ML19354D510
| ML19354D510 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Seabrook  |
| Issue date: | 11/09/1989 |
| 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 | |
| ML19354D511 | List: |
| References | |
| CON-#489-9430 OL, NUDOCS 8911160005 | |
| Download: ML19354D510 (29) | |
Text
f '
w i
{
' I A".h " l UNITED STATES OF AMERICA l NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION !
ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BCARD Before the Administrative Judgest i i.i.1 :
u a. N j Ivan W. Smith, Chairman
~
Dr. Richard F. Cole Kenneth A. McCollom ,
I
)
In the Matter of ) Docket Nos. 50-443-OL l
) 50-444-OL PUBLIC SERVICE COMPANY )
OF NEW HAMPSHIRE, EI AL. ) '
) I (Seabrook Station, Units 1 and 2) ) November 9, 1989 !
) l l
INTERVENORS' MOTION TO ADMIT A LATE FILED CONTENTION AND REOPEN THE RECORD ON THE SPMC BASED UPON ,
THE WITHDRAWAL OF THE MASSACHUSETTS E.B.S. NETWORK AND WCGY '
The Massachusetts Attorney General (" Mass AG"), Seacoast :
Anti-Pollution League ("SAPL"), and New England Coalition on Nuclear Pollution ("NECNP"), (hereinafter "Intervenors"), move I this Board to admit for litigation in the above-captioned i proceedings the contention filed herewith as Attachment A and '
reopen the record in the proceeding on the Saabrook 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 r
this contention and engage in any discovery necessary to prepare for such a hearing.
8912140005 892109 PDR 0 ADOCK 05000443 PDR
l f
INTRODUCTION 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. In a i letter dated October 20, 1989 John F. Bassett, manager of l
WCCM(AM)/WCGY(FM) ("WCGY"), repudiated WCGY's prior agreement to i participate with New Hampshire Yankee ("NHY") in emergency planning and to activate the EBS in the event of a emergency at Seabrook Station, Without the cooperation of WCGY, the i Applicants will not be able to activate the EBS servicing the l Seabrook Emergency Planning Zone ("EPZ") in Massachusetts. '
without the activation of the EBS, the Applicants will not be able to provide notification to the public in the event of an '
emergency in accordance with the SPMC and as required by !
applicable law and regulations. The inability of NHY to I activate the EBS poses a significant safety issue that warrants admission of the attached late-filed contention and reopening the record under the applicable standards.
l THE CRITERIA POR THE ADMISSION OF A LATE-FILED CONTENTION ARE MET '
The criteria for the admission of late-filed contentions are set forth in 10 CFR $2.714 (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.
, gagnonwealth Edison Co. (Braidwood Nuclear Power Station, Units l
1 l
l 1
t i
1 and 2), CLI-86-8, 23 NRC 241 (1986); Duke Power Co. (Catawba i Nuclear Station, Units 1 and 2), CLI-83-19, 17 NRC 1041 (1983); ;
Public Service of New Hameshire Co. (Seabrook Station, Unita 1 i
and 2) , ALAB 918, NRC (1989). Those factors are !
(1) good cause for failure to file on time; i (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 L of sound records (iv) the extent to which the petitioners interest will be represented by other parties; (v) the extent to which the petitionere participation will broaden the issues or delay the proceeding. r A considered balancing of those five factors clearly establishes that the attached contention should be admitted in this proceeding.
l TIMELINESE At the time that the contentions on the SPMC were initially l required to be filed in this proceeding (April, 1988) WCGY and the Massachusetts EBS were cooperating with NHY in emergency planning.1/ Both WCGY and EBS had letters of agreement with
- NHY to provide services to NHY in the event of a radiological '
emergency at Seabrook. (Attachments B and C.) Those letters 1/ WCGY (FM) and WCCM (AM) are sister stations that are located at 33 Franklin Street, Lawrence, Massachusetts and are currently owned and managed by Curt Gowdy Broadcasting.
( l l
l of agreement were incorporated into the SPMC in Appendix C.
Under the terms of those letters of agreement, WCGY agreed to l activate the EBS for the Merrimac Valley operational area that includes Massachusetts when requested to do so by NHY. When contentions on the SPMC were initially due, a review of the I SPMC's provision did not reveal any difficulty in activating .
the EBS as a means of notifying the public. The SPMC at $3.2 and I.P. 2.13 contained provisions and procedures for activating the EBS. On its face the SPMC contained the i
documents indicating it had a means to actually activate the ,
EBS through the letter of agreement with WCGY contained in Appendix C. Not until October 20, 1989 when WCGY withdrew did the SPMC lose that means of activating the EBS.A/
On October 20, 1989, when WCGY repudiated its letter of agreement with NHY the provisions of the SPMC for notifying the '
public became unworkable. This motion to admit a late-filed contention and reopen the record is being filed within 15 working days of that repudiation, and as quickly as practicable ,
under the circumstanens. Good cause is established for failure '
to file on time because the event that triggered the filing did not occur until October 20, 1989.
2/ Douglas Rowe's withdrawal of the Massachusetts EBS occurred a few days earlier on October 13, 1989, however, until WCGY's '
withdrawal, the SPMC still contained a legally enforceable l means to activate the EBS through WCGY's letter of agreement. '
l (See Attachment G) S
! 1
l As soon as the Intervenors knew of WCGY's withdrawal and !
could put together the appropriate documentation including the [
affidavits of Douglas Rowe and John Bassett, the Intervenors brought the issue to the attention of this Board by filing a [
motion identical in title to this one on October 30, 1989.
Accompanying that motion was an unsigned affidavit of Royce Sawyer, the Communications / Warning officer for the 3 Massachusetts Civil Defense Agency. Although the affidavit had been reviewed and approved, it was filed without a signature because Royce Sawyer was on medical leave from October 23, 1989 i until November 6, 1989. A statement of Sawyer's professional ,
qualifications was also unavailable at that time for the same reasons. !
Royce Sawyer's affidavit was predicated in part (section 4, page 5) on the affidavit of John Bassett that was signed on October 27, 1989. With the corrections noted, Royce Sawyer t signed the affidavit on November 3, 1989 (Attachment H) and provided the Mass AG with a detailed statement of his professional qualifications.
On November 6, 1989, Sawyer's first day back at work, that statement of professional qualifications was reduced to writing and faxed to Sawyer for his review and approval. Late on the afternoon of November 7, 1989, the Mass AG became hware for the first time that the Intervenors would be unable to sponsor Sawyer as an expert '
witness in this proceeding. In light of that development the
- f. j i
Intervenors withdrew the motion dated October 31 1989 on November 8, 1989.
The Intervenors then promptly undertook to locate another export on the issues raised in the attached contention. On November 9, 1989, Robert Boulay, the Director of the (
Massachusetts civil Defense Agency, after having reviewed the issues and relevant documents agreed to serve as an expert f witness and signed the attached afffidavit (Attachment D).1I l This motion is being filed on the same day that Mr. Boulay l provided his opinion. The Intervenors have acted as expeditiously as possible in putting the issue in the attached contention before the Board. In substance, this motion is identical to the one initially filed on October 30, 1989 with the exception of this section on timeliness, changes in the ;
i l
affiant's name and the deletion of three words that have been ;
simply crossed out in this text to highlight the alteration in l l
i the affidavit regarding actions by non-EBS stations during an
)
i 1} Apart from Section 1 the affidavit of Robert Boulay is l
substantially the same as the corrected affidavit of Royce t Sawyer (Attachment H) with certain minor changes that are found at: page 2, lines 20-21; page 4, line 20 and 27; page 5, line *
- 12. The only change of substance is the addition of one sentence on page 4, lines 2-5. That one change in substance simply states that non-EBS stations in tho Merrimac Valley operational aren go off air as a matter of operational practice regardless of the level at which EBS is activated. That one change has no impact on the instant motion, since although the reason stated for EBS stations going off air was originally in '
error, the net result is that they do go off air. The reason that non-EBS stations go off air in the Merrimac Valley is of no importance to the manner in which EBS functionally operates. It is the functional operation of the EBS that is of importance to the motion.
L* i l
I l
emergency. Ega supra at 15 . 2/
PROTECTION OF THE INTERVENORS' INTEREST Other than litigation of the attached contention there is no other means to ensure that Seabrook Station operation will l conform to regulatory requirements and ensure public safety.
The NRC Staff cannot be relied upon to protect the public l interest and interests of the Intervenors. Throughout the course of this proceeding, the NRC Staff has consistently and ;
without exception rubberstamped the sctions taken by the l Applicants. There is no reason to believe that the NkC Staff t at this point will adopt a more reasoned and impartial i
position. The only way to ensure that the regulatory requirements cited in the attached contention are met and that public safety is provided for is through the admission and litigation of the attached contention.
2/ The first indication that there might be a problem with the SPMC's notification procedures using the EBS was received by the Mass AG's office on October 16, 1989. On that date, '
Douglas Rowe contacted a paralegal in the Mass AG's office to learn the address of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. He l indicated that he wanted the NRC's address so that he could
, forward to the NRC a copy of his letter to NHY. Mr. Rowe cent !
i to the Mass AG's office a copy of his letter to NHY, and ;
indicated that WCGY had been informed of his actions. In turn, l WCGY was contacted by the Mass AG's office to ascertain what i its status was in respect to EBS' repudiation of its letter of I
agreement with NHY. John F. Bassett, manager of WCGY, stated ;
that he knew about Rowe's action, and was contemplating sending a similar letter but had not yet done so. In a follow-up conversation on October 19, 1989 Mr. Bassett stated that he was ,
still considering sending a similar letter and would provide l the Mass AG's office with a copy of the letter.
l
i C i i
DEVELOPMENT OF A SOUND RECORD i
The Intervenors will contribute to the development of a i sound record through the litigation of the attached i
contention. The contention and basis sufficently identify the issues to be decided. In support of the contention, the
[
Intervenors will offer the testimony of Robert Boulay whose i affidavit is attached to this motion as Attachment D. He will i
testify as to how the Massachusetts EBS operates and why the non- participation of WCGY precludes operation of the EBS in I the Massachusetts EPZ.
Notification to the public of the status of an emergency at Seabrook Station and any protective action recommendations that f are made in response to auch an emergency is predicated on the operation of the EBS. Section 3.2.5, Public Notification, of l the SPMC specifies that that public notification will take '
place through the EBS. Section 3.2.5 at p. 3.2-13 states:
i "The NHY Offsite Response Organization maintains the ;
capability to activate any of the available public '
notification means when authorized by the commonwealth of Massachusetts as described below and detailed in Implementing Procedure ("IP") 2.13, Public Alert and l Notification System Includine EBS Activation; IP 2.15, !
Airborne Alert Activation, and IP 2.16, Vehicular Alert and Notification System." (Emphasis added.) -
That same section also provides at 3.2-15 that: "Through an extensive public education program (ll3.7 and 7.5), the public '
will be instructed that, upon hearing the sirens, they should listen to local radio stations for information and '
L c.
i 6
instructional messages broadcast over the EBS radio network." l (Emphasis added.) The plan specifies that the NHY Offsite Response Director will direct public notification by using the public alert and notification system including EBS. The SPMC e
, states that the EBS will be activated concurrently with the 5 activation of the siren system, $3.2.5 at 3.2-16, and provides ;
that through the EBS the public will be informed of the import !
of the sirens. '
c Implementing Procedure 2.13 outlines the procedural steps l that will be taken to activate the EBS. Section 5.1.5 of IP ;
2.13, at p. 5, states that contact with the EBS radio station is to take place on a dedicated ring down circuit.
Section 5.1.11 of IP 2.13, at p. 7, directs that activation of the public alert and notification system is to take place by contacting the lead EBS station on the dedicated ring down ,
circuit, and advising it of the pre-recorded message that is to !
be broadcast or that an authorized prescripted EBS will be telecopied to it for broadcast. The implementing procedures as well as the plan itself clearly contemplate that under the SPMC information is to be disseminated to the public through the i EBS. In making its finding of adequacy in respect to the SPMC, ;
FEMA reviewed those provisions of the plan calling for the use '
l l of EBS as the primary means for notifying the public. Those '
l provisions are a predicate to FEMA's finding. FEMA's Review Of The SPMC, App. Exh. 43C, Page 24.
l^
c l
l i
Robert Boulay will testify as to how the EBS network in ~
Massachusetts works and why the lack of participation by WCGY means that the EBS network cannot be activated. As Mr.
Boulay's affidavit makes clear, the EBS network functions in !
I much the same way as a telephone pyramid. The primary relay ,
EBS station in Massachusetts, WROR in Boston, by transmission of its activating tone, trips the tone alert radios at the EBS operational area gateway stations. WCGY is the gateway station in the Merrimac Valley where the Massachusetts EPZ is located.
WCGY picks up the EBS message transmitted by WROR and, tnrough activation of its activating tone, trips the tone alert radios located in the other Merrimac Valley EBS stations. Those '
stations in turn pick up the EDS message and transmit it out on their own frequencies to the public. The activation of the EDS stations in the Merrimac Valley can be implemented directly through contacting WCGY and having WCGY send out its activating 3 signal. However, the activation of the EBS cannot take place through contacting WLYT, the only other station with whom NHY has a letter of agreement, because WLYT is not a gateway or a lead EBS station. The tone alert radios in the other Merrimac Valley EBS stations are not tuned to receive WLYT's signal; I
l they are only tuned to receive WCGY's signal.
Mr. Boulay's testimony will show that the import of WCGY's j non-cooperation is that NHY will not be able to contact and ;
activate the EBS within the 15 minute window required by l
l l
I
.. p regulation.A/ NUREG 0654, TEMA-Rep-1, Rev. 1, Appendix 3. !
i The identification of Mr. Boulay as a witness who possesses special expertise on the topic of the EBS in Massachusetts 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 it intends to presents and (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 '
tentimony on one or more of (its) contentions."
Washincton Public Power Sueoly System (WPPSS Nuclear Project No. 3), A LAB-7 67 , 19 NRC 964 "
(1984), 985 (1984) quoting Washincton Public Power Suoply System et a l ._ (WPPSS Nuclear Project '
No. 3), A LAB-7 4 7, 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. That factor thus weighs heavily ,
in favor in the admission of the attached contention.
1/ An additional factor in WCGY's non-cooperation is that as Attachment E indicates, WCGY's activation of the Merrimac Valley EBS would immediately reach approximately 6 times the listening public in Essex County as opposed to just WLYT transmitting an informational message. It is contemplated that this result will ultimately be offered as another basis to the !
attached contention. However, given the haste with which this motion is being filed, there has been insufficient time to
- obtain an affidavit from an expert on this issue. It is contemplated that when such an affidavit from an expert is obtained, a motion to amend the basis to the attached contention will be filed.
o ,
f 1
THE P_LTITIONERS' INTEREST REPRESENTED BY EXISTING PARTIES l i
In this proceeding, no other party has to date raised, or .
is known to be raising, the issues set forth in the attached :
j contention.
A_BSENCE_ 0F DELAY obviously the admiasion of the attached contention will broaden the issues to be decided in this proceeding, and may f delay a final resolution of the proceeding. However, the same would be true with the admission of almost any new contention.
Therefore, what must 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 I occasioned by the admission of the contention.
In this case the contention that is proposed focuses 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 f the Board are already generally familiar with the parameters of ,
the issue.
i While this factor does by its nature militate somewhat in favor of the Applicants, the narrowness of the issue raised in the contention and minimal amount of delay that is likely to 1
ensue by admission of the contention do not weigh heavily in
o 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 admit the late-filed contention.
HOTION TO REOPEN THE RECORD 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 timely 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 NHY. Prior to the transmission of that letter voiding the letter of agreement that had previously existed between NHY and WCGY, the elements of the SPMC that called for the activation of the EBS could still have been implemented. Even though prior to the issuance of the letter the equipment that NHY !
undertook to provide to WCGY had not actually been provided, NHY had a contractual commitment to provide that equipment. In return, WCGY had a conmitment to activate the EBS upon request i
by NHY. The voiding of the letter of agreement on October 20, 1989 negated those commitments.
Given the requirement that a motion to reopen the record be l
accompanied by one or more affidavits setting forth the basis of the motion, this motion is being filed as quickly as is
{
l l
[. j l
l l
practicable. Not only was there the necessity of obtaining !
I affidavits as to the factual basis for the motion, i.e., the ;
non-participation of WCGY and EBS, but, there was also the necessity of obtaining an affidavit from an expert who could !
opine on the import of that non-cooperation. This motion is being filed within 24 hours2.777778e-4 days <br />0.00667 hours <br />3.968254e-5 weeks <br />9.132e-6 months <br /> after the authorization and j approval of that affidavit.
l THE MOTION ADDRESSES A SIGNIFICANT SAFETY ISSUE Both NUREG 0654, FEMA Rep-1, Rev. 1, Supp. 1 and NUREG 0654, Rep-1, Rev. 1 require that means be established to provide early notification and clear instruction to the ;
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
- i. acceptable design objectives for an alert and notification system require the capability of providing both an alert signal :
l and an informational, or instructional, message to the population on an area wide basis throughout the to-mile EPZ l
within 15 minutes. Appendix 3, at 3-3. Under this minimally acceptable criterion for a notification system, NHY must make j provision not only for alerting the population in the EPZ by 1
l
l l
1 I
l means of a siren, or other signal, within 15 minutes, but must ,
also make provision for providing an informational, or ;
instructional, message to the population within that same time ;
period.
The withdrawal of WCGY and the Massachusetts EBS pose two separate and distinct significant safety risks under Planning -
Standard E. First, the withdrawal of WCGY means that the EBS cannot be activated for the Merrimac Valley area. As the l affidavit of Robert Boulay makes clear, WCGY as the Common Program control Station (CPCS-1) for the Merrimac Valley is the gateway for the activation of the EBS system in that area. All other ESS 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 those stations, they will not pick up the EBS messages that are designed to carry information to the public in the event of an i emergency at Seabrook Station. The manner in which the EBS i
operates ensures that when the EBS 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 #f#//#(g/fgA/X go That means in tuning to find out the significance off the air.
of the sirens, an individual will quickly encounter an EBS ,
station carrying the authorized EBS messages.
- i l
l While NHY apparently still has an existing contract with '
i one radio station, WHAV (AM)/WLYT (FM)/ ("WLYT") that station '
is not a CPCS-1 station that can activate the EBS. While WLYT !
does participate as a station in the EBS, it cannot activate i
any other station in the EBS, er pass on EBS messages to any i but its own immediate listening public. In making its finding as to the adequacy of the SPMC, TEMA did not find that a letter of agreement with WLYT was enough to satisfy notification .
requirements. The SPMC does not call for the activation of WLYT alone, rather it calls for the activation of the EBS.E/ ;
In making its finding of adequacy FEMA stated: ;
The Plan ststes 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.
Totally apart from the coverage problem that is posed by the withdrawal of WCGY, the withdrawal also poses a significant 1/ As is indicated in Attachment t the activation of the EBS l
through WCGY reaches six times the listening population than that reached by WLYT and its sister station. The activation of the EBS by WCGY results in twelve radio stations carryir.1 the i EBS messages rather than simply two. It further results in all other non-EBS stations going off the air, making access to the critical EBS stations more likely. None of that happens when WLYT on its own sends out an information message. Further more, given the fact that WLYT's letter of agreement with NHY is premised on its " ongoing committmenta to the EBS, it is
- l unclear that that committment will continue since the EBS no I longer recognizes the NHY ORO as a responsible local i organization authorized to request activation of the EBS.
, e i I
i \
\s i l
l safety issue with tespect to the ability of NHY to notify any portion of the public within the 15 minute minimum i requirement. !
One of the reasons that EBS and WCGY apparently withdrew from participation with NHY was because NHY refused to
]
live up to its committment to install a dedicated phone line or l radio link to the radio station. The existence of those j i
communication links ensured the ability of NHY to communicate J the EBS messages to WCGY within the 15 minute regulatory requirement. Without that dedicated phone line, there is no ,
assurance that the communication of the EBS messages and notification of the public can be made within the 15 minute window. As John Bassett's affidavit (Attachment F) indicates, !
WCGY periodically experiences occasions during which all of its
[
phone lines are busy at the same time.
i It is true that if the Governor of Massachusetts was to ,
authorize the activation of the EBS network for the Merrimac !
l Valley, given enough time activation of the EBS through WCGY l could ultimately be accomplished. It could be made either i
t through a tone alert activation, via WROR in Boston, or through j a commercial line telephone call to WCGY. However, without a I dedicated phone line or radio link between the activating agencies and WCGY, there is no assurance that the activation l
could take place within 15 minutes. There has been no l
l assessment made as to how long it would take to activate the .
EBS through WROR and then transmit that activation to WCGY, n .,
so o , ;
Nor is there any assurance that a phone call would reach WCGY within the regulatory 15 minutes. During the normal course of business, WCGY's commercial phone lines are all occasionally I
busy. (See Attachment F at Page 2.) Only the existence of a dedicated phone line, or some other means of' direct access from the activating agency or entity to the radio station ensures the ability to make notification within 15 minutes.5/ l Without WCGY's participation and the existence of that direct access linkage, this mandatory regulatory requirement is not met.
V l Thus, the withdrawal of WCGY poses two separate significant ,
safety issues. 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.
Its withdrawal also precludes the ability to notify the public within the time required by Appendix 3. In holding the ability to make prompt notification to the public to be a significant i safety issue, the Appeal Board has stated: i t
" Extended discussion should not be necessary with regard i-to the obvious safety significance that attends upon '
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 Comoany of New Hamoshire, et al. (Seabrook Station. Units 1 and 2), A LAB-8 8 3, 27 NRC 43, 50 (1988). .
g/ No Massachusetts agency or entity has prescripted EBS messages for the Seabrook EPZ. If any EBS messages for the Seabrook EPZ were to be transmitted by means of a state agency activating WROR, the EBS messages would first have to be transmitted from NHY ORO to the state agency, then from the state agency to WROR.
= -
IL l l
1 h \
Without the ability to make notification to the public, the public will not be aware of the significance of the sirens; there will not be a uniform dissemination of the information in the'EBS messages; and protective action recommendations cannot be transmitted to, or received by, the general public in accordance with the SPMC and regulatory requirements.
1 Therefore, the attached contention and supporting affidavits address a significant safety issus that warrant reopening the {
record.
e J
A MATERIALLY DIFFERENT RESULT IS LIKELY IF THE BOARD i CONSIDERS THE ATTACHED CONTENTION AND NEWLY PROFFERED EVIDENCE IN MAKING ITS DETERMINATION ON THE SPMC i First of all, it is inconceivable that FEMA would have found the SPMC to be adequate without a provision for notifying the public in accordance with Planning Standard E. Similarly, j i
it is inconceivable that FEMA would have approved the SPMC '
without specific provision in the SPMC for activation of the l 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. NUREG 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.2/
1 1
1/ It is highly unlikely that FEMA would have ever approved a plan that provided only for notification of the public through a contract with a small local radio station like WLYT that services less than half of one percent of the area's public.
See Attachment E.
r~
V; > '
i l
i Had the Intervenors known of the non-participation of WCGY ;
i and the inability to activate the EBS, the Intervenors i certainly would have put that issue before this Licensing Board in the form of a contention at the inception of this proceeding. However, as long as a legally anforceable agreement existed between the NHY and WCGY, there existed the legal obligation on one side to provide equipment that would enable the activation of the EBS, and on the other side, there 1 existed the legal obligation to activate the EBS upon request !
by NHY ORO as a recognized responsible organization. The i voiding of the letter of agreement leads to a substantially different result.
Without WCGY and the EBS, there are no provisions for notifying all of the general public in the Massachusetts EPZ as
! to the status of an emergency at- Seabr ook Station or as to actions to be taken in response to that emergency. If the Board takes that fact into consideration, it will doubtlessly come to a different conclusion as to the adequacy of the SPMC's notification provisions. !
CONCLUSION Therefore, the Intervenors have established that a balancing of the factors to be considered in admitting a late-filed contention weigh heavily in favor of the admission
- p. ,-- :
o .
1
?
of that contention. The Intervenors have also established that !
o
- this motion to reopen neets the standards that such a motion must comply with,.and tne gravity of the issue warranta reopening the record for consideration of the issue.
COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS ,
JAMES M. SHANNON ATTORNEY GENERAL
!' : * ~:
John Traficonte i Chief, Nuclear Safety Unit Leslie Greer Assistant Attorney General Nuclear Safety Unit Department of the Attorney General One Ashburton Place Boston, MA 02108-1698 (617) 727-2200 DATED- November 9, 1989 1
i' I
- "W%
i- , .
0 l
1
(
.s I
I k
f l
ATTACHMENT A L i o .
4 !
r >
I' D .
l' - )
x . ,
I l
4 d
l s
i n
3 t<
(
3 A>3d4MA~u, __t.__._ .
E EBS CONTENTION l
The Applicants'do not have the means 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 j of 10 CFR 550.47(b)(5), and 10 C.F.R. Part 50, App. E.IV.D.
Basis A. The Applicants' primary method for providing notification to the populace in the Massachusetts EPZ is by means of the activation of the Emergency Broadcast System
("EBS") serving the geographic area containing the EPZ. (Plan 3.2.5, IP 2.13). The Applicants' utility plan for Massachusetts formally contained provisions for activating the I EBS by means of a letter of agreement with WCCM (AM)/ WCGY (FM)
("WCGY"). That letter of agreement was incorporated in the f
SPMC in Appendix C. On October 20, 1989, WCGY repudiated that l
letter of agrement rendering it void and ineffective.
Therefore, the Applicants no longer have the means for l implementing early notification and clear instruction to the populace in the EPZ. l l
4 ATTACHMENT A s
, , . . _ .. . . - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ . . , _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ , _ 4
r' "
(( 3 4
4 I
v, .
L '
e
[
i ATTAC11 MENT B I
E T
l
{
i l
l 4
1 l
l i i
't, 11 j i
t I
i l
l d
l+ ,
I- 1 i
lc e
~*
l A LETTER OF AGREEMENT BETWEEN RADIO STATION WCGY AND NEW HAMPSHIRE YANKEE'S OFFSITE RESPONSE ORGANIZATION Purpose To activate Emergency Broadcast System as Provided Title 47 U.S.C. 151, 154 (i) and (o), and 303 (r); Chapter 1, Part 73, Subpart G, Federal Communications Commission Rules and Regulations, Radio Broadca'st System (EBS) as pertains to day-to-day emergency operation and to provide for cooperation and coordination between New Hampshire Yankee's Offsite Response Organization (NHY/ORO) and the management of radio station WCGY 93.7 FM, Lawrence, Massachusetts, in the event of an accident seabrook, New / incident Hampshire.at the Seabrook Nuclear Power Station (SNPS) in Scope of Activity of WCGY:
The management of WCGY, Lawrence, Massachusetts, (when requested) agrees to activate the Emergency Broadcast System for the Emergency Planning Zone located within the Commonwealth of Massachusetts which consists of the following six (6) communities:
Amesbury, Merrimac, Newbury, Newburyport, Salisbury, and West Newbury.
The management of WCGY further agrees to activate (when requested) the tone-activated radios supplied as part of the public notification system and broadcast emergency public information when notified to do so by the Offsite Response Director of the NHY/ORO, using a pre-arranged authentication system.
WCGY further agrees that they have and will maintain a recording capability to record the actual voice of the NHY/ORO Offsite Response Director, and they will broadcast the message, acceptance of/or participation in this plan shall not be deemed as a relinquishment of program control and shall not be deemed to prohibit the licensee from exercising its independent discretion and responsibility in any given situation.
WCGY further agrees that the'NHY/ORO Offsite Response Director is authorized (through a pre-arranged authentication procedure) to activate the Emergency Broadcast System servicing the Seabrook Emergency Planning Zone area in the event that there is an accident and/or incident at the Seabrook Nuclear Power Station with off-site consequences.
The NHY/ORO Offsite Response Director will notify the management of WCGY when to activate the tone-alert radios and when to begin broadcaating Emergency Public Information messages. The context of these messages and the interval at which the messages will be I repeated will be supplied by NHY/ORO.
This agreement becomes valid when signed by the signatures l indicated below. Once valid, it can be terminated by either NHY/ORO l or the management of WCGY by written notification ninety (90) days I ATTACHHENT B
8 prior to the date of termination.
- T,Y J Y +S George M Thomas p nager Vice Presidant of Production NCGY 93.7 FM New Hampshire Yankee Division of Public Service Company of New Hampshire Agent for the Seabrook .
Joint Owners
{ '
n . r s' _fEpXfy ,pf7 Date pat, l
I 1 d'*
I h
~
l t
1 l-1 I
s.
. . - , . ,. , . . . - , . .-, -. . . . - - . . , , , ~ . . . - - - - - , . - . , - - . . ~ . - - - - - . - . - , - - , . .
, , , , . :r y
). }
.. )
, , j l
4 t
]
i l
f fi Pe!
c?
+
e
- e. . .
ATTACHMENT C h'
i: t.
5 r l
h a
y
,- s [>
k
+
1 I
C
(
+
R e
w
)
4.
f J
l i
t sMw M14dNro=f WkMW# cA--.rww -sw-- n '"~*"'" * '
l L The Messochusetts Emergency treedcast $gstem is l Committed to responding to eng emergency that meg effect residents p ,- of Messachusetts. The Emergency Broadcast System is a voluntary organization authertred by and created by the Federal Conunanicettens Commission. Its primeql function is to alert the public
- in the event of a Presidential Declaration of Emergeneg; most i l speelfielg nucieer attack. But the authority to use the EBS has been delegated down to the individuel licensee which must use its ,
" independent discretion and responsibility ". l l, The Messachusetts Emergency Broadcast System would l l recognize eng responsible local business er organization that meg ]
- be responsible for creating er reporting a local emergeneg.
After review of New Mempshire Yankee's Offsite Response Organization and determining that en incident et New Hampshire Ventes could effect Messachusetts residents and that activation of l
the EBS could mitigets the effects caused by on incident the New Hampshire Yankee Offsite Response Organization is recogonized as a responsible local organization within the meaning of the Rules and Regulations governing the EBS.
IUith regard to the planning and implementation of the eierting system it is understood that NNY/080 will provide certain
,. services and equipment et its supense end that this process of planning and implementation will be en ongoing one.
The following equipment and services will be initialg supplied: ,
u 1. Dedicated telephone line and answering device with competable taping equipment.
- 2. Fan or similar device for mceiving hard copy of eng message.
- 3. RPU or similar transmit / receive equipment to enable messages to be sent / received without rollence on telephone. Also, to enable EBS station to transmit from incident ores or from erees that the incident meg cause en effect.
George S. Mhomas bY -
n Douglas J. Rowe//
=*
Vice President of Production Co. Chairman V New Hampshire Yankee Massachusetts Emergency Division of Public Service Broadcast System Company of New Hampshire Agent for the Seabrook Joint Owners
$U s'* '
V1) , l Y /fY7 '~
Date Date ' /
_.-.. . _ _,_ ._.__...___.. _ ...~ ._ ....____ _. _ ._ j T T Q , q R E _ _ _ ,,_ ,__ , ._ , __ __ _ _
,,p,g~ <- -s7y
+
- c 3 1 ~t
- l
'),.
. L t
l l:
fe C
. s. >
t
.,.. t T
, \,
y
.. f 7, .t
[
3
{;
"t.
), s .-
- k. 'L G
- i. t 4: . .c b
% 'r v
, f.
I b, , .te 1
, s r*
%a ATTACHMENT 0 ,r t
f e t
- 2 [
g -
[
3 E
5 i
5
~ .
b '
s V
k E N ,iAlu& 4 Nc ch 4.v Jv ..