ML20147B982

Emergency Planning Contention Re Lilco New Emergency Broadcast Sys Proposal.* Certificate of Svc Encl

ML20147B982
Person / Time
Site:	Shoreham File:Long Island Lighting Company icon.png
Issue date:	01/12/1988
From:	Mark Miller KIRKPATRICK & LOCKHART
To:	Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel
Shared Package
ML20147B976	List: ML20147B973 ML20147B982
References
OL-3, NUDOCS 8801190042
Download: ML20147B982 (13)

Text

,e* .

N 9

4 =

00CKETED January 12.1988 USNRC UNITED STATES OF AMERICA E -

NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION OFricE P n'.cE7t~f Before the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board 00CnEi{g'{R'!'1

)

In the Matter of )

)

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

) (Emergency Planning)

(Shoreham Nuclesr Power Station, )

Unit 1) )

)

EMERGENCY PLANNING CONTENTION RELATING TO LILCO'S NEW EMERGENCY BROADCAST SYSTEM PROPOSAL LILCO's new emergency broadcast system ("EBS") proposal relies upon a new primary EBS station, WPLR-FM in New Haven, Connecticut, to perform at least three basic functions: (1) to serve as the primary, direct communication link to the public in the event of a Shoreham emergency; (2) to activate receivers installed at nine secondary EBS stations (two in Connecticut and seven on Long Island), enabling them to broadcast the EBS messages simultaneously over their own frequencies, or to tape them for later broadcast; and (3) to activate tone alert radios to be installed at schools, hospitals, nursing homes, and other large institutions within the 10-mile plume exposure emergency planning zone ("EPZ") around the Shoreham plant. Sitt LILCO Plan, Appendix A at IV-2 and -3; p_t also OPIP 3.8.2. LILCO's new provisions for radio transmission of EBS messages and other emergency information, and for activation of tone alert radios and receivers installed at the secondary EBS stations, are inadequate, and the Plan fails to comply with 10 CFR 55 50.47(a)(1), (b)(5) and (b)(6),10 CFR Part 50, Appendix E $6 IV.D.2 and 3, 8801190042 880112 ADOCK 05

{DR l2 i

e. .

NUREG 0654 $$ II.E.5 and E.6, and Appendix 3 thereto, and FEMA REP-10,1/ for the following reasons:

1. WPLR-FM could not and would not function as an effective or adequate primary EBS station for radio transmission of EBS messages and activation of tone alert radios and receivers Installed at the secondary EBS stations because:

A. WPLR's broadcast signal is too weak to convey a strong and clear broadcast message throughout the EPZ and surrounding areas. WPLR broadcasts at a power of only 14.1 kilowatts. LILCO's previous primary EBS station - WALK-FM and -AM - broadcasts at a power of 50 kilowatts. Thus, WPLR's broadcast power is less than 30% as strong as LILCO's former primary EBS station.

B. The geography of Long Island, combined with the location of WPLR's transmitters, exacerbates the weakness of WPLR's broadcast signal with respect to the public in and around the Shoreham EPZ. Long Island radio antennas are typically oriented in a nominal east-west direction, in order to facilitate reception of radio signals from the New York City area. WPLR's signal, however, comes fece north of Long Island, and therefore its reception on directional antennas hs 1/ FEMA REP-10, Guide for the Evaluation of Alert and Notification Systems for Nuclear Power Plants (Nov.1985).

I the EPZ and elsewhere on Long Island can be impaired or attenuated. In addition, the hilly landscape of the north shore area of the EPZ and other obstructions further diminish the quality of reception of WPLR's signal.

C. WPLR has no AM broadcasting capability. LILCO's previous primary EBS station - WALK - could broadcast AM along with FM with the flip of a single switchd/ LILCO thus fails to comply with the requir'ement that there be a capability to issue warning messages on a 24-hour basis.

D. To be effective, an EBS station must be generally known and listened to by the public. WPLR has a negligible listenership rate within Suffolk County and, accordingly, within the EPZ. Indeed, WPLR's listenership rate is only about 1%, meaning that, at any given time, on average, only about one person out of every 100 in Suffolk County listening to radios is listening to WPLR. LILCO's previous primary EBS l station - WALK-FM and -AM - has a listenership rate of more than 10%

i E. An EBS station must also be perceived by the public as one likely and able to broadcast authoritative, accurate,

reliable and credible information. As a result of (i) WPLR's location in Connecticut (more than 30 miles from the EPZ),

i

2_/ This ability to simulcast during either day or night' operation was one of the reasons LILCO previously relied upon WALK as its primary EBS station. Set LILCO Plan, Appendix A at IV-3; satglag.Clawson et al., ff. Tr. 5254, Att. 2, at 1.

i

rather than on Long Island or even in the State of New York, (11) WPLR's relatively weak broadcast signal which, combined with the location of WPLR's transmitters and the geography of Long Island, reduce the public's ability to receive its ,

broadcasts, and (iii) WPLR's low listenership rate, the public in and around the EPZ would not be familiar with WPLR, and would not consider emergency information or instructions broadcast by that station, about local conditions on Long Island, at the Shoreham plant, or in or around the Shoreham 7.PZ, to be credible, authoritative, accurate, or reliable.

3 LILCO's previous primary EBS station - WALK - is Long 1

Island's most powerful radio station, the one most listened to, and the one most regularly relied upon for local and emergency

, information, such as weather and school closing announcements and traffic conditions. As a result, unlike I

WPLR, WALK has a high degree of visibility, credibility and familiarity to Long Island residents.3_/

F. WPLR is based in Connecticut, rather than on j Long Island, the location of the Shoreham plant, or even in the State of New York. WPLR is accordingly not a local broade .:;t .

station, and LILCO's reliance on that station is contrary to r

3_/ 'Ihe letter of agreement between LILCO and its previous lead EBS station, entered into evidence and relied upon by LIICO, emphasized WALK's purportedly  ;

unique qualifications to serve as LILCO's primary EBS station, claiming, among

! other things, that the station was equipped with "Long Island's taost powerful radio signal," "is the only station capable of covering all of Nassau and Suffolk Counties

, as well as much of Connecticut," "operates 24 hours2.777778e-4 days <br />0.00667 hours <br />3.968254e-5 weeks <br />9.132e-6 months <br />" (as compared to AM stations on Long Island, which are restricted to daytime signals), and had "the unique j

capability of broadcasting (AM) along with FM with the flip of a single switch . . . ." Sag.Clawson et al., ff. Tr. 5254, Att. 2, at 1.

+

regulatory requirements. $_ce; e ogu 10 CFR Part 50, Appendix E 5 IV.D.2.

2. LILCO relles on nine smaller, secondary stations (two in Connecticut and seven on Long Island) to complete its new EBS network headed up by WPLR-FM.

These secondary stations could not and would not compensate for the inadequacies and ineffectiveness of WPLR as the primary EBS station, and they could not and would not function adequately or effectively to transmit EBS messages or emergency information to the public in the EP3 and surrou.viing areas during a Shoreham emergency because:

A. The new EBS network has significant gaps in its AM coverage of the EPZ at night. WELI-AM, in New Haven, Connecticut, provides the only regular nighttime coverage to the EPZ. That coverage, however, extends only to the northern portion of the plume exposure EPZ; there is no nighttime AM coverage of the southern part of the EPZ under LILCO's new EBS network. Accordingly, a substantial portion of the population in and around the EPZ might not receive emergency information via LILCO's new EBS network in the event of a Shoreham emergency. LILCO's previous EBS network, including WALK, was capable of providing 24-hour AM and FM coverage of not only all of Suffolk County, but also all of Nassau County and much of Connecticut.

B. LILCO's new EBS network, including WPLR and the nine secondary stations, has a collective listenership rate of only about 4% in Suffolk County. LILCO's previous EBS network, comprised of WALK and 11 other Long Island stations, had a collective listenership rate of more than 30%

within the County. As a restit of the fact that the primary and two of the secondary stations (including the only station that regularly provides AM broadcasting at night) are located in Connecticut, rather than on Long Island or even in the State >

of New York, WPLR's relatively weak broadcast signal within Suffolk County and the plume exposure EPZ, and the fact that i

the vast majority of EPZ residents do not generally listen to, and therefore are not familiar with WPLR or the other stations in LILCO's new EBS network, the public would not consider emergency information or instructions broadcast over that l network to be credible, authoritative, accurate, or reliable.

LILCO's previous EBS network included, in addition to WALK, WBLI-FM in Patchogue, New York, and WGSM-AM and WCTO-FM in Melville, New York - the second, fourth and fifth most widely listened to stations in Suffolk Countyd/

i

Those stations are regularly relied upon for local and l

emergency information (such as weather and school closing announcements and traffic conditions), and have a far higher

. degree cf visibility, credibility and familiarity to Long Island, a '

Suffolk County, and EPZ residents than the stations now relied upon by LILCOJ/

M The third most widely listened to station in Suffolk County, WBAB-FM, has never participated in LILCO's EBS network.  ;

i 1

1/ Even LILCO has conceded that information broadcast from non-local, out-of-state radio stations would inherently lack credibility and that emergency ,

(footnote continued) '

l 1

_ . - - - - , _ -f_ . _ , , . , _- - . - - , - ,

C. Ingestion pathway protective action recommenda-tions must be communicated to persons outside the'10-mile plume exposure EPZ. Sit, cau 10 CFR $ 50.47(b)(10),

NUREG 0654 5 H.J.11; att generally OPIP 3.6.6. Thus, LILCO's sample EBS messages contemplate the provision of emergency information in addition to protective action recommendations to persons outside the 10-mile EPZ, such as identification of the boundaries of the EPZ, and what actions, if any, persons outside the EPZ need to take. Sies tau OPIPs 3.8.2 and 3.6.6. LILCO's new EBS network, however, has virtually no nighttime EBS coverage - AM or FM - in the Shoreham ingestion pathway to the west of the 10-mile EPZ.

Therefore, LILCO has made no provision for communication at night of essential emergency information, including ingestion pathway protective action recommendations, to directly affected persons in the heavily-populated areas immediately adjacent and to the west of the 10-mile EPZ. This failure to provide any means of notification and commun! cation of emergency information to an entire segment of the population at risk violates 10 CFR $$ 50.47(a)(1), (b)(6), (b)(10), and NUREG 0654 $$ U.E.5 and J.11. It would also result in an (footnote continued from previous page)

Information therefore should be broadcast through local stations, which would be viewed by the public as credible and authoritative sources of emergency information. Thus, during cross-examination of LILCO's witnesses on Contention EP 20, it was LILCO's position that persons seeking information regarding a radiological emargency at Shoreham would tune into their local radio stations, rather than New York City or Connecticut stations, because the local stations are viewed as being reliable sources for emergency information -

including information regarding the dissemination of protective action recommendations that might be made by LILCO in the event of a Shoreham emergency. Tr. 5262-65 (March 29,1984). The regulations similarly specify that an EBS network must be made up of local broadcast stations. Sgt 10 CFR Part 50, Appendix E, $ IV.D.2.

m

. . - . j 1

h i

l i

inability to control the content and flow of emergency information and EBS messages, contrary to the basic premise i of the public information portion of the LILCO Plan. Sag, adu i

OPIPs 3.8.1 and 3.8.2. I t

r

3. LILCO's evacuation plan depends upon the dissemination of clear, t authoritative emergency information to prevent the development of a large 2

evacuation shadow. Sag, Lone Island Liahtina Co. (Shoreham Nuclear Powar t

Station, Unit 1), LBP-85-12, 21 NRC'644, 670 (1985) (hereaf ter, "PID").h/ LILCO's i

now EBS proposal has virtually no nighttime EBS coverage west of the EPZ, i however. This gap in LILCO's EBS coverage results in a large segment of the population just outside the EPZ having no access to emergency information i

! i regarding a Shoreham accident. As a result, there would be substantial confusion, i rumor generation, and the dissemination of inaccurate and inconsistent information. This would lead to substantial voluntary evacuation by residents from outside the plume EPZ, who would perceive themselves to be at risk and, lacking j i

timely and reliable information or instructions, would proceed to evacuate.1/  !

j Indeed, the Licensing Board has previously acknowledged that this wo tid be the  !

6/ The Licensing Board has previously determined that LILCO's ability to i manage an offsite emergency response is "heavily dependent upon its ability to i frame a public."ppropriate PID,21 NRC at (emergency broadcast]

670 (emphasis added). messages and to disseminate them to the  !

i.

1/ Significant voluntary evacuation by the public immediately outside the EPZ i

! would likely result in severe traffic congestion, which would adversely impact  !

i evacuation flow from the EPZ and thereby significantly increase EPZ evacuation  !

l time estimates. It could also adversely impact the public's efforts to be monitored j or decontaminated. In addition, because LILCO's Plan generally assumes that there

! would be no voluntary evacuation by the public, significant voluntary evacuation  ;

could exhaust LILCOs response capabilit i planning basis for a Shoreham emergency. y and make wholly inadequate LILCO's l; I

l ,

o. .

n case, by declaring that la the absence of the dissemination of clear, non-conflicting and timely notice and instructions to the public at the time of an accident, a large i evacuation shadow would likely result:

If for any reason confused or conflicting information was disseminated at the time of an accident, the Board accents that a large excess evacuation on Lona Island could materialize.

l PID,21 NRC at 670 (emphasis added).

Further, LILCO's new EBS proposal would likely cause a signli, ant evacuation shadow from within the EPZ. The factors contributing to this voluntary evacuation would bes (1) gaps in the EBS' nighttime AM coverage and potentially even daytime FM coverage within the plume exposure EPZ; (2) the absence of credibility and authoritativeness attaching to emergency broadcast information originating largely from a non-local, out-of-state EBS station; (3) the unavailability of emergency information from familiar local stations; and (4) the substantial likelihood of distorted and, therefore, conflicting emergency information.

The consequences of a significant evacuation shadow would make it impossible for LILCO to implement its Plan as written and could make inadequate LILCO's planning basis for a Shoreham emergency. See PID,21 NRC at 670.

4. LILCO's asserted reliance upon so-called "informal alerting systems,"

consisting of word-of-mouth communications between and among members of the public, some of whom may have heard emergency broadcasts, to supplement its new EBS network, could not and would not compensate for the inadequacies and ineffectiveness of that network. Such a proposal for providing alerting, notification, and essential emergency information and protective action 9

i .. .

recommendations to the public is speculative and unreliable, contains no design report or other analysis, is inconsistent with LILCO's own theories of emergency communications, is inconsistent with the methods of alerting and notifying the public that might otherwise be acceptable in lieu of an EBS network, and falls to satisfy the requirements of 10 CFR $$ 50.47(b)(5) and (b)(6),10 CFR Part 50, Appendix E $ IV.D.3, NUREG 0654 $$ H.E.5 and E.6, end Appendix 3 thereto, and FEMA REP-10.

January 12.1988

'l s

a . .

d OCCKEIEU U$NRC January 12.1988 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA *g 314 P4 :03 NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION Before the Atomic Safety and Licensina Board {'if[pykf, gFFl{E SRANCH

)

In the Matter of )

)

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

) (Emergency Planning)

(Shoreham Nuclear Power Station, , )

Unit 1) )

)

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that copies of EMERGENCY PLANNING CONTENTION RELATING TO LILCC'S NEW EMERGENCY BROADCAST SYSTEM PROPOSAL have been served on the following this 12th day of January,1988 by U.S. mail, first class.

James P. Gleason, Chairman Mr. Frederick J. Shon Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Atomic Safety and Licensing Board U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C. 20555 Washington, D.C. 20555 James P. Gleason, Chairman William R. Cumming, Esq.

513 Gilmoure Drive Spence W. Perry, Esq.

Silver Spring, Maryland 20901 Office of General Counsel Federal Emergency Management Agency Dr. Jerry R. Kline 500 C Street, S.W., Room 840 Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Washington, D.C. 20472 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C. 20555 W. Taylor Reveley, III, Esq.

Hunton & Williams Fabian G. Palomino, Esq. P.O. Box 1535 Richard J. Zahnleuter, Esq. 707 East Main Street Special Counsel to the Governor Richmond, Virginia 23212 Executive Chamber, Rm. 229 State Capitol Albany, New York 12224 l

l l

l

t Joel Blau, Esq. Anthony F. Earley, Jr., Esq.

Director, Utility Intervention General Counsel N.Y. Consumer Protection Board Long Island Lighting Company Suite 1020 175 East Old Country Road Albany, New York 12210 Hicksville, New York 11801 E. Thomas Boyle, Esq.- Ms. Elisabeth Talbbi, Clerk Suffolk County Attorney Suffolk County Legislature Bldg.158 North County Complex Suffolk County Legislature Veterans Memorial Highway Office Building l Hauppauge, New York 11788 Veterans Memorial Highway Hauppauge, New York 11788 Mr. L. F. Britt Stephen B. Latham, Esq.

Long Island Lighting Company Twomey, Latham & Shea Shoreham Nuclear Power Station 33 West Second Street North Country Road Riverhead, New York 11901 Wading River, New York 11792 Ms. Nora Bredes Docketing and Service Section Executive Director Office of the Secretary Shoreham Opponents Coalition U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Comm.

195 East Main ?treet 1717 M Street, N.W.

Smithtown, New York 11787 Washmgton, D.C. 20555 Mary M. Gundrum, Esq. Hon. Patrick G. Halpin New York State Department of Law Suffolk County Executive 120 Broadway,3rd Floor H. Lee Dennison Building Room 3-116 Veterans Memorial Highway New York, New York 10271 Hauppauge, New York 11788 MHB Technical Anociates Dr. Monroe Schneider 1723 Hamilton Avenue North Shore Committee Suite K P.O. Box 231 l San Jose, California 95125 Wading River, New York 11792 Mr. Jay Dunkleburger George E. Johnson, Esq.

New York State Energy Office Edwin J. Reis, Esq.

Agency Building 2 U.S Nuclear Regulatory Comm.

l Empire State Plaza Office of General Counsel Albany, New York 12223 Washington, D.C. 20555 David A. Brownlee, Esq. Mr. Stuart Diamond Kirkpatrick & Lockhart Business / Financial 1500 Oliver Building NEW YORK TD4ES Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania 15222 229 W. 43rd Street New York, New York 10036 2-

4 . .

t, i

Douglas J. Hynes, Councilman Town Board of Oyster Bay Town Hall Oyster Bay, New York 11771 Michael S. Miller YW KIRKPATRICK & LOCKHART 1800 M Street, N.W.

South Lobby - 9th Floor Washington, D.C. 20036-5891 1

1

.. _ _. .-. . __._ - . - - - - - . - - - - - - - - - - - - - -