ML19332D684

Intervenors Motion to Add Addl Basis to late-filed Attached Contention to Motion of 891109.* Motion Meets Stds for Compliance & Gravity of Issue Warrants Reopening Record for Consideration of Issue

ML19332D684
Person / Time
Site:	Seabrook
Issue date:	11/22/1989
From:	Greer L MASSACHUSETTS, COMMONWEALTH OF, NEW ENGLAND COALITION ON NUCLEAR POLLUTION, SEACOAST ANTI-POLLUTION LEAGUE
To:	Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel
Shared Package
ML19332D685	List: ML19332D684 ML19332D701
References
CON-#489-9503 OL, NUDOCS 8912050120
Download: ML19332D684 (31)

Text

{{#Wiki_filter:p. v di -j UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

CL"t n '

NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD .g g g g.33 ) Before the Administrative Judges: (T F '. 1 Ivan W. Smith, Chairman DUCri K Dr. Richard F. Cole h"4" ~ Kenneth A. McCollom 1 ) In-the Matter of ) Docket Nos. 50-443-OL ) 50-444-OL PUBLIC SERVICE COMPANY ) OF NEW HAMPSHIRE, E1 AL. ) ) i (Seabrook Station, Units 1 and 2) ) November 22, 1989 ) INTERVENORS' MOTION TO ADD AN ADDITIONAL BASIS TO THE LATE FILED ATTACHED CONTENTION TO THE MOTION OF NOVEMBER 9, 1989 The Massachusetts Attorney General-(" Mass AG"), Seacoast { Anti-Pollution League ("SAPL"), and New England Coalition on Nuclear. Pollution ("NECNP"), (hereinafter "Intervenors"), move this Board to admit for litigation in the above-captioned: proceedings the additional basis filed herewith as Attachment A and reopen the record in the proceeding on the Seabrook Plan for Massachusetts Communities ("SPMC"). This motion is filed pursuant to $189(a) of the Atomic Energy Act and is founded upon the grounds set forth below. The Intervenors also request that this Board permit them to have a hearing on all issues raised by this basis and engage in any discovery necessary to prepare for such a hearing. 8912050120 871124 PDR ADOCK 05000443 O PDR psa

+ 2 I . s': l INTRODUCTION -i On November 9, 1989, the Intervenors filed a motion to admit a late filed contention and reopen the record on the SPMC. The contention alleges that t The Applicants do not have the maans to provide early' notification and clear. instruction to the populace within the plume exposure pathway Emergency Planning Zone ("EPZ") in Massachusetts and therefore do not meet the planning standards of 10 C.F.R. _ $50.47 (b) (5), and 10 C.F.R. Part 50, App. E.IV.D. (hereafter the "EBS Contention). I i As a basis for that contention, the Intervenors submitted that the SPMC contemplates the use of the Emergency Broadcast System ("EBS") as the primary means for notifying the public in the event of a radiological emergency at Seabrook Station and without the cooperation of WCGY, the gateway station for the Merrimac Valley Operational Area, the Applicants will not be able to activate the EBS servicing the Seabrook. Emergency Planning Zone ("EPZ") in Massachusetts. In that motion, it was indicated that the Intervenors anticipated an additional basis would be filed in support of the contention when they were able to obtain an opinion in support of this basis from an expert who would be available to testify at a hearing on the matter.1/ The Intervenors' t - having now located such an expert seek to supplement the basis 1/ Intervenors' Motion to Admit Late Filed Contention and Reopen the Record On the SPMC Based Upon the Withdrawal of the Massachusetts EBS Network and WCGY (the "EBS Motion") page 11, note 4. 2

{L i;::

r L

i L..* supporting the EBS Contention. The thrust of the supplemental basis.(Attachment A) is that not'only does the SPMC lack its primary means of notifying the public because of the loss of WCCM (A.M.)/WCGY (F.M.) and the EBS, but the remaining means it has for providing notification i.e., WHAV (A.M.)/WLYT (F.M.) (hereafter "WLYT"), is also inadequate. THE CRITERIA FOR THE ' ADMISSION OF A LATE-FILED CONTENTION ARE MET The criteria for the admission of late-filed contentions are set forth in 10 CFR 52.714 (a) (1). In ruling on a motion to admit a late-filed contention, a licensing board must balance the factors set forth in the above cited provision. Commonwealth Edison Co.,(Braidwood Nuclear Power Station, Units 1 and 2), CLI-86-8, 23 NRC 241 (1986); Duke Power Co. (Catawba Nuclear. Station, Units 1 and 2), CLI-83-19, 17 NRC 1041 (1983); Public Service of New Hamoshire Co. (Seabrook Station, Units 1 and 2), ALAB 918, NRC (1989). Those factors are: (i) good cause for failure to file on time; (ii) the availability of other means by which the petitioners interest will be protected; (iii) the extent to which the petitioners participation may reasonably be expected to assist in the development of sound record; (iv) the extent to which the petitioners interest will be represented by other parties; (v) the extent to which the petitioners participation will broaden the issues or delay the proceeding. A considered balancing of those five factors clearly establishes that the attached contention should be admitted in this proceeding. -

-m b?? TIMELINESS The' supplemental basis in Attachment A is timely for the same reasons as the EBS Contention is as set forth in the EBS Motion, and those reasons are adopted by. reference in this motion. The SPMC's primary means for notifying the public in. an' emergency became unavailable as of october 20, 1989 when John Bassett repudiated WCGY's letter of agreement with New Hampshire Yankee ("NHY"). As evidenced by Attachments B, C, and D prior to that date the Applicants had represented they would be using the EBS to notify the populace in the Massachusetts EPZ. Furthermore, through the letter of agreement with WCGY, NHY had the means to implement that notification.2/ 2/ At best'it seems disinegnuous of the Applicants to claim that they had contemplated the use of WLYT as the sole means of providing notification to the public since the spring of 1988. Attachments A, B, and C all post dated that time frame. The Applicants own witness Desmarais agreed with Assistant Attorney General Stephen Jonas as recently as May 2, 1989 that the use of WLYT and WCGY was contemplated for notifying the public. ~ Attachment D. The use of WCGY since it is the gateway station for the Merrimac Valley operational Arsa under the terms of WCGY's then extant letter of agreement with NHY would have triggered the activation of the EBS. It is of no consequence that in the FEMA Graded Exercise only WLYT was a player since participation in such an exercise by an outside entity that is not part of the response organization is limited by the negotiated scope of the exercise. If one were to follow the perverted logic that the L use of only one radio station during an exercise puts the world on notice that an emergency plan is going to be using only that radio station, then the same logic would be true for a limited demonstration of other contracting entities in an exercise. That would mean the June 1988 graded exercise should be viewed as a declaration by the Applicants that they plan to rely on only one ambulance company and only forty-three buses since they were the only vehicles used in the exercise. (footnote continued)

t $Y E e ,y In the original motion the intervenors brought to the ~ attention of:the Licensing Board the facts'that are at the heart of.the now offered supplemental. basis in Footnotes 4 and-N ~ f 7.. At that time the Intervenors' did not hava.an'ex. pert witness to' opine on those facts but was in good faith engaged i in the process of trying to find such an expert, On Friday, October'27, 1989 the Mass. AG,obtained a' copy ", rni. page of the 1989 Editicn of-Arbitrsn's Radio County Covasage Report for Essex County, Massachusetas (the "Arbitron Report"). The representative of Arbitron from whom the Mass. AG obtained that - page was out of the office on that day and unavailable to answer questions An1 it. The following week the Mass. AG l contacted the'Arbitron representative and sought to enlist e l -Arbitron's aid in obtaining an expert.who could opine on the contents of the Arbitron Report. The Arbitron representative L indicated that-she did not know whether Arbitron could be of p (footnote continued) The deposition of Gregory Howard also clearly cannot be L regarded as effective notice that the Applicants rely on1only L WLYT as the means of.providing notification in the SPMC. No reasonable person would have given weight to the. fact that Howard mentioned only one of the two radio stations identified in the SPMC during his deposition. Howard had consistently erred in his knowledge of and performance with respect to the SPMC. Indeed, apparently NHY removed him from his offsite-Response Organization position because of hic incompetence. It was to be expected that Howard would refer to WLYT rather than WCGY hecause WLYT was the station he had dealt with during the l' June Graded Exercise. Similarly, Anthony Callendrellois p testimony on June 28, 1989 cannot be viewed as effective notice l that the Applicants were relying on only WLYT since he did not I name any radio station in that testimony. There is no way of knowing whether he was referring to WCGY or WLYT in his unresponsbra answer at Tr. 27893-94. L,

y-Gi, d 4 ' i v assistance but would inquire of her supervisors within the company.. On Wednesday, November 1, 1989'the' Mass. AG received a call back from Arbitron's Vice President and General Counsel, A.JAnthony Kelsey. Mr. Kelsey explained that Arbitron did not I usually provide expert witness services, but under the circumstances would be willing to consider.doing, and certainly. 'would be willing to furnish suppmenetary explanatory documents' s that permit assessment and interpretation _of the information in the.Arbitron Report. He went on to state that if after receipt of that information, the Intervenors believed that an Arbitron representative could be of service in the matter, he would be j willing to discuss the matter, review and consider furnishing-an affidavit on the matter and provide-testimony at any hearing that resulted. On November 7 and 8, 1989 the Mass. AG received ~ the explanatory documents from Arbitron. After reviewing.the materials the Mass.-AG again spoke to Mr. Kelsey during the + week.of Novomber 13, 1989 and sent a draft affidavit to him for his review. On November 20, 1989 Mr. Welsey provided his comments and corrections 'co that draft affidavit. He signed final version of the affidavit on November 21, 1989. This motion is being filed within twenty-four hours of the signing of that. affidavit and on the same day as the Mass. AG received it. The supplemental basis is being filed only slightly over one month from the triggering evenc for the EBS Contention and as quickly as practicable under the circumstances. _g_

bb? i E Protection of the Intervenors' Interest. and the Petitioner's Interest Reeresented by Existina Parties The Intervenors adopt, and:by reference incorporate,'the-4 . !g -' arguments on these'two factors set forth in the-EBS Motions.. 1 DEVELOPMENT OF A SOUND RECORD The-Intervenors will contribute.to-the development of a ~ sound record: through.the litigation of the attached basis. The EBS contention and supplemental basis sufficientlysider.tify.the issues to be decided. In support of the contention and supplemental basis, the Intervenors will offer the_ testimony of A. Anthony Kelsey whose affidavit is attached to this motion as Attachmcat E. He will testify on tha issue of how few people in the EPZ are likely to hear-any notification made solely over WLYT. Mr. Kelsey11s knowlegable on the methodology used to develop studies'and analyses estimating the relative market ^ share of: commercial radio stations in a given listening area. In particular, he is familiar with the study conducted by the Arbitron Company, the leading provider of audience estimate studies in the United States, that is reflected in the Arbitron Report. Attachment F. Mr. Kelsey will testify that the Arbitron Report shows-that during an average quatter hour between 6-A.M. and Midnight on ' any. day of the week, for all persons over the age of 12 years, the combined listernship of WLYT comprises less than one half of one percent (0.5%) of the 121 persons population in that s. - F - 4

p. fg?' ou VV listeningLarea.- In~ contrast, the combined estimated shareLof i 'listenership for;WHAV,-WCCM, WLYT, WCGY and WSSH, which t comprise the Merrimac Valley Operational Area' Emergency -Broadcast System ("EBS") stations that. appear in that report, b i'sLover'10 times as great. E 'He will also testify that it is his opinion that an-emergency message transmitted on WHAV-AM and WLYT-FM alone would'have the= potential for reaching a relatively small. 1 segment of the population in that radio coverage area.at.any point in time. It is conceivable that relatively few people would tune their radios to WLYT in the event that they heard sirens or other audible warnings, and that at least ten times as many, and theoretically geometrically even more people would hear emergency messagas if they wereLtransmitted simultaneously i L, over the combined facilities of the entire Merrimack Valley n Operational Area'EBS network. L The identification of Mr. Kelsey as a witness who possesses special expertise on the issue of the number of people in the l-Massachusetts EPZ who are likely to hear any notifjcation put l out over WLYT alone, and the above statement as to what he will testify to clearly establishes that the admission of the contention will contribute to the development of a sound record.. The Appeal Board has held: A late petitioner can establish that its participation may reasonably be expected to assist in developing a sound record by "(1) . identify [ing) specifically at least one witness 8-O y --m e ,ee-v =

o r i Si e it intends to present: andL(2) provid[ing] sufficient detail respecting that witness' proposed; testimony to permit the Board to reach a reasoned conclusion ~on the likely worth of'that . testimony:onLone or more of [its): contentions." I Washinoton Public Power Sucolv Sys1AE (WPPSS Nuclear Project No. 3), ALAB-767, 19:NRC 964 .(1984), 985'(1984) quoting Washinaton Public Powar Sucolv System et al. (WPPSS Nuclear. Project' No.s3), ALAB-747, 18 NRC~1167, 1181-.(1983). The Intervenors in this instance have clearly. met the! test ~ for establishing that their participation will assist in the development.of a sound-record. Since-WLYT is the only remaining means the SPMC has for providing. notification.to the populace in Massachusetts, it is important for the Licensing Board;to be. aware of how few people are likely to actually ' receive notification by that means. As set forth above the Intervenorscare prepared to significantly contribute to the 4 - development of-a sound record on this issue.- That' factor thus weighs heavily in favor in the admission of the attached \\ contentica. ABSENCE'OF DELAY Obviously the admission of the EBS contention and: supplemental basis will broaden the issues to be decided:in i this proceeding, and may delay a final resolution of the proceeding. However, the same would be'true with.the admission of almost any new contention and basis. Therefore, what must - i be' considered by this Board in assessing this factor is the-degree to'which the issues before the Board will be broadened and the degree of the delay that will be occasioned by the admission of the contention., l --r

m t so- - + w ) ~ \\ In this case the contention and basis that-are proposed focus. narrowly on one aspect'of the SPMC. It is anticipated 'that any discovery on the issue can be kept to a minimum and that any hearings will not be lengthy. Through the prior - proceedings that have occurred in this licensing matter, the parties and the Board are already generally. familiar with the parameters of the issue. Whils this factor does by its nature mi31 tate somewhat in favor of the. Applicants, the narrowness of the issue raised in the contention and supplemental basis and minimal amount of delay that is.likely to ensue by admission of the contention do not weigh heavily in the Applicants' favor. When the slight weight to be accorded to this factor is balanced against the other four-factors that strongly favor admission of the contention, the' net result is that on balance the. contention should be admitted. Therefore, the Board should allow the motion to add an additional basis to the late-filed ~EBS contention. I . MOTION TO REOPEN THE RECORD j The criteria that must be met to reopen a closed record are set forth in 10 CFR 52=734. Those criteria are all met in this instance. The motion is ti.aely for the reasons set forth above. The event that triggered the motion to reopen the record was the letter of October 20, that was sent by WCGY to L NHY, Prior to the transmission of that letter voiding the l' L l-l:

g; s hx; s 4:X, l letter of agreement that had previously existed between NHY ani = WCGY, the elements of the SPMc that calledJfor the activation ] 1 of the EBS could still-have been implemented. Without the EBS i t R U the Applicants can look to provide notification to tho'public only-by'means of.WLYT. Given the. requirement that a motion to. reopen the record be 4 accompanied by one or more affidavits setting forth the basis of the motion, t' action is bejnq filed as quickly as is j practic Thet _s the .41ty of obtaining'an affidavit i from m could opino at PE [fications made solely by-L .is motion is hel.17 filed within 24 hours n o, t: the o " that affidavit. TJ8" yg-i g (ESSES A SI,yR2f1 CANT SAFETY ISSUE Both NUREC ,34, TEMA Rep-1, Rev. 1, Supp. l'and NUREG 0654,. Rep-1, Rev. 1 require that means be established to provide early notification and clear. instruction-to the L populace within the EPZ. Under Planning Standard E, Notifications Methods and Procedures, an emergency response organization has a responsibilty to demonstrate that means exist'to notify and provide prompt' instructions to the public. The specifications for providing such prompt notification is set forth in NUREG 0654, FEMA Rep-1, Rev. 1, Appendix 3. Under-the criteria for acceptance in Appendix 3, the minimal teceptable design objectives for an alert and notification avetem require the capability of providing both an alert signal 4 e -

l (I 1 idb- .t and an informational,_or instructional, message to the populationLon an' area wide basis throughout the'10-mile EPZ a within-15 minutes. JAppendix 3, at 3-5. Under this minimally [ -acceptable criterion for a notification system, NHY must make provision-not only for alerting the population in the EPZ by !means of.a siren,,.or other signal, within 15 minutes, but must also'make. provision for providing an informational,:or 3 e instructional, message to the population within that same time period. The withdrawal of WCGY and the Massachusetts EBS poses a distinct significant safety risk.under-Planning Standard E. The withdrawal of WCGY means that the EBS cannot be activated for the Merrimac Valley area. All-other EBS stations within that: operational area ~ are tuned to WCGY's tone alert frequency 'to trigger their activation and participation in the EBS. Without WCGY's activation of thcse stations, they will not pick up the EBS messages that are. designed to carry information to + the public in the event of an emergency at Seabrook Station. 'The manner in which the EBS operates ensures that when the EBS L is activated, an individual turning on a radio to find out the significance of the alerting sirens will come fairly shortly to an EBS station. When the EBS is activated, all non-EBS stations go off the air. That means in tuning to find out the n . significance of the sirenc, an individual will quickly l encounter an EBS station. carrying the authorized EES messages. L i, E

I EUI s?; . w hfi 3 [ While NHY still has an existing contract with WLYT that station is'not a CPCS-1 station that can activate the EBS. l While WLYT does participate as a station in the EBS, it cannot j activate any other station in the-EBS, or pass on EBS messages to any but its own immediate listening public. In making its finding as to the' adequacy of the.SPMC, FEMA did not find that a-letter of agreement with WLYT v : enough to sacisfy notification requirements. :The SPMC does not. call for the activation of WLYT alone, rather it calls for the activation of the EBS. In making!its finding of adequacy FEMA stated: The Plan states that the primary system for disseminating information to the public is EBS. In event of an emergency, the NHY ORO Offsite Response Director will request authority from the Commonwealth of Massachusetts to utilize EBS to broadcast emergency information and instructions to the public. Each instructional message broadcast over EBS will also be released as a news release by the Media Center. FEMA's Review of the SPMC, App. Exh. 43C, Page 24. As indicated above and evidenced in the Affidavit of A. Anthony Kelsey relatively few people in Essex County where the EPZ is located listen to WLYT. The means that when the populace of the EPZ hears. the sirens and turns on their radios to learn information, relatively few people will be tuned to WLYT and hear the emergency informational messages. For the e vast majority _of people in the EPZ who do not normally listen to WLYT it will be by chance if they happen to click on to WLYT when an emergency message is being aired as they tune up and down the dial. Notification to the public in a radiological 't e. h + .--,w 7 a we sn t-e-e- =-e w- - * - +

• -v

-*v v e---q-e-~M*w-e

Yb O3: emergency' plan cannot in any right headed world be left to chance. The Applicants cannot rely on pre-emergency information to accomplish for them what the notification provisions of the 1 SPMC lack. Their own expert in this-area, Dr. Dennis Mileti has said: It's not been empirically' demonstrated that pre-emergency education or information has an impact on what people do in response to-emergencies. That doesn't make sense. But.it hasn't been empirically demonstrated yet. That -leads me-to conclude that we need an emergency warning system during the emergency that will. work independent of pre-emergency education and information. It doesn't'make sensa to give up pre-emergency information and aducation. It may accomplish some good. For example, illustrate to residents of the EPZ if the live in the EPZ. People who don't live in the EPZ, that they don't, et cetera. And in .gencral, help prime ~ persons for an emergency, but it's not empirically demonstrated that it will have'an effect on the actual emergency response one way or the other, to the best of my knowledge. Transcript (11/19/87) at 6371. Based upon the opinion of the Applicant's own expert witness, pre-emergency'information cannot be relied upon to assure that people-in'the EPZ will know to turn to WLYT. Dr. Mileti has ~ indicated in his testimony in this proceeding that reliance on pre-emergency information is particularly problematic with respect to transient populations such as those that visit the Massachusetts beaches.S/ 4/ Transcript (11/19/87) at 6362-6365. Attachment G..

• 6

& a:1 w'> Ub,.- . t. ,[ Because'the, sirens in-the Massachusetts beach areas do'not; i l' t ' function in a1 voice mode as they do in New Hampshire, the beach population cannot bs. expected to know to tune in WLYT.E/ ygf Thus, the withdrawal of WCGY poses a significant safety Lissue. It precludes the ability:to activate the EBS as the SPMC calls'for, and-to notify all the public in the EPZ as ~ required by 50.47(b) (5) and NUREG 0654's Planning Standard E. The loss of WCGY is not ccmpensated for by the' presence.of WLYT. In holding the ability to make prompt notification to the public to be a significant safety issue, the Appeal Board has stated: " Extended' discussion should not be necessary with regard to the obvious safety significance that attends upon l compliance with the Commission's regulation designed to provide the members of the public located inside the EPZ with "early notification and clear instructions" in the event of a_ radiological emergency." (Footnote omitted.)- Public Service ComDany of New Hamnshire, et al. (Saabrook - Station. Units 1 and 21, ALAB-883, 27 NRC 43, 50 (1988). Without-the ability to make notification to the public, the public.will not-he aware of the significance of-the sircns; there will not be a uniform dissemination of the information in the EBS messages; and protect (ve action recommendations cannot be transmitted to, or received by, the general public in accordance with the SPMC and regulatory requirements. Therefore, the attached basis and supporting affidavit address a significant safety issue that warrant reopening the record, f/ Transcript (5/24/89) at 22554)..l. 4 ~# ~ -e e-~,, .-c-

n\\; 1 .w jg'+ x b.' L. '9: ,g .l A MATERIALLY DIFFERENT:RL3 ULT IS LIKELY IF THE BOARD l D -n. CONSIDERS THE ATTACHED CONTENTION AND NEWLY PROFFERED j EVIDENCE IN MAKING.ITS DETERMINATION ON THE SPMC H It is inconceivable that FEMA'would h' ave found the SPMC to be adequate without a provision-forfnotifying the public in accordance with Planning Standard E. Similarly, it is inconceivable that FEMA would have approved the SPMC without i j ' specific provision.in the SPMC for activation of the EBS by- \\ 'means of a letter of agreement with the CPCS-1 station, WCGY. Without~that station there-can be no activation of the EBS. 1NUREG 0654, FEMA REP-1, REV.1, Appendix 3, at Pages 3-15, specifically requires the integration of an emergency plan's notification system with the state and local EBS. Because= emergency information messages disseminated through-WLYT will reach a small segment of the population'in the EPZ, it cannot be relied upon to provide for adequate notification. Without WCGY and the EB1, provisions for notifying the general public in the Massachusetts EPZ as to the status of an emergency at seabrook Stat cr. or as to actions to be taken in response to that emergency are inadequate. If the Board takes 4 that fact into consideration, it will doubtlessly come to a different conclusion as to whether the SPMC complies with NUREG-0654 and other relevant planning standards. CONCLUSION Therefore, the Intervenors have established that a L . balancing of the factors to be considered in admitting a o l

. *[;. 4 qu 1 i -late-filed > contention ~ weigh heavily in favor of the admission ) of the supplemental-basis. -The Intervenors have alco- , established ~that this motion to reopen meets tha standards that 1 such,a motion muet' comply with, and'the gravity of the issue. varrants reopening the record for consideration of the issue. COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS -1 JAMES M. SHANNON ATTORNEY GENERAL Y k hen John Traficonte Chief,' Nuclear Safety Unit Le'llie Greer Assistant Attorney General nuclear Safety Unit? Department of the Attorney General One Ashburton Place Boston, MA 02108-1698 (617)'727-2200-DATED: November 22, 1989 i . ~..-..

,%&": ; WrppW

• n??W!. :

2y??Q '1 1 1 1, f-r 1 ( y s 4 N' / 7 - t A 1 f ;-..j.' t s )f

-si

!$[' c 1i -I s 4. i.J q-( - s -{ -d . qc 3 :!.' f vi.

y

-:f L n.: -s 1 f i 3J,b r - ' -p

.4

'sf [ + ,5 = h t

a

't } 'gl 'lr -q ATTACHMENT A j .a A J .] la E ia v i

k L

l .-1 3 9 Ii la } .A i e s 'y: ' t Y L:.' f, 8 P. 4 I .h }'F' y i.M. iT k' t. il-B 4 L ( %..#t%; w

f' V ~ J 4.c 4 Attachment A 4 I SUPPLEMENTAL BASIS B. The'?.pplicants remaining means for providing ~ . notification'to the Massachusetts EPZ under the SPMC is by . transmitting o.aergency information messages over-WHAV f (A.M.)/WLYT~(F.M.). A relatively small proportion of the population in the EPZ111 sten to those stations. Pre-emergency f information is'not an effective means to ensure that-people will tune to those stations in an emergency. Therefore, the Applicants no longer have ^.neans for implementing notification - and inc: ructions to the population in the E2Z. i I t l l ) l 3 l i-i h e i 5 ..m m. . ~,.. _ 4,

M., _ f f. .-)' ^ 3,, s:< ;,;M MM%F N* ~ - :) V;'..qz ll.: i. .g g y t( i ' g. f .i '. h / '} - f a n. .& 4 ,t .. e.- 's 5 .Ih ..f ,. s, ?/ r. gri pu 1.- ' [ H e w-a, v: I + 4 h D t .17 + 9 .4) , E. j.*

1. p. li

+. - 's e i k i k i t' ATTACHMENT B-j e 3 - 6 1 ' th f.-!;> r s '}^ g. b k i b 6-t .I (: 1;-r .? o r.

1..

i. (:. p [; s. f?.7' fi[ s I! F,- y: ( r. d' r O :: y

1. 4i f^-W kE.

%'i' nj>jQxpg.u;m,,;,..,,,_,_,_; ;_._~ 1 . i

c. I PUBLIC ALERT AND NOTIFICATIONE ~ SEABROOK STATION L SYSTEM L l._ FEMA-REP-10 DESIGN REPORT New Hampshire Yankee O ?. :ae ~ April 30,1988 l.

yA.. + P-6" x PLANNING STANDARD E --NOTIFICATION METHOLS AND PROCEDURES ~l o EVALUATION CRITERION E.5: Notifiestion Methods The primary means of dis'seminating informat' ion and instructions to the 1 l public is through broadcast of messages-over the Emergency Broadcast 1 System (EBS), s' network of commercial radio stations. New'5tampshire and j Massachussets portions-of the EPZ are covered by separate CBS networks.- ,) -In the event that occurrer.ces at.Seabrook Station lead.to an emergency classification of ALERT, the EBS stations in both states are put on standby. The New Hampshire EBS stations may, at the ALERT Level,.be activated for ~ issuance of instruction for precautionary closing of beach areas. - At the i SITE AREA EMERGENCY or CENERAL EMERGENCY level, broadcasts over the EBS are s activated for both Massachusetts snd New Hampshire in conjunction with siren activations. .In~ addition to providing public inforestion and instructional messages, the EBS networks in both states are used in supplementing the siren system coverage for alerting of institutions in the EPZ. These institutions will be offered tone-alert radio receivers that will be activated by a two-tone signal over the EBS network. The use of institutional tone-alert radio receivers to supplement siren system coverage is discussed more fully in Cbapter 2. Section E.6.2.4.2. ,-[ New Hampshire EBS Network In New Hampshire, the Seacoast Operational Area Common Program Control Sta-tion (CPCS) is WOKQ. WOKQ, a 50,000-watt FM station broadcasting at 97.5 .MHz from Dover, NH, operates 24 hours per day, seven days a week, and is equipped with a bacLap po.rer supply. As the CPCS, WOKQ is responsible 1-2

Q.2 1 . y [< ' f or: notif ying, via the two-tone EBS signal, the other New Hampshire Sea- -coast-EBS stations in the network. Although not a CPCS' station, WMYF 1provides 24 hour AM EBS broadcast capability for New Hampshire.- WMYF, a f -5,000-watt AM/ station broadcasting.at 1540 KHz f rom Exeter, NH, is oper-ational-f rom 5. AM to midnight, seven days a week and is equipped with a backup power supply. 10fYF has been specially equipped to proviG 24-hour. l seven day per _ week EBS coves.ge by remote activation f rom WOKQ duritig of f s - hours.' l Activation of the EBS covering the New Hampshire portion of the Seabrook i Station EPZ proceeds.as follows: 1. The New Hampshire State Police Communications Center I (NHSPCC) receives notice of an emergency from Seabrook - f Station. 1 2. The NHSPCC notifies the New Hampshire Of fice of Emergency ' Management (NHOEM) of the emergency. 3.- _ If the eme rgency reaches the ALEP.T level, the Director of the NHOEM, or his-designee, notifies the CPCS station, ~ putting it on standby and preparing it for possible broad-cast of public-information er instructional messages. 4 The CPCS is monitored by the other New Hampshire EBS stations and broadcasts are simultaneously aired or recorded-f or subsequent broadcast. D L 5. If beach precautionary actions are recommended or if the i emergency reaches SITE AREA EMERGENCY or GENERAL. EMERGENCY, lL the Director of the NHOEM, or hia designee, notifies the CPCS to activate the broadcast over the EBS of -specific L' information or instructional messages. i Figure 1-1 depicts the activation communication sequence for the New Hamp-shire EBS network. The activation of the New Hampshire EBS network is y l discussed in Volume 1, Section 2.1 of the State of New Hampshire Radiological l Emergency Response Plan. l-Massachusetts EBS Network In Massachusetts, the contract EBS radio station is I station broadcasting at M from M Massachusetts. M is 1-3 5 t.

m j,[ ,e a j ? operational 24 hours per ' day, 'seven days a week, and is equipped with a ~ . backup power supply. provides h W. 6 M station-broadcasting ~at M from. M. M is operational 24-hours per day, seven days per week and is equipped with a backup power supply. Activation of the EBS covering the Massachusetts portion of the Seabrook-Station EPZ proceeds as follows: 1.. The NNY Offsite Response EOC Contact receives notice of an emergency f rom the Seabrook Station Short-Term Emergency 'i Director (STED). 2. In escalating emergency, af ter the NHY Of fsite Response Organization is activated, the NHY Offsite Response Direc-tor'(NHYORD) assumes responsibility for EBS activation f rom the Seabrook-Station Emergency Response Organization (ERO). 3. If the eme rgency reaches the ALERf level, the STED or NHYORD (depending on' #2 above) notifies M]', puttiitg the station on standby and preparing it for possible broadcast of public inf ormation or instructional messages. i ,4 If the eme rgency reaches SITE AREA EMERGENCY or GENERAL. EMERGENCY,- the STED or NHYORD obtains' authorization from officials of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts'to activate the Public Alert and Notificetion System and notifies'W) j to activate the broadcast over the r.BS of specific informe-tion or instructional messages. Figure 1-1 depicts the activation communication sequence for the Massa - chusetts EBS network. The activation of the EBS network for the Massa-chusetts communitie's in the EPZ is described more fully in Section 3.2 of j' the Seabrook Plan for Massachusetts Cosa. unities. p l' Once the decision has been made by the Director of the NHOEM and the Massa-- i. L chusetts Civil Defense Agency Director to activate the EBS networks, the system provides the capability of broadcasting informational and instructional messages within 15 minutes. ll' l' 1-4 l= I i

., w nie . m: y3 p. m.ggy>pgs;g:y ?.myg.ewmpg an;wy Iki gi[ ?.$ $,. J. '

j (I

I } .i,. 2 e.

f x

'{ 2 .n yn k, d 1 1y [ l 0 s. 't,. .9 0

1. .,c l

.) 'i

..fc

-f

, 3 10 b

n ,n \\ 3 ,f ~ ', d;t r:d i p e A-.t ,. g Ay w .;9 W- 'h 3 1 r A, .7 cc ') 1

9. t s c..

ATTACHMENT C d ,.s m G O 1, i.!.g .dj .' h L.g;.- r,.

a p-

-g

%f fi

.-A .y e t a p 1 .g -a 1 g Q' - -.~.E p-a 5 ..F F q, .'n l -?s n k f. if k b 4 y 4 5 l s-y s-. IkOh4W;h6jwer d

e 1 i n,a -l 2,1,,,,22 : - ' (a) Applicants' position-onlJI-33 is that the mechanism for ] providing emergency-information to the'public through u. the?EBS is in place-and can be activated in accordance with thel Massachusetts EBS-Operational Plan or with provisions in the SPMC and its supporting agreements. .The underlying facts supporting-this position include: Letters of Agreement between the NHY ORO and the EBS radio stations relied'on in the SPMC are in place to facilitate activation of the EBS system' delegation of the requisite authority from appropriate Massachusetts governmental authority:to the ORO to activate the EBS.- A Letter of Agreement. between NNY and the Massachusetts Emergency 9 Broadcast-System organization has.also been ^ executed. p The: sample EBS messages relied on by the SPMC, except Supplemental. Message 1, 2 and the Early School Dismissal message, clearly identify the Governor of Massachusetts or other State officials at the source of the energency information being disseminated. i "The SPMC, IP 2.13 at 5.1.6 provides for transmittal of EBS messages to the' appropriate Commonwealth officials hS12Xf broadcast, allowing these L ! l o 1

c -

e t

s i t l D

i

if .i ' officials the opportunity;for review'and/or. I modification. Consistent with'the' Operational Plan, the SPMC .b anticipates that the Governor of Massachusetts will authorize activation of the EBS. (b) zThe sources relied on for the underlying facts include IP 2.13, Attachment 4.24,-Letters of Agreement,-IP~2.13 at 5.1.6,; Massachusetts IBS Operational Plan. NUREG ' 06 54/ TEMA-REP-1, ' Rev. l'. Supp. 1. (c) None selected.. (d)'. None selected. (e) None.- i i l-o L 67-e- w. ,w,-. .-,ge ,-4,. .,e-e.-.. wvu.-, ,-+--...,,.--.--m s--w--- -e e

' i Y ajp f K 0 2 1.:-i? - - - : E;.. *::: !!: .'I! , ; -...,n,g_ 4 i i As to-Answers Wd .<a -O George S. rn.a.. Vice President, Nuclear Production New Maapshire YankeelDivision of Public Service ceapeny of New .Esapshire

october 25,.1988 State of New Naapehire Rockingham County,-es.-

Then appeared before as the~above subscribed. George S. . Thomas and made cath that he.is the Vice President, Nuclear Production af New Hampehire Yankee Division, authorised to - execute the foregoing responses to-interrogatories ~on behalf of the ApplicantsF that he made iriquiry and believes that the foregoing' answers' accurately: set forth information as is p i available to the' Applicants. Before se, k 4 $4 . My commission Expires m ..s s. - =-. n As.to ob$ections l. E "M M ~ 1-Thomas G. Dignan, Jr. [ [ George M. Lewald Kathryn A. selleck f,, Jeffrey P. Trout Jay eradford Smith Ropes & Gray. 225 Franklin Street Boston, MA 02110 L 1-(617) 423-6100 counsel fer Anellennen I +f ,w--w. -g---ee, me o.-%-pw.ry-- .x.r-, wn-w.,-v s

• ww.w...-.-...

.. =... -,, -=..--,--.a...-----<--c-,-

b 44 l k* IMAGE EVALUATION [8# //jjg// k//77;%f NNT//gy,y 4,<,;gy 4 f p#4 TEST TARGET (MT-3) + r, 1.0 E!I2 EM " @ Els l,l l5 I!!!M ~ I.8 1.25 1.4 1.6 4 150mm 4 6"

1. o *'4

+4 4 +>>,ef ;%'7/// m, ,__s

1. ag *

. e4 %f / 4s o a e# V.: 9 g% m; a

• 9)

E f8/ ////p f4 k IMAGE EVALUA. TION g>pye@ +/ TEST TARGET (MT-3) Y j,p #4 %zzzz I.0 !!m Na 'dljEE i,i i m EE l.8 1.25 1.4 1.6 4 150mm 4 6" d*% d'4%4;% +<gy 5,y <g+%+ 4// La x_tv %,-

Y k%'O +*O h) 9 E oN k/f7'if*'M [jjg//j /([Cf 9 IMAGE EVALUATION 9 $/ TEST TARGET (MT-3) Y

1. 4

% W l.0 $mna lll Wla 1,i [m Ne 1.8 1.25 1.4 1.6 4 150mm 4 6" d%, / 4% s;s spN +>,g /,y,,,,7 I#L tl>** t< ~

4 L p* &) l lI////o 9 \\

4) d.@

///j// f8# IMAGE EVALUATION 4 c 7j, < s g, TEs11AaeE1 mim l.0 lf En Na I yl[El I.I [." IIIIN I=3 1.25 1.4 1.6 4 150mm 4 6" [*%//// /!b +47)Sffffp s +gf4 o ///// L

• k#

e . tar .= w- _

4

g.,

'45##?-f3?' >" E ^*?' ",))n. j o. - ?.' 2 j l. 4 b g., -~ } .. ( 3 2 4 'f f

4, t

L: r 1: 'b 'i h l I l t I 4 4 a s I ATTACllMENT D ' 'l .i'I A k t ~ ~l 4 .b 1 1 l., '.I q -4 a .t.' i + i. l v. v g, - e. k' 3 h.' h j s, f: ' n a i l i l

c.

1 y'. - 5. y. e 4h t Y~,, b bb j 2

i. t 1 + 4 .Q

• L q

? 3; .Q I take it that that's not all of thi radio stations in the area? A. (Desmarais) That's right. Q For FM, that's WLYT; is that right? A (Desmarais) If I could take a quick look at the REP-10 design report I would be able to verify that. JUDGE BihCH: I recall that in some of the documents those names were not -- the station names were not i given; was that correct? MRf DIGNAN: That was part of the -- JUDGE BLOCH:. And it's now public. (Document proffered to witness.) THE WITNESS: (Desmarais) Thank you. JUDGE BLOCH: While he's looking, is there a stipulation you want about this? MR. JONAS:: Well, there are two stations, WLYT and WCGY l on the FM dial; and one, WHAV on the AM dial. l_ ?UDGE BLOCH: Yes. .MR. JONAS: That's just what I want to establish. THE WITNESS: (Desmarais) I believe that's accurate, but my copy of the REP-10 design report has the stations blanked out as well. MR. DIGNAN: They don't trust the lawyers.- THE WITNESS: (Desmarais) I believe~it's accurate. u-MR. DIGNAN: If you represent that that's what it says, I'm not going to argue with you. JUDGE BLOCH: Is there some point about that? MR. JONAS: Well, the point I'm raising only is that there are two -- BY MR. JONAS: l l l 'Q Do you know how many radio stations in the ares? 1. A (Desmarais) No, I don't. l 1

u...

siger+aan; ;r+27mn:s ;yyy < y. w,ygg ,- y e 1 t i t - k .f

e!

t g.- t .-{ 4 i I 4 f i n f ?) E i o ? s 1 ATTACHMENT E '} \\. t l I ) t h l l - t v b l. -) 7 Il 11 l. i h s 5 I i t W l o 5 i kui<nk, i}}