly 50% of the EPZ cesidents are Essigned to tne Hicksville Recaption center, 30% to the Bellmore Reception Center, ano 20% to the Roslyn Reception Center.
- 6. The Hicksville Operations Center is located on a 77 acre tract south of Old Country Roao to the east of Broaoway (Route 107) and to the west of New Soutn Road. The facility is approxi-mately 37 miles from the Snoreham Nuclear Power Station and 27 miles from the 10-mile EPZ boundary. For decontamination, the facility has 20 snowers and a similar number of sinks tnat could ne used to clean evacuees with localized contamination. -
R
- i
', ?
~
- 7. The Bellmore operations Center is locateo on a 10 acre tract south of Sunrise Highway to the west of Newbridge'Roac.
The facility is 41 miles from the Shereham Nuclear Power Station l and 31 miles from the 10-mile EPZ boundary. For decontamination, the facility has 10 showers and a similar numcer of sinks.
- 8. The Roslyn Operations Center is located on a.15 acre tract south of the Long Island Expressway Soutn Service Road Just to the east of Willis Avenue. The facility is 42 miles from the Shoreham Nuclear Power Station and 32 miles from the 10-mile EPZ boundary. for decontamination, the facility has 10 showers and a similar number of, sinks. .
a-~.
.-w - * - -
- 9. For comparison purposes, the Nassau Veterans Memorial
~~
... $ e Coliseum is located 43 miles from the Shorenam Nuclear Power Sta-tion and has locker rooms ano dressing rooms with approximately 30 showers. . -
- 10. Further details on the Hicksville, Roslyn and Bellmore Reception Centers are set forth in Revision 8 to the Shoreham offsite Emergency Plan.
r AW Elaine D. Roolnso N Subscribed and sworn before me this 29 59 day of # rec ga_ , 1986. - My commission expires: rn A4c w Jo /9/7 .
-tL~ Zbi Notary Puolic THOMAS 3. DAMG NOTARY PURUC, Stok of Nur York No.524612214 @af.2 Su5ek County
_ Commason Expires March 30,3D
tN. % 3 s-. . n iss ,m y , Town Fights LiLeo Evacuation Cent:er By curroas n. nsay ochma. r *
,s.,J
==J E E.' Tt. 7 u _ .
2"'"""et 2*.'*:::,*e':::e .!*""*a,A=:;t,%n a-e
= =*==~- s
- mempo. s a:lllllllll:_
ar .
.si Ea de.
sy*m"r,.=.r e ta e .a.mus uise d g=== E1,e,e asae og::g,=t-=,=lre.:=.e.=e s .se is not is
-..m.m esir=.s
. es e e=,. -
.e , . h e.e .
harner, a spokeesman ai. anser Thesnes J.svassetsen esmars. Idr. Newman td. rviser for th Laos wouls have to chain "mang Outoria. townatnePreseeng pstand. Te aieseneu e variamens and es cesi parame- seen
-~
a use as sentrary se the healdt and assery of uw reemame.- ne aufy the 88WR ~~ Taw a had est yet append uses een smam e sommmialoper. Dr num varteness and permas. ama
. attag heense for Ms 94.s billion aucaear Mr. Newman eensanded that was eb
- I power t only if an emergency ther because they deuts the6r applies.
evacust plan le approved by the tiens would be approved er "teesue Federal Nuclear Regulatory Commis-they estil think they can get awar st.s eten.. :: if thev just keep rest gunst." The vul-That plan must include adequate fa. ity would not comment en ble charges, cihues for the evacuation and decon. Mr. Newman sold Linceptans to he. saminatten of the more than 100.000 gin bringing tratlers to pelimore in people living within 10 miles of Shore. January for use in in a rechauen emer. gency. Mr. therrard the Lilcs opeke6-ham, lwhich la en the por$ shore of man, said " trailers are part of the plan lanf atestd about M miles from New but no uming has been est."
. Yers City. ,, ,, , _ .
Earlier. Lilco had deetsnated tsu Maassu Col 6sevaa as ks evacuouen een. ter. This summer, however. Nassau County's beark Lines Beard treatofusteg Supervle.ers a eeunty.voted te owned esalesen. . Lales then designated three af Ms esm husents se eveassues centers, anched. he se ma - eeneer a ass. more. en unesserparated arts et Neapsised, sa a neuer sent es.e Nesteer mes hiery Censaisseen W andre. hased nedey Mr. Oedema seeh
*"1::""e a."Mil"a,"w,ll:::ii "I - , homer e. ea the ,
A spokesmas for the seemission. Ostra Miles, eaM thee thartson that agency efflesels were studyerig the not. ter and had me esmment vet. ' A Lilco apolteeman Wilham Sher. rard, said the utility would " review the , letter carefully." He added. "We are prepared to discuss all the details with the town." He dochned to answer ques. Mons on the legal taeues rateed by Mr. - S l
I ! LILCO, NavCmbar 18, 1986- l N
- [' '
l UNITED STATES OF AMERICA l NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION Before the Atomic Safety and Licensino Board 7 In the Matter of )
)
LONG ISLAND' LIGHTING COMPANY ) Docket No. 50-322-OL ) (Emergency Planning ! (Shoreham Nuclear Power Station, ) Proceeding) {
' Unit 1) )
l f AFFIDAVIT OF ; CHARLES A. DAVERIO IN SUPPORT OF l LILCO'S MOTION FOR PROTECTIVE ORDER J l Charles A. Daverio, being duly sworn, deposes and says as i follows:- I
- 1. I am emplo.yed by Long Island L.ight.ing Company ("LILCO")
i as Assistant Department Manager, Nuclear Operations Support )
. Department. My professional qualifications are bound into the !
I record.of.this proceeding following Tab 6 at Tr. 4068. I have l personal knowledge of the facts recited in this affidavit because i I have supervised or been involved in LILCO's emergency prepared- , l ness effort for Shoreham Nuclear Power Station since January l 1980. . l 1
- 2. Those activities have included oversight of the Local l Emergency Response Organization (LERO) and negotiations with out-side organizations who assist LILCO in implementing its Emergency l Plan (the Plan).
l i
Y': -
\ 3. Since 1982, controversy surrounding the operating license proceedings for Shoreham has created an increasingly hos-tile and bitter environment in which LERO workers and other indi-viduals associated with outside organizations who assist in the implementation of the Plan must work and live.
- 4. In addition to the governmental interveners in this proceeding numerous Long Island private groups, including the
. Shoreham Opponents' Coalition for Safe Living, People's Action Coalition, and Parents opposed to Shoreham have opposed and con-tinue to oppose the licensing of Shoreham. Part of their opposi-tien efforts have included distribution of inaccurate and inflam-matory propaganda, and telephone and other contacts with outside organizations to coerce or otherwise induce them into severing all ties with LILCO.
- 5. State, County.and. local officials have also voiced strong opposition to the Shoreham plant and its emergency plan.
The opposition of Governor Mario Cuomo and Suf, folk County Execu-tive Peter Cohalan is well known. They are parties to this pro-ceeding. Other local officials such as Hempstead Presiding Supervisor Thomas Gulotta have recently been quoted as opposing Shoreham's operation. (See attached articles from Newsday, "Hempstead Fights Use of LILCO Site in Shoreham Plan," dated
. November 15, 1986, and from.the New York Times, " Town Fights LILCO Evacuation Center," dated November 15, 1986.
- 6. As.a result of this virulent opposition to the Shoreham plant on the part of these citizen groups, politicians and m
I oth'ers, many organizations which once assisted in the imple-mentation of the Plan have withdrawn. (See attached articles from Newsday, "Hempstead Fights Use of LILCO Site in Shoreham Plan," dated November 15, 1986, and from the New York Times, L " Town Fights LILCO Evacuation Center," dated November 15, 1986.
- 7. The withdrawal of organizations from participation in the Plan has accelerated since the February 13, 1986 FEMA graded Exercise as detailed below. ~
- 8. In May.and June of this year a local group called Par-ents opposed to Shoreham Evacuation solicited signatures from Suffolk County school bus drivers to signify their agreement with the following statements:
"1) I will not participate in. implementing any LILCO emergency plan for Shoreham, and
- 2) I cannot and will not agree to drive a school bus in the event of an' accident at Shoreham."
A copy of this petition is attached to this affidavit.
- 9. Since the Exercise the Nassau Coliseum, which had served as the reception center for evacuees in case of a site emergency, was prohibited from participating in the Plan by a l Nassau County ordinance dated June 16, 1986. A copy of the ordinance is attached to this affidavit.
- 10. Supervisor Thomas Gulotta's remarks on the Nassau County ordinance attest to the continuing nature of this hostile political climate: "The resolution on the calendar today does not preclude this Board'(of Supervisors) from taking further
.e m_---___-____.___._--______--____a__
.'4 i.
\ steps with regard to this. issue [whether Shoreham should receive l an operating license) in the future." Enactment of this ordi-1 l nance was actively political and supported by the Coalition for Safe Living. A copy of these remarks is attached.
- 11. - By letter dated August 13, 1986, Alan'S. Beck, Presi-dent and General Manager, WALK Radio, informed Ira Freilicher, Vice-President, LILCO, that WALK Radio had withdrawn from partic-ipation in the Plan. A copy of this letter is already in the record of this proceeding.
- 12. By letter dated September 2, 1986, Oak Hollow Nursing Home withdrew from further participation in the Plan until such time as Shoreham receives an operating license. A copy of that letter is attached to this affidavit.
- 13. A recent Newsday article, dated November 13, 1986 and attached to this af.fidavit,. documents the efforts of a local group, Coalition for Safe Living (CSL), to induce outside organi-zations either to refuse to participate in the emergency plan or withdraw from participation. The article quotes a spokesman for the group, Jeffrey Newman, as taking credit for withdrawal of the Nassau County Coliseum and radio station WALK, and announces the group's intentions with respect to other organizations.
- 14. LILCO has verified by telephone survey that'w'ithin the last three weeks various LERO contractors have been contacted by individuals soliciting the contractors' withdrawal from partici-pation in the Emergency Plan. These individuals have identified themselves as members of an unspecified " Nurses' Association" and mp e
, euW-wh---__--_-_.____.-_._____.____ _ _ . _
=.-- ;.,
). unspecified " Teachers' Associations." One caller, self-identified as a member of the " Nursing Association," inaccurately stated that another contractor had withdrawn from participation in the Plan and urged the recipient .cf the call to do the same.
- 15. Faced with Suffolk County's refusal to participate in the Plan, the assistance of other organizations beyond LILCO and the existence of LERO are critical to implementation of LILCO's Plan which protects the health and safety of Long Island resi-dents.
- 16. In my opinion, identifying by name individuals associ-ated with outside organizations who assist in the Plan is an un-necessary invasion of privacy which will result in further intim-idation of these individuals and the organizations with which they are associated. In the past identification has seriously impaired LILCO's ability to secure and retain the cooperation of such organizations in implementing its emergency plan. It requires LILCO to expend enormous financial and staf f resources to secure substitute organizations. These are resources which should be directed to protection of public health and safety instead of to repairing the damage done to good working relation-ships by outside political pressure.
- 17. Recent events show that such harassment and intimida-tions has increased since the February 13, 1986 Exercise and will continue for the foreseeable future.
l O
The foregoing facts are known by me to be true, of my own knowledge. I am competent to testify to such facts, and would so testify if I appeared as a witness in a public hearing on this matter. - J,*-
/A6 < /
* /I d.'+ rs
'"[ Signature]
Subscribed and sworn to before me on b w. k if, 19_{,fo Db WA_ b : s [Si/gnature and turle] L A
% WMM
% /k /T l
t 6 O M 9 m
..,'P**. Ls : EPQ ELECOPtsR "CiOlJ 1-1~-!" -
11: IJ" : 10I.v52 05I., - gs;;y;, m, v ' TOWN BOARD . Appandix'B'. '- h* . Y ABS.eUbOTTA . c c ana.en 1 presasene seos,vese, $ ~ y
~ EUOte E b.WitSSE: -
; aaus e. ee <n .. -
a * '
- e. itate o e,s.t.o.ca.v..e.p .
w='**'
,g -
n'm:t,c , ,d
%, - ' nic=ano v.ouaao o.j ,
TOWN HALL PLAZA f f wewsremo. s.v. iisso . , . v.......... ..
~
. January 6, 1987 -
- ~
'Mr. William Catacosinos, Chairman .
.t 5; Long Island Lighting Company ~
175 East old Country Road -
~
Micksville, New York- 11801 -
,. q -
. .~
Dear Mr. Catacosinos,
n.
, , 1 A. ... ,
,. :. y . m. ,
The Town' Board of Hempstead has learriedJ-from press .' ,. reports, statements of members of the pubKic, binfore the - i. 3;; Board, and a review of pertinent portions of Revision B 4 of LILCO'S emergency plan for the Shoreham- nuclear. power ' plant that LILCO is representing its property located at ; 2400 Sunrise Highway, Bellmore, to be a " reception center," , i We understand that this " reception center" includes structures,~. R' facilities and services necessary to' process tens of- thousands of evacuees arriving in vehicles for monitorin~g.for radiation ,
- i and possibly for-decontamination, as well'ar ancillary facilitiesr and services for these persons. To date,-the i i subject property has been used by LILCo as an operations -
center in.. support of its supply of electrical. power to Long Island residents and businesses. It is(ous understanding - that LILCS is continuing to use the property.as.an operations center .but that, in addition, LILCO claimir ths. property 9 '
. for a nots. and expanded use as a "receptiork conter." _
^
@ e.taking this initiative to writ.a..in order to /
prevent.:any misunderstanding as to the usef of' the subject : prope _ As of today, the subject property 16cated at 2400 Righway, Bellmore, is zoned Fast Business /Part .' Resid B"e This classification permita.-the property ", to ba use&as it has been, as an operationicenter. 7 . . _ ,
- e .;
~~
, 5
. . . .~
, 1. - * *
' .. . ,~f) ,
~*,,..
? ,
_ ; s .- -
- A '
..? ? JE
, .. ' - .-:.- z ,
^s.
' ' ;;- M..;
. n " ,
w.us w e -e ~:ac -
- o'; r ;aaW': ' I-22-?I"N2 - ~1111 1 = - .c mh Page 2 2400 Sunrise Highway Bellmore, New York 11710 The present zoning does not permit the property to be used in a new and expanded way as a " reception center."
Accordingly, any representation by LILCO of the subject property as being a " reception center" or as permitting the new and expanded use described in LILCO'S Revision 8 of its emergency plan is contrary to the present zoning classification. Any attempt by LILCO to use the Bellmore facility in this manner would violate local zoning laws. j d sincerely, J l
-~
/ M'4 113 5 E b(0N Thomas S. Gul'otti
~
ame s D. B4rinett Presiding Supervisor S e rvisor _uh .n Eug b L. Weisbein. f4 * / . 7 _
- /Gerger P.
Cou ilman ' Counc 1r ian(Peterson i
/ p os ?L C
h G. Aair r.
- Martin B. Bernstein cilm% Councilman 1
A
- ~ ~~ l ^
. . JcisegPrW. % n(ello ,
Richard v. Guardino, Jr. _ a Councilman M-Councilman m M 8
'xswsrirzaler1Mny nirs a ao 37 PAGE )
\r ! -..... L . . i . ... . . - 1 4Cou..nty. Hardens...._S_. horeham L _ :. . _ _ . - , - - . ~ . - - .
' Stance r.a .'" ' ' .s. ..-
,_. _s._.v. .. ~ -_-
_d . .e .'%_. . 1, d . am i. - .
- , . t. kr pervlaors to press for additional soon. by.he t ,oard of Su rvisors,similar to allent ** es 4useidon of es ty moves againa Shoreham- one the Suffolk14 lature has adopt. '
7rehain nuclear plant, is Although Kessel would not ' ed, sayi that e sounty charter slowl , but a surely, tow what h*s aseking b said he is so doesa's bn tk had a take such 9stri on to ibaulty. dont Shere are 1 [dientions that they eSaial stanosa. And he he will i began a year ap when are willing'te do mars,b Shoreham not in Sutolk in its aruggle Wrrent County Emmentive Thomas issue doem t end at the Suftbik border. a Shorehambefore NBC and
.Gulotta,then head of the Bond of Sn. They must become more involad." e' bodies, porvisors, pushed through a measure lang Beach Supervisor Brues Np LILCO epokaaman WillNeots said removingsne Nassau Vetarans Mame- man, a Democrat, agrees and ears ne the osmaany would have no somment "rla! Collasuna tasa LIuXFs evaeus. will push for more action. "14t's stop on the changes in Nassau's position.
pism, the Airtation with anti shorehaan ImGrande applauda the shiftin Na>
. %' And it has escalated in the last he said. "There is no sitions," sau, adding that he sympathisse with einse Oulesta restaaed Francia groundonthis? his neighboring sounty's caution.
Paren!!, an open advesase of the But even though Gulottais publicly "They have a di& coat perspective be. Island Lighting Co. plant. Can. . he said. "If they these sentrasting sta to asasu the plant, specifiche won't"What actions sonmut cause enove of geography," in our direct ion, Ana. If they
- f. Pureell. December, less: don't we do will on streamstanees," don't, we understand." -
ese what the escitement is about. Most heaald . At a sneeting earlier this month to pflong Island is closer to Indian Point Pol inal ers aar Republican discuss bl. county cooperation,14 {a tus.aar' plant on the Hudson R!ver). Gulotta's position on Bhoreham is Grande and Gulotta were at o&ds over
'We're going to need the electricity partly motivated by political oonosens a joint study en alternate enerry Som Shoreham * -that he must stand for slection this sources. IeGrande insisted that the the h11 and aims to preempt the Demo.~ consultant's study escinde nuclear
' Gulesta, of b'rday: "I man. power,but Guletta diangreed.
' eenodenos" asement has created la me a lack af( orate on the nuclear iss that they saa rua shore.
2
'7#ia'a of een8 dense has inn to ,.
too recent, highly publisi*sd esents sa Gulotta's port. On Monday, he joised . with sumak Enesutive Michael de in a proposed rule the U.S. N Regulatory Canalasion that would al. low she NRC to 11eenas hereham do.
's the rehaalof state andleenlao. -
ties to participate la eyesnation .
' planalag. Two weeks ago, Genesta seansitted Naaman hr ths Brettime to -
Sghting a LII40 rete. hike . And while Naassuis seula way f>een Suffb1k's active oppeal to Shoreham,Nassau mourses sayits new positten seems to be hardening and is a tesh abstacle to LIuXys struggle to gain hdsen! powerstatica.permisslan to span the And the obstaale apparently willaste > IE"w
.es ==C-a->=a k niched ra-d seet,64 ef t
,,to.'87 10:42 ;
1 iN N M k a GLe
~
Ytn - un Le n o. . s , enas 3 ._. No' evacuation plan for Bellmore The Town Board has unania ' plannedIo set up h==d== dan. ble for m as a meeption center," C2 sly adopted a resolution tien trailers at the Bellmore site , said Supervisor Mondello. "The
'doelaring that the Long Island ,
Lighting Cotepanycannot useits evacuses.for approximately 10.000 every l Town zoard intends to take action necessary Io ensure Bellmers Operations Center as a *LILCO never responded to that the raidents of Bellmore are roerption and deepptamination . our letter, and has sentinued to not used as pawns in LII,004 aresin the event ofa radiological include the Bellmore propertyin beleaguered effort to operate the
. emergency at the Shoreham their evacuation plan,,said , Shoreham nuclear power plant.,
~ Nuclear Power Plant.
. Supervisor Gregory Peterson. . Last year. mdents of the i
. LILCO) inclusion of the Bell. "This resolution unequivocally community and unembers of c:re site in the emergency eva- serm notice on both LILCO groups opposed to the openingof cuation planisin violation ofihe and the federal Nuclear Rescia- Shoreham picketed in Bellmore -
Tcwn Building Code, said the tory Comission that the Townis ta show opposition to theevacus-board. The Bellmore Operations steadfast in its opposition to
. Center is on Sunrise Highway. tion plan. They particularly LILCO) plan and that no eacep- pointed outineonnistencies in the Presiding Supervisor Joseph tions to existing toning tegula- decontamination plan and ques-M:ndello said"TheTown Board tions will be tolerated.* ' tiened the handling of such a hesith and safety of the residentsb c:mmitted large to protecting group of evacuees the, in aTown 12- may now be admitted of this township. The Town can- evidence to governmental or ; hourperiod,asstatedbyLILCO.
not, in good faith, countenance i judicial bodies considering LIL-LILCO) attempt to involve their C04 use of the Be!!more prop. Sellmore Operations Center in erty as an evacuation center.The the Shireham emergency eva, admissibility of the Towni ongi-
, . .g, pj,, a nelletter has been questler.ed by
. n the Town first learned local residents opposed to the
. - JLCO had designatad the LILCO plan.
.Deumtre site as an ' emergency "las geographic location, sisc, recepti:n center,"the location to and proxamrty to a heavily -
which evacuees of a nuclear acci- popuisted residential area, makes dont et Shoreham would be this property totally unaccepta-directed frr monitoring and dec- *' contamination, a letter of protest
- was sent to the compar.y advising that such use was inconsistent with local soning laws. LILCO .
e
- se h
_..______.-_____-_________m.-_._____m_._-
l* .. i.. ? m m m.uonosu.o s .- n o em:meo 1 1 omca or TMs PRESIDING SUPERylsoR
- TOWN CP HEMPsTEAD
, TOWN MALL PLAZA. HEMPSTEAD. N. Y.1155o w s.Sooo ,
June 15, 1987 The Hon. Morton B. Margulies, Chairman Administrative Judge Atomic Safety and-Licensing Board U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D. C. 20555-
Dear Judge Margulies:
Enclosed herewith please find a' copy of.a resolution adopted by the Town of Hempstead. Town Board on June 19,1987. It is relative to Long Island Lighting Company's representation of its Bellmore facility as a reception center in Revision 8 of its emergency plan for the Shoreham Nuclear Power Plant. 6
- Sin erely, E
Ex Assi nt PT:jfm enclosure -
n .. - hf . CASE NO. 18473 RESOLUTION NO. 624-1987
.q s
- Adopted: June 9,~1987~
I Mr.-I arino offer'ed the following resolution andtwoveditsaYoption: RESOLUTION DECLARING THE OFFOSITION OF THE TOWN BOARD TO LILCO'S-PROPOSAL TO USE LILCO PROFERTY AT 2400 SUNRISE HIGHWAY,. BELLMORE, . TOWN OF HEMPSTEAD, NEW YORE,' AS A RECEPTION-CENTEk-FOR PERSONS OR ITEMS EXPOSED TO RADIOACTIVE CONTAMINATION FROM THE SHOREHAM NUCLEAR PLANT, INSOFAR AS SAID USE IS CARRIED OUT IN VIOLATION
-0F THE BUILDING ZONE ORDINANCE OF THE TOWN OF HEMPSTEAD.
. WHEREAS, the Long Island Lighting Company ("LILC0").
- has designated its property located at'2400 Sunrise Highway, Bellacre (the " property"), Town of Hempstead-(the " Town"),
to be a reception center at which LILCO intends to conduct-monitoring and, if necessary, decontamination of many. thousands of people and vehicles in the-event of a radiological' emergency at Shorehas; and
~
WHEREAS, LILCO has represented to the Nuclesc Regulatory Commission and othere that the property will be- available for use as such s' reception center; and-WHEREAS the property, further identified,as Section 56 Block W Lot 1295 on the Land and Tax Map of Nassau
, is located County' in a. Residence B" partly in a " Business" zone, and partly zone, pursuant to the Building Zone Ordinance of the Town of Hempstead; and
. WHEREAS, the Building Zone Ordinance, under Articles VII and XVI thereof, expressly-delineates those limited activities for which the property, as currently zoned, would lawfully be used;.and
. WHEREAS, LILCO's proposed usage of the property as a reception center, as .2 foresaid, would constitute a violation of the provisions of Articles VII and XVI in that said activity is not a use which is expressly permitted thereby; and WHEREAS, this Town Board advised the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, in writing, in the form of a copy of a letter to LILCO from this Board, dated January 6,1987, that LILCO's representations were inconsistent with the Town's zoning laws; and WHEREAS, LILCO was advised by letter dated January 6, 1987 from Presiding Supervisor Thomas S. Gulotta and signed by all members of the Town Board, that any attempts to ut- the property as a reception center would violate the SqA's zon?vg laws, and LILCO was therein requested to Cettsin fruk any further representations that it could so use the property; and WHEREAS, LILCO has not responded to the Town Board's January 6, 1987 letter, and has continued to represent that the property is available for use as a reception center in the event of a radiological emergency at Shoreham; and WHEREAS, LILCO has not in any way sought an amendment _
to the zoning provisions applicable to the property or
; .s otherwise sought to obtain tha n3cossory paraissicn to
,N. use the property as a reception center; and I WHEREAS, this Board has authority to determine which uses are permissible under the Town's zoning laws; and WHEREAS, the Town Attorney has advised the Town Board that a resolution formally declaring the position of the Town. Board, as set forth in the aforesaid letter dated January 6, 1987, will facilitate the evidentiary presentactos of the position of this Board before any appropriate hearing body or judicial tribunal having jurisdiction over LILCO's proposal to utilize the property as a reception center; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT CONFIRMED AND RESOLVED THAT:
- 1. LILCO's proposed use of the property, identified as Section 56, Block W. Lot 1295 on the Land and Tax Map of Nassau County, and further known as 2400 Sunrise Highway.
Bellmore, Town of.Hempstead, New York, as a reception center I. as hereinbefore described, is wholly violative of the provisions of the Building Zone Ordinance, as aforesaid; and
- 2. The adoption of this reso'lution shall, in accordance with the provisions of.Section 4540(a) of the Civil Fractice Law and Rules of the State of New York, and in accordance with the provisions of Rula 803(8) of-
' the Federal Rulee of Civil Procedure, be deemed prima facie evidence of all statements of face conceined herein, which facts have been ascertained and adduced by this Town Board, - ( pursuant to evidence submitted and testimony received in due course and as provided by law; and
- 3. The Town Attorney, and any other individuals or associations _ interested in.or potenti_ ally aggrieved by LILCO's proposed use of the property as a reception center, are hereby authorized to prescent a certified copy of this declaratory resolution before any commission, hearing board, or other judicial tribunal having jurisdiction to consider and/or regulate LILCO's proposed activity as aforesaid; and
*
- N == c1=ek (= hereby authorized and, directed STATE OF NEW YORK '
COUNTY OF NAS8AU ss.:
'ZOWN OF HEMPfrEAD l
, I do her'eby certify that I have compared the annexed copy of Resolution No. 624-198 (2 Pages) Adopted by the Town Board on June 9,1987 wie the original, on file in the ofSco of the Towin Clerk of the Town of Heropstead, and that the saan a a true and conect copy of said original and of the whole thereof, IN TESTIMONY WHEREOF. I have hereunto set my hand and afBzed the of$cial seal of the Town of Hempstead on this day of June 10,1987.
DANIEL M. FISHER, JR., Town Clerk
........ S D*9uty 1baan Clerk
_ _ - - ~ - _ _ - _ - - - - - _ _ . twouzss suboffa towwer 8;tsumt .
}
OFriCE
.... e..OF TME EXECUT8vE
. .u s .. .
, 7.~!"".Y..'.
- July 1, 1987 Administrative' Law Judges Atomic Safety and Licensing Board U.S. NuclearD.C.
Washington, Regulation Conunission 20555 Dear Administrative Law Judges conducting hearings on the Longoard evacuation plan, I must point out that the lat Islandis now Lighting CAs ompany's emergency still must that contains assumptions relative to Wassau be corrected. C est revised plan . ounty facilities In its resolution of June 16, 1986, the Na of Supervisors resolved that no county facilities ssau County Board for the use approval by resolutionby LILCO as part of its emerge are to be available Board of Supervisors." is first obtained from the Nassau Countyncy plan, Supervisors LILCO has not received permission from the N to include any county facilities in itassau Soard of and, to rey knowledge, has not even requested s emergency anyplan
, specific approval.
Police Departments respectfully'herefere trequest, e from the plan. that the Nassau County and the Nassau County Medical Center be removed .. Since
/ /1 M g,) .
U Y THOMAS S. GULOTTA County Executive
/
Ost yN.j&~4 restding Supervisor Town of Hampstead MONDELLO ~' hen . QREGORY PZjTERSON SupervlSpe, 4'own (- f Hempstead K hf - +
~
5@gR KIERNAN ~
~
ervisor to JOSPMfCO V ' f o th Hempstead Superfis Town of yster Say
'I: KENT S00221 ~ ' ~ -
upervisor, City w en Cove SAcct NYMAN } y~~~~ ~ ~ ~ , Supervisors,CitykfLongBeac. SC 3gwsch c Mr. i W lliam Catacosinos Long Island Lighting CompanyChairman and Chief Executive 175 East Old County Road Hicksville, New York 11801 *
- u. - u ,_ . .
Mondello warns LILCO Can't sneak decontam trailer into Town ofHempstead
, By JEANY 884818Y "However, we would like to tha Ballsore oparations Bellmore.
ome m emewer meet with Mr. Mondello and Center as a nuclear evacua. "This is a espricious at. The kng !aland Light!ng discuss the situation with tion center," Mondello said. tempt to subvert the Town
. Co. suhred anoner setback him." "With callous disregard for Code by secretly introducing in its bid tbr local partiel a* The spokesman aald. *Re. the safety and wellbeing of a decontamination trailer tion la its evacuation p an alist!eally, local government the residents of Bellmore, onto the Bellmore site after then Hem sisad Presidleg leaders would want to oln LILCO appears to have been the ut!!!ty had been directly Supervisor oseph Monde!!o with LIISO in the unit ly caught red handed attempt. and unequivocally advised anorunced steps to start le. event a Shoreham emergency ing to subvert the entsting that this would be counter to - Sal seden against what he plan would have to bJ acts. laws of the Town of Hemp. established law," Zagarino called an attempt by the voted to ensure public safe. stead." said.
Ettllty to f.agrantly disregani ty." In response, the ecm Modello added "The Town the Zoning Code of the Four washdown units spokesman said, "Li[a3 C Boani has seted in erder to N* does not Intend to violate any protect the health sad safety Wrndello said that LILCO, Earlier this week, the laws-local, stata, or fbder* of the residenta By establi6h. 13 direct violation of laws, Hempstead Town Building al." Ing decontamination faelli. has begun to set up perma
- Department determined that Mondello directed the ties that are directly counter rent decontamiestion facili. a trailer, consisting of four Town Attorney to seek an in. to the Town Code, LILCO has
. tiaa at the uulity's Bellmore decontamination wash-down j unction that would require demonstrated an unfortunate Op:rstfoam Centar. units, bad been stauened in JLCO to immediately dis. lack ofreganifor the duty on.
LILCO had listed the Bell. . tbs rear of the LILCO proper. mantle the decontamination aetad laws and ordinanes of 9 theility in its evaeus. , locawd on the corner of traller. the Town of Hampstead." unrise El way and New. LILCO had told the Nucle.
. ..ds glanning afore the during haar.bridge Ros The tra!!st has 'CSPr!clous attempt' Nuclear ar Regulatory Commission af.'
Regulatory Commission. been stab!!!aed and conneet. The Town Council had tar it lost the Nassau Colise. ed to electric and water sup. passed a resolution on June um as a decontamination "We have not seen Mr. plies. Il forbidding e permanent alta, that it would use theill. Mondello's statament so we "The Building Code of the decontamination structure, ties ca pro oill not comment on it," a ' Town of Mempstead clearly according to councilman Pat. Bellmore,perty it owned Bleksville, in and LILC0 spokasaaa said; prohibits LII40 from using rick Zagarona, a residant of Roslyn. 4 o O 9 e
.y ON c o'o o oo .fD 01:9sigI nHL- 10-02-10
. .an Aml/ , "TE 4h *4 PAGE_ , g, LILCO's Trailers -
- i. Empet**d Phaiding Supervisor Joseph
, N. Endello said yesterday the town will enka orderrequiringblanglalan *
- 88 Co. to roam trailersinmelg at '
re property fbe b Shor:bam
,' emergency evacuation plan. '
The trailers are to be nabd as seloendon aanters wh*** in b mat ofan anddent at the Shoreham auelear plant, evacuees
*mid ot irr radiation menf amassamty, decoctamiastion. 6and, W dadd.
ya and edN banned the use of the Collaeum as a esater'/ LILCO apokesmanJimI41s neid b sm-
, pany sould not comment on blegale .
. untd it is filed. However, he saldh hopes
. gDj and town ofBefals saa diaeues b "ZJ
,' laws."LCO he said. He doesahe saidax that latead to vidadt I. $nels that murJdpalities such as kamp.
stand wou scoperate with L!!CO W the E
,j , evacuation plan.evar were twi.
a . - , '*
- G e
~r l
__ _ . _ _ - - - - - - _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ - . - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - ~ - ~
~.
re.ouas s. cut.orra Couwtvsativtevt j $ I OFFICE OF THE EXECUTIVE
- Nassau covuty taccutivt avsoenes oast west stacc7 anNeOLA. N.v. e a see March 15, 1988 Mr. William Catacosinos
Chairman Long Islandand Chief Lighting Executive officer Company 175 East Old Country Road Hicksville, New York 11801 Daar Bill, It has come to my attention that in its revised radiolo i g cal cmergency plan LILCO M:morial Coliseum, the Nassau Community College and the Nhas included the use of the Nassau County ns V assau County Medical Center as " gs in the event of a nuclear accident at Shoreham. relocation centers" to which evacuees school would I remind you of Resolution No.782-1986, by L the Nassau' County Board of supervisors. enacted It' on resolved June 16 1986 ,
'that
.Caunty facilities, including the Nassau Veterans Memorial Colise no Nassau or will be available for use by the Long Island Lighting Compan Ioland Lighting company emergency plan, unless p e Long val by resolu-tien is.. first obtained from the Nas.sau County -Board of Sup Na such prior approval has been obtained by LILCo ervisors."
plan contradicts Resolution 782-1986. Therefore, LILCO's cupersede Resolution No.The 782-1986 NRC's new rule for emergency planning not* does fccilities No. 782-1986 owned by Nassau County. Moreover, Nassau County Rbecaus esolution is the binding law of this County. The Resoluti on makes cbcolutely clear that Nassau County facilities are n Board of Supervisors. The Board has not granted this approval . County Supervisors lagt July in reference toe. this same issu I Nassau Veterans Memorial Coliseum, Nassau , Nassau Communit p C 0 4 e e ______m _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
o ( , - (. m
. .[1 County Medical Center, Nassau County Police or any other Nassau Coun for. use in the event of, a nuclear emergency at shoreham. fac Thank you for your attention to this matter.
Sincereh f
, / /7/$ w 2,4 . lYD!l THOMAS S. GULOTTA County Executive TS:GW:ja Enclosure CC: Honorable Lando tech,. Chairman Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D. C. 20555 Honorable Julius Becton, Director Federal Emergency Management Agency Washington, D.C. 20472 4
4 e O 0 t l a
, _ .___ _ _ _ - _ . _ - - - - _ _ _ - - - - ------- -- J
l i gg - LONG ISLAND LIGHTING COMPANY raccutive orriers. its eAsv oto couwrav moao * *nensvn.tr. wcw vo=x i n noi April 15, 1988 1 BY CERT! PIED MAIL Mr. Robert Mcdonald Deputy Nassau County Executive 1 West Street Mineola, New York 11501
Dear Mr. Mcdonald:
next This letter is to invite Nassau County to participate in the federally-graded exercise for the Shoreham Nuclear Power Station, which vill take place sometime during June, 1988. The exercise vill'be a two or three day exercise and vill include demonstrations of protective action decisionmaking and implementation gency planning zone for both (EPZ) the 10-mile plume exposure pathway emer-pathway emergency planning zone.and the 50-mile ingestion exposure Of course, the LfLCO Plan makes L provisions for Nassau County to participate in emergency response activites in the unlikely event of an accident at Shoreham. As I stated'in my January 25, 1988 letter to you, effective emergency preparedness for the 10-mile area surrounding Shorehan. necessarily involves rekources and facilities located in Nassau County. refers to the following Nassau County resources and facilities: The Nassau County Veterans Memorial Coliseum and the Nassau County Community College in Uniondale are identified as School Relocation evacuation of any Centers schools forthe within children 10-mile in the event radius of of an Shoreham. } The Nassau County Medical center has been identified as a backup facility that could provide medical services to contaminated injured individuals. The Nassau County Police would be relied upon tc provide - traffic control assistance in areas around the Public Evacuee Reception Centers (LILCO's Bellmore, Roslyn, and
- u. _ . . . . .
w 14NC ISL.AND WOMf1N3 COMmew ,4
. f-y Mr. Robert Mcdonald April 15,~1988 Page 2 Hicksville Operations Centers) and the School Relocation Centers.
The June exercise would be an ideal opportunity to demonstrate Nassau County's. participation in or provis' ion of resources for these emergency response activities. LILCO vould uelcome Nassau County's participation'in the ex-ercise and, indeed, in all emergency planning activities related to the Shoreham Station. participation would benefitLILCO believes that Nassau County's - not only LILCO and Nassau County itself but also the citizens of Nassau and Suffolk Counties. Please contact me at (516)923-4700 or LILCO's Manager of Nuclear Emergency Preparedness, Doug Crocker, at (516) 436-4238 by April 27 to-arrange your participation in the June exercise. Very truly yours, s j s
../ . L .l % ] . n ,
Ira L. Freilicher Vice President Law and Corporate Af f airs cc: Honorable Thomas S. Gulotta
~
m e e __-_..______-______.________________1_ _ _ _ - - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ ~
-uu- ~
3 i l
.~
sempH N.teBNDEL8A
- 4
,> .me ww 3 1 I L 1
cmcE or THE PRESIDING SUPERVISCM TOWN OF NEMPsTEA3
'roWN HALL PLAZA. HEMPsTEAD. N. Y.11BDo w s.sooo April 28,1988 -
Mr. Im L. FNilichsr Vice President Law and Corpomte Affaire Long !aland Lighting Company 175 East Old Country Rocd Hicksville, New York 11801
Dear Im,
I have received your April 28, 1988 letter requesting the Town of Hempstood's permission to twturn an evacuation trailer to your Bellmore Operations Center during the proposed fedemi exercise in June. It is the position of the Town of Hempstead that the presence of the tmilar on the Bellmore site would constitute violations of both the Town Zoning Code and Town Butiding. Code. Therefore, I must insist that LILCO refmin (mm any effort to retum the decontamination tmilar to the Bs!! mom site. Sincerely, . r u A A. J0fH N. MONDELLO JNMaaml
~
c -- ,- - ~
," I.8 V o q q .
I - ?N6 mas s. CULoTTA Courtfv RAtchrTPvt = cat =T s we ooNAto DON % covNT* gat %TW t CFFICE OF THE EXECUTIVE NA&&Al OcuN1 e tAggJTwg sv so Me CNE WEST STREE* MihEOLA. N.Y. t ' 301 May 18, 1988 Mr. Ira L. Freilicher Vice President Law and Cerperate Affairs Long Island lighting Company 175 East Old Country Read Hicksville, New tcrk 11601
Dear Mr. Freilicher:
Thank you for ycur letter of April 15th, 1988 inviting the County of Nassau to participate in the next federally graded exercise fer the Shereham Ncclear Pcwer Station.which will
+ = 'e n pla.a.smetiwie dhring' June of 1998.
We ap;:rociate your invitation, but the County of Nassac is nc- in a resicion to par-icipate in tne program at snis - time. Very trulv yours, f I f ,s .s - RO5ERT J. MCDONALD-Deputy County Executive RJM jgb cc: Hon. Thomas S.-Gulotta
, County Executive
- _ _ _ - . . - - _ . _ _ _ _ _ _______---____________.m.
A. - o e cxeowv : Attachm::nt 13 f- , UNITED STATES Or AMERICA . NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION _Before the AtoEje Safety and'Licensinr Board i In the Matter of )
)
LONO ISLAND LIGHTING COMPANY ) Docket No. 50-322-OL-3
) (Emergency Planning)
(Shoreham Nuclear Power Station, ) Unit 1) ) AFFIDAVIT OF [RA L. FREILICHER REOARDING LILCO'S l EFFORTS _TO RESOLV5_THEJOWN OF HEMPSTEAD ZONING ISSUE 1ra L. Freilicher, being duly sworn, deposes and says as follows:
' 1. I am Vice Prebident of Law and Corporate Affairs for the Long Island Lighting' Company. My responsibilities include Government Affairs and Corporate Projects and alllegal matters relating to the Shoreham Nuclear Power Station. On July 1,1989, I will become Corporate Secretary and continue to be responsible for LILCO's governmental relations.
- 2. I have been closely involved with the Shoreham lleensing proceeding since 1979. In particular, since about February 1982, when Suffolk County began to take a hostile attitude toward emergency planning for Shoreham, t have been largely responsible for LILCO's dealings with the State and with local governments on Long Island. This responsibility has required frequent con-tacts with the officials of Suffolk County, Nassau County, the State of New York, and the Town of Hempstead, among others.
- 3. The Nassau County Board of Supervisors passed a resolution on June 16, i
1986, stating that "no Nassau County f aellities, including the Nassau Veter-ans Memorial Coliseum, are or will be available for the use by the Long Is-land Lighting Company . . . as part of the Long Island Lighting Company
.._-___.-____m________-___--___.-u__ _ - - - -
g
*~
2-s - emergency plan" withnut prior approval of the Nassau County Board of Su-porvisors. - This event, together with numerous conversations.with gov-ernment officials, caused LILCO to look anew at the reception center issue and ultimately to conclude that all local and State governmental buildings on Long Island would be denied to LILCO insofar as their use-in the Shoreham emergency plan was contemplated. LILCO concluded that the only feasible solution was to rely on its own private property in the future. .
- 4. LILCO then did a survey of the properties it owns and concluded that the best faellities for reception centers were its Hicksville, Roslyn, and Bellmore Operations Centers. On September 30, 1986, LILCO filed a mo-tion with the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board asking to reopen the record to replace the Nassau Coliseum with the Illeksville, Bellmore, and Roslyn Operations Centers. Over the next several months I engaged in about a half dozen detailed discussions about the Bellmore reception cen-ters with officials of the Town of Hempstead, where the Bellmore facility is located. These conversations were with Deputy Supervisors of the Town.
- 8. Once Bellmore was designated as a reception center, officials of Nassau l County and the Town of Itempstead began to make public statements opposing the use of Bellmore as a t'eception center. These statements typi-cally cited alleged violations of building codes and zoning laws. To the ex-tent they expressed a concern about health and safety, the concern gener-ally was about contaminated washwater in the event people had to be decontaminated at Bellmore.
- 6. _In an atteinpt to deal with the Town of Hempstead's concerns, I discussed these concerns several times with Deputy Supervisors of the Town. These discussions led to LILCO's agreeing to remove the decontamination trailer from the Bellmore property.
l ._
W --
;e iN 3 tg ,; 7. Despite these discussions and the sgreement to remove the trailer, the Town of Hempstead filed a lawsuit (Town -of Hemostead v. LILCO) in p
j August 1987 roeking a permanent injunction against using the Bellmore fa-cility. As a result, Just!ce Collins of the New York State Supreme Court-ruled that using Bellmore as a reception center would violate local zoning laws. ! 8. -In addition to my own conversations with Town offleials, LILCO asked its outside counsel, Edward J. Waish, Jr. to discuss use of the Bellmore site with the Town Attorney's office. Mr. Walsh had a number of discussions with the Town's attorneys in an attempt to work out an agreement, but these discussions ultimately were unavalling. Also, Herbert M. Leiman, LILCO's Assistant General Counsel, had several conversations with the Town Attorney's offlee on the subjeet of Bellmore.
- 9. Under the ~ LERO Plan LERO itself undertakes all monitoring 'and decontamination functions at the reception centers. LILCO provides the property, the monitoring equipment, and the monitoring personnel. Like-wise LILCO collects all potentially radioactive waste (solid and liquid) and removes it from the Bellmore site for treatment and disposal. Nassau County police would be asked to direct traffic in an emergency, but the LERO Plan makes no demands on Town of Hempstead personnel, buildings, or equipment. The only thing needed from the Town of Hempstead in an emergency would be permission to use the Bellmore facility despite the local zoning restrictions. Our discussions with the Town have therefore been aimed at that speelfle issue.
10.- Following the Town of Hempstead deelslon by Justice Collins and the Ap-peal Board's decision ALAB-905, LILCO filed the appropriate permit appil-
. cations with the Town asking permission to use the Be!!more faellity as a
]
l
~
4 reception center in an emergency. LILCO had not previously requested such permlaston because, as its pleadings to Justlee Collins show. LILCO did not believe the use of Bellmore as a reception center violated local laws, Indeed, LILCO is taking an oppen! from the Town _of_ Hempstead decision, believing it to be in error.
- 11. Although the Town of Hempstead and Nassau County are separate political !
entities, in f act the Town of Hempstead is by f ar the most populous town in j Nassau County and for that reason is a dominant influence in Nassau Coun-ty polities and government. l
- 12. Based on my dealings with Nassau County and Town of Hempstead officials over the past seven years I am convinced that they are not willing at this ]
time to do anything that has the appearance of helping to license 1
. Shoreham, without exception they regard the licensing of Shoreham as unpopular politically therefore they do not wish to be associated with it and would not agree to efforts by LILCO to obtain their advance coo- !
peration in an emergency plan while NRC licensing proceedings are still j underway. The foregoing facts are known by me to be true, of my own knowledge. I am i
' competent to testify to such facts, and would so testify if I appeared as a witness in a l l
l- public hearing on this matter.
}
r I freilicher ,
. Subscribed and sworn before me this 23rd day of March, 1989.
My commission expires: f/3//r9 A: AL Notary Pubiic Notary Pu S
- No.4690277 QuaWed in Suffolk Countf Term Expires &
7s[f[
'n.._ s l
OVERSIZED MAPS FILED IN DOCKETING AND SERVICE BR/SCH
~
j _ _ _ - _ . - - _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ _}}