ML20086U292

Testimony of Mc Cordaro,Ja Weismantle & ED Robinson on Phase II Emergency Planning Contentions 75 Re Capacity of Relocation Ctrs

ML20086U292
Person / Time
Site:	Shoreham File:Long Island Lighting Company icon.png
Issue date:	03/02/1984
From:	Cordaro M, Edward Robinson, Weismantle J LONG ISLAND LIGHTING CO.
To:
Shared Package
ML20086U072	List: ML20086U069 ML20086U078 ML20086U089 ML20086U105 ML20086U113 ML20086U123 ML20086U135 ML20086U152 ML20086U176 ML20086U198 ML20086U214 ML20086U224 ML20086U235 ML20086U246 ML20086U258 ML20086U286 ML20086U292 ML20086U309 ML20086U315 ML20086U323 ML20086U327 ML20086U329
References
OL-3, NUDOCS 8403070214
Download: ML20086U292 (50)

Text

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ .__ ___ __

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

)

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

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

Unit 1) )

TESTIMONY OF f1ATTHEN C. CORDARO, JOHN A. WEISMANTLE, AND ELAINE D. ROBINSON ON BEHALF OF THE LONG ISLAND LIGHTING COMPANY ON PHASE II EMERGENCY PLANNING CONTENTION 75 (CAPACITY OF RELOCATION CENTERS)

Hunton & Williams 707 East Main Street Post Office Box 1535 Richmond, VA 23219 (804) 788-8200 8003070214 840302 PDR ADOCK 05000 2 T

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

)

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

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

Unit 1) )

1 TESTIMONY OF MATTHEW C. CORDARO, JOHN A. WEISMANTLE, AND ELAINE D. ROBINSON ON BEHALF OF THE LONG ISLAND LIGHTING COMPANY ON PHASE II EMERGENCY PLANNING CONTENTION 75 (CAPACITY OF RELOCATION CENTERS) i PURPOSE Contention 75 states that there is no assurance that the

proposed relocation centers in the LILCO Transition Plan will have sufficient capacity or facilities to provide for evacuees who seek shelter there. This testimony shows that the proposed relocation centers have more than adequate space and facilities to accommodate evacuees. The capacity of the proposed reloca-tion centers is approximately 32,000 people; that capacity is adequate to shelter the approximately 20% of the EPZ residents planned for. These centers can provide toilet and shower.fa-cilities, food and food preparation areas, drinking water, and sleeping accommodations. In addition, centers available in Nassau County could provide for as many as 48,000 evacuees.

, Attachments Attachment 1 E. L. Quarantelli and R.R. Dynes, Images of Disaster Behavior: Myths and Consequences, pages 14-16 Attachment 2 Hans and Sell, Evacuation Risks - An Evaluation, page 52 Attachment 3 Suffolk County Radiological Emergency Re-sponse Plan, Appendix A, pages AIII 7-8 Attachment 4 Table from " Attitudes Towards Evacuation:

Reaction of Long Island Residents to a Pos-sible Accident at the Shoreham Nuclear Power Plant," Social Data Analysts, Inc.

(June, 1982)

Attachment 5 Table 40 from " Status Report on Public Re-sponse to Emergency Planning Efforts" by Yankelovich, Skelly, and White Attachment 6 Letter to Suffolk County Planners from State University of New York at Stony Brook, dated November 18, 1980 Attachment 7 Letter to Suffolk County Planners from Suffolk County Community College at Selden, dated April 23, 1980 Attachment 8 Letter to BOCES Islip Occupational Center from Suffolk County Planners, dated October 7, 1981 Attachment 9 Letter of Understanding between LILCO and the Suffolk County Chapter of the American Red Cross, dated June 24, 1983 Attachment 10 "The American Red Cross Suffolk County Chapter Emergency Response Plan Peacetime Radiological Emergencies / Nuclear Acci-dents" Attachment 11 Letter of Understanding between LILCO and the Nassau County Chapter of the American Red Cross, dated February 11, 1984 Attachment 12 Letter to LILCO from Nassau County Chapter of the American Red Cross, dated January 23, 1984

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

)

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

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

Unit 1) )

TESTIMONY OF MATTHEW C. CORDARO, JOHN A. WEISMANTLE, AND ELAINE D, ROBINSON ON BEHALF OF THE LONG ISLAND LIGHTING COMPANY ON PHASE II EMERGENCY PLANNING CONTENTION 75 (CAPACITY OF RELOCATION CENTERS) 4 ,.

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

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

, [Weismantle] My name is John A. Weismantle and my business adcress is Long Island Lighting Company,-

100 East Old Country Road, Hicksville, New York, 11801.

i (Robinson] My name is Elaine D. Robinson and my  ;

i l business address is Long Island Lighting Company, 100 East Old Country Road, Hicksville, New York, 11801.

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

A. [Cordaro] I am Vice President of Engineering for LILCO and have held this position since the spring of 1978. My professional qualifications are being offered into evidence as part of the document enti-tied " Professional Qualifications of LILCO Witnesn-es." I am sitting on this panel to provide the LILCO management perspective on emergency planning and to answer any questions pertinent to manage-ment. My role in emergency planning for Shoreham is to encure that the needs and requirements of emergency planning are being met and that the tech-nical direction and content of emergency planning are being conveyed to corporate management.

[Weismantle) I am Manager of the Local Emergency Response Implementing Organization for LILCO. My 1

professional qualifications are being offered into '

evidence as part of the document entitled "Profes-sional Qualifications of LILCO Witnesses." My fa-miliarity with the issues surrouncing Contention 75 stems from my work in developing and implementing the LILCO Transition Plan.

l l

[ Robinson) I am employed by LILCO as Manager of the External Organizations Division of the Local Emergency Response Implementing Organization (LERIO). My professional qualifications are being offered into evidence as part of the document enti-tied " Professional Qualifications of LIICO Witness-es." I presently manage the LERIO team t.'at is re-sponsible for incorporating outside organizations, including the Red Cross, into the emergency plan-ning effort. As such, I am familiar with the issue of relocation center capacity.

3. Q. What is the "Further Preamble to Contentions 74-77"?

A. The "Further Preamble to Contentions 74-77" reads as follows:

Further Preamble to Contentions 74-77. An offsite emergency plan must include means of relocating evacuees and must provide for relocation centers lo-cated at least five miles and preferably 10 miles beyond the EPZ. NUREG 0654, Sections II.J.10.g and h. Such reloca-tion centers are essential to provide food and shelter to those evacuees who have no alternative places to stay and also to provide radiological monitoring and decontamination for evacuees and their vehicles. The relocation centers must have sufficient personnel and equip-ment to monitor evacuees within a 12-hour period. NUREG 0654,Section II.J.12.

The LILCO Plan calls for the estab-lishment of relocation centers outside i the EPZ at the following facilities 1 (Plan, at 4.2-1; OPIP 4.2.1):

Suffolk County Community College (primary)

BOCES Islip Occupational Center (primary)

State University of New York at Stony Brook (primary)

State University of New York at Farmingdale (backup)

St. Joseph's College, Patchogue (backup).

The Intervenors contend that LILCO will be unable to provide adequate relocation centers and services for evacuees, and thus the Plan fails to comply with 10 CFR Sections 50.47(a)(1), 50.47(b)(8),

50.47(b)(10), and NUREG 0654 Section J.

The specific deficiencies which lead to this conclusion are set forth in Conten-tions 74-77.

4. Q. What is Contention 75?

A. Contention 75 reads as follows:

Contention 75. The LILCO Plan pro-vides no estimates of the number of evacuees who may require shelter in a re-location center, and the Plan fails to demonstrate that each such facility has adequate space, toilet and shower facili-ties, food and food preparation areas, l drinking water, sleeping accommodations

( and other.necessary facilities. Accord-l ingly, there is no assurance that the re-l location centers designated by LILCO will I be sufficient in capacity to provide nec-essary services for the number of evacuees that will require them. _Thus, LILCO fails to comply with NUREG 0654, Sections II.J.10 9 and J.12.

5. Q. What are the legal standards that. govern Contention 75?

A. The first legal standard cited in Contention 75 is NUREG-0654, II.J.10.g which provides that:

The organization's plans to implement protective measures for the plume expo-sure pathway shall include.

g. Means of relocation.

The second legal standard cited in the contention is NUREG-0654, II.J.12. This standard addresses the registration and monitoring of evacuees at re-location centers; it is not pertinent to Contention 75.

6. Q. Contention 75 states that the LILCO Transition Plan does not provide estimates of the number of evacuees who may require shelter at a relocation center. How many persons are estimated to seek shelter in s relocation center?

A. Ordinarily, evacuees prefer not to go to public re-location centers, but stay instead in the homes of family or friends, or in a hotel.

Studies of persons who evacuated from disasters show that only 10-20 percent of the population use relocation centers, and in no case examined did over 23 percent use the centers. E. L. Quarantelli

& R. R. Dynes, Images of Disaster Behavior: Myths and Consequences (Ohio State Department of Sociolo-gy Disaster Research Center).14-16 (Attachment 1 to

this testimony). This is borne out by Hans and Sell's " Evacuation Risks - An Evaluation" (EPA-520/6-74-002), a study of evacuations for the Envi-ronmental Protection Agency. Hans and Sell found the following:

Shelters and evacuation centers are usually quickly established and manned; they are generally located in public buildings, especially schools.

Although they are readily available, relatively few people use these cen-ters, preferring to find their own accommodations either commercially or with friends or relatives. In a Chlifornia flood, only 9,260 out of 50,000 persons evacuated registered in the 38 Red Cross shelters; during Hurricane Carla, 75 percent of the evacuees went to other than public shelters; and during Hurricane Betsy, only 20 percent requested assistance (footnotes omitted). Generally, shelter centers are used only if nothing else is available or if one cannot financially care for himself.

Hans and Sell 52 (Attachment 2 to this testimony).

In the case of Shoreham, the primary relocation centers in the LILCO Plan were originally chosen by Suffolk County planners and denignated in the Suffolk County Radiological Emergency Response Plan, Appendix A, page AIII-7, 8 (Attachment 3 to this testimony). On page AIII-7 the County plan-ners said "[i]t is estimated that 20% of the sea-sonal population will require such housing."

_7 In " Attitudes Towards Evacuation: Reaction of Long .

Island Residents to a Possible Accident at the Shoreham Nuclear Power Plant," Social Data Ana-lysts, Inc. (June 1982), the County's consultants asked the following question: "Which of the fol-lowing would you be most likely to go to?" Five choices were listed, one of which was "a public shelter." Nine percent of the persons living with-in 5 miles of the plant and six percent living within 5-10 miles indicated that they would seek public shelter. Data from this survey are appended to this testimony as Attachn:ent 4. LILCO has com-missioned a similar survey. The study commissioned by LILCO, entitled " Status Report on Public Respone to Emergency Planning Efforts," by Yankelovich, Skelly, and White, Inc. (July 1983), asked a simi-lar question: "Which of the following would you be most likely to go to?" The same five choices of destination were given. Four percent of the per-sons living within 5 miles of the plant and eight percent within 6-10 miles indicated they would seek public shelter. Data from this survey are appended to this testimony as Attachment 5.

Using the highest percentage of these surveys, nine percent, and the total population (permanent and l

_g.

transient) of the EPZ, 159,959 persons (1985 proj-ected summer population), the maximum number of persons expected to seek public shelter, if one were to rely on the opinion surveys, would be 14,396. These data must be taken for what they are worth. By and large, LILCO does not believe that opinion surveys (either LILCO's cr the County's) are accurate predictors of what people would do in an emergency. Consequently, LILCO is planning for 20% of the 10-mile EPZ population in obtaining re-location centers, or 32,000 people.

7. Q. Why do you think that 20% is an appropriate number for use in planning?

A. We base this number on past experience and NRC case law. As previously noted, studies show that evacuees prefer to go to places other than reloca-tion centers (Attachments 1 and 2). The Hans and Sell study suggests that 20% is a reasonable number -

for planning (Attachment 2). And in In re Cincinnati Gas & Electric Co. (Wm. H. Zimmer Nucle-ar Power Station, Unit 1), LBP-82-48, 15 NRC 1549, 1589 (1982), the Board found that "(i]ndividuals-leaving the plume exposure zone may in many cases go to friends' homes or some other location and not to a relocation center. Approximately 20% of an

l

_g.

evacuating population will proceed to a relocation center." Consequently, 207; is a reasonable number for use in planning.

8. Q. Contention 75 alleges that the relocation centers to be used in an emergency at Shoreham lack the ca-pacity for evacuees. Is that true?

A. No. The Suffolk County planners who chose the re-location centers asked the three primary facilities (SUNY at Stony Brook, SCCC at Selden, and BOCES at Islip) to provide their capacities. As a result of this correspondence (appended to this testimony as Attachments 6, 7, and 8), the County planners de-termined that the total primary relocation center capacity of just these three primary relocation centers is about 26,500 persons, and that the fa-cilities could provide toilet and shower facili-ties, food and food preparation areas, drinking water and sleeping accommodations. In addition, the two back-up relocation centers at the State University of New York at Farmingdale, which ca'n hold about 3,000 people, and St. Joseph's College in Fatchogue, which can hold about 3,500 people, have a combined capacity of approximately 6,500 people. Both are college campuses, and could l

provide adequate bathroom, food, and sleeping fa-cilities as well.

9. Q. What is your conclusion as to whether the capacity and facilities of the proposed relocation centers in the LILCO plan are sufficient to meet the NUREG-0654, II.J.10.g guideline?

A. The proposed relocation centers have a capacity of about 32,000 people, which is about 20% of the projected 1985 EPZ summer population. These facil-ities would be more than adequate to meet the NUREG-0654, II,J.10.g guideline.

10. Q. Are there additional relocation centers available for use during a radiological emergency at Shoreham?

A. Yes. As explained in response to Contentions 24.0,

24.P and 75, LILCO has obtained a letter of under-standing with the Nassau County Chapter.of the American Red Cross to provide relocation centers with appropriate facilities (Attachment'9).

Nassau Red Cross has 52 facilities.that can house . .

up to 48,000 evacuees (Attachment 10). These.fa-cilities are available to LILCO to be used as back-up facilities if needed, or as primary facilities if the suffolk County facilities for whatever rea-son are not available to LILCO. Taken alone, the h -

Nassau facilities provide capacity for over 30% of the projected 1985 EPZ summer population. Togeth-er, the proposed Suffolk County facilities and Nassau County facilities provide potential space for 80,000 evacuees -- approximately 50% of the residents of the EPZ.

11. Q. Does LILCO plan to use the Nassau facilities?

A. At present, LILCO plans to hold the Nassau County facilities in reserve for use during an actual emergency in the unlikely event that space in addi-tion to the Suffolk County facilities is needed.

As explained in testimony in response to Contention 74, LILCO is prepared to designate some Nassau County facilities as primary relocation centers if agreements between the Suffolk County Red Cross and sufficient relocation centers are not finalized prior to Shoreham's operation above 5% power.

12. Q. Please summarize your testimony.

A. Although LILCO does not expect many persons to use public relocation centers during an emergency at Shoreham, LILCO is planning to provide re16 cation l 1

centers for 20% of the entire EPZ population, using l l

the 1985 projected summer population of 159,959 l 1

l l

people. Thus, there will be ample relocation cen-ter capacity for evacuees who seek public shelter.

The Suffolk and Nassau Chapters of the American Red Cross have agreed to provide relocation centera during an emergency at Shoreham, including, as needed, staff, beds, food, and shower facilities.

Suffolk Red Cross is pursuing agreements with the five facilities listed in the Plan. These five fa-cilities have a total capacity of approximately 32,000 and therefore would provide ample space for evacuees. In addition, Nassau County Red Cross can provide space for 48,000 evacuees -- 30% of the EPZ, and 10% more than nee _ed. The combined capac-ity in Suffolk County and Nassau could shel'ter half the EPZ residents. If for any reason sufficient Suffolk County facilities are not available prior to operation of Shoreham above 5% power, sufficient Nassau facilities will be designated as primary re-location centers to provide 20% capacity. The re-maining Nassta facilities sould continue to be available during an actual emergency for use if needed. Thus, contrary to Contention 75, more than enough releccation center capacity exircs far evacuees.

ATTACHMENT 1 I

1 Preliminary Paper 5

IMAGES OF DISASTER BEHAVIOR:

MYTHS AND CONSEQUENCES E.L. QuaranteIII and Russell R. Dynes Departroent of Sociology Disaster Research Center The Ohio State University This study was made possible in part by U.S. Public Health Service, National institut's of Mental liealth Grant 5 ROI Mi 15399~33. A much shorter and earlier version of this paper appeared as "When Disaster Strikes" In Psychology Today V-5 (Feb. 1972) 66-71.

1

/

4h$ ' * .

55Y Y

i

- hardes of animal-like creatures fleeing wildly and acting hysterically I

when they find themselves in danger, what actua'11y happens is somewhat duller but also more reassuring than dramatic license portrays.

~

2. Just as the panic image of disaster behavior is generally incorrect, so is the view that disasters leave victims dazed and disorienced both at time of impact and in the recovery period. Those who experienced aisasters cre not immobilized by even the most catastrophic of events. They are neither dsvoid of initiativo nor passively dependent and expectant that others, capacially relief and welfare workers, will take care of them and their disaster created needs. In fact, disaster victims sometimes insist in actin 5 en their own eves contrary to the expressed advice of the public authorities and formal acencies.

A form of shock reaction, called a " disaster syndrome," has sometimes.

bsen observed in the aftermath of relatively sudden and extensive disasters.

This reaction involves a state of apathy leading to a regression in normal cagnitive processes. However, the " disaster syndrome" does not appear in great numbers of people; seems confined only to the most sudden traumatic hinds of disasters; has been reported only in certain cultural settings; and is generally of short duration, hours only, if not minutes. One study of cc extremely extensive tornado, using an area probability sample, found that only 14 percent of all victims may have manifested some aspects of the initial senges of the syndrome. ,

In general, disaster victims react in an active manner, and do not wait aroued for assistance by outsiders or offers of aid from organizatior.s. On 14

i i

l

' c large scale they show considerable personal ipitiative and a pattarn of ,

coif and informal autual help. When shelter is needed for example, displaced p:rsons seek the aid of and move in with other family members, intimates and usighbors. When about 10,000 were made homeless in a tornado in Hassachusetts, less than 5 per' cent sought aid from and were housed by the public authorities.

In the massive evacuation preceding Hurricane Carla mentioned before, more than three quarters of the evacuees went to other-than public shelters; 50 per-cca:: in fact went to private homes of friends and ralstives. In a California ficod, only 9,260 persons out of over 50,000 evacuees registered in the 30 Rsd Cross shelters available in 13 towns in the disaster area.

This pattern of mutual and self help also prevails in ether disaster-relcted activities besides that of obtaining shelter. In one community emargency after another, victime repeatedly show an ability to cope uith most imm:diate disaster t mblems except those necessitating special equipment or highly specialized as might be involved in some kinds of medical treat-ment. For example, af the Flint-Baecher tornado in 1953 found that tha victim and fringe area population, with almost no aid from formal organi-z:tions, were able within three to four hours to rescue and bring to hospir is from two-thirds to three-fourths of the 927 casualties sustained in the t '

In f:ct, less than 20 percent of the disaster-impacted population had any

. cone:ct of ar.y kind with disaster agencias during the early hours of this dis:s ter.

Even in the most massivs of disasters, formal agencies appear to contact but a relative fraction of all victims. This is partly borne out by the 15

. +~

L I

t official statistics of the American National. Red Cross, the agency uith formal l responsibility for post-disaster relief activities especially of a personal and individual nature. It is clesr that emergency mass care is given to but a relatively small proportion of victims in any of the organization's principal' disaster relief operations. For e' rmple, in Hurricane Betsy in 1965, the Red Cross assisted 34,476 families out of 178.540 who had suffersd some detree of loss. his is less %sa 20 percent of the total in an operation that was one cf the three greatest disaster relief undertakings in American Red Cross history.

So evidence in fact is rather strong that far from seeking and being d:: pendent on formal disaster organizations, these are the last sources that victims turn to for help. Here is actually a hierarchy of ass l stance seeking that runs from the more informal, intimate groups to formal, less familiar crganizations. Rus, people first seek help from family and intimates; then they turn to larger membership groups to which they belong (e.g., churches, w:rk niaces, etc.). May look next to other individual members of the cca smity. Only if these sources prove unresponding or unavailable do they l l

ctek assistance from the more impersonal formal organizations, such as the l l

police and welfare departments. Last to be sought are the special disaster agencies such as civil defense and the Red Cross. Rosow, after studying a

' tumber of tornado disasters notes that because of this " informal self help and spontaneous mutual aid rather than a reliance. on public services . . .

in:xperienced authorities . . . over-estimate the welfare needs in food, housing and clothing which they vould be called upon to provide."

16

1 I ATTACHMENT 2 l

Shalters and evacuation centers are usually quickly estab-shnd and manned; they are generally located in public build-Jc, ospecially schools. Although they are readily available, intivaly few people use these centers, preferring to find air cwn accomodations either commercially or with friends rolatives. In a California flood, only 9,260 out of

,000 parsons evacuated registered in the 38 Red Cross 2,ltsrc; during Hurricane Carla, 75 percent of the evacuees ,

at to other than public shelters; and during Murricane Betsy, Generally, shelter ly 20 percent requested assistance (23,40).

4 tors are used only if nothing else Is available or if one ,

nnot financially care for himself.

It is necessary, in an evacuation called due to a radiation rant, to be able to warn all citizens in the affected area d to account for them later. Accounting for people at a elter may prove impractical since the probability is that Therefore, some ly e email percent will use public shelters.

har accountability systems will need to be devised.

Acide from adequate, redundant communication systems, the licopter was mentioned as a most valuable assest in disas-r cituations. Not only does it make quick movement available, t, as a movable observation point, a helicopter is invaluable, acial evacuations In the event of a nuclear incident, some institutions, blic cnd private, may have to be evacueted. Each institution 11 hcve its own particular characteristics and will require fferent procedures for handling the evacuees, hools In most of the evacuations observed, more than 99 percent tho ovacuees utilized private vehicles for the evacuations d evacuated as family units. If schools are evacuated, it y result in the separation of families. Parents are reluctant ba ecparated from their children and may attempt to retrieve em, causing additional congestion and,tosubsequently, In order minimize the may slow congestion, - -

an) tha evacuation process.

cna should be developed whereby school children would be turntd to their respective residences or evacuated to a spe- * -

fic location. The location could be schools located out of 19 impact area since they would present a somewha t familiar d svironment and generally have food service facilities and a e-nta supervision. The choice of either action would be dependent 52 l

• L- ~~ t__ ______T_~_*~~'~_'_:*~~~~~*~~~~~~~"~~~~v~~

' D

l ATTACHMENT 3

)

RELOCATION CENTERS It is anticipated that a majority of the people asked to evacuate their homso will seek temporary lodging with friends or relatives, or stay at hotels cad notels'for the duration of an incident, particularly since a large parcentage of Suffolk County residents migrated from the New York metropolitan crco cud hava relatives who still reside there. However, for those individuals with no such housing alternatives available, relocation centers hcve been es ablished to serve as temporary shelters for evacuees. It is catimated that 20% of the seasonal population will require such housing.

In establishing these relocation centers, it became more advantageous to u:a caveral large facilities as opposed to numerous small locations such as locc1 schools. In minimizing the number of locations, it became easier to maintain control over evacuation routes and to provide supportive services (cet=, blankets, food) for evacuees. " Missing" persons become easier to loccto and the number of legal agreements which must be executed and maintained throughout the life of the plant are minimized.

The selection criteria used in linking a particular zone with an cppropriate relocation center were as follows:

o adequate distance from the EPZ boundary 0 reasonable highway access 0 on-site security 0 on-site power generation capability

• adequate parking o adequate sanitary facilities o adequate cafeteria facilities o logistical 17 located to facilitate the continuity of routing out of the EPZ and to maximize bus availability and utilization.

1 1

AIII-7

• uniform distribution of relscation center sites so that evacuation routes would not adversely impact one another. j Predicated on these criteria, the following locations were chosen as h:ving satisfied the requirements and as being suitable relocation centers for evtcuees:

• The State University of New York at Stony Brook

• The Suffolk County Community College, Selden Campus

• The BOCES Islip Occupational Center Complex Tws ilternate sites in the event the relocation effort must be expanded are:

• The New York State Office Building, Hauppauge

• The H. Lee Dennison Building , Hauppauge Each of these relocation centers has entered into agreements with the American Red Cross to serve as shelters. As such, all supportive services will be supplied and maintained by Red Cross personnel. Each center will have c County decontamination team to monitor residents entering the facility for presible contamination. Por a more detailed analysis of the operation of -

thiss centers, refer to the Social Services section of the Suffolk County Rrdiological Emergency,. Response Plan.

l l

l i

AIII-8 l l

l l

1 l

l l

31. Wharo would you 907 204 104 104 61 01 44 comepicca in Suffolk County

• 8 15 14 3 14 1 someplace in Nassau County 30 24 someplace in New York City 17 26 7 22 34 36 61 50 49 49 some other place 14 14 15 19 9 10 don't know .

1004 1914 1001 1011 2001 991 TnTAT.

32. In terms of miles, about how far away is this place from your home7 64 3t Il 34 14 21 10 miles or less 3 6 4 11 to 20 miles 8 6 3 13 8 4 7 14 10 21 to 30 miles 7 to 6 6 7 13 31 to 40 miles 17 4 14 4 10 41 to 50 miles 10 55 59 81 60 64 62 more than 50 miles 3 2 1 1 5 2 don't know i

1014 1014 1014 101% 1014 1001 TOTAL

33. Which of the following would you be most likely to go to? ,

634 674 464 654 534 594 somebody else's home 13 5 5 6 a public shelter 9 6 12 10 18 18 21 19 a hotel or motel 7 13 3 8 6 somewhere else 9 7 9 10 0 13 10 don't know 1004 994 1004 994 100% 1004 TOTAL N

g Source:

Attitudes Towards Evacuation: Reaction of Long Island Residents 'to a possible accident at $

=

the Shoreham Nuclear Power Plant b

- Z Social Data Analysts, Inc. June, 1982 g

• \

ATTACHMENT 5

, t I

TABLE 40 QUESTION 22: TYPE OF DESTINATION

- Among Those Who Live Within Ten Miles of Shoreham and Would Evacuate -

Areas 6-10 5 Mile Mile Total _ Zone _ tone t t  %

Respondents who would 80 84 ovacuate 83 56 59 54 Somebody else's home 10 9 11 A hotel or motel 7 4 8 A public shelter 8 7 9 Somewhere else 2 1 2 Uncertain /no answer Source:

Status report on public response to emergency planning efforts Yankelovich,Skelly and White, Inc.

July, 1983

ATTACIUiENT 6 s Departrnent of Envir:nmentz! Health & Safety State Ur.iversity of New York at Stony Brook Stony Brook.New York 11794 telephones: Director ($16) 246-4019 m BMOk Fire Safety (516) 246-3383 Radiological Safety (516) 246 6054 November 18, 1980 Ms. Laura Palmer Suffolk County Department of Transportation 65 Jetson Lane Hauppauge, NY 11787

Dear Ms. Palmer:

As per your March 25, 1980 letter to Acting President Schmidt, we have surveyed the space which may be available at the University for your emergency sheltering plan. Attached is a listing of loca-tions and area figures for each; note that the classroom spaces contain movable seating which could be cleared if necessary.

The University also has dormitory space for approximately 7,000 students; however, all these areas are occupied during the academic year, (September thru May) and about 1/3 are occupied during the summer period. We would not be able to clear these dormitories of all students since to many, our campus is home. The non-dormitory spaces listed on the attached sheets may be used for your contingency plan for the Shoreham Nuclear Power Station of LILC0; however, an ~

appropriate hold-harmless agreement will be required if this space is pressed into service. .We also expect you to provide food, blankets, and other provisions such as transportation of people around campus.

In the event that a relocation is required, you may rely on the University to co-operate as c member of the community in responding to such an emergency.

Si6cerely,

• Myl l < f.J b;i.

Georg'e Marshall -

Director GM:mf attachment xc: Dr. Marburger ,

S.M. Gerstel C01736 4020164 l

e

4 a[ EMERGENCY SHELTERING Location Souare Footace Number of Persons Gymnasium Men's 12,826 Women's 6 500 IM 644 Student Union Dining Room 10,720 Main Lounge 2,930 .

l Rm 212 5,220 Rm 211 1,650 Rm 213 735 Rm 214 735 Rm 216 735 Rm 223 610 Rm 226 1,018 -

Rm 229 435 Rm 231 945 l Rm 236 1,360 l Rm 237 945 28,038 935 G-Quad Cafeteria 6,139 '

205 H-Quad Cafeteria 5,964 199 Roth Cafeteria Rm 114 Lobby 1,172 Rm 218 1,305 Rm 217 3,772 Rm 216 1,305 7,554 252 Tabler Cafeteria Lobby Lounge Rm 107 3,600 Dining Room 6 108 M 324 Kelly Caf.eteria Dining Rm 222 1,710 Dining Rm 225 1,275 Dining Rm 202 601 Dining Rm 204 1.275 Dining Rm 206 1,710 Lounge Rm 123 915 Lounge Rm 104 810 Lounge Rm 107 810 Lounge Rm 115 .480 Lobby Rm 116 704 10,290 343 C0173*7 4020164 l

1

.g Location Souare Footace Number of Persons Stage XII Cafeteria Dining Rm 204 1,457 Dining Rm 203 710 Dining Rm 202 1,475 Dining Rm 206 1,542 Dining Rm 205 842 Lobby 102 2,068 Lounge 06 2,501 ,

Room 110-D 1 560 l 1M 405 l Cuilding D Rm 106 1,200 Tsm 114 1,200 Rm 104 2,400 ,

Rm 139 2,624 Rm 139-C 2 315 M 325 ,

Classroom Space with Movable Seating Main Campus /S. Campus 91,100 3,036 HSC/Part. S. Campus 24,475 816 Grand Total 7,484 O

(

l l

C01738 4020164

l ATTACHIiENT 7 Suffolk County Community College ,#h, 6% #*' i l COLLEGE ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICES (5163233 5174 g .  !  !

'533 COLLEGE ACAO'. SELOEN. NEW YORK 11784 ' '

April 23, 1980 M3. Iaura Palmer Suffolk County Department of Transportation 65 Jat on Lane -

Hauppauge, New York 11787 -

De r M2. Palmer:

As requested by your telephone call of April 22. I have reviewed the spaco available at the Selden Campus of Suffolk County Community College for possible use in the evacuation plan of the Shoreham Nuclear Power St0tien.

This ca= pus contains approxisately 670,000 square feet of space. We have c:timated that of this space k00,000 square feet could be r.ade available to house evacuees from the vicinity of the Shoreham Nuclear Power Station.

In.como cases, student desks and office furniture would be removed or stockpiled to allow maxi =um use of the rooms. Each floor of our buildings contcins men's and vesen's toilet facilities and we believe the Sever Plant

' hno sufficient capacity to sustaia the increased populace.

Bassd upon the criteria you provided, ve feel that 10,000 people could be supportsd on a temporary basis.

Sinecrsly,

=~ .

Victor N. Cuneo, Jr.

! A:socinte Dean cf Administration 1 .

VNC/ar l

lcc - Albert M. Ammerman, President Robert T. Kreiling, Executive Vice President Jchn C. Harrington, Administrative Vice President John J. Saal, Vice President for Academic, Affairs 4020058 C01605 eam e- ve .. n ~e -.u. - s ,. - e - .

- , , ,,e. . e- ~ v. , , m

% ~ v. ,,.o, ._ ~ v. ,,7.. ~.

(3,bl36. aboo 151W 233 5174 IS,W 3dt-45dh

9 l COUNTY OF SUFFOLK ATTACHMENT 8

. . ,.y .

, DEPARTMEiNT OF PLANNING LEE E. KOPPELM AN DIR ECTOR OF PLANN8MO October 7,1981 ~2'il Mr. James Hines .

District Superintendent -

BOCES II, 201 Sunrise Highway Patchogue, N.Y. 11772 -

Dear Mr. Hines:

We recently had an opportunity to tour the BOCES campus on Locust Ave. in Islip. As you are aware, we wanted to review the facilities for use as a possible relocation center in the event of an eyacuation.

Initially, I would like to express my gratitude fo the excellent cooperation provided to us by tt Having reviewed the complex, we are}eformally principals at each ofto requesting theutilize facilities.

it -

cs a relocation center.

The purpos: cf a relocation cente.* is to provid:.: shelter for i evacuees who have no r.lternate accennodations with friends or relatives. l We estimate that approximately 9,000 evacuees might utilize this re-locc*. en :.cnter under a worse case conditiv.. However, only the planning areas furthest away (7-10 miles) frem the reactor would be designated to relocate to your facility. Therefore, the 11xelihood of those zones

• being asked to evacuate is remote. In addition, since evacuation would realistically take place zone-by-zone downwind of the reactor, only a percentage of those zones would relocate to your facility at any one time so that in all probability there will be significantly less than 9,000 people staying there.

If you are agreeable to allowing use of the facility, we we'uld need iccess to the facilities on a 24 hour-a-day, year round basis. There .

fore, we would require the home phone numbers for peopla who have keys to

.he butidings in the event the facility is not staffed, such as on a weekend, ,

~

C05767 .7 402027s me3u1MI A6 MeQMw Av e H AUPP A U C E. L. I.. N E W W O m et e g y p.g g g e

iMr. James Hines October 7,1981 Ideally, in the given emergency situation, we would like to use the Islip Occupational Center initially and only utilize the other buildings on an "as needed" basis.

The American Red Cross will' provide the staffing and support for all relocation cente.rs, as such, if you are agreeable to the utilization of -

this facility, Red Cross personne.1 would want to view the facilities and enter into an agreement with BOCES which would then make the facility a designated Red Cros6 shaiter.

We recognize that. in the event the County has to use these facilities '

is a relo.ation center, we would have to provide adequate security.

We are available to discuss this matter further at your convenience.

. Very truly yours,

~

Robert C. Meunkle Project Manager - Emergency *

CM:df Planning Group

.C01768 ,

4020276

ATTACIHiENT 9 I "I LONG ISLAND LIGHDNG COMPANY L[__-___.8,,#4,g -

g eLo cou= var me o sva samt essensviLLs. maw venn isso

~

S host Dhd Mem ber -

Jun3 24,.1983 Mro. Patricia Nocher Exscutive Director American Red Cross 475 East Main Street Patchogue, NY 11772 Letter of Understanding Between LILeo and the American Red Cross

.i Door Mrs. Nocher:

! Thio letter confirms recent discussions regarding the role of I th3 American Red Cross as determined by Charter of the U.S.

l Congress during an emergency at the Shoreham Nuc3 ear Power j Ototion. It is our understanding that in response to a radio-logical amergency at Shoreham, the Red Cross will fulfill its uoucl emergency response functions, including setting up and

, operating relocation centers for the public.

Evcn though LERO personnel will handle radiological monitoring cnd decontamination assignments; to assure preparedness in an octual emergency, the Red Cross should also participate as cypropriate in training, drills, and exercises.

M ny thanks for your continued contributions to the emergency l Planning effort.

Sinecrely, Chtries A. Daverio l Emergency Preparedness C9ordinator EDR/kv 1

I APP-B-9 l

.e

.. '[ )

) ArrAcnusur lo 2 -

FEB 2 ' EM l

THE AMERICAN RED CROSS SUFFOLK COUNTY CHAPTER 1 i

EMERGENCY RESPONSE PLAN PEACETIME RADIOLOGICAL EMERGENCIES / NUCLEAR ACCIDENTS I

I. PURPOSE

To define the role and responsibilities of the American Red Cross when peacetime radiological emergencies / nuclear accidents occur within the State of New York.

> II. SCOPE The American Red Cross will cooperate with all agencies, whose activities are directed toward the alleviation of suffering and needs caused by peacetime radiological emergencies / nuclear accidents, public and private, at the local, state and national levels.

III. DEFINITION OF DISASTER:

i Disaster is any Natural or Man-made disaster - fire, flood, hurricane, chemical spill explosion, nuclear accident, earth-quake, blizzard, transportation wreck. American Red Cross must be prepared to provide emergency assistance; open shelters l and feeding operations if a large number of people affected.

l IV. RESPONSIBILITIES The American Red Cross will provide assistance in accordance with the Statement of Understanding between the State of New i York and the American National Red Cross.

1 The American Red Cross regulations require that the administra-tive and fiscal controls be inseparable, and it will not assume costs for commitments made by other agencies or organizations.

A. Preparedness Measures - The American Red Cross will:

1. Maintain liaison with the Office of Disaster Preparedness coordination of peacetime radiological emergencies /

nulcear response planning and operations, and partici-pate in planning, preparedness and operations meetings and exercises.

2. Receive from that agency listings of desi6 nated mass care shelters and feeding centers, evacuation routes, re-ception centers, first aid stations, and requirerents for and designations of transportation and communica* Jins

I..

.- )

N_] l equipment and facilities.

3 Recruit and train shelter managers, disaster feeding personnel, nurses, liaison personnel and supervisors to serve in Red Cross operated mass care shelters and

. feeding centers.

4 Assist in developing agreements involving the Office of Disaster Preparedness and the owners or officials of the buildings to be used as shelter facilities for mass care operations.

B. Emergency Response - The American Red Cross will:

1. Conduct mass care shelter and feeding operations in centers and facilities designated in advance by the Office of Disaster Preparedness. These operations will consist of:

-The registration of evacuees who elect to go to mass care shelters so that there is a census at all times of the individuals and families who remain there.

-Food service

-Sleeping accommodations

-An emergency medical station supervised by an RN and the service of referring shelter occupants to a doctor or hospital if needed.

-Recreation services if the evacuees remain for an extended period of time.

2. Assign liaison representatives to the Emergency Opera ..

tions Centers and receptions centers.

3. Maintain contact and coordination with the Office of

4. Disaster Preparedness and the departments of Welfare, Education and Hea3th.

C. Agreements have been made at appropriate local facilities for adequatic mass care shelters and feeding operations.

AUTHORITIES AND

REFERENCES:

U. S. Public Law 4, 58th Congress, January 5, 1905 U. S. Public Law 93-288, Disaster Relief Act of 1974 Statement of Understanding between the Federal Emergency Management Agency and the American National Red Cross - January 22, 1982 APPENDICES:

AnGrican Red Cross Organization

.g ,ew . Ow w , M h ee- - * ** **M ** a.e. e um m. e o L_

3 a

, Ar:Ac acar 11 g,mammwpgro LONG ISLAND LIGHTING COM PANY .

h 175 [AST OLO COUNTR' NOAO H +Casv et<E NE* YORM 11801 -

Dweet Dul Errber L

February 11, 1984 J .

^

i .

- Mr . Frank Rasbury '

. Nassau County Chapter E American Red Cross l 264 Old Country Road -

4 "

,Mineola, N.Y. 11501 -

5 Letter of Understanding Between  :

3 LILCO and the American Red Cross

- i

Dear Mr. Rasbury:

dThis letter confirms our recent discussions regarding the role i of the American Red Cross as determined by Charter of the U.S. . _

" Congrese during an emergency at the Shorehan Nuclear Power It is our understanding that there are agreements be-  ;

Station.

j tween the Nassau County Chapt.er of the American Red Cross and .

the facilities named on the attached list to use the facilities (;

= for shelter during an emergency. These factlities, therefore, t 2are available to provide additional space as relocation centers ~^

• in the event of a radiological eme r g e n cy at Shor eham. If the -f

'" space in these facilities were needed during an emergency at

-'Shoreham, the Red Cross would fulfill its usual emergency re- '

Af*[.3 '* h.'

sponse functions at these facilities. ., ,

a . -m . . . rv s .

g Even though Local Emergency Responsa Organization (LERO) per- ,4 ~% % J

f. We ;

3 sonnel would handle radiological monitoring and decontamination t j assignments at relocation centers during an energency at N.;,,4 7Yb'"

3iShoreham, the Red Cross will participate as approprlate in an  %'. F 5 actual emergency. T 4=N ";f' . . .q m i 6

3 '

g Many thanks for your continued contributions to the emergency . *; . f'*Q:  ::

~ n Q q planning effort. .]- . ..m.

-1:

= Sincerely, 4,,g.6*cu y 0- e

==

p qy.

y - .s J  ;,/ *:g  :. ,:+,i; 4 .

'7" / . dec 7' i , C c ,i .

• k' **

E aine D. RobinsoY LERIO n jg y E EDR:pr

= .

,Jy .' Og'

'p v

A.9'^

4 EE g d-q Attachment '

.; ,_.. '.;M -

(

-==- - .. .

• I '.r. -

~

3 ) ATTACIIMENT 12 American RedCross s.,mu Couni,ca.p.,

264 Old Country Road Mineola. N.Y. I1501

($1b) 747-3500

.s1 r . ' .'J JAN 2 d 1984 anuary 23, i m c , , . . u MTY R _ i r.~~' O NS 1

Ms. Elaine D. Robinson, Manager Community Relations Dept.

Long Island 1.ighting Co.

550 Stewart Avenue l Garden City, NY 11430 2

Dear Elaine:

2 Please forgive my tardiness in getting this material to you.

5 Attached hereto is a copy of our listing showing shelters available to q -

us for disaster purposes, their capacity, contact persons and dates of .. .

agreement.

^

B Understand that in those instances where the capacities are quite g large---several schools in the respective districts are involved.

$ I hope this is of some help to you.

j . ..

r Sincerely, ..

3

=  %

5 Frank M. Rasbury .

Executive Director i encl. .

-=

5_

m .

B y . .,

5

_=_

^ ,

7, sssau Coi.nty Red Cross is also affiliated with Garden City Community Fund.

y R *& Great Neck United Community Fund inc., Five Towns United War, Manhasset United Fund. Inc.

3

==ll

.n

4

~

I ~

f. SAU COUNTV CHAPTER AMER!CAN RED CROSS SHALTER INFDRMAThDH 1962 1933 264 OLD COUNTRY ROAD MINE0LA, NY 11501

_7. T- CAPt0ITY

Contact:

Sheldon Puchs Baldwin Public Schools 223 8100 ext. 207/208 High School Drive Baldwin, New York H510 Mr. Ellinger Bellmore Merrick Central H.S. Dist. 623 8900 1691 Meadowbrook Road Merrick, N.Y. n566 George Boyhl Carle Place Union Free School 39 1900 ext. 224 Carlo Place N.Y. n514 C1sude Stringham East Meadow Union Free School Dist. Mr. Camp Carman Ave. 794 7000 ext. 206

, East Mea &w, Fmt York H554

• Edward Lattare East Rockaway Public Scho^ols o

$99-7589 East Rockaway H.S. ,

Robert Morse Ocean Ave. - 599-7589 ,-

East Rockaway, N.Y. H518 334 8020 East Winiston School District 110 E. Williston Ave.

East Winiston, N.Y. H596 354 4917 Elmont Public Schools Elmont Road Elmont, N.Y. 11003 Farmingdale Public Schools 7525512 249 7680 Van Cott & Grant Ave.

Farmingdale, N.Y. n?35 Mr. Russen Floral Park Be11 rose Union Free Seleol Dist. 352.0768 1 PDPPy Plaos -

Floral Park, N.Y. n001 .

George Reynolds Franklin Square Union Free School Dist.

354-1045 Washington Street Franklin Square, N.Y. H010 .

Robert Swanson Freeport, Public Schools 623 2100

• 235 North Ocean Ave.

Proeprt N.Y. 11520 Mr. Heimisch Garden City Public Schools 248-7700 Garden City, N.Y. 11530 Anthony Frizziolo .

i Glen Cove Public Schools 671 J 72 Ibsoris Lano Glen Cove, N.Y. 11542

.Nu

2. ,

Herricks Public Schools

Contact:

741 7800 Shelter Rock Road New Hyde Park, N.Y. 11040 Hewlett High School Fred DePalma 60 Evarit Ave. 374-5200 .

Hewlett, N.Y. n557 Gus Brum Hewlett Woodnere Union Free School Dist.

Harry Richter 1 Johnson Place 374 5200 ext. 213 Woo daere; .N .Y. 11598 Eicksville Public Schools 733 2100 Kathleen Eogan Division Ave.

Hicksville, N.Y. H801 Island Park Schools 432.8933 Island Park, N.Y.' H558 431 8100

. I Island Trees Union Free ' School Dist. Mr. Fred Neist l Owl Place & Condor Road 731 4020 Stella clark Levittown, N.Y. n?56 731-7247 Lawrence Jr. R.S. Bertoa Thorp Lawrence, N.Y. 295 2700 ext. 283/253 locust Valley Central School James DiGionamel locust Valley, N.Y. 11560 Rie'aard Smith 676.8430 long Beach H.S. William Soldan l Lido Blvd. & A11evard Street 885L2410 long Beach, N.Y. Larry Bourger 889 2167

Lynnbmok Union Free Sch>ol Dist. Inuis Pearsan Vaverly Ave. IJ 3 4861 East Rockaway N.Y. n518 Massapequa Grace Episcop1 Church Father John Jobson 4750 Merrick Road 798 17??

Massapoqua, N.Y. 11758 Massapequa High School William A. Eldard 4925 Merrick Road 541.6600

• Massapequa, N.Y. 11358 Lawrence Chapman Malverne U.F.S.D.

Weodfield Road '

887-7733 -

Rockvine Centre, N.Y. 11570 F.anhasset Public Schools Dr. Owen Hin Meinorial Place 627 44 00 hanhasset, N.Y. E030 Dr. D>nald Gate 627 A400 W

1 F.ineola Town Hall

Contact:

Eayor hith Jeriche Turnpike 747 2232 Mineola N ,Y. n501 Mineola Un$cn Free Sebool Dist. 747 6700 200 Emory' Road Mineola, N.Y. n501 Nassau County B.O.C.E.S. 997 8700 Salisbury Center Valentines Rd. & The Plain Rd.

Wastbury, N.Y. n590 No. Bel 2more U.F.S.D. '

221.2200 2616 Eartin Ave. '

No. Bellmore, N.Y. n?10 North Merrick U.F.S.D. 379 4070 1775 Old Min Road No. Herrick, N.Y. 11566 -

Nsrth Shore Schools 671-5500 -

Sea Cliff, N.Y. -

Oceanside Marlo Ave. School 678 1200 Marie Ave.

Oceanside, N.Y. n572 Oyster Bay East Morwich School Dist. 922-3170 Oyster Bay, N.Y. n?71 Plainedge Public Schools Norman Black Hickvine Road 735 4100 ext.%J04 Bethpage, N.Y. H714 Plainview Old Bethpage Central School 938-5400 Plainview, N.Y. n803 Ibrt Washington U.F.S.D. Harold Cham;o1 27 Iongview Road 886 2517 Ibrt Washington, N.Y. n050 Francis Bante 883 4000 Roosevelt Public Schools 378-7302 288 Nassau Road Roosevelt. N.Y.

Roslyn Public Schools 621A 900 Ineust lano ..

Roslyn, New York St.' Ignat$ous Rectory Father Earrer ~

129 Bmadway 931.0056 Eicksvine N.Y. H801

I 4 ~

I Edward yoorhees Seaford Union Free Scho61 Dist.

2147 Jackson Ave.

Seaford. N.Y. n?83 325 4878 Sewanhaka Central H.S. Dist.

555 Ridge Rd.

Elmont, N.Y. H003 Joseph Singleton Syosset Central School Dist. 921-5500 Pell I4ne Syosset, N.Y. 11791 485-9804 Uniondals Nblic Schools Goodrich Street Uniondale N.Y. 11553

- Rev. George Czar United Methodist Church 485 6 % 3 40 Washington straat .

Hempstead, N.Y. 11550 George Hilton United Methodist Church . WE 1.4345 192 Broadwy WE 1.2977 Bethpage N.Y. n714 825 8545 Vaney Stream U.F.S.D.

Corona Ave.

Valley Stream, N.Y. 11580 Dom Ciervo Valley Stream U.F.S.D. f30 483-3969 Vaney Stream, N.Y. n580 Elwood Webster .

Westbury U.F.S.D. 876 2016 Jericho Tpke. & Hitchcock Lano Westbury, N.Y. M590 Harry Natow West Hempstead U.F.S.D. 489 8415 450 Nassau Elvd. -

- ' W. Hempstead, N.Y. 11552 AND3rJ R. TYEA!*. SKI 516 876 3146 Bus E Ta m c e s 'cax

=16 433 5459 SUNI '

OLD E T3URY N.Y 1

• .