ML20086U105
| ML20086U105 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Shoreham File:Long Island Lighting Company icon.png |
| Issue date: | 03/02/1984 |
| From: | Cordaro M, Daverio C, Lieberman E, Weismantle J LONG ISLAND LIGHTING CO. |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20086U072 | List: |
| References | |
| OL-3, NUDOCS 8403070158 | |
| Download: ML20086U105 (60) | |
Text
1 l
LILCO, March 2, 1984 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION Before the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board In the Matter of )
)
LONG ISLAND LIGHTING COMPANY ) Docket No. 50-322-OL-3
) (Emergency Planning Proceeding)
(Shoreham Nuclear Power Station, )
Unit 1) )
TESTIMONY OF MATTHEW C. CORDARO, CHARLES A. DAVERIO, EDWARD B. LIEBERMAN, AND JOHN A. WEISMANTLE ON BEHALF OF LONG ISLAND LIGHTING COMPANY ON PHASE II EMERGENCY PLANNING CONTENTION 22.D (EXPANSION OF EPZ BOUNDARY)
Hunton & Williams 707 East Main Street P.O. Box 153S Richmond, Virginia 23212 (804) 788-8200 8403070158 840302 PDR T
ADOCK 05000322 4 PDR
- w n w- <r y y 4 7
r ,
1 l
LILCO, March 2, 1984 l
i k
u l
)
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
, NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION i
l Before the Atomic Safety and-Licensing Board
, In the Matter of )
1
)
LONG ISLAND LIGHTING COMPANY ) Docket No. 50-322-OL-3
) (Emergency Planning Proceeding) 3 (Shoreham Nuclear Power Station, )
- Unit 1) ) ,
,i TESTIMONY OF MATTHEW C. CORDARO, CHARLES A. DAVERIO, i EDWARD B. LIEBERMAN, AND JOHN A. WEISMANTLE ON BEHALF ,
- OF LONG ISLAND LIGHTING COMPANY ON PHASE II EMERGENCY
-PLANNING CONTENTION 22.D (EXPANSION OF.EPZ BOUNDARY) t PURPOSE In Contention 22.D, intervenors allege that the plume expo- :
j sure pathway emergency planning zone (EPZ) for the Shoreham
, Nuclear Power Station should be expanded to include all of the communities intervenors define as Terryville,. Port Jefferson, and l Riverhead and that the EPZ as currently configured fails to meet.
the regulations and guidelines. .The purpose of'this testimony is to demonstrate that the currently designated plume exposure pathL-way emergency planning zone boundary is appropriate and comports ,
with good. emergency planning' principles. The current boundary is about 10 miles from the Shoreham Plant, and follows readily recog-nizable' roadways. .The testimony demonstrates that expansion:of the EPZ to include all of the areas intervenors define as "
Terryville, Port-Jefferson, Land Riverhead is not appropriate t.
because the: boundaries of theLareas are noti readily-discernible l'
l 3
._. - - . _ . . , ~ . ,~ ~,-. - , , . - - . , , -_ , , - . _.,.-,z.
l t
l l
l nor readily recognizable by the public and because inclusion of Terryville and Riverhead would add appendages to the EPZ.
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 ) Docke*, No. 50-322-OL-3
) (Emergency Planning Proceeding)
(Shoreham Nuclear Power Station, )
Unit 1) )
TESTIMONY OF MATTHEW C. CORDARO, CHARLES A. DAVERIO, EDWARD B. LIEBERMAN, AND JOHN A. WEISMANTLE ON BEHALF OF LONG ISLAND LIGHTING COMPANY ON PHASE II EMERGENCY PLANNING CONTENTION 22.D (EXPANSION OF EPZ BOUNDARY)
- 1. Q. Please state your name and business address.
A. [Cordaro] My name is Matthew C. Cordaro. My business address is Long Island Lighting Company, 175 East Old Country Road, Hicksville, New York, 11801.
[Daverio] My name is Charles A. Daverio. My business address is Long Island Lighting Company, 100 East Old Country Road, Hicksville, New York, 11801.
[Lieberman] My name is Edward B. Lieberman. My business address is KLD Associates, Incorporated, 300 Broadway, Huntington Station, New York, 11746.
[Weismantle] -My name is John A. Weismantle. My 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, Engineering for LILCO. My professional qualifications are being offered into evi-dence as part of the document entitled " Professional Qual-ifications of LILCO Witnesses." I am oitting on this panel to provide the LILCO management perspective on emer-gency planning and to answer any questions pertinent to management. My role in emergency planning for Shoreham is to ensure that the needs and requirements of emergency planning are met and that the technical direction and con-tent of emergency planning are being conveyed to corporate management.
(Daverio] I am Assistant Manager of the Local Emergency Response Implementing Organization (LERIO) for LILCO. My professional qualifications are being offered into evi-dence as part of the document entitled " Professional Qual-ifications of LILCO Witnesses." My familiarity with the issues surrounding Contention 22.D stems from my work in developing and implementing the LILCO Transition Plan and my working with the Suffolk County Planners.
[Lieberman] I am Vice President of KLD Associates, Incor-porated. My professional qualifications are being offered into evidence as part of the document entitled
" Professional Qualifications of LILCO Witnesses." My familiarity with the issues raised by Contention 22.D stems from my familiarity with the road system of Suffolk County, particularly as it relates to the Shoreham EPZ; this familiarity was gained from work KLD Associates has performed for LILCO in producing Appendix A of the LILCO Transition Plan.
[Weismantle] I am Manager of the Local Emergency Response Implementing Organization (LERIO) for LILCO. My profes-sional qualifications are being offered into evidence as part of the document entitled " Professional Qualifications of LILCO Witnesses." My familiarity with the issues sur-rounding Contention 22.D stems from my work in developing and implementing the LILCO Transition Plan.
- 3. Q. Please summari=e the issues raised by Contention 22.D.
A. [Cordaro, Lieberman, Weismantle] Contention 22.D alleges that the plume exposure pathway emergency planning zone (EPZ) should be expanded to include all of the communities intervenors define as Terryville, Port Jefferson, and' Riverhead and that the EPZ as currently configured fails to meet the criteria of 10 C.F.R. $ 50.47(c)(2) and NUREG-0654.
Contention 22.D, and surrounding language, reads as follows:
~
Preamble to Contention 22. 10 CFR Sec-tion 50.47(a)(1) prohibits the NRC from issuing an operating license absent a find-ing that emergency preparedness exists for i the offsite area surrounding a nuclear power I plant. The Commission must find that the state of emergency preparedness provides !
" reasonable assurance that adequate protec-tive measures can and will be taken in the event of a radiological emergency." Id.
A major source of radiation exposure in the event of a radiological emergency is that received as a result of direct contact with a radioactive plume and/or from inhalation of radioactive gases and parti-cles within the plume. Thus, the NRC re-quires the development of a plume exposure EPZ around each plant as the basis for plan-ning for a radiological emergency. 10 CFR Sections 50.47(b)(10), 50.47(c)(2) and Appendix E, Sections II.N.2 and IV.
"EPZs are defined as the areas for which planning is needed to assure that prompt and effective actions can be taken to protect the public in the event of an accident."
NUREG 0654,Section I.D.2. The "overall ob-jective" is to provide planning and a state of preparedness that will permit imple-mentation of protective actions if exposure to the public is projected to be above the EPA's Protective Action Guides ("PAGs"). 10 CFR Section 50.47(b)(10) requires that plan-ning for protective actions must be consis-tent with Federal guidance such as the PAGS.
Under the PAGs, protective actions should be commenced in the event of potential exposure of members of the public in the range of one to five rems. NUREG 0654,Section I.D.l.
Under the NRC's rules, plume exposure EPZs are generally 10 miles in radius. How-ever, the 10-mile size is not an absolute:
"[t]he exact size and configuration of the EPZs surrounding a particular nuclear power reactor shall be determined in relation to local emergency response needs and capabili-ties as they are affected by such conditions as demography, topography, land characteris-tics, access routes, and jurisdictional
-. .-. -=- -. - . . - -
e J
, boundaries." 10 CFR Section 50.47(c)(2). 1 See also NUREG 0654,Section I.D.2.
Contention 22.D. 10 CFR Section 50.47(c)(2) provides that two elements essential to defining the configuration of an EPZ are the-location of local jurisdic-tional boundaries and demographic condi-i tions. Thus, it is good emergency planning L practice to include, if possible, the entire 4
area of a local municipality within the boundaries of an EPZ. At a minimum, an EPZ i should avoid dividing major population cen-
, ters within a local municipality. ,See NUREG i 0654,Section I.D.a.
i l LILCO's EPZ fails to meet _the criteria of i 10 CFR Section 50.47(c)(2) and-NUREG 0654-because the proposed LILCO EPZ: runs through and divides the villages of Port Jefferson 4
and Terryville and the town of_Riverhead.
~
i The EPZ should be extended to include all of Port Jefferson and Terryville and additional-portions of Riverhead (those. portions in the j area 1-2 miles'to the immediate east of'the
. proposed EPZ which contain dense population J
and Riverhead's business district).
1
! 4. Q. What are the regulations and guidelines cited in Conten-tion 22.D?
A. [Cordaro, Daverio,-Weismentle) The regulations and f guidelines cited in Contention 22.D'are'the following:
l 10 C.F.R. S 50.47(c)(2) i Generally, the plume exposure pathway EPZ' for nuclear power plants shall consist of an-I area about 10 miles-(16 km) in radius and the ingestion pathway EPZ shall consist of an area about-50 miles (80 -)cn) in radius.
The exact size and configuration of the EPZs
~
l surrounding a particular nuclear. power reac-:
. tor shall be determined in relation to local'
. emergency _ response needs and capabilities as-
.they are affected by-such conditions _as l demography,_ topography,iland ,
l
characteristics, access routes and jurisdic-tional boundaries.
NUREG-0654, I . D '.' 1. a -
The precise boundaries of such evacua-tions and sectors evacuated at extended downwind distances would be largely deter-mined by political boundaries . . . .
- 5. Q. Do the regulations and guidelines state that an EPZ should include the entire geographic extent of all political subdivisions that are intersected by the 10-mile radius from the Shoreham Plant and that the EPZ boundary should avoid crossing municipal boundaries?
A. [Cordaro, Daverio, Weismantle] No. The-regulations and guidelines define the emergency planning zone (EPZ) as an area of about a ten mile radius from the nuclear power plant. The regulations and guidelines do not state that the boundary of the EPZ should be extended-to include entire political or jurisdictional subdivi-sions. Rather, the regulations and guidelines, as well as emergency planning principles, suggest that the EPZ boundaries should follow political.orTjurisdictional boundaries, natural geographic-boundaries (shorelines,.
atreams), man-made boundar. (highways, well-known roads, railroads) and other iden ' =ble landmarks. .In-this way the EPZ boundary in any'particular location is clearly defined and easily ~identifiabl'e to. area resi- ~
l dents.
v c r <
h L- _
/O ,
e -
, :s
! 6. Q. Are there any other principles that planners should l consider when drawing the boundary for a 10-mile EPZ?
l A. [Cordaro, Daverio, Weismantle] Yes. In general, good emergency planning principles indicate that planners should try to avoid splitting major coherent popula-tions that fall within the 10-mile radius to avoid the possible confusion that could be caused if neighbors received different protective action recommendations.
Also, planners should avoid creating a boundary with elongated appendages. The reason is that during an emergency, confusion might result if, for example, pro-tective actions were recommended for areas distant from Shoreham while closer-in areas were not covered by the protective action recommendations.
- 7. Q. Are there examples at other nuclear power plants where municipal boundaries are crossed by the EPZ boundary?
A. [Cordaro, Daverio, Weismantle] Yes. There are a num-ber of instances where municipal boundaries are crossed by the EPZ boundary. The attached maps of the Browns Ferry emergency planning zone show that the boundary of that EPZ passes through boundaries of Decatur and Athens (Attachments 1-3). Likewise, at Seabrook Sta-tion the 10-mile EPZ boundary divides the two cities of Haverhill and Portsmouth.
- 8. Q. What is the boundary of the 10-mile EPZ for the Shoreham Nuclear Power Station?
A. [Cordaro, Daverio, Lieberman, Weismantle] Attachment 4 to this testimony is a map of a segment of Suffolk County with the 10-mile EPZ for Shoreham marked.
- 9. Q. Where are the areas called Terryville, Port Jefferson and Riverhead located in relation to the currently des-ignated 10-mile EPZ boundary?
A. [Cordaro, Daverio, Lieberman, Weismantle] First, the contention does not specifically describe the bound-aries of the areas it alleges should be included in the EPZ. The Village of Port Jefferson is the only one of the three areas with a legally defined boundary.
Terryville is not a legally defined entity; nor is the area described in the contention as " additional por-tions of Riverhead (those portions in the area 1-2 miles to the immediate east of the proposed EPZ which contain dense population and Riverhead's business dis-trict)" legally defined.
Attachment 4 indicates the additional areas of Port Jefferson, Terryville, and Riverhead which LILCO believes that intervenors contend should be included within the EPZ. LILCO defines "Riverhead" as the cen-sus designated place called Riverhead and "Terryville" as what used to be the census designated place by that name.
_9
- 10. Q. Who set the boundary of the Shoreham 10-mile EPZ origi-nally?
A. [Cordaro, Daverio, Weismantle] The original EPZ bound-ary, which is the boundary that has been adopted by LILCO, was set by Suffolk County and modified as sug-gested by New York State planners.
- 11. Q. Tell us how the EPZ boundary was oricinally estab-lished.
A. (Cordaro, Daverio, Weismantle] The first EPZ boundary was chosen by the Suffolk County Department of Trans-portation, and was similar to the present boundary except it did not include Zones Q, R, and S. (See Attachment 4). With respect to the a'.eas that are the subject of this contention, Zone Q contains the eastern portion of the incorporated village of Port Jefferson, plus the incorporated Village of Belle Terre, and Zone S contains the southwestern edge of the Riverhead post-al zone. Zone R is not at issue in this Contention.
The EPZ first chosen by the Suffolk County Transpor-tation Department was in keeping with the criteria _for a plume exposure pathway EPZ of approximately 10 miles l following known boundaries. The original boundary var-ied between 9.4~and 11.5 miles from the Shoreham-Plant.
In a letter from Richard Strang, Deputy Commissioner of the Suffolk County Department of Transportation to New York State (Attachment 5), Commissioner Strang stated I
I 1
that the selected EPZ (which did not include Zones Q, R, and S) " reflected sound reasoning and a determina-tion based on planning principles and site specific characteristics."
- 12. Q. How did Zones Q, R, and S get added to the EPZ?
A. [Cordaro, Daverio, Weismantle] After receiving New York State ccmments (see Attachment 5), the Suffolk County Department of Transportation added Zones Q, R, and S to the EPZ.
- 13. Q. Does the 10-mile EPZ boundary, as currently designated, comport with good emergency planning principles and with the regulations and guidelines?
A. [Cordaro, Daverio, Weismantle] Yes. The boundary for the plume explosure pathway EPZ is approximately 10 miles in radius'and follows well-known roads and high-ways.
- 14. Q. Could the 10-mile EPZ boundary.have been defined dif-ferently?
A. (Cordaro, Daverio, Weismantle] Yes. As we stated pre-viously, Suffolk County planners defined the boundary of the Shoreham EPZ somewhat differently than did New t
\
York State planners. In our opinion, the EPZ boundary, as currently designated, is-reasonable-and comports-with good emergency planning principles.
l
- 15. Q. Does the 10-mile EPZ boundary for Shoreham follow po-litical or jurisdictional boundaries?
A. [Cordaro, Daverio, Weismantle] Not exactly. In an l
area like Suffolk County the multiplicity of political l
or jurisdictional boundaries precludes the effective use of those boundaries in defining the EPZ. It is better planning to adopt recognized roadways as bound-aries rather than to follow obscure political or juris-dictional boundaries of incorporated villages and unincorporated areas and other locally recognized dis-tricts. This is particularly true since the boundaries of the incorporated villages and unincorporated areas that make up Suffolk County often do not follow readily discernible boundaries, but may run literally through backyards. This is true, for example, of the western boundary of the Village of Port Jefferson.
- 16. Q. The regulations also list demography as a factor to be examined in defining the EPZ boundary. Does the popu-lation distribution within 10 miles of the Shoreham plant follow political or jurisdictional boundaries?
A. [Cordaro, Daverio, Lieberman, Weismantle] No. There are not discrete jurisdictional or political boundaries marked by population discontinuities. As is generally )
true throughout Long Island, the population distribu-1 tion essentially is the result of urban sprawl from New York City and generally decreases in density as one l
proceeds east. There are occasional pockets of greater density.
- 17. Q. Would you describe the political subdivisions in Suffolk County?
A. [Cordaro, Daverio, Lieberman, Weismantle]
Preliminarily, it should be noted that towns in New York State are minor civil divisions similar to the townships found in other states. They,are not neces-sarily thickly settled centers of population such as cities, boroughs, towns and villages in other states.
Suffolk County is broken up into 10 separate towns or townships, each of which has an elected town super-visor. The towns are Babylon, Brookhaven, East Hampton, Huntington, Islip, Riverhead, Shelter: Island, Smithtown, Southampton, and Southold (Attachment 6).
Parts of the towns of Brookhaven, Riverhead and Southampton are included in the Shoreham EPZ. The towns are further divided into smaller areas, some of which are incorporated under state law and known as in--
corporated villages. E'ach incorporated village has an-i elected mayor, its own ordinances, and discrete bound-aries. The unincorporated areas, which are sometimes i
called census designated places or locally designated places, have no political' organization or readily ascertainable boundaries. All government and services
for an unincorporated area are provided by the town, county or state government.
In addition to recognized political subdivisions in Suffolk County, there are also districts such as school districts, fire districts, water districts, sewer dis-tricts, and postal Zones; sometimes the names associ-ated with these other districts have been adopted as place names. Terryville, one of the areas under con-tention, was a separate census designated place in the 1970 census which took its name from a local fire dis-trict. Under the 1980 census, Terryville was made part of the census designated place denominated Port Jefferson Station (Attachment 7).
Not only are the jurisdictional or political bound-aries in Suffolk County ill-defined, but the yarious postal zones, school districts, fire districts, etc. do not necessarily have congruent boundaries. For exam-ple, an individual can live simultaneously in Suffolk County, the Town of Huntington, Harborfields School District, and in either the Greenlawn or Centerport postal zone. In many cases, the special district boundaries cross recognized village and' town lines.
The.Commack School District, the Sachem School Dis-trict,'and the Southwest Sewer District are. major exam-ples of special districts whose boundaries cross
village and town lines. For example, people living in the Commack School District may live in the Town of Huntington or the Town of Smithtown, but will generally identify their address as Commack, even though Commack is not a political entity with clearly defined bound-aries. Attached to this testimony as Attachments 8-10 are maps showing the overlapping village or census des-ignated place, postal zone, fire district and school district boundaries for Port Jefferson, Terryville, and Riverhead.
Terryville
- 18. Q. What is the current boundary of the 10-mile EPZ in the area of Terryville?
A. [Cordero, Daverio, Lieberman, Weismantle} As you can see by looking at Attachments 4 and 11 through 13, the EPZ boundary divides Terryville down Jayne Road, a north-south artery, and then follows the southern boundary of Terryville along Old Town Road.
- 19. Q. What is "Terryville"?
A. [Cordaro, Daverio, Lieberman, Weismantle] Terryville is an unincorporated area situated on the western edge of the EPZ (Attachments 4, 11-13). To refer to Terryville as a " village" or " local municipality," as the contention seems to do, is misleading. Terryville
has no political organization or readily ascertainable boundaries. Rather, Terryville is the name of the local fire district which has been used locally to describe an unincorporated area that was recognized as j a separate census designated place in the 1970 census.
(The 1980 census has included Terryville with Port Jefferson Station as one census designated place). The area of Terryville outside the EPZ was not included in either the original or the expanded EPZ drawn by the Suffolk County Transportation Department.
l As a look at the maps and aerial photographl/
attachment to this testimony (Attachments 11-13) will reveal, the present EPZ boundary follous Jayne Boule-vard, a north-south thoroughfare that closely follows the 10-mile radius. The intervenors would choose the western side of Terryville as the boundary.
- 20. Q. So the part of Terryville that Suffolk County wants included in the EPZ is a triangular area bounded by Old Town Road, Nesconset Highway, and Jayne Road?
A. [Cordaro, Daverio, Lieberman, Weismantle] Yes. The EPZ boundary already includes the part of Terryville i
I bounded by Jayne Road, Old Town Road, Bicycle Path Road, and Nesconset Highway.
1/ Attachments 11 through 19 to his testimony are maps and aerial photographs of the three areas in contention. The maps and aerial photographs are all drawn to the same scale.
- 21. Q. Why not include this part of Terryville in the EPZ?
A. [Cordaro, Daverio, Weismantle] Because it is an area outside the ten-mile radius, and because there is no good reason to add it to the existing EPZ.
- 22. Q. What do you mean, no good reason to add it?
A. [Cordaro, Daverio, Weismantle] The intervenors' only reason.for including Terryville apparently is that they are uncer the impression that there is a place called Terryville. In fact, Terryville is not a " place" in any jurisdictional or political sense. It was recog-nized as a separate " census designated place" in the l
1970 census, but the 1980' census removed it from that '
status and lumped-it together with Port Jefferson Sta-tion as a single census designated place (Attachment 7). In short, there is simply no rationale'for including it in the EPZ. "Terryville" is not even listed in the post office zip code directory.
i
- 23. Q. Do the boundaries that the intervenors favor make more sense than the one presently in the Plan?-
A. [Cordaro, Daverio, Lieberman, Weismantle) Not at all.
The present boundary in the area of Terryville is Jayne
- Boulevard, a prominent north-south roadway outside the ten-mile radius. The intervenors would choose
! Nesconset HighwayLand Old Town Road,.two other
l prominent roadways slightly farther outside the ten-1 mile EPZ. There is no discernible basis for choosing I
those roads over Jayne Boulevard. In fact, redrawing the boundary as intervenors suggest is somewhat less desirable because it would needlessly cause the bound-ary to bubble out at Terryville.
- 24. Q. Do the Old Town Road and Nesconset Highway sides of the triangle mark any kind of natural discontinuity, in population or otherwise, that would make it sensible to draw the boundary there?
A. [Cordaro, Daverio, Lieberman, Weismantle] Not that we can discern. The character of the neighborhood to the.
south and west of Old Town Road and to the north and west of Nesconset Highway appears similar to the char-acter of the neighborhood to the east (Attachment 11).
Terryville and the adjacent areas to the east, north, and west have the identical B-1 residential zoning classification.
- 25. Q. Can you summarize what you've just said about Terryville?
A. [Cordaro, Daverio, Lieberman, Weismantle] Yes. The present boundary of the EPZ is Jayne Boulevard, a prom-inent road outside the ten-mile radius. The interve-nors advocate moving the boundary further out beyond the tea-mile radius to two roads (Old Town Highway and Nesconset Highway) to incorporate an area that has no
i political or jurisdictional significance. This makes very little sense.
- 26. Q. Is there any other reason not to include the Terryville area?
A. [Cordaro, Daverio, Weismantle] Yes, although it does not figure prominently in our thinking. Including Terryville would be undesirable because it would create a needless angular appendage to the EPZ. It is sound emergency planning to try and maintain a roughly circu-lar ten-mile EPZ, while still using prominent landmarks as boundaries. Emergency planners try to avoid appen-dages because of the confusion they might cause in the minds of the public as to which geographic areas fall within the EPZ. For example, if the Shoreham EP3 were expanded to include all of the old Terryville census designated place, people at the westernmost part of Terryville (in the tip of the angle formed by Old Town Road and Nesconset Road (Route 347), for example) might be asked to take protective action because they were in the EPZ, while other people closer to Shoreham, but outside the EPZ, might not. This principle will be much more important when we get to the Riverhead part of the contention, but it plays a small role in the Terryville part as well.
d
- 27. Q. Given all this, if you had to use "Terryville" as a primary consideration in drawing your EPZ boundary, where would you draw it?
l A. [Cordaro, Daverio, Weismantle] If the boundary of Terryville were to be used as the EPZ boundary, it would make more sense to use Terryville's eastern 5
boundary instead.of its western one. The eastern boundary is a small road called-Bicycle Path. While it is not as major a road as Jayne Boulevard and, there-fore, not as desirable as an-EPZ boundary, it.does have the advantage of being situated at a discontinuity in urban development. As the aerial photograph and street i
map clearly show, there is a higher concentration of structures and streets just to the east of Bicycle Path Road than just to the west of it (Attachments 11-12).
Bicycle Path is 9.7 miles from the Shoreham. site at its closest point.
l l Riverhead
- 28. Q. What is the current boundary of the 10-mile EPZ in.the area of Riverhead?
A. [Cordaro, Daverio, Lieberman, Weismantle] The current boundary of.the 10-mile EPZ'in.the Riverhead area is
'down Doctor's Path Road, Middle Road, and Osborn Ave-nue. See Attachments 4 and 14-16.
- 29. Q. Should all of Riverhead be-incorporated into the EPZ?
A. [Cordaro, Daverio, Lieberman, Weismantle] No.
Riverhead, as it is described in intervenors' conten-tion, io an unincorporated area on the eastern edge of the EPZ (Attachment 20). Contention 22.D refers to this area ac both a " town" and a " local municipality,"
both of which are misnomers. The " Town of Riverhead,"
which has a legally recognized jurisdictional boundary, covers over 60 square miles along the northern-half of Long Island, starting on the east edge of the Shoreham site and extending well beyond the 10-mile EPZ (Attach-ment 6).
The area of Riverhead that the contention apparently-refers to has no boundaries-set by law. It is an. area that has both populated and rural characteristics,-as-well as a large expanse of parkland to the east.
Only a small portion of the " downtown Riverhead area" is within 10 miles of Shoreham, and this area'has a very low population and contains fewer than 80 houses. The exp'ansion of the original EPZ adopted by ,
Suffolk County planners to include Zone "S" added'to.
the EPZ approximately 80 homes'within the 10-mile radi-us, ' plus an areal beyond :03 miles to . include a populated area containing the Suffolk County Government Center, which-is actually in the Town of Southampton, and1a
business district. The southern part of the zone is undeveloped park land in the Town of Southampton.
I The proposition, made by Contention 22.D, that the EPZ boundary should be extended to a point almost 13 miles from the plant, would violate the requirement that the EPZ boundary approximate a ten-mile radius centered at the power plant and would also create an elongated appendage. As stated previously, emergency planning principles suggest that planners should avoid elongated appendages. The expansion of the EPZ to in-clude the area of Riverhead suggested by the County would have precisely that effect.
In addition, as can be seen clearly from the aerial photograph, population distribution map, and road net-work map.(Attachments 14-16), another factor that mili-tates against including the entire Riverhead area sug-gested by the County in the EPZ is that such an expansion of the EPZ would then encompass th.e densely populated areas designated as areas E and G on the pop-ulation distribution map (Attachment 16). These areas are significantly removed from the true ten mile radius of the plant. In addition, they are separated from the ten mile boundary selected by LILCO by areas designated as A, C, _D, B and F in which the population is low because the area encompasses a number of unpopulated
land uses including cemeteries and a large pond. In short, the extension of the EPZ that intervenors pro-pose would be an artificial extension te include a pop-ulated area that would otherwise be geographically sep-arate.
Port Jefferson
- 30. Q. What is the current boundary of the 10-mile EPZ in the area of Port Jefferson?
A. [Cordaro, Daverio, Lieberman, Weismantle) The current western boundary of the EPZ divides Port Jefferson beginning at the mouth of the harbor and following Main Street south through the commercial center of Port Jefferson. (See Attachments 4, 17-19).
- 31. Q. Should all of Port Jefferson be incorporated into the !
EPZ? !
A. [Cordaro, Lieberman, Weismantle] No. Port Jefferson is an incorporated village with its eastern edge 9 1/2 i
miles from the Shoreham site. The Suffolk County Department of Transportation did not consider it neces-sary to put any of the village of Port Jefferson into the EPZ originally and, thus, did not include Zone "Q".
- New York State then recommended that the EPZ boundary be moved to beyond ten miles to include the area denominated Zone "Q" that is currently part.of the Shoreham 10-mile EPZ.
Contrary to what intervenors claim, the Port Jefferson village border is not a suitable choice for an EPZ boundary for two reasons. First, the village's most recognizable landmark is the harbor (Attachments 17-19), which forms a natural half-mile wide boundary for the EPZ, with people on the east bank (including the Village of Belle Terre) in the EPZ, and those on the west bank (including the Village of Poquott) not in th-a EPZ. Since the harbor is centered on Main Street, which is a major north-south commercial thoroughfare, this road is a natural choice to form the EPZ boundary.
Second, the use of the Port Jefferson political boundary as an EPZ boundary line would be impractical and confusing to the public because the political boundary of the Village of Port Jefferson does not fol-low village streets. As the map shows (Attachment 8),
at the western edge of the village the boundary cuts across Maple Avenue, Cedar Avenue, West Broadway, Foxdale Lane, Dogwood Lane and Sheep Pasture Road.
Thus, people would find that their homes were in the EPZ, while the homes of their neighbors next door were not. In addition, the public will recognize and remem-ber a major road, such as Route 25A, as the EPZ bound-ary more easily than a garden fence.
In short, it would be poor planning to do as the l contention suggests and to extend the EPZ from a major, readily recognizable, physical boundary to a mean-dering, obscurely defined, political one.
l i
i 1
l l
ATTACHMENTS ATTACHMENT 1 Map of 10-mile EPZ for Browns Ferry ATTACHMEhf 2 Map of 10-mile EPZ for Browns Ferry in the Vicinity of Athens i
l ATTACHMENT 3 Map of the 10-mile EPZ for Browns Ferry in j the Vicinity of Decatur ATTACHMENT 4 Map of the 10-mile EPZ for the Shoreham Nuclear Power Station ATTACHMENT 5 Letter from Richard A. Strang, Suffolk County Department of Transportation, to Case Rotteveel, Nuclear Civil Protection Planning, State of New York, March 27, 1980 ATTACHMENT 6 Map of Suffolk County with Town Boundaires, Village Boundaries, and Census Designated Place Boundaries ATTACHMENT 7 Map of the Town of Brookhaven with Village Boundaries and Census Designated Place Boundaries ATTACHMENT 8 Map of Port Jefferson with Boundaries of the Fire District, Postal Zone, School Dis-trict, and Village ATTACHMENT 9 Map of Terryville with Boundaries of the Fire District, Postal Zone, School Dis-trict, and Census Designated Place ATTACHMENT 10 Map of Riverhead with Boundaries of-the Fire District, Postal Zone, School Dis-trict,.and Census Designated Place l ATTACHMENT 11 Aerial Photograph of Terryville ATTACHMENT 12 Map of Terryville Road Network ATTACHMENT 13 Population Distribution Map cf Terryville ATTACHMENT 14 Aerial Photograph ofLRiverhead l ATTACHMENT 15 Map of Riverhead Road Network ATTACHMENT 16' Population-Distribution-Map.of Riverhead' 1
ATTACHMENT 17 Aerial Photograph of Port' Jefferson
ATTACHMENT 18 Map of Port Jefferson Road Network ATTACHMENT 19 Population Distribution Map
-~
ATTACHMENT 1 i
J i
i i
E P 8'I
- g. 54 ,,,,,,.g 4GF ese .
i~. .' 9' i &_- ~ ~{ ,
.- s- W " bW K 4 ~ NP.e "~~?. & '
im \
'[W i 7 [
n as ,
4 m_ %'Q &.pgf 3
l,R)pR&ylk?juMiMWa *N.;.i I$n_ Q- h ' Q'mQ
- &d546 w . w.
r % < p ny~.
bc L. g%. - y x ~n n%it. gg s w s m g; y y %.-w - p~ : .~m
. : a, - .n
~ , . , , _v1.s <a.
n.t~a.
-. r , ,, fv e-m
~
s4
~,
% '1 g.fY .
$l - '% O j **
p I Y:
9,t f ,.a ;FVw?+% ~
, g .M .-y =- ty.c M ,.c -
~
,.p w:es~ -
9 . E- ~ g ,"" ~ .. -
g- { 8, N'N -d p3g'lI ,Iy E y g
.xr .
' 'E-, -
%~s
}_
- - - >=
. t
- m. .
W(' e* 2 7-N~ PJ' [l 1 k ,.c ,,,,, j-y . _
. . , . z..7 A .,
i w 'ss ;
s M '
p' _- A-S.
_q L "L ,,,.MC w -.,'
d-.
}-
, _ _ ; f' - "'f ';, ..c4, . .s l -
y- , _ ' _ g-I 9l% ..[
2 . . ,,,
.t 1
w .f.i
.L 'i,,,, '
WJJ. j t .r *-,, s; N,e
==.- -
hx i.
Nq ~ ~ - [
,, ' 9' : ;. .g.
[ *
.-Tt _ -
' > ~- '.g "
'B 40r __- d k.
I!s, q ,u- 'k~d I .
I #W ,
M . '4.k
-s ..
., c ,_ , -9 9M# - ' W'\q -.-- y17 e ',' i. W {T-T g.}
ph A E
= 1 m.% . .
. . .e . af
.~ . - .t , .
$$ 4 fr -
E' 'N ?.. k< ^-SN Y
? e? <
9 k Y \ Y,0 x;f,) '
$ g$ Q,h. b oM !p
... ~
Q n ' _f.'d Y- . ~
4'_
~ v k[1h~ y M . 9 &* Qm Yt; . C &
Y .<:',n. ;
- g._ v -
'r S'. A y [; '?..'u. - -
- .I - -
.s & -\,
xK j oN., m-n - ~ my x.sD,.[ % _'F-5 .
d'" - +, d 9 $~r.k b m" mN. .
N Dp.
w'i.,.,
) _7 g-
~
b s
cm w h ,} kg & n
%ab b m a i u.2 _, % :*y '.,,q 7 -
W } w% sx. w ,; L
.4 )
K'- - NQd, Nw s N m[w r= ! I Y'b4d'biI'$ bE " nn% e m e m.m, s
.[.
. .!:; y
~
% _Q? [h_ mf i~i.
. Q. '\-k.,i M _2 . . mW^ .4 _f Ms
. 1. _ W , ; - m *! c m . .m v ig g 51 .: 9 ,e _
- nerawg
,/ j! 7 { c - 'n 'f l_ Lw . p -g f.
} ( ^,7 ^-
ys p-g
$g4h! l . E & % Vi( f z T&
" ~~ *
,kl
; / , r ' f{f_,'I~ ' J -
aoe
- m. s<c m M- k rah:=
0 n' h . g [. Lg%y9:h&q r
's s - J t
m%
'&jfi SYS$ bph-Q,j M 1AMiE M .:, w.. .Q f q F$$VfBdh['I E d ;[hD b% @% b~ -f5
- -- _ .._..m,..,_,,,_ ._,,._._,,._r,_m,.,,,,,__4
e e l ATTACHMENT 2 i f l
650 000 FEET 86*55'00' 34*5 87*00' , )Mht .-
. I" ik . *
..N'b '
r.,, h[ -
~
..a...
~
@> !.y':. Ek 4 &l d i "tiJ
.[ } .. "~
$ s. $l ' ;
- '4 N':XQ l- 9' h
- g. rp -.
N:g ';L &g . b$Qkdy ^' W kt?,j,y. f L4){_.b r .. .
r 5
. '.... \~. . l :. -
'..-/ - $.y .- .. c
~~', .
. r .; -r
~.= Q .! , ..,. -.
./.
,,'_.. .l.
.m f. .[ --
p .
.;,: '. 6
$,. a.:
3.y - ( ~,..
- s. .#.., t.
..-t . . ..
* ' AJ fff'09f .,IFOAg
.. ~.
[. - , g*
- 3. .
5.:
- lsy.' - , [.
- )-o ,_ . c.; f,(;%
I. s ., a' . d ,} / .' , 5
- u.,-
AW u_b s.atwA w ,ag w.q.7.nl. ; .o y s. p:y . a;, ;. - ; 9 ~. xanu y eg%[, 707,. (,.q}. Y-3 w Y. ,. J 1 W l
+
)
%,b 17 s.e-6
"(_M i Igens /. T- 7 Y/-
L x- - V 4 P
,r -iw y -l Q -
I: L '*S x r . m
]E j (tv" ggM- y.
.;: w"
- , 1 ,
t
/ .
\
7y gi :: ..
/
., n
- p. .. Q
%g gg g 7[ Mkkwr us L.g.g.,. .. . j 32 y n qq.g gg.g ,
g g,,;,,,, T y4 !' 5%. 'p . 7 31* aa V j' W iv I .0 '
.o- - .r .
. %g
,. , . , o t l
. #, p] ! 8 '..
3,,,,,C
. y..
f-
),
/g,, j g/. % @'
[ _/,; . 1750. : N s ,,, y ,
~k h I w
x f
.c<
)lg
^
/
- l. [ .
yx .. PAY._ t fiQ 'f '\ '
.n m 9
f.
=
i ' r E, m'f=j 3 :'
.g ..s.
( - p<p u)I .,,,p .. o o g. 1ca.m^cw . e . k V) ,.'. . u
,p \x a . . BBB
'Q 7 M,.
, ga.,r fj, . . . .
9 4 . ,o, P j. t,g '/ 1n.9. .;eup . 4r s . . . < , . _. 1 ..
',??fIV Y.,h:'.Y
^
h& h, ..' p &.- us nh.Iman- 9o=
.. M... n ; Q ,c- y.
3 nwt(-r ns'./ a. p - ' ,o , . u .
,i O 3-5 /A7l?'l'f-J.' Ms J- Mfiis{l@ 3"J l% .
Y,J._1
l ATTACHMENT 3 l I I
.c
, y- s
~ cygJyggy
.n.4, p a.~., $
- p. m. ,, -. ..,..
,:s _ E-
~ s i ~-^
^
'p
,Fahle stand . .
- y. .md n.,r- a-r.t"Te x wy
.. ,, (
-% N ..
tgp cn-e a
's,x w y . q
,[e :^~~ r c les i -
li
. hj - sN
- s'~~i<
NB@eC g x in us ,# StG,e:gg '2 sW~ ss - 4 as ' s
,% e r? s ^J} . .. % ,
(T, ;$ ..I: %Q: , ff
\(5& y 9 s%lE ~
s L 7
,,,. ' cc. , _y.~ m
+:
L-
. , LA (ISH g .c
#~ d +40'0 '
v..n i
': MAF. ' ' -
$ % : *s,
. 4,;.'*~
e i t N -: n-:-
\. .
s y ft, , P'c .v..e4 ries j .c :: ~-
._',., ~
= _-
'w!u(.IFE REE
.g2_
t- m (At ' -
....i f
[ [., k ' '
-4.%
' . ' ~ ~
m O h 2 h. b *. R *i:,w- a yg f M.. .<. M m..
- s! ,
=4 c ,N Q- }}T [ f 3 ~ ' s h
- LV j>ii}JW
&wth s
/ (i U\..,gy;' '
- .. g,W d 2 As f
'9, Mw H.#p/ye-frqPR
~
6 ~
&a**+A- I' 'A mM
_r 2 w
> i. . .
o el m ' nW a _
$.p t/.gatds-l m i' 's , $ - . g.s -
3g y 1 ~ y 'l, y' % g = ,y f
~
M3bhu- 5'^& 2 %c Vi py\',
- 1
= v=' c.'
H"n ,@ My4 Ow b E n ~ b ,
=f m ; n7 jB.T.'
s h Q R-. ; <. . . -=
- g. Y .
x n C y ty . r ' ea g& g'[]Mpt =n=I sh'!.NDd4Ndbbd QW !' M1 )
% ~
-u?
S X g-j :'r'. J ( h%' Ge
\
- Q.
F, iCiqrg- q h . 2.s. 'q ' Bald 1
. /. , :.: $~$*,., <m&u.
3 g~ qQ:.y. agyG(Q o
~
. @, no
+
f-3 3,.4 Q g g.g Mand ) g
.>g
' d.;- ;( i .2 '. , '. s isGy ' n}
87*00' 650' 500MomE 1
l l I i 1 ATTACHMENT 4 4 4 e O l 4 l 5 J l e 'I l _ . . . _ - , - _ . . . . . . ~ . . . - . . -
s s .-
< LONG ISLAND S 9
\
S y n tv *%
/ ) - wl ft; - x
,.y so
~
QNs,sa -
'S g, g g a--
ur \'r .g, g- 2
/ '
I
?
,,, , ,; . 4; ? +
> n; A*
s ywwe :. an y :n : - h ; w- n.
,#)'s # ! ;*f t;: y e n:n e;hf
, y Q P@%
; a am ,. e p,4 e
'k d i
}(($ , kE , rn 8 ,@3 I
\7 m .so@npii I e, i
l s .
. ]'
Q g h ,.v ? %"';s; w! M
; v,:. ; .
, seter=
y 3;; ,*
*l i, %Qipa n:f? }_ , ; % , , , . . .
i
!C fr
/ -~
{fN F ;4:,l RL y
'4. ',4
- <g.;" 5 %f _ _N 7
) d[ (p) ,a 7
i ' ' - ', . l e B 5 ef:] is y_g
. et..o a
~
.4 w
- w.:ea 8 , y., e;7 1
\* tac e
3 71 . f . , * ,,, g ':&en.L%ee ;& cQ
? " i* \
gf ..'.
> g g p ar==
+* 4 v ~
1, x! s s\ k g < l! ,,, Q 2 ;
,/ al~s 1
PJ
~
nn ar
, Q%,. '~
i # I' , e c. - . , ,,c
)
p . (_ . .. [ o
)
/~1 h'
l GREAT SOUTH BAY ptf-
,\
~
UND f LEGEND _ p[Ld(lbisL-. m ' 1
. m :;
--- ZONE S 4
l + LILCO PL ANT PROPERTY
~ . ~ . '
AREAS UNDER
, CONTENTION
('"
, 'Also Availalde
] 5 i Aperture Ca'M e
MM\
*1g.'
,? %k 3) l l G f k. { [\
'gr.ex::A.3*gg%g s g t g s c \ \
+
!;ggks%%We;% .
a A. f \ ,, 1 s V p,ggf 4 4,Q~ .a*y ~>e %
~
d , i I". , ? N(y@ c, 3,,, ; , .. sg. ,
.? .
h . E
%,, y~
'R 3'
~
- e. . ,
1
- v y n; u,, ,
.s . . ,
yys p: ,,a e s n- 4;- y - l
$ % 's.eM wm e
g , g' t Q I? Mtf ~ , , - t [ d4 v', i .
.1 7* )
.e >. .
# <% 4 y? Mhv r, E y s v
.r
) nr a
~ *7 i ,
1 i )
; + e s s :
y j ,. 3" J k g o
~ .* , ,
V, ,
>s jsSL \ 4
% *, e I
, %g 4
# l4 1,
o g ^, ,, a
/ Y A.**'
;m 4
_f f y 'f Cn90
, l
[ -h \/ _k
- cl %E 71}030N .
E VACU ATION ARE A BY ZONES AND ZONE D E S IGN AT IONS M
..' '3
l 1 ? i l ATTACHMENT 5 s whi
- w. . . ..
m....
- . ,g
.,, . s. . .-
j G , DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION - Mar.ch 27, 1980 .*
. ...' , 2 .
- Mr. Case Rotteveel, Associate Planner . Nuclear Civil Prctection Planning . State of !!ew York ' Divisicn of 4tlitary and Naval Affairs .
. Public Security Building '
State ca. pus Albany, llew York 12226 , ,
Dear Mr. Rotteveel:
This rejoinder is in response to the receipt of your letter dated March 17,19E0 outlining your cor=ents in regard to this Department's response to Appendix 4 of NUREG-0654/FElM-repel. With regard to your initial observation that some sections Arc enconpassed within a ten mile radius of the site and yet are not included in the zones ccc:prising our EPI, we would like to make you aware that this is by no means a transgression.of the guidelines established in . NUREG-0554/FEl'A-REP-1. Specifically, we draw your attention to page 9 of the aferstentioned docu ent which . involves a discussion of the basis for emergency planning. This particular sectiion distinctly states that the determination of the size of the EPZ is judgmental and subject to interpretation by the planning agency in its effort to assure adequate response. It reiterated this point by asserting that the task force selected a radius of "about ten miles". Therefore, we would like to point out that the initial exclusion
- of these sections adjacent to zones K, L and 0 were neither arbitrary nor an oversight, but rather, it reflected sound reasoning and a deter-cination based on planning principles and site-specific characteristics.
However, while the preliminary report did not indicate those sections as part of the EPZ, they have since been accccmodated and will be in-ciudad in the final report issued by this Department. As for the implied exclusion of the inner two-mile 180* sector in the formulation of the outer sector time estimates, in actuality, no omission has been made. The time estimate of 10.5 hours (12 hours
** under adverse conditions) represents the maximum time necessary to evacu-ate all zones comprising the EPZ.
C
- 40.20050 COOoSG ,,
L............., . wi.i m >=
. . .s . .
- c. ;
'. . . . . . :' ':'.' ' ~.
- i . *. ;' ~ . * . .
. - ..'..~ .-,.
In reference to the Appendix 4 requirement of submitting an inde- . -l l pendent breakdown for evacuatica time estimates regarding s An. examination of the inventoried data contained within the report . clearly denotes that all special facilities (cajor employers, recreational l areas, nursing heres, etc.) have been considered and It is included obvious that in the time ., estimates for the zones in which they are located. : ; developing individual time tables segregating residential and special ! > facilities, which logically would not be evacuated independently, is not i only unnecassarily ti:e censuming but unproductive.. The only facilities .
- j. Which demand preferential attention, by nature of the special circumstan j they represent, are the schools.
. after conferring with the school districts involved. "
- I Regarding confimation tices, these were not included specifically due , ,.
"' to' the fact that the exact methodology forConsideration achieving such hasconfirmation been given to has
- yet to be determined and/or agreed upon.the'use of external indicators ident ..
- . vacated, herever such a cathed simultaneously designates these residences -
.d bility to depredation. . While this concept has not been tot
- we are currently pursuing alternate approaches to minimize such disadvantages.- .
. Until such time as the methodology becemes a certainty, we are reluctant to Particularly, since any written statement of estimate confir:ation times.
times may be subject to substantial revision at a later date depending on the . approach utilized, we feel a premature estimate As such, could we be electedmisleading to omit and con-
> ceivably jeopardize- the validity, of the plan. -
this informatien until we can cake a responsible and professional assessment - of confimation times. ' Our last response addresses the' criteria used by this Depat tment in - determining adverse weather time estimates. These evacuation times were derived on the basis of this Ce;artment's expertise and experience in trans-
,portation and its familiarity with the area and road network involved.
~
We sincerely hope this clarifies any outstanding issues regarding our
- response to Appendix 4. , g .
, rytrulyyourig , '
~
daJ
' Richard A.. Strang A.85.C - .
Deputy Ccenissioner \ .
" RAS:df ,
~
4020050 C004.s7
****==.nu**>e . ge . .;
D ATTACHMENT 6 l
----_________-__--_1
e D. a 4
- Huntsngton
. "?
f, e% sty T
\j 'M i,}- ,f , /qA s-~~ s.x Long Island Sound 54
; d __ :e &ne NWjp%>N
- t-
- k s .
h<
- T ;, -
%- h .5
- g. 9 .s #-i J:u?g@w_
~
!_ to , ' iA
_[' pj-yv l ' ' ., q. - - ~/,.
!! @.n!!n! ton , 7 4 -
j .__ s s:g ~ u i x __ t e - 3, riverhead , n!n ,u,ey+Q , er . -
\J
-; Ltr,g#2' ar. La
. p
-g
- 3. -
.mj - ,j .9 s
,~~.f]s-* *r %_, . N-r "lk. ~
wj,
?
r i4 w"-\u- 'G) %x L._.
,.x..s
\I I
l%, fl<~L t
/ -
'Y
/
/ -l '_ 9 llJW-- 1 -- < -
i
.L-p(bylon.- ,^/ - %; ijLy r I % -
f'p nQslip %]{ --Qj[M _ro pj _.. s. L. ...~ %
~ ~ ~
T I gr y ,g, lj cl k & {7 _ Ss -, Q ',
~< -a.x: -
%e - 4- . . . . _ _ . _ .
L_..... ___. i l
.I
P P
-, s-
/d 72 7 ~
'dk} .
he e; ,h
- f. , -
'<h N (k l' m.,j/ ' *"'*
v a c M-W.~ --- egg
\- c' U
/
us M ~
%.LN# k-e,jt, y hL l) o g
p i .
= -@ ,.
t jl4 ,,, M w.....' i A _ ~~ m : N .l I'
-----_.i_.__.____ - -- - - - ] __
%IXvailable On Aperture Card
' A3ETU E CAD 9 030 msg-az
o O ATTACHMENT 7 \ 9 O O i t P h
i 25 5 I i 1 1 .
,. s ' ' .. >,
r .
. to '
s , ,. <n e--
'5 (D -
'L't.);..
. . ,. e . o l i , -
,g ri -
- p
~'
s 1,~ . - 10 J'u' CO .I g i . cc q ,. g, ,. g . t i
, ~n- .>, .m. M l
9I . -t I- ' I\( I,3 Q
..... _y,......,l g -
3,vst $. - \.. g f'l..'..... , - o l ,
=
t \ E s
. '~,yi
+-
N% r q,\. 1 - : ,--- '
)/ -( ;
g l 3 ,i } ,
-}
s r
.$1 Ls 1 ., . ~
p, y '=\ 7 *. l ./ .g j _ %g,.;. g
, ' * * * - _ a.,
*.A_s--
* -r * ~-
, . , .g s % .
/} -
~
s s '
*J
* *=*
a 1
*A
, E A
't. %3 6
} +. , , . -<.,;...s g
f . . /1 : , t
- \ __ x.
. % 1-g .. &
- s. .{ p ~
f
, s .
j I I d a t 4 s ./ s %
**4ssn,--~ p",
, ,, f.
. m ..f :'" -fn; , / 2 r .g e? r g g. .. m-a 3 v> h- ]8 '-" p "~d, ' V '~\g ; %n
, _ , .7 3) .u .
3 , 3
, . .,[a / 8~ %
yv I, ,
/ ,
a
~
j r
}
.a N/ a\,
4 4 '- _i ,3 -r f.:.- '.m s . s. ' >. 51
- n. , s cg .
g .,-,...... , 3
,, u >
.j~s- 2 y n' ' ', " ' Ira.y ~ -wp.5 s ' ..
- I i, I
'( = .7. - o ,, / - . . .,"N
" L, ^, 5 / i / ~
.C s(
t6 %.., g y g 1 n%j- }1 ] _
- f- 1, f b . = 4, !{ ., , ~
s . -. - 3
,[ . ,1\:~-r .. :' g-~2.->q Q-*f o y~~~g" ;; a....zy,,1g.;,~y\
a 3 -);3 q , ; ........ z y v) ., L
- .n. -".'.
,....y ,
j ~,
- r- _._ _ i
~
tg \ i Q =y>;~s
. x .jsw - s e i e i
! . ...l- . C
\ N k , m ) ;y
- i t , ~l i u j i-I;' *"a>
3 - . , .
\
[ ; 4 i en
%,p 1
) .!
....................h.....,g.,,,,,J n
'*~ I
. ,! j
.i i ( 1
'a- !
e e I,\ o !, . 9 j
/ --*
hl 4 1
..% l g-g .e-.
-g f]
......., j,y . . .
l 6
ATTACHMENT 8
+
ol e h _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ ___ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ ._ _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ . . _ _
M E y . ., . , , 7 I, . [ --6y-g .
*ra a *
. 4a i
'". 7f -
E
-p'
, %,-w. [2 j . '4 _ i e , ", "N,s*. , ' .
3N i, :. ' = - -
.i - :
s 6,. - , 8 ;). 2, a c
'/ ,
- r .. _ 2 4 g;, .
.' ' '5 ., , g , . :
^ p o* , .s J._".1 v. s - ,.
* .
- t
~, . , -
w .. / . e h
/# ,/. . , , ,
. g' '
f ., {
' .3 ' -
- g
, / 4 p :'i,; gy .tq[ c -
_ .. ,y *: t e. m , ;
,'. s
*j V,-
. ', d/ ', ,!)
.i. [n 4, . . '. g I '
E
" /
*k $.. Q . .-n ' l t t
"^ n ._ g ' >
V. , i .1, g v*' 'c-g ,
- f / .M Y2 l4 % u ,r < . Af y w
, ; $ \ mpa
- i o_* c ~ ,E ~ ,a'
*- 1 g
...f, 'T
= W , -
(
,. f x
?
- g < \ A
- KA 6,m ,h. . : S+.T'" s
\
% 't s y
- > ; . N i l
, gmy ,yp .
w L e y 3, k , k (O >
; ;a( , f, imc M ~ #' .3. g,f y , g, $+.~. x ,
~
- e , t pggg 9e,
,w'p.. p x b-d \ L'QW W1 x v b , p = A_ { . 9 Q i ; ;..gg m.g+ ;,
j-.;c%., e , s- +nL - e ;.5. f g yp. y a ;. . . . . ..&a -w. :>:w , -
^/ 1/ wa
., - m., e n dyTH _ _ n-g U.r- Q
.? 6- fin g'5 's)fF4 y r N; e
= / ,_ --5. ', - s Fw e, '
.t E - \ f g'I , n .,ySfI b k.)u s
- h. $ I. v=. [g% 2J ?f ~ Y**" x
- u(h . 377d.[%ax
.> .,~,
m .n:. m. N, gk, - yd :-# . ;, . 5 g -<-w/ . --' -
- ~*
p .. - ; - s s -- w.,g. ~ q s 6 N
,y ao s
t'g - t, " ? g^!. h.'"tp'b'. ' f ;g $^1. y ,isg ,' ;-E in, 7 -
.Uj.p3 d ]~ Pr s ,..
g', ~ y $[ t y J. ! g h yg W pq [y* = 3 g m w'3lpgqh x y QQ
- = h- n.
Wiw 's % r .e 2
;h y,..u i w#' ' ,
w.7 ; % % y %.~;a A h, A &gg&W:: 4 e y f = a, y g. .+ A. N, t , L e
?%e.y%,+ -
9qc
)e. 'Y W
- r. .qp-
@k '>
. .i.w p c
. < > < AP' $ u l (, * ' '$ <e L- , 7+= %;wm t i,% .g - x
, : W
Q W W; .{f . RW,,feiW?%WD y.y /n,. ^
? ks u y >
, y r d.v ~g
,-[ '
-fW~ ~
m .
.+.E;
+gg. ' w.q p'rG g,y ;gy wa, 3 --
a - [ s Il~7FV i
,i , a- .7, 4 , 3 s MA, c.y.
4 f a if.mg//f~~~~ g A p .g>- yn- _ ,,,,. 1-g,g . g s
. .i e v, -
fl[y g . s
4 ATTACHMENT 9
h
,, [ , /
Q
,) \
c m, , -- e
\1' M \ %l.
Q:\;>>Y.c.u 'sc ,
'J k q41~7 N%W cQ. f'.' -
$- 6c)C $h*L J, * '
*s \ I x' %s' M Gu sN[9az'Mg 4'}S
- s se - .
s-asut a~
$Rl[
~sem k<~m _
4 - s 5 .-
. . 'y* \
.g
'l-l@w $
> _=
u x n i . (Q ~4 _
} -
'\ s'M~M z' b
= A
#80
=5 g:
- N x Pa%- I t' ,,
e -
., 1 _
UMEG c? yu V y.Q@' L l{. t -, W'n '
- m n l'
i i NJm;,(kp[u, .-
---..rk
-# j -l h k ,'t; ,
usw
, <-- .w.u .. i g gr . if u n , Jl w ' w n..
! \ '
l ,7 Yh . $ .YIhm N
,x-e - . .% s 9 q <
s w$' W F f @ M T " m $ e ..W W g 3 % c
.x : --r
- l
. - ~N
., w w ,.Ahm,
[i.'Qz Sijfbk y
'sAHhh by
~, ,6/
,V' . _
3
,c f-p fk.
Y ' J$g,,yo g,,fiam-
A ?' ' ' *
- y 4
M p%D'cu ,2
._ ;gg*
~
~^- ! _
-i -
l lA
^
~
; ,6;
' ~
y' ? , _ eq . e, s y s ~e ~
. ' ' - .m %: , +8 N- n-) ,H:
~. ,t; ,. n -
a. 1 m gggggg o _ 1 J
.., %&g ,
~
7
e o ATTACHMENT 10 {
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ . . _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - __. ____m_. ___.._____..,_.____._o.._,_.___.._m - l
.w s
r A M ,di e< sf .
\/ i
*w_
I . W - l \ , w r 9 P ' g9'
} \
s.
. - 5,', f , g x. I p i g, ( , Ogh '; ;
ll hill /7 I u ';- 4
.y ' ,
'A f::
# I k p44 e pe s, :
=
m,
; <r -
1, < pe q'
; i a M **
, . s.
/li>'4 b:
)
,4, 41 w
.w !
11 j, fg 4) ,,%,, x 3 i 4 4 , l> &
~
J fif~ ,. tf$,h_ q r,
,e >~
~,
sk ,
!v ~ i. _ .
v l
.i 9a
. QYf:~
O ATTACHMENT 11
-tTi M : 7: A N ". h bil!1WrA & hp M1TERRYVILLE M g % gifMMJq "py 7 gh$ip6C yri
{Mp#~#P}W~Q 31 SCALE l71600' ( ' hj [ !; k namu ubep$p(#y'cag)x,ww dJiBY[$IOYd sw a du w a y . M Sgu rmman,yt w y nw ve pu
- Q H +~ y.c:
m n m.g:' a.dg m 65ig .a., ipan%W n. j f fy,P p 5 w% q' nM,-J'u%ars .g g 7
-e 4;pa p s nasW ph,g,Mg g [,i Ain 3 mgm
.m . ' ?pt:1 .5y@.4; Fis9 6%.+ yheW
. . ys 3 Y dumR96c 2: y 7 ,..t wwW h 4 nun..jw g6 Min!t.
e g ,
. yo y d1 %gm de w 4Lgi$d UmwE Vg gi u1 h4g&k:m!V 9.9h. g 4ama. t6
- 6. umkn a +4 . Rmanacbp. e.% p v .i . ? w h
ew w?!: Ni hqpnghhh?dw w emv.#m ..>. hkhlf Em
?$hkg w 4 I wJu . gl
,'. fh f ' N f UEh?iSY MIU{y 3 6d$7 G dill 7.wGNig f*g L ggMMMN!~%Q p[h)if$ W ny Fl!Sy 50 Shff ~I p %
t<Aq/wam;$jfg,p%fwt a y g. Sf 9M a 9 r
- g.s -
&wmmawlh!jdh{weg7g\ggWy QQhy!p9 a w n n m G
- gyl a u s%
R s , ~ %L q{@i G ny w,uumurmag w n e m m w yw .,x,: a: njamwaams%ww pcu m w -s s. e., p e. um .s $s d m W nuy p4 .% , 97] 9 mw , J 9g g yggl@imLpc'idiTdy'd:! >' ik .. s -
- t. p g e., ";Nig?
1 i k-umammamm g i kg4 3d e n . ?,$a,=_m=MM46%m[.W i w SM$ m .- i . %n $$$ n% e1 a% 2 j wn vm w 6ktw ? ! w"% j,.
ATTACHMENT 12 s. e o _ _ _ - _ _ _ _
~~ E R R Y VI _. L E Road Network s N Scale 1" = l600' '
r.# Y.'; .
. t A
. i-
. I be
'.). I g o
% i c*o rs e
1
*.'4 l o'd . ', \
+o O
E W i Z l i A J )o
'e 't -
I i o g
, [l ~~ 3 a i
/**i - _
, 1
_ii
^ y 5 i M ... i Ex at b- I
's & (3f 4 t ... . a o' ~
\
'W _r-1
.U*1
{ I . -
,- +
*l *L
<o'o M\ _
l n g 5:,I., b o e '::. b2 n 1. - .. i g i O
%V**.9 i *.* /r8 I =::
'4 t.
g , l'.
*; *. s
. I. O
'.,e, .
t;l. l
ATTACHMENT 13 1
TERRYVILLE N Population Distribution y %,
- a t scale 1" = 1600' ':. _
.. i e% i 43
'h. I
%e*o
. I
- . \
':. \
4 -
'..'*. I
..':; l e}' .
. L O
t:i!:. t. l '.'. 3 1 '::. R n *.' . l \ ':. k O[ . 13.4 %
*\ @ 1 @ kn
'). .
18.3 % 13.5 %) l, 'l;. 1 j
! O ':.h.. @l Ig 39.9 Wyl14.9%{ ,
\
\ ':.
e I g 5I. $e t; 'I. B
<o^
% i l
j a T :.?IW O'o : j [ l 7:. d l 5 'h5 l SI'."
\ ?:.
i - I y. \ *
' l::. 'o NOTE g., $
Numeric designations indicate creos that are *- !:. ty*, within the current E PZ, Alpha creo
- designations are outside EPZ. Indicated percents are that port of the entire community's population.
L
ATTACHMENT 14
)
W9E m>wN~m..,e,s
- s. n.
esmam wQeg9..aws. p.,. . Rec $aw w w a w N ek_Fpv'"dpf.f.n;y,kN4 m- < . 'C{ Mr g2 *-:,e nNO m J >rgu. myr . a v.
= .
- q w: .+ ,,
L p ' Y ? , $0?Y.. o 4 oPy
. w4:ae M,t oo re a 8onm u.aa1gw- s mcswp@c .
.s >y4x.,,
m
.vA.- r..c , d oe A n
. ~,.-
c-
-,gy, k I w -
n p s[ w. Shfamaguj.id -
' ;kdtM s >df z gL m.7d5 M)@ g$gd@aflum q % tbhr ,g..r. -
4 m.i G hs ' ' '.g /' r - 464 ?A 9 j.r.iy} &# /;yE;q}fjg
& !e i$
F [Jh,
.f
=t
- .ptsy{: * $$Y % .
%f.. U *?f:'p$.
g g.g.F 4} p I tt f \Q$ j'.u? h.c -
' 'J e w '
y ,gA "it V N hW M;~S..p M'r.E,p ~ %o.u r
.y%
.R+@hg@ewa g$ 6 F 3. gA
~g g b d,y f> i
- a. h y p
' jcav.w.n,s,.m.ws.r;yn,da.M,...r,.
. ,e3 w
4 c. -.a . a.mym, t yt gge
. . 5 y.ig:,c.w6;p wro-/ 293 np it p,. ; s- -
y,g., a\,p . y.- .e. py.,
.. . fc -
. y, . \ ..e t L
, ?, y .
,h ; . s , . R ..^.9*rt*,;,
s ?.? sxq;,,z+o. + ed,,yig
. L .. yg.l~g
. 'qH.' s ,4.\ yA"np
~ jQr-b aQ sy, h yL ,
x% geg: y c w# #ww W aw m . M w 4 '
- - M M&Mbdk _ m,
@ a w& a b
ATTACHMENT 15 bimensi ei .
- - ~ . _ _ . _ _
e RVERHEAD Road Network Scale ;= " l600' i O . O : 4* $ $
-- - o#s 0*, e' o
t $$0'c uef,, 't t
- . %o% %
- Ya
\
l v
't
{, 't ..
- sysogg, 1 %<< / o+ 's, s
.CEM
't
#o ,, : e 's
'Z E
I
~ - - - - . . _ ,.
I N
,33o Ayanahte on
' Aperture Card
+1 9
9 IER R y,3 e % g -
! . .. .~ j ,,m~. ~
[ ,...~,,m._._ x APERTURE CARJ Y N lbl $ '
ATTACHMENT 16
i l RIVE 9 F E AD Population Distribution Scale 1" = 1600' NOTE l Numeric designations indicate areas that are within the current E PZ, Alpha crea designations are outside EPZ. Indicated percents are that port of the entire community's population
@ l @
.., , @ o,, 8.8%y I 6.1
- i5* I O.2 % 5
?+P##^/ J
's*%
't E
OA M E R RITTS e
,' 7.8 % +o
- so s ~'
o ,* eon ll 'h. ,,
@ ,f
,, s $5 (' # ,,, ,
47 T o
,, 3
\
~
e,'y.
' Te ST'fc" JOHNS l*
%o .
Il.8 % ll @ @ 3.1 % 10.5 %
.::l.6 % -
\ i i 1 1
i N tt 9 9
\ @ TE n g, ,S K. 19.2 % eg g INDI AN ISLAN D l 2 COUNTY PARK m1 y
[- L CREEK INDI AN ISLAND COUNTY PARK 6.0 %
~ /~ .su naugy Aperture A3iR~URE .
CARD 9@ 3070/5746 - -
i.i alm ATTACHMENT 17 C a
/
a
. _ _ - - - . _ . _ _ - _ - - _ - _ _ _ . -___x__.-_-_ _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ . . _ - _ _ _ _ - _ - - . _ _ _ _ _ __ _ _ _ _-2___.-. -. _ . _ . ___-
.4p p : , , y 3 .m e ;t. pw.q ppwg..: g ;, g g v,=c r g 5 y hl.; [ .
't Il rfs ,
ejg ; gggsggg,ggg a e ,a, w u ns a ae d,fa ,e,g,m,g, u @j a M=)4gPgGs nsps%n sn3 ,h!a $e?s$y;;?nig umey$my$( fP 3 p e 23 asw *
.,v..+s.ey.4,4;q7),p;.:rja er:wam . g4ge . - g g ep;l
- y .qy 47wsan m., p, he ;ccygret:, 3 . p t.,n
.esx f; zygsg.m q h._$8 ss.y x Thig y _i ep n e g _f$$N$
1k'bh ihh?hg? gg RM%tfgg?bfg: d fy y!?gM5g9. kh[5 0 y j. _ kB _W N r _p.e.v3 97p;pje +m . ca,g_:4%$ %p g _. --
, ( A_
f5hh? .p ; , ,6 b '
' Yh
,f fpuu?f mn p;e - a ~
W e e y ygy
; M;
,L'
[y { g.f
,; M g g ygjQg ,y4gg $,9 };3,y "h%,
,; ,Q 4
a D 5 l 1 ATTACHMENT 18 J e I
s . DORT JEFFERSON V LLAGE Q./. L--~ -- . Road Network t.. , r i :: , i Scale 1" = 160 0' ' "*"E " "'"' ' - -
,8' # COU RY CLUB ' s +o
\
[ !$j,
's, , ,,
- TE^2-o n ,v,
'** OU q t n
', l
-O
/
N ) ,,, / !.t. . e<es;f, g r it mT _.. os-p 3>
~
*** y
- Aod, ,e{- r ,/
y ,-
,9?
% i:
i:!
.-)-
1 ' e / j i [c'/wuATo uEuon:AL 9 [.kf MSTITUTE 9 ,; fi:.1 (\ gOAO g 1 J l i.:.
!l ,9fj '
ip:-)s CO
, c j e... .
1 CEDAR H LL ' g _ l P --- iCrulTAav'.
- s./
11
- 9. k".
O e l ATTACHMENT 19 l l
PORT JEFFERSON VI_ _ AGE / ll @
- 3 i
__ -%- ,'ib .2 % Population Distribution i,' /
#5 2.1 %
7 Scale I" = 1600' ,
/ "^ ""o a " '"S '--
8 # COUN,TRY CLUB ' s, NOTE \, - g,TEAD og, Numeric designotions indicate oreos that are
'u 'olo $:s within the current EPZ, Alphs oreo y :-
lfih@ designations are outside E PZ. Indicated j
- ! !O.2 %
perc9nts are that port of the entire #p { 8 community's pcpulation. oo j
!i /o 9.2 %
s
,y
)l.5 e' /
oto ,os,,* (
@ \ <
{:} 4.5 % ( I i % sTcsnos, Rues ,
~
j} l s l wav s' ll s ', 9k. e
\
b l ' M EMO RI AL k!$ 14.9 %
@ #[(/*"^"'
J 7.4 % ,)i l 4.6 % e g{, goN l { 'gsTITUTE 4
'N iii. o08 Ef
/'
' s..
h.M TsEn
! +
12.5 % l .."5" l .. , i 5'cEoanst't : h 9.0 %
\cEMETAR '.
,/ 4.9 %
k1 i.
- 3. -
i Y. e b-}}