ML20237E784
| ML20237E784 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Shoreham File:Long Island Lighting Company icon.png |
| Issue date: | 12/18/1987 |
| From: | Harlow D HUNTON & WILLIAMS, LONG ISLAND LIGHTING CO. |
| To: | Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20237E542 | List: |
| References | |
| OL-3, NUDOCS 8712290186 | |
| Download: ML20237E784 (22) | |
Text
- - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _.
l LILCO, December 18,1987 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 1
Before the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board I
In the Matter of
)
)
LONG ISLAND LIGHTING COMPANY
) Docket No. 50-322-OL-3
) (Emergency Planning)
(Shoreham Nuclear Power Station.
)
Unit 1)
)
LILCO'S MOTION FOR
SUMMARY
DISPOSITION OF CONTENTION 10 (ACCESS CONTROL AT THE EPZ PERIMETER)
LILCO hereby moves, pursuant to 10 CFR S 2.749, for summary disposition of Contention EP 10, which alleges that LILCO lacks the legal authority to provide access control at the perimeter of the EPZ. The issues originally contained in Contention 10 have already been litigated. Consequently, no genuine issue of material f act is lef t to be decided. The Commission's new emergency planning rule, which recognizes the real-ity that the State of New York and Suffolk County would respond to a Shoreham emer-gency using their "best efforts," confirms LILCO's argument.
I. Backrround Contention 10 reads as follows:
LILCO is prohibited by law from performing law en-forcement functions at the EOC, at relocation centers, and at the EPZ perimeter.
N.Y. Penal Law SS 190.25(3), 195.05, 240.20(5) (McKinney); N.Y. Transp. Corp. S 30 (McKinney).
N.Y. Veh. & Traf. Law 551102,1602 (McKinney); N.Y. Exec Law 5 20 et sea. (McKinney). The LILCO Plan identifies LILCO employees as being reponsible, during an emergency, for establishing and maintaining sceurity and access control for the EOC, directing traffic into the relocation centers, es-tablishing and maintaining perimeter / access control to evacu-ated areas. (OPIP 2.1.1, at 60-61t Plan, Appendix A at IV-8; OPIP 3.6.3, Attach. 4.) Section 50.47(b)(1) of 10 C.F.R. re-quires LILCO to demonstrate that it "has staff to respond and to augment its initial response on a continuous basis." LILCO must also "specify the functions and responsibilities for major 8712290186 871218 PDR ADOCK 05000322 O
_ _ _ - - _ _. elements... of emergency response," including law enforce-ment response. NUREG-0654 S II.A.2.a. Without the ability to provide security at the EOC and relocation centers, and provide perimeter control, the LILCO Plan and the protective actions contemplated therein could not and would not be im-plemented. The Plan thus f alls to comply with 10 C.F.R.
SS 50.47(b)(1) and 50.47(b)(10), and NUREG-0654 SS II.A.2.a.
II.J.9 and J.10.
S_e_e_ Long Island Lighting Co. (Shoreham Nuclear Power Station, Unit 1), LBP-85-12, 21 NRC 644,962-63 (1985).
The LERO EOC and the three general population relocation centers are now lo-cated on LILCO property (Admitted Fact 63).I Thus only access to the EPZ is still at issu; ts the Board has noted:
The only thing at issue is the control of access to the EPZ during the time when people are supposed to stay out.
i Memorandum and Order, at 39 (Sept.17,1987).
With respect to access to the EPZ, it is not entirely clear whether Contention 10 addresses "short-term" access control (M, during the evacuation process) or "long-term" control (e, af ter the evacuation is completed and the EPZ or parts of it are substantially deserted).
It appears, however, that only short-term access is ad-dressed.E If, as it appears, Contention 10 addresses short-term control, then the en-tire issue has already been litigated under Contention 23.H, as demonstrated in section II.A below. If the contention addresses long-term access, then applying the "best 1/
" Admitted Facts" are the numbered natements in the " Statement of Material Facts" attached to LILCO's Second Renewou Motion for Summary Disposition of March 20,1987.
2/
Of the parts of the LILCO plan cited in the contention, Appendix A at IV-8 and OPIP 3.6.3 Attachment 4 both address traffic control during an evacuation. OPIP 2.1.1 at 60-61 addresses the responsibilities of the LERO Security Coordinator (and,inciden-tally, no longer calls for access control at the EPZ perimeter). The fact that Conten-tion 10 cites NUREG-0654 J.10, which deals with the plume exposure pathway, and not J.11, which deals with the ingestion pathway, further supports the conclusion that the contention refers to short-term access.
L_-__________
b
I i 1 efforts" principle shows that there is simply no issue of material f act, as demonstrated in section II.B below.
II. _A_rrument A.
Short-Term Control: The Board has Already Approved LILCO's Plans for Access Control During an Evacuation The issue on whether the LILCO plan provides adequate measures for controlling access to the EPZ d_urg an evacuation has already been raised in Contention 23.H, which the Board decided in LILCO's iavor:
The Board finds the LILCO plans for EPZ perimeter control reasonable. We cannot accept that citizens are so contrary in behavior that they will first evacuate a safe place against public instruction and then clamor in large numbers to enter an unsafe place again in conflict with public information.
The problem posed in Contention 23.H is speculative and without foundation.
' Partial Initial Decision (PID), 21 NRC at 805. The Board correctly reasoned that LILCO's plan to use LERO traffic guides to discourage, but not prohibit or screen, entry to the EPZ during an evacuation were appropriate:
This plan was developed to permit commuters who work out-sMe the EPZ to reenter to reunite with families in an emer-gency. LILCO assumed that anyone who encounters traffic control devices in the roadway will be' aware of an accident and will not seek to enter the EPZ if there is no reason to do so.
PID,21 NRC at 804.
While it may be true, than, that LERO traffic guides would not have " legal au-thority" to prevent people from entering the EPZ during an evacuation, this would not jeopardize the public health and safety. Indeed, having " legal authority" in such a situa-tion would not make much difference.
As the Interveners' own police witnesses testified with regard to Contention 23.H:
In our opinion, even trained, sperienced police officers would find controlling access into the EPZ to be an exceed-ingly difficult task. We sometimes have pr@lems keeping
)
people out of restricted areas during emergencies. If people
_____..________m--__---
' wish to enter an area Md believe they have good reason for doing so, they will dc tyhatever they can to get into the area, irrespective of the risk to their personal safety.
Roberts et al., ff. Tr. 2260, at 66. If even the police, who have legal authority, would not be able to keep some persons from entering the EPZ during an evacuation, Interve-nors can hardly argue that the LILCO Plan is fatally defective simply because LERO traffic guides might not be able to accomplish the same thing.
B.
Long-Term: Using "Best Efforts," the Police Would Provide Access Control Af ter the Evacuation Was Completed The only remaining issue about access control that the Interveners might have raised, but in LILCO's judgment did not,E s about LILCO's authority to prevent entry i
to contaminated parts of the EPZ in the long term af ter an evacuation had been com-pleted. LILCO submits that, given the "best efforts" principle, there is no question that the Suffolk County police could and would provide long-term access control if neces-sary.
1.
Virtually Identical Contentions Have Been Ruled Inadmissible In the first place, the Board already ruled inadmissible 'wo contentions alleging t
that police would not provide security in evacuated areas. In their Revised Emergency i
Planning Contentions of July 26, 1983, the Interveners included Contention EP 24.Q.
3/
In their response to LILCO's Second Renewed Motion for Summary Disposition of the " Legal Authority" Issues, the Interveners appeared to say that Contention 10 deals only with access control af ter an evacuation is completed:
The distorted logic which permeates LILCO's discussion on this subject concerns the portion of Contention 10 relating to access control at the EPZ perimeter - that is, preventing people from entering evacuated and potentially contami-nated areas.
Answer of Suffolk County, the State of New York, and the Town of Southampton to "LILCO's Second Renewed Motion for Summary Disposition of the Legal Authority IS-sues (Contentions EP 1-10)," at 74 (May 11,1987). If they are indeed trying to expand the contention beyond its original intent, they are untimely.
_ _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ - - which said that "[t]he LILCO Plan appears to rely upon local law enforcement agen-cles to provide security in evacuated areas" in that since "LILCO has no agreements with police departments to provide such security," there can be no assurance that the LILCO plan or the protective actions contemplated in the plan can or will be imple-mented. Revised Emergency Planning Contentions, at 67-68 (July 26,1983). The Board denied admission of 24.Q on the ground that:
This subcontention assumes the Suffolk County police will f all to perform a regular police function. There is no basis to as-sume that the Suffolk County police, contrary [to] their nor-mal duties, would refuse to provide reasonable and appropri-ate protection in the event of any type of emergency in the County.
Special Prehearing Conference Hearing Order (Ruling on Contentions and Establishing Schedule for Discovery, Motions, Briefs, Conference of Counsel, and Hearing), slip op, at 15 (August 19, 1983).
Similarly, Interveners' Contention EP 53 alleged that LILCO will be " unable to provide adequate security in evacuated areas or other areas where evacuees may con-gregate." Revised Emergency Planning Contentions, at 113-14 (July 26,1983). Once again, the Board denied admission, saying:
This contention, with its two subparts, is denied. 53.A sug-gests that LILCO's plan should provide for security patrols to prevent vandalism or thef t in vacated neighborhoods. This is the same issue raised by Contention 24.Q: it is disposed of by our discussion thereunder. 53.B - security at "certain key areas" within the EPZ - is without basis.
Special Prehearing Conference Order (Ruling on Contentions and Establishing Schedule for Discovery, Motions, Briefs, Conference of Counsel, and Hearing), slip op. at 20 (Au-gust 19,1983). Interveners cannot now litigate an identicalissue under Contention 10.
2.
The Police Can and Will Perform Access Control In the second place, the "best efforts" principle of 10 CFR S 50.47(c)(1) compels the conclusion that the police would provide long-term access control if necessary
-_-_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ (Fact 1).M Keeping people away from the area of impact of a disaster is a regular function that the police must provide in any large-scale disaster (such as a flood or hur-ricane) that requires evacuation. What it requires is having enough policemen stand in the right places and direct people away from the evacuated area.
Interveners cannot raise a litigable issue as to whether these things could be done af ter an evacuation (Fact 2). The County has a large, well-equipped police force (Admitted Facts 1, 3, 4, 5), and the County police could be supplemented by State po-lice, using "best efforts," if necessary. Volunteers, such as LERO traffic guides, could be called on as well, so long as they were acting under the authority of the police. See the attached Affidavit of Charles A. Daverio and Affidavit of Jay Richard Kessler. In-deed, the NRC's recently published Supplement 1 to NUREG-0654, " Criteria for Utility Offsite Planning and Preparedness, Draf t Report for Interim Use and Comment" (Nov.
1987), makes the assumption that:
1.
In an actual radiological emergency, State and local of-ficials that have declined to participate in emergency planning will:
C.
Have the resources sufficient to implement those portions of the utility offsite plan where State and local response is necessary.
NUREG-0654 Supp.1, at 2.
Nor can it be argued that the Suffolk County Police Department would not know where to station policemen for access control. Indeed, the Interveners themselves al-ready have prepared a detailed list of those intersections that they believe would have to be manned in order to achieve effective perimeter control (Fact 3). In their prefiled
' 4/
The numbered " Facts" in parentheses throughout this motion refer to the num-bered statements of fact in the attached " Statement of the Material Facts as to Which There is No Genuine Issue to Be Heard on Contention 10."
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ testimony on Contention 23.H the County police witnesses complained that the "LILCO Plan virtually ignores access control into the LILCO EPZ." Roberts et al., ff. 2260, at
- 65. The witnesses provided, as Attachment 12 to their testimony, a " listing of intersec-tions that would have to be manned by persons with requisite authority in order to pre-Vent vehicular traffic into evacuated areas of the EPZ." [d. A copy of this list is At-tachment 2 to this motion. By their own terms, then, the Interveners have admitted that they have made preparations for establishing access control.
Nor can it be argued that access control af ter an evacuation could not be man-aged or coordinated by professionals using their "best efforts." Under the "best efforts" principle, Suffolk County would be willing to coordinate with LERO and other response organizations (the Department of Energy RAP Team, for example) if necessary to ef-feet access control. There is no reason to believe that the process of identifying access control points could not be undertaken during the latter stages of the evacuation, af ter the affected zones were known. Indeed, this is what was simulated at the FEM A-graded exercise for Shoreham:
Access control was enhanced by coordination with the county police (simulator). Near the end of the e>:ercise, when simulated police assistance was made available, the Evacua-tion Coordinator contacted the county police (simulated) at about 1630 to begin working out the numbers of simulated po-lice that would be required at various points around the pe-riphery of the 10-mile EPZ to prevent reentry.
FEMA Post-Exercise Assessment, at 38 (April 17,1986). Thus, the ability of LERO to work with the police in a coordinated f ashion has been demonstrated.
Notwithstanding the police testimony, cited above, about the difficulty of keep-l lag determined people out of an area, the police's "best efforts" would certainly be ade-l l
quate to protect the public health and safety. Since people have a strong incentive to stay out of radioactively contaminated areas (a proposition the Interveners have cham-pioned long and hard in this proceeding), it is unlikely that preventing access.,ould be a
. _. practical problem. Merely making available the information about what areas should be avoided would be sufficient.W C.
The Board's Remaining Concerns Are Addressed Under Other Contentions The Board, in denying LILCO's Second Renewed Motion, noted that "[w]hether or not the public can effectively be kept out of contaminated areas or areas threatened with imminent contamination is clearly a health and safety issue." Memorandum and Order, at 40 (Sept.17,1987). But since under the "best efforts" principle the police would maintain EPZ perimeter control, the public would be effectively kept out of those evacuated areas.
The Board raised other questions about Contention 10, namely: "What would occur if local authorities were attempting to enforce one situation while LILCO was
' advising' another; what standards would the local authorities use for exclusion aad o er how wide an area; how would these organizations interact and to what end?"
Id.
LILCO submits that in light of the "best efforts" principle, these questions have either already been answered or raise issues that are addressed by other contentions. In f act, they are answered in LILCO's summary disposition motion on Contention 8. being filed concurrently. See LILCO's Motion for Summary Disposition of Contentions 7 and 8 (In-gestion Pathway and Recovery and Reentry).
In short, even if one assumes, contrary to the evidence in Contention 10 itself, that the contention addresses long-term access control, there is simply no issue in the i
contention that is not redundant of other contentions.
5/
Even when government authorities start an evacuation, it is almost always a
" recommendation," not an order. See Cordaro et al., ff. Tr.1470, at 119 (virtually all evacuation is voluntary). As the Board found in resolving Contention 81 on the fif ty-l mile EPZ, there is a strong incentive to avoid contaminated foodstuffs, and the same principle applies to avoiding contaminated areas. See PID, 21 NRC at 877. See also PID,21 NRC at 805, quoted above ("We cannot accept that citizens... will first evacu-ate a safe place against public instruction and then clamor in large numbers to enter an unsafe place again in conflict with public information").
1
_9 III. Conclusion and Request for Relief For the reasons cited above, LILCO hereby asks for summary disposition in its favor of Contention EP 10.
Respectfully submitted, n2>S. W Donald P. Irwin James N. Christman David S. Harlow Hunton & Williams 707 East Main Street P.O. Box 1535 Richmond, Virginia 23212 DATED: December 18,1987
[
Attachment i STATEMENT OF MATERIAL FACTS AS TO WHICH THERE IS NO GENUINE ISSUE TO BE HEARD ON CONTENTION 10
. 1.
The Suffolk County police would provide access control for evacuated areas in the af termath of a Shoreham evacuation. S_e_e Special Prehearing Conference Hear.
1
,ing Order (Ruling on Contentions and Establishing Schedule for Discovery, Motions, Briefs, Conference of Counsel, and Hearing), slip op. at 15, 20 (August 19, 1983).
2.
The Suffolk County police have the personnel and resources necessary to S_ee NUREG-0654 Supp.1 control access into the EPZ following an evacuation.
e
" Criteria for Utility Offsite Planning and Preparedness, Draf t Report for Interim Use and Comment," at 2 (Nov.1987).
- 3.
The Suffolk' County police have identified the intersections which.'would have to be manned in order to control access into the EPZ following an evacuation. S_ee e
Roberts et al., if. Tr. 2260, Attachment 12.
t i
J 1
A::actmen: 12 j
E7:.ACCI53 CON *ROL PC:N 3 (Ex=1cding Access T :s :ne No n,
..e.,
Fr=m *he long :siand Scund)
Two Mile Reg::n L*1,00 7 affac.
- stersee :.:ns c:nt :1 Posts #
Woodville Road 4 Locus Street (3horenam V:11 age)a' Woodville Road and 3 :.ar:lif f Road 2/
Woodv:.11e Road & Ashley Lane M
- ccdv
- .11e Road a Scf f olk Downs e/
Weedvtile Road a valley Way 2/
Weedv:.11e Read & Nor.h Country-Road
- 5 Woodville Roa'l & Route 25A e $A Reute 25A 4 Ridge Acad
- 6 Ridge Road a Wading River Ec11:w Road Ridge Road & Whiskey Road 8 7 Whiskey Read a Woodbridge Drive Whiskey Road a 3 :,dgewate: Drive a'
3ased n Append:.x A, Revis:.:n 3.
)
2/
O.e two-n le reg:.:n deserthed in the LILCO Plan presently encompasses abou: two-th :ds of ne Sherenam Village==neranity, and uses Wecdv:.11e Road as a " dividing" line between 2:nes A and T.
Effec :ve access==nt:ci would be provided c than area ty :.n=1uding :ne en ::s Shereham Village cenatunasy inte :na same 7
planning :ene.
Acesss : nts:1 pc:.nts neg:.nn ng at Route
)
23A/Norta 0 un::y Read and east would then eliminate the need to j
assign access cent::1 pests ner s along Woodville Road.
q l
l l
J
-__..__am-___
l 1
1 L:::: T:affi:
- ntersectaens Egg-ci Pos s Whiskey Road a Leisure Vi11 age (2)
Whiskey Road a Randall Road
- 115 Whiskey Read a Summma: :::ve Whiskey Road a Will am Ticyd Parkway
- 3 Reute 25 a William ricyd Parkway
- s 18, 62, 134, 135 Reute 25 a Town Range Road Route 25 4 Mentank Trail Route 25 4 Panamoka Trail i
R=uta 25 a Tarkall Road acu a 25 a Wading River Manervalle
$ 10 Road (Route 25 4 Kay Road) i (Reute 25 & Nattonal Ceme:ary ( 2 ) )
Route 25 4 Route 25A s 13 Reute 2'A 4 Eulse Landing Road a 12 5'
Hulse Landing Road a Sound Avenue
$ 129 Hulse Landing Road s'21st S treet 3/
Hulse Landing Road a 20th Stree: 3/
Euise Landing Road a 19th Street]/
Hulse Landing Road a 18th Stree: 3/
A' Sufficiently manning an access cent:ci post at Hulae Land ng Read and Scund Avenue would ef f ec avely cent:cl westerly access to resident a1 streets ac :a en Rulse Landing Read.
- However,
- nis would also prevent access := streets east Of Hulse Landing Road (wnsen art outside ene two-male regten described in :ne
- IL : Plan.)
i
....... a.a a. a.
Intersections nere; Pes s Hulse Landing Road &- 17tn Street 3/
Hulse Landing Road a 16th Street.3/
Hulse !.anding Road s 15th Street 3/
Hulse Landing Road & Pa-X Street 3/
Hulse Landing Road &-5:ee:y Point Acad 3/
Hulse Landing Road & Wem'a Road 3/
Hulse Landing Road a 7th Street ]/
Hulse Landtag Road & Nor*.h Wading River Road.3/
T ve Mile Ree ca t
- 10: :af fic Control Pests Intersections 4
Pape Stave Helicw Road & Nc -
43 Ocun-ry Road Papa Stave Hollow Road & Magn Hill P pe Stave Ecliew Read & Hayward Pipe Stave Eo11cw Road & Milland Pipe Stave Ecliow Road & Kessle Kac11 Pata i
Pape Stave Ecllow Road & Ivans Lane Pape Stave Ecliew Road & Eche Avenue Pape Stave Ecllow Road 6.Reute 25A Rou-a 25A & Sylvan Avenue Roc-e 25A & Miller Place-Yaphank Road 4 41 Maller Place-Yaphank Road & Jonah Road
- 137 X lle: Place-Yapnank Road & Whiskey 4 120 Road Maller Place-Yaphank Road & Rocky Point
- 122 Road Rocky Pcan Road & Baylass Road
- 35 Route 25 & Rocky Pean -Haddle Island Road Reu o 25 & Apart =en: :::ve Route 25 & Lakeview :::ve Route 25 & :::an Road Route 25 & Woody:;;e Read 4
l
L L 0 Traf fic Intersections cons:ci ?cs-s s 136 Rcuta 25 & Wading River Ecllow Road Route 25 4 Woodicts Road Reute 25 a Smash Road S=1th Road & C: css Road Smash Road a Medford Rond
- 36 Smash Road & Eagle Drive Smith Road a Came:ary Road Smith Read & Lengvced Road
- 34 Longwced Road & Private Road Longwced Road & W1111am Ticyd' Parkway 4 33 William T1cyd Parkway a Long Island Expressway (Ext: 68)
- s 31, 32, 126 Long Island Expressway Service Road a "pton Road (sects gate)
Long Island Expressway a North Street Long Island Expressway a cantar Mc :ches Road (Exis 69)
$ 27 Long Island Expressway & Ryerson Avenue Long Island Expressway a Pc : Jefferson-West,hampton Road.(CR 111) (Ext: 70)
- 131 Long Island Expressway & Ealsey Maner Road Edwards Avenue & Long Island Expressway
- 16 (# 143 nearby)
(Ex:: 71)
Edwards Avenue & R;ver Road Edwards Avenue 4 3 :: ann Boulevard 4 15 l.
l t
..a.,,..,.,
n.;;; Posts
.stersee sens Edwards Avenue a R411:cs..d Street e ;,;
Edwards Avenue 6 Route 25 Edwards Avenue a Sound AvenueM i
at Edwards Avenue 4/ Sufficiently anning an access cent cl post
-- and Scund Avenue would. ef f ect:.vely cent:ci access to s : sets west off Edwards Avenue, nor-h of P.is location. However, :.: would also prevent access to streets east of Edwards Avenue wh.ch are
(
cutsade the five-rale regten described in ene LI*00 Plan.
i 1
I s-4
I',
4 I
Ten
".a l e E P 7.
12L00 Teaffic
- ntrymeetiens 2cnt:=1 Pests 3:cadway a Main 5 :ee
- 43 Ma:... 5::ts: 4 Wynn i
Main St se: a Maple Place Main Street & Barnum Avenue Mata Street & Cid Pes: ' Read Main Street & Reeves Road Main 5::eet a N. Ocuntry Road g 47 Main 5treet & Perry 5treet Main St:se: & Che.s tau:
Main S :ee: s Cakland Main Stree ~ 4 Rail cad Statica Reute 112 & Church Street Route 112 & Bergen Street Route 112 & Halleck Avenue (Rt. 2SA)
- 49 Route 112 4 Crescent Route 112 4 Oakland Avenue Reute 112 & Wykoff Avenue Reute 112 & Ocris Avenue i
Route 112 1 Rec Avenue Route 112 & Rt. 347
- 50 3
Jayne Sculevart. & Rt. 347 l
3 $2 e
-7 l
l 1
i.
l' I
I 10L00 Traffi:
Intersecta:ns 0:nt::1 P:s:s Jayne Soulevard & Roosevel:
Jayne Soulevard & Montclair jayne Boulevard a Xa 1 bore 0 Lve Jayne Boulevard & Wins on Jayne'3culevard & Newpor Jayne Soulevard & Erie Street Jayne Soulevard'& Greene Avenue Jayne Soulevard & Clinton' Avenue Jayne Boulevard & Oill:n Avenue Jayne Boulevard & Squares Avenue Jayne Soulevard- & Roe 0 :ve Jayne Soulevard & Cid Town Road Old Town acad & Steyele. Path i'
Old T wn Road & Wedgewood ild Town Road.a Hawnins Path Old Town Road & Hawkins Road Cid Town Road 3 Sonway Old T:wn. Read & Howe Road Old T:wn Read i Patchegue-Mt. Sinal Road (CR 831
- 60 Old Town Road a Harford Drive Old Town R=ad a Act: =ent Road Old Town Road a Reute 112
[
L.
4
I
)
.a.,,
Intersections cent c; Pests 1
Reu a 112 and Route 25 e 65 t
Reute 112, Grand Sma:n Road a Mail Rcad
- 66 Route 112 4 Granny Road a 68 Reute 112 5 Ccamerc:al 0::ve Reute 112 & Scuyvesam Place Rouce 112 4 Horseblock Road (CR 16)
- 78 Ectseblock Road a Maine Avenue Horsablock Read a Rhode Island Avenue Mc reclock Road & Newport Avenue Ec seclock Road & New
- cnden Avenue Ec:secicek Road & Eagle Avenue.
Herseclock Road a Ocnnectacu-Avenue Horseblock Read & Waverly Horsamlock Road & Long Island Expressway Nc -h Serv ce Read 3 ell;crt Avenue a Long Island Expressway Nor-n Service Road
- cng Island Expressway, Exis 66, W/3 ramp and Nc n Service Road 4 70 Sills Road (CR 101) & Long Island Expressway Sills Road & Cid Town Road Sails Road a Cid Occ.t Road Yapt4ank Avenue (CR 21: 4 Gerrard Avenue 9
I t
l l
I l
1
!.!.: 00 7:sf f:=
1 Intersections
- ns :1 ? s:s I
Gerrard Avenue & Crescent Street Oe::ard Avenue a Suffolk County Pa:k Entrance (2)
Gerrard Avenue & V:.::::y Avenue Vic cry Avenue & William T1cyd Parkway 3 30 Vic cry Avenue 4 Sunrise Highway l Exit 58)
Sunrise Eighway (Rt. 27) 4 Park Avenue Sunrise Eighway & Winters Dr:.ve j
Sunrise Eighway a 3arnes Road Sun::.se Highway a Mor:.ches -
Middle Island Road Sunrise Eighway a Chichester Avenue (CR 25)
- 26 Sunrise Eighway & Ext: Ramp 59 Sunrise Eighway a Rail cad Avenue Sunrise Eighway (; Ext: Ramp 60 Sunrise Eighway 6 E. Chapman Sculevard/
East Mc ches-Manc: Road Sun tse Highway, Entrance Ramp 61 at Head of ne Neck Road
($ 25 nearby)
Riverhead-Moriches Road (CR 51) a Eastpc : Manc: Road (CR 55)
Riverhead-Moriches Road a Teppings Path T=ppings' Path a CR 111 Riverhead-Neriches Road & Ocunty Center 3 ve
LOLOO Oraffi:
- nterseettens 0:ntrol Pests Riverhead (Lake) Mert nes Road (CR 63) &
Pegs Lane Riverhead (Lake) Mortches Road a Woodhull Avenue Pec=nic Oraffic Otr:le & Nugent Orave (C3 94)
Route 25 (West Maan Street) &
Pec=nic Avenue 21 Route 25 (West Maan Street) &
Osborne Avenue Osborne Avenue & Ocurt Street Osborne Avenue a Labrary Orave Osectne Avenue & Lanecin Osterne Avenue a Pulaski Osterne Avenue & Harrison Osborne Avenue a Hamilton I
Osberne Avenue a Marry Avenue 1
Osberne Avenue 4 Cregory Place
]
Osborne Avenue a Raynor Avenue Osberne Avenue a Old Country Road (CR $8 )
4 22 Cld C untry R=ad & Woodcrest Old Ocuntry Road & Harrison Old Country Read & Roancks Avenue
- 23 Roanoke Avenue a Middle Read g 112 l
Middle Road & Nadel Orave 4 i i
1
i
- ';C *ratiL:
- ntersectaens Cente:1 7:sts t dd.le Road & Private Road Middle Acad & Nor.hville ?:.npike (CR 43 )
Mer.avalle ?arnpike & Midway Drive Nor.tville ?arn;itka & Doctor's Path oc cr's Path & Oakland Dr.ve Sout Doe cs's Path & Oakland OrLve Nor.h Ocescr's Par.h & Cakland Drive Doctor's Path & Reeve's Avenue Doctor's Path & Sound Avenue
- 116 e
. l
_ _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _