ML20148S937
| ML20148S937 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Shoreham File:Long Island Lighting Company icon.png |
| Issue date: | 04/13/1988 |
| From: | George Minor, Perry C MHB TECHNICAL ASSOCIATES, MOFFET, LARSON & JOHNSON, INC., SUFFOLK COUNTY, NY |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20148S880 | List: |
| References | |
| OL-3, NUDOCS 8804200084 | |
| Download: ML20148S937 (62) | |
Text
00thEiED j .
05NP.C UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 88 APR 15 All '47 -
0FFICE Dr ii u'.: i AR Y Before the Atomic Safety and L1censino Board)0CKEljNg '4tWICL
)
In the Matter of )
)
LONG ISLAND LIGHTING COMPANY ) Docket No. 50-322-OL-3
) (Emergency Planning)
(Shoreham Nuclear Power Station, )
Unit 1 )
)
DIRECT TESTIMONY OF CHARLES G. PERRY, III AND GREGORY C. MINOR ON BEHALF OF SUFFOLK COUNTY REGARDING
'\
\\
LILCO'S EMERGENCY SROADCAST SYSTEM
~
April 13, 1988 kkNhD T
DR
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION Before the Atomic Safety and Licensino Board
)
In the Matter of )
)
LONG ISLAND LIGHTING COMPANY ) Docket No. 50-322-OL-3
) (Emergency Planning)
(Shoreham Nuclear Power Station, )
Unit 1 )
)
DIRECT TESTIMONY OF CHARLES G. PERRY, III AND GREGORY C. MINOR ON BEHALF OF SUFFOLK COUNTY REGARDING LILCO'S EMERGENCY BROADCAST SYSTEM Q. Please state your names and occup3tions.
A. My name is Charles G. Perry, III. I am a partner in the consulting telecommunications firm of Moffet, Larson & John-sor , Inc.
l My name is Gregory C. Minor. I am Vice President of MHB Technical Associates.
l l
l Q. Please briefly summarize your experience and profes-sional qualifications.
l (Perry) I graduated from the University of Tennessee with a j degree in electrical engineering. For the past 22 years, I have 1
had extensive technical experience in cable, broadcasting and on... - .- - - - , _ . , _ ,,
e private radio. Between 1966 and 1973, I was involved in a vari-ety of technical and managerial positions related to the televi-sion industry. Between 1973 and 1977, I was the manager of applications engineering at Jerrold Electronics Corporation, where I was involved in signal strength measurements and the de-sign of cable television plant and CATV receiving antenna tower.
Between 1978 and December 1983, I was a Vice President of Westinghouse Broadcasting and Cable, Inc., where I was re-sponsible for, among other things, cable, studio and transmitter plant construction as well as operations and engineering con-sultation to the radio, television and cable operations of the company. In January 1984, I joined Moffet, Larson & Johnson, Inc. I am a partner in the firm, and also a regirtered profes-sional engineer in Virginia and Souch Carolina. Further details regarding my education, experience and professional qualifica-i i
tions are summarized in my resume, which is Ateachment 1 to this testimony.
i
( I should also briefly discuss my firm of Moffet, Larson &
j Johnson, Inc. Moffet, Larson & Johnson and its predecessors have l been providing consulting services to the telecommunications in-dustry since 1952. The firm is comprised of approximately 30 l engineers and staff personnel, and has a national base of clients. The firm performs services with respect to every class of broadcast station, cable television systems, cellular systems, and common carrier operations. The firm regularly files appli-l i
_2_
e
cations for broadcast licenses with the Federal Communications Commission ("FCC") for AM and FM radio stations, television stations and various types of common carriers, including micro-wave, cellular, paging, two-way .adio and multiple distribution systems. Over the years, Moffet, Larson & Johnson has conducted numerous measurements of AM, FM and TV antenna patterns; it has also frequently been engaged in the preparation of detailed equipment specifications for transmit'ters, antennas, towers, transmission lines and AM, FM and TV systems. The firm regularly prepares, and directs the preparation of, application and alloca-tion engineering work, and conducts feasibility studies involving AM, FM, TV and common carrier facilities. Members of the firm regula.rly testify as expert witnesses before the FCC and other federal, state and local agencies. 4 Moffet, Larson & Johnson has engineers and a staff trained i
and experienced in performing field strength measurement tests I and conducting measurements of radio frequency radiation patterns; further, it owns and controls equipment necessary to perform such measurements. The firm maintains computers to pro-cess computations for propagation diffraction analyses and has access to numerous sophisticated computer programs dealing with I antenna design and adjustment, radio propagation, microwave path selection and optimization, terrain analyses, general alloca-l f tions, TV and FM frequency searches and data base management.
The firm also operates Broadcast Data Service, a division of l
Moffet, Larson & Johnson, which maintains AM, FM and TV broadcast facility data bases and associated applications programs. A more detailed description of the firm's personnel and experience is appended to this testimony as Attachment 2.
[ Minor] I graduated from the University of California at Berkeley with a bachelor of science degree in electrical en-gineering; thereafter, I received a masters degree in electrical engineering from Stanford University. I have taken courses in radio field theory and related subjects. For 16 years, I was em-ployed by the General Electric Company and worked on matters re-lated to the design, construction and operation of nuclear moni-toring and safety systems, including hands-on experience at re-actor sites. I have been with MHB Technical Associates, an en-gineering and energy consulting firm, for 11 years. During that time, I have been involved in a wide variety of projects, many of which have related to the operation and construct. ion of, or em-ergency planning for, nuclear power plants. I have testified as an expert witness in numerous proceedings before the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, including those involving the health and safety, the emergency planning, and the February 13, 1986 FEMA-graded exercise proceedings in the Shoreham litigation. I am a member of the Nuclear Power Plant Standards Committee of the Instrument Society of America, and I served as a peer reviewer of the NRC's TMI Accident Investigation Report. Further details re-garding my education, experience and professional qualifications O
are summarized in my resume, which is Attachment 3 to this testi-mony.
Q. Do you jointly sponsor this testimony?
A. Yes. Nonetheless, in a number of instances, we indi-cate the primary author or sponsor of an answer. Where no pri-mary spons'or is noted, our answer repre::,cnts a joint effort al-though, even then, one of us may be more familiar than the other with p&rticular matters or aspects of the testimony.
Q. What is the purpose of this testimony?
A.- The purpose of this testimony is to address LILCO's proposed Emergency Broadcast System ("EBS").
Q. Are you familiar with LILCO's proposed EBS?
A. Yes. LILCO's most recent EBS proposal was first re-vealed by LILCO in its "Motion for Summary Disposition of the WALK Radio Issue," dated November 6, 1987 ("LILCO's Summary Disposition Motion"). It is our understanding that LILCO's Summary Disposition Motion was precipitated by the withdrawal of WALK-FM and -AM radio station as the primary, or lead, EBS station from LILCO's prior EBS network. According to LILCO, WALK was selected to be the primary, or lead, station because it is 9
"the most powerful broadcasting station in the area and simul-taneously broadcasts on AM and FM." LILCO Plan, Appendix A, at IV-3 (Rev. 6). LILCO's Summary Disposition Motion noted (at pages 5-6) that WPLR-FM in New Haven, Connecticut, had replaced WALK-FM and -AM as the new primary EBS station, that four secondary radio stations had also withdrawn from LILCO's EBS net-work, and that two Connecticut-based AM stations had been added to the EBS network. Thus, at this time, LILCO's proposed EBS network consists of the following stations: WPLR-FM in New Haven, Connecticut; WICC-AM in Bridgeport, Connecticut; WELI-AM in New Haven, Connecticut; WGLI-AM in Babylon, New York; WLIM-AM in Patchogue, New York; WRCN-FM in Riverhead, New York; WRHD-AM in Riverhead, New York; WRIV-AM in Riverhead, New York; and WLNG-AM and -FM in Sag Harbor, New York.
Q. What are the functions of WPLR-FM as the primary, or lead, station in LILCO's proposed EBS network?
A. According to the LILCO Plan, the functions of WPLR are threefold. First, WPLR acts as the "Common Point Control Station" in the event of a Shoreham emergency, through direct broadcasts to the public. LILCO Plan at 3.8-6. Second, WPLR activates broadcast receivers installed (or to be installed) at each of the secondary stations, which enable them either to re-broadcast the EBS messages received from WPLR over their own frequencies' or to tape them for later broadcast.
, _I_d . Third, 9
WPLR is relied upon to activate tone alert radios installed (or to be installed) at various special facilities, such as schools, hospitals, nursing homes and major employers in the EPZ. LILCO Plan, Appendix A, at IV-3, -170, -172, -173.
Q. What contention is involved in the litigation con-cerning LILCO's proposed EBS?
A. The contention at issue, as modified by the Licensing Board, reads as follows:
LILCO's new emergency broadcast ,ystem
("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 'he public in the event of a Shoreham emer-gency; (2) to activate receivers installed at nine secondary EBS stations (two in Connecticut l 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 l 10-mile plume exposure emergency planning zone
("EPZ") around the Shoreham plant. Egg LILCO Plan, Appendix A at IV-2 and -3; gag alig OPIP 3.8.2. LILCO's new provisions for radio trans-mission of EBS messages and other emergency in-formation, and for activation of tone alert radios and receivers installed at the secondary l
l EBS stations, are inadequate, and the Plan fails to comply with 10 CFR SS 50.47(a)(1), (b)(5) and (b)(6), 10 CFR Part 50, Appendix E SS IV.D.2 and 3, NUREG 0654 SS II.E.5 and E and Appendix 3 l thereto, and FEMA REP-10,l/ . for 6, the following
! reasons:
1/ FEMA REP-10, Guide for the Evaluation, of Alert and Notification Systems for Nuclear Power Plants (Nov. 1985).
l l
l
- 1. WPLR-FM could not and would not func-tion as an effective or adequate primary EBS station for radio transmission of EBS messages and activaticn of tone alert radios and re-ceivers 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 surreunding areas. WPLR broadcasts at a power of only 14.1 kilowatts. BELEG1s prev eus primary EBS statien WALM-FM and -AM --
breadeasts at a power of 50 kitewatts. Thus, WPbRas broadeust pewer is less than 30% as streng as LELEO's fermer 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 l and around the Shoreham EPZ. Long Island radio l
I 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 from north of Long Island, and therefore its reception on directional antennas in the EPZ and eisewhere en heng Estand can be impaired or attenuated. In addition, the hilly landscape of the north shore area of the EPZ and other obstructions further diminish the quclity of reception of WPLR's signal.
l C. WPLR has no AM broadcasting l capability. LEbe81s previous primary EBS station -- WAbH -- eeutd breedeast AM along with l
i FM with the flip of a single switch.M LILCO l thus fails to comply with the requirement that l there be a capability to issue warning messages on a 24-hour basis. .
F. WPLR is based in Connecticut, rather than on Long Island, the location of the Shoreham plant, or even in the State of New York. WPLR is accordingly not a local broadcast station, and LILCO's reliance on that station is 2./ This abitity to srmulcast during either day er night l opeIation was one -of the reasons. LILGG pr-ev-ious-1-y ee1ied upon l
WALK as 1.ts. pr.ima.r-y. EBS s t a t i o n . 6ea -LEGO 91-aa, Appendix A et
! Ill-3 -( Rev . 3-) ; ._gg a4-sq. G1.awson- e t aF . , ff. Tr. 5-254, Att . -2 , at-1.
l
(
l _
contrary to regulatory requirements. Sag, e.c.,
10 CFR Part 50, Appendix E S IV.D.2.
- 2. LILCO' relies 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 EPZ and surrounding areas during a Shoreham emergency because:
A. The new EBS network has significant gaps in its AM coverage of the EPZ a't 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. EfLEOls previens EBS network, inetuding WALM, was capable of previding 24-heur AM and FM eeverage of net enty all of Suffetk eeunty, but aise att of Nassau eenty and much of eennecticut.
O. Do you agree with this contention?
A. Yes, we do. Briefly stated, the contention alleges that: WPLR might not convey a strong and clear broadcast message l
l throughout the EPZ; the reception of WPLR may be impaired or i
j attenuated by the geography of Long Island, combined with the l
location of WPLR's transmitters and the nominal east-west orienta-tion of rooftop radio antennas in the EPZ; WPLR has no AM broad-l 9-I
casting capability; and the EBS network now relied on by LILCO has significant gaps in its AM coverage of the EPZ at night, thereby exposing a substantial portion of the population in the EPZ to the possibility of not receiving emergency information via LILCO's EBS network in the event of a Shoreham emergency. We agree with these allegations, for the reasons discussed later in this testimony.
Q. Are you familiar with the Nuclear Regulatory Commission regulations and guidance cited in the EBS contention?
A. (Minor) Yes. 10 CFR S 50.47(a)(1) states:
(a)(1) Except as provided in paragraph (d) of this section, no operating license for a nuclear power reactor will be issued unless a finding is made by NRC that there is reason-able assurance that adequate protective measures can and will be taken in the event of a radiological emergency.
10 CFR S 50.47(b)(5) and (b)(6) state:
i (5) Procedures have been established for l notification, by the licensee, of State and
[ local response organizations and for notifica-l tion of emergency personnel by all organiza-l tions; the content of initial and followup messages to response organizations and the public has been established; and means to pro-vide early notification and clear instruction to the populace within the plume exposure pathway Emergency Planning Zone have been I
established.
l (6) Provisions exist for prompt communi-cations among principal response organizations to emergency personnel and to the public.
10 CFR Part 50, Appendix E SS IV.D.2 and 3 state:
- 2. Provisions shall be described for yearly dissemination to the public within the plume exposure pathway EPZ of basic emergency planning information, such as the methods and times required for public notification and the protective actions planned if an accident occurs, general information as to the nature and effects of ~ radiation, and a listing of local broadcast stations that will be used for dissemination of information during an emer-gency. Signs or other measures shall also be used to disseminate to any transient popula-tion within the plume exposure pathway EPZ appropriate information that would be helpful if an accident occurs.
I
- 3. A licensee shall have the capability to notify responsible State and local govern-mental agencies within 15 minutes after de-claring an emergency. The licensee shall demonstrate that the State / local officials have the capability to make a public notifica-tion decision promptly on being informed by the licensee of an emergency condition. By ,
February 1, 1982, each nuclear power reactor licensee shall demonstrate that administrative ,
l and physical means have been established for
- alerting and providing prompt instructions to the public within the plume exposure pathway EPZ. The four-month period in 10 CPR i 50.54(s)(2) for the correction of emergency plan deficiencies shall not apply to the initial installation of this public notifica-tion system that is required by February 1,
! 1982. The four-month period will apply to i correction of deficiencies identified during the initial installation and testing of the l prompt public notification systems as well as those deficiencies discovered thereafter. The l design objective of the prompt public notifi-l cation system shall be to have the capability to essentially complete the initial notifica-tion of the public within the plume exposure .
i pathway EPZ within about 15 minutes. The use of this notification capability will range from immediate notification to the public (within 15 minutes of the time that State and local officials are notified that a situation exists requiring urgent action) to the more likely events where there is substantial time I
available for the State and local government officials to make a judgment whether or not to activate the public notification system.
Where there is a decision to activate the notification system, the State and local officials will determine whether to activate the entire notification system simultaneously or in a graduated or staged manner. The re-sponsibility for activating such a public notification system shall remain with the appropriate governmental authorities.
NUREG 0654 SS II.E.5 and E.6 state:
- 5. State and local government organiza-tions shall establish a system for dis-seminating to the public appropriate informa-tion contained in initial and followup messages received from the licensee including the appropriate notification to appropriate broadcast media, e.g., the Emergency Broadcast System (EBS).
- 6. Each organization shall establish administrative and physical means, and the time required for notifying and providing prompt instructions to the public within the plume exposure pathway Emergency Planning Zone. (See Appendix 3). It shall be the licensee's responsibility to demonstrate that such means exist, regardless of who implements this requirement. It shall be the responsi-bility of the State and local governments to activate such a system.
FEMA REP-10 (Guide for the Evaluation of Alert and Notifica-tion Systems for Nuclear Power Plants (Nov. 1985)) and Appendix 3 to NUREG 0654 (Means for Providing Prompt Alerting and Notifica-tion of Response Organizations and the Population) are also cited in the contention. They are not set forth in this testimony, because of their length.
s
l Q. Does LILCO's EBS proposal comply with these regulations and guidance?
A. (Minor) No. LILCO's current EBS proposal attempts to limit the dissemination of emergency information to only those persons within the 10-mile EPZ. However, the regulations and guidance, and even LILCO's own Plan, do not so limit the areas that should receive emergency information. While it is true that 10 CFR S 50.47(b)(5) and NUREG 0654 II.E.6 may limit the early notification requirements (i.e., sirens and initial EBS messages) to the 10-mile plume exposure EPZ, it is equally true that 10 CFR S 50.47(b)(5) provides for establishment of "initial and followup messages to response organizations and thg_ oublic" (emphasis added), not jrst those persons within the EPZ. Moreover, 10 CFR S 50.47(b)(6) and NUREG 0654 S II .E. 5' are not expressly limited to those persons within the 10-mile EPZ.
Ira addition, LILCO's own Plan provides for the communication of emergency informatian to persons outside the 10-mile EPZ. For example, OPIP 3.8.2, f, 5.2.2.g (concerning EBS "Message Assemb-ly") instructs the LERO Coordinator of Public Information as follows:
At the direction of the Director of Local Response, obtain from the Radiation Health Coordinator informa-tion concerning where ingestion pathway protective action levels may have been exceeded. Develoo a sucolementary EBS messace to inform Decole in these 9
areas of aooropriate actions and where they can call for further information. (Emphasis added).
Moreover, OPIP 3.8.2, Attachment 4, which contains LILCO's sample EBS messages, includes the following:
If you are outside the 10 mile emeraency olannina zQne there is no reason to take any action. If con-ditions change in the future, these recommendations may chance and we will inform you immediatelv.
(Emphasis added).
Q. Have you conducted any tests or surveys, or otherwise attempted to verify the signal level and coverage of the stations currently participating in LILCO's EBS network?
A. [ Perry] Yes. Jeffrey M. Bixby, a senior engineer with Moffet, Larson & Johnson, and I performed field tests on Long Island during the week of March 14, 1988. The results of those tests are reflected in an engineering report prepared by me and under my supervision and direction. That report is appended to this testimony as Attachment 4.
(Minor) I am familiar with the Moffet, Larson & Johnson I report and was with Messrs. Perry and Bixby during the first two days that their field tests were performed. Thereafter, for the remainder of the week, I was in frequent contact with Messrs. Perry and Bixby in order to stay apprised of the results
of the field tests. Following completion of the field tests, I reviewed the data reflected in the report which is Attachment 4 to this testimony, and provided comments to Mr. Perry, through counsel, concerning such data. Although not prepared by me, I believe that the facts stated in the report are true, and I concur in the conclusions reached by Moffet, Larson & Johnson, as described in the attached report.
Q. Did you review any LILCO reports or other data con-cerning the purported coverage of the EPZ by any of the stations participating in LILCO's proposed EBS network prior to performing the field tests?
A. [ Perry) No. At the time Moffet, Larson & Johnson was retained by Suffolk County, it was decided that neither I nor any other Moffet, Larson & Johnson personnel would have access to or review any LILCO reports, or any data reflected in such reports, prior to performing any field tests or preparing any reports on Suffolk County's behalf. Prior to performing the fieJd tests, I was aware that Cchen and Dippell, P.C., a radio and television consulting engineers firm, had been retained by LILCO to conduct l field strength measurement tests of WPLR-FM's coverage within the l
10-mile Shoreham EPZ and that it had prepared reports on those tests. In addition, I was generally aware of the fact that Cohen and Dippell had reviewed signal contour maps on file at the FCC l for other stations participating in LILCO's proposed EBS network.
l
Although I may have reviewed one map that was an attachment to a report prepared for LILCO by Cohen and Dippell prior to performing the field tests, I did not review any Cohen and Dippell reports, or even any data reflected in those reports, prior to performing the field tests, or preparing the report which is Attachment 4 to this testimony. Nor did I have, or participate in, any dis-cussions regarding any Cohen and Dippell reports or data prior to performing the field tests and preparing the attached report.
(Minor] Prior to the time Mr. Perry's firm conducted the field tests, I did review LILCO's Motion for Summary Disposition and the attached Cohen and Dippell engineering reports and other data. However, in all conversations with Mr. Perry and others at Moffet, Larson & Johnson, I was careful not to discuss these reports, or the data and conclusions they reflected. Indeed, as ;
noted above, it was decided at the time Moffet, Larson & Johnson was retained and requested to conduct its field tests that no dis-cussions regarding the substance of Cohen and Dippell's reports or other data would be held with Mr. Perry or others in his firm until after the field tests had been conducted and the report re-flecting the test results had been prepared.
l Q. Mr. Perry, did you review the Cohen and Dippell reports and data prior to preparing this testimony?
i w
A. [ Perry] Yes. I also reviewed LILCO's November 6, 1987 Motion for Summary Disposition.
Q. What was the purpose of the field tests performed by Moffet, Larson & Johnson?
A. [ Perry) The purpose of the field tests was to verify the signal level of the radio stations participating in LILCO's EBS.
Q. Which stations were tested?
A. [ Perry] All the AM stations participating in LILCO's proposed EBS network were tested, namely WICC (Bridgeport, Connecticut), WELI (New Haven, Connecticut), WGLI (Babylon, New York), WLIM (Patchogue, New York), WRHD (Riverhead, New York),
WRIV (Riverhead, New York) and WLNG (Sag Harbor, New York).- Due to time constraints, relatively few measurements were taken of WPLR-FM, and no measurements were taken of WRCN-FM (Riverhead, New York) or WLNG-FM (Sag Harbor, New York). The data gathered con-cerning WPLR were insufficient to permit any conclusions regarding its coverage of the EPZ.
l l
l 17 -
Q. How were the tests performed?
A. (Perry] Measurements of all the AM stations partici-pating in LILCO's EBS were taken at points initially selected by use of a 2 mile x 2 mile grid, in the manner provided in Section 73.314(c) of the FCC regulations. Additional measurements were taken of WICC, WELI and WLIM along radials established through the EPZ. In accordance with generally accepted and standard pro-cedures, all measurements were taken during daytime hours, speci-fically during the period from ~two hours after sunrise to two hours before sunset.
Q. What equipment was used to perforrn the tests?
A. (Perry] All AM measurements were made with a Potomac Instruments field intensity meter, type PIM-41, which is designed specifically for the purpose of measuring the field strength of radio signals.
Q. Was the instrument calibrat?d?
A. (Perry] Yes. The meter, serial number 189, had a current calibration certificate. As a precautionary measure, the meter was returned to the manufacturer immediately following com-pletion of the field tests for an "incoming" calibration of three frequencies (600, 1290, 1600), covering the range of the stations
measured. The instrument was found to be well within the manu-facturer's specifications.
Q. What were the results of the field tests you conducted?
A. (Perry] The results of the tests are reflected in the engineering report which is Attachment 4 to this testimony.
Briefly summarized, the test results indicate that while the AM stations currently participating in LILCO's EBS appear to provide coverage to the entire EPZ during the day, nighttime AM coverage is inadequate. Indeed, based upon the field tests conducted, it must be concluded that the AM stations in LILCO's EBS provide only minimal nighttime coverage of the EPZ.
Q. Does your conclusion regarding the inadequacy of nignt-time AM coverage within the EPZ take into account LILCO's claim that the AM stations in its EBS network would use their full day-time facilities to broadcast emergency information during a Shoreham emergency?
A. (Perry] Yes. As noted above, all field measurelaents were. taken during daytime hours, in accordance with FCC-accepted practices and procedures. As discussed below, it is not possible to take reliable AM measurements during the nighttime. Moreover,
- only three of LILCO's AM stations normally broadcast at night i
i l
i
(
(WICC, WGLI and WELI), and two of those three stations (WICC and WGLI) broadcast at lower power levels at night.
Accordingly, for purposes of this proceeding and the con-clusions reached in the Moffet, Larson & Johnson engineering report, it has been presumed that the AM stations participating in LILCO's proposed EBS would use their full daytime facilities during nighttime hours to broadcast emergency information during a Shoreha:a emergency. .Nevertheless, based on the results of the field tests conducted, it is my opinion that WRHD, WLNG and WGLI would not provide any meaningful or reliable nighttime service within the EPZ, and that WICC and WELI, and to a limited extent, WLIM and WRIV, would provide only minimal nighttime coverage of the EPZ. Indeed, LILCO's seven AM stations, collectively, could be expected to provide meaningful or reliable AM nighttime coverage only to the northern edge and portions of the south-western corner of the EPZ. Sag Figure 8 to Attachment 4 of this testimony, whi.ch reflects those areas of the EPZ where nighttime
! coverage from one or more of LILCO's AM r.tations can be expected. ,
It shoul6 be noted that, with respect to the nighttime AM coverage provided by LILCO's AM stations, there is virtually no disagree-ment between me and LILCO's expert witness, Mr. Dippell. Indeed, f
I the results reflected in Figure 8 of my firm's report (Attachment 4 to this testimony) are quite similar to those reached by Mr. Dippell's firm, as reflected in Figure 2 to the Cohen and l
l l l
Dippell September 1987 engineering report (included as Attachment 6 to LILCO's Motion for Summary Disposition).
Q. Is it your opinion, then, that there is no dispute between you and LILCO's consultant with respect to nighttime AM coverage of the EPZ?
A. There does not appear to be any dispute between us con-cerning the areas of predicted nighttime coverage within the EPZ.
I.ILCO , however, claims that nighttime AM coverage is adequate.
E.g.g. LILCO 's Summary Disposition Motion at 11. LILCG makes this claim in the context of discussing its agreements with the AM stations and FCC regulations which, according to LILCO, commit the stations to broadcast at any time in response to emergency condi-tions, and require the use of full daytime f&cilities should the emergency occur at night. Even if LILCO is correct, t.bere would be significant gapo in the nighttime AM coverage provided by LILCO's AM stations. S,g_t Attachment 4, Figure '3 . Thus, we find LILCO's assertion that its proposed EBS network provides adequate night. time AM coverage to be incorrect.
Q. Assuming the AM stations used their full, daytime facilities to broadcast emergency information during a Shoreham emergency, why would nighttime AM coverage not be the same as day-time AM coverage?
l i
i
~
M
A.- At night, the AM coverage of the EPZ would be limited by interference from other stations due to a phenomenom known as sky wave.
Q. What is sky wave?
A. In general terms, sky wave is the characteristic that causes the broadcast signal from AM stations to travel longer ,
distances during the nighttime than during the daytime, resulting in additional interference at nighttime for other AM stations with similar frequencies. In the daytime, high energy from the sun's radiation effectively destroys the smoothness of the ionosphere, which.is a layer of ionized particles above the surface of the earth. At night, however, without the sun's radiation, the ionosphere stabilizes and forms a reflecting surface that allows AM stations to transmit longer distances. For this reason, most AM stations are required to broadcast at lower power levels during their nighttime operation.
l Q. Are the LILCO IBS stations impacted by the sky wave effect?
A. Yes. As a result of sky wave effect, the nighttime reception of the stations in LILCO's proposed EBS network could be impacted by distant stations' signals. Thus, the coverage of
LILCO's stations would be adversely affected by the sky wave phenomenom.
Q. How adverse an effect would sky wave have on nighttime AM coverage of the EPZ, if all the AM stations participating in LILCO's proposed EBS operated at their full daytime facilities in the event of a Shoreham emergency?
A. It is difficult to quantify the amount of interference that would result from sky wave, because it is not possible to make reliable nighttime measurements of AM stations.3/ However, it is possible to predict "night limits" for AM stations, wnich refer to the received signal strength necessary to overcome dis-tant interfering signals so as to provide a clear, reliable and
- "listenable" signal. The "night limits" are calculated pursuant to a complex formula set torth in the FCC rules. The tables and maps attached to the Moffet, Larson & Johnson report (Attachment 4 to this testimony) identify the night limits for each of the seven l.
AM stations in LlLCO's proposed EBS network. As the data re-i
- flected in those tables and maps indicate, even if all AM stations 7 participating in LILCO's proposed EBS network operated at their full daytime facilities during a Shoreham emergency, AM coverage within the EPZ at nighttime would be severely restricted and l
3/ LILCO's witness, Mr. Dippell, agrees that it is not possible
! to make reliable nighttime measurements of AM stations, and has
- testified that LILCO did not make any nighttime measurements of the AM stations participating in LILCO's EBS network. S.t_t Dippell deposition, at 66, 69.
l 23 -
limited. Certainly, nighttime coverage would be significantly less than would be the case during the daytime.
Q. Would any factor other than sky wave limit AM coverage of the EPZ?
A. Yes. There are several factors that would limit AM coverage of the EPZ; significant among them is ground con-ductivity.
Q. What is ground conductivity?
A. In very simple terms, ground conductivity is the ability of the ground to " conduct" or carry an AM radio signal. Under conditions of "perfect" con 6uctivity, signal strength varies inversely with distance.
Q. Does the EPZ have "perfect" conductivity?
A. No. The ground of the EPZ has an abnormally high sand content, which adversely affects the conductivity of AM signals.
Thus, the EPZ has low ground conductivity. Moreover, higher fre-quency AM stations, like WGLI (1290 kHz), WRIV (1390 kHz), WRHD WLIM (1580 kHz) and WLNG (1600 kHz), are more (1570 kHz),
adversely affected by ground conductivity than are lower frequency mm1 <r--- -
r - ---- - - - - - - ---
stations. Hence, their coverage of the EPZ would be even more limited.
Q. Can ground conductivity be predicted?
A. Yes. Maps prepared by the FCC, known as M-3 maps, are used to predict ground conductivity throughout the United States.
Q. How accurate are these maps? .
A. [ Perry] It is my experience that the FCC's M-3 maps often overstate conductivity. In ottor words, in most cases a region's actual ground conductivity is somewhat lower tnan as shown on the maps. With respect to the EPZ, the level of measure-ments made by Moffet, Larson & Johnson indicate that the ground conductivity is poorer than indicated by the FCC's M-3 maps.
Q. LILCO has iridicated that, as long as there is FM coverage of the entire EPZ, "[nlothing more is necessary." Sig deposition of Douglas Crocker (March 8, 1988), at 120. Do you
{ agree?
A. No. Given the significant consequences of a radio-l logical emergency at Shoreham, it is important to have both day-time and nighttime AM and FM coverage of the EPZ. With respect to LILCO's proposed EBS network, it is not even clear that the signal 25 -
l -
1 L
n
- ~
- f rom WPLR-FM, ~ LILCO 's lead EBS station, will reach all areas of the EPZ. Certe. inly, there may be areas in the EPZ that will not be able to receive a strong, clear, interference-free signal from WPLR due to several factors. First, the hilly geography of the north shore area of the EPZ, combined with other obstructions and the location of WPLR's transmitters -- approximately 50 miles from i
the EPZ --
impairs and attenuates WPLR's signal. Second, there are several FM stations located in the proximity of the Long Island area, which operate on frequencies close to WPLR's fre-quency of 99.1 -- most notably, WAWZ in Zarephath, New Jersey.
These stations could interfere with WPLR's signal, thereby
- limiting the strength and clarity of WPLR's signal in the EPZ.
i Third, WPLR has a negligible listenership rate within the EPZ.
4 l
Indeed, recent Arbitron ratings reveal WPLR's listenership rate within Suffolk County to be 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.
Therefore, even assuming WPLR could be clearly heard throughout I the entire EPZ, adequate AM coverage is necessary because hardly anyone would be listening to WPLR in the event of an emergency at Shoreham.1/ Fourth, not all households in the EPZ have access to an FM radio. LILCO's own survey, commissioned in connection with
! LILCO's unsuccessful effort to resolve summarily the remanded EBS i issues, reveals that about 3% of all households in the EPZ have no l
l 1/ Indeed, LILCO's entire EBS network, including WPLR, has a i
collect've listenership rate of only about 4% in Suffolk Countye l .
l f ,
i FM radio. Further, according to LILCO's survey, about 8% of all EPZ households have no FM radio in their automobiles. Thus, with-out conceding the accuracy of LILCO's survey, even if it is assumed that everyone with FM/AM radios listened only to FM stations or, indeed, only to those FM stations participating in i
LILCO's EBS -- assumptions which would be entirely unrealistic --
there would still be a significant portion of the EPZ population without access to emergency information.-
Q. Have you had an opportunity to review the Cohen and Dippell engineering report dated June 1987 concerning the field strength measurement surveys of WEZN-FM and WPLR-FM?
A. Yes. (Perry) As noted above, however, I did not review any Cohen and Dippell reports until after the Moffet, Larson &
Johnson field tests and report had been completed.
Q. What is your opinion of the June 1987 Cohen and Dippell report as it relates to the field strength measuremer.t tests con-ducted of WPLR7 A. The Cohen and Dippell report raises many questions con- ,
cerning the purported coverage of the EPZ by WPLR. First, the measurements made by Cohen and Dippell may not provide an accurate picture of WPLR's coverage of the EPZ. There are certain condi-tions that can affect the accuracy of FM measurements. For
- n
example, weather conditions, obstructions (such as hills and buildings) and the seasons of the year can all affect the accuracy of FM measurements. Moreover, the Cohen and Dippell field tests were made with a receive antenna elevated 30 feet above ground level. As such, the measurements were taken in accordance with Section 73.314 of the FCC rules. Nonetheless, very few persons with FM radios have receive antennas elevated 30 feet above ground level. Further, very few antennas owned by the general public are as strong or effective as the receive antenna used by Cohen and Dippell. As a result, Cohen and Dippell's measurements, even if accurate, may not be appropriate for use in determining the number of EPZ households capable of receiving WPLR's broadcast signal.
Second, the location of WPLR's transmitters, coupled with the geography of Long Island and the directional orientation of roof-top radio antennas in the EPZ, likely impairs or attenuates the reliability of WPLR's signal in the EFZ. WPLR's transmitter is located in the New Haven, Connecticut, area --
approximately 50 miles to the north of the EPZ. However, most of the rooftop antennas in the EPZ are oriented in a nominal east-west direction, in order to facilitate reception of radio and television signals from the New York City area. Egg, LL. , Dippell deposition, at 126.
Third, it is likely that the hilly landscape of the north shore area of the EPZ and other obstructions further diminish the S
quality of reception of WPLR's signal in certain portions of the EPZ.
Fourth, with respect to thd radial measurements of WPLR taken by Cohen and Dippell, the FCC's 50/50 curve for FM radio was relied on to compute WPLR's 1 mV/m contour. The 1 mV/m contour for WPLR included in the Cohen and Dippell reports represents the distance at which the median value of WF;,R's signal exceeds 1 mV/m at 50% of the potential receiver locations i. t least 50% of the time. However, given.the significant potential consequences of a radiological emergency, the use of a 50/50 curve may be inappro-priate, in that it would not provide as reliable an estimate of a radio signal's coverage as would be provided by the use of a 90/50 curve. ,
Q. What is a 90/50 curve?
A. A 90/50 curve illustrates the distance where the median value of an FM signal exceeds 1 mV/m at 90% of the potential receiver locations at least 50% of the time.
Q. How are 90/50 curves used?
A. 90/50 curves are typically used instead of 50/50 curves in situations where there is a need for the signal to be received with a high degree of certainty. For example, 90/50 curves are
often used to measure the area of reliable coverage for pager systems.
Q. LILCO's EBS proposal relies on WPLR to activate broad-cast receivers installed at the nine secondary EBS stations, which would allegedly enable those secondary stations to either rebroad-cast the EBS messages received from WPLR over their own frequencies, or to tape them for later broadcast. In your opinion, is WPLR's signal capable of activating these broadcast receivers?
A. It is questionable whether WPLR's signal would reliably activate the broadcast receivers installed (or to be installed) at each of the nine second-tier stations currently participating in LILCO's EBS.1/ Assuming the accuracy of the field strength measurements for WPLR reported by Cohen and Dippell, the coverage of WPLR does not appear to reach the broadcasting facilities of certain staticas in LILCO's EBS network --
including WLNG-FM and
-AM in Sag Harbor, New York: WGLI-AM in Babylon, New York; and WLIM-AM in Patchogue, New York -- with a strong, reliable signal.
Therefore, WPLR's signal may not be capable of reliably activating the broadcast receivers at those stations. Moreover, we are not aware of any evidence one way or the ott.sr as to whether the 1/ More specifically, it is our understanding that LILCO has committed to providing and installing at each station a single-frequency broadcast receiver set at WPLR's frequency, and an EBS tone-activated switch. Een LILCO's Motion for Summary Disposition, at 9.
broadcast receivers at the other secondary stations in LILCO's proposed EBS network can be reliably activated by WPLR's signal.
Q. LILCO's EBS proposal also relies on WPLR to activate tone alert radios installed (or to be installed) in special facilities such as schools, hospitals, nursing homes, handicapped facilities, and large employers. In your opinion, can WPLR be relied on to activate these tone alert radios?
A. We do not know, nor apparently does LILCO. We are. aware of no evidence, however, that these tone alert radios would be reliably activated by WPLR's signal.
Q. Have you had an opportunity to review the September, 1987 engineering report prepared by Cohen and Dippell concerning the computed signal contours for WICC, WELI, WGLI, WRHD, WLIM, WLNG (AM and FM), WPLR and WRCN?
A. Yes, we have. (Perry) As noted above, however, I did not review any Cohen and Dippell reports until after the Moffet, Larson & Johnson field tests and report had been completed.
Q. The Cohen and Dippell report includes, as Figure 1 and Figure 3, computed AM 0.5 mV/m and FM 1 mV/m (60 dBu) contour l maps. Are you familiar with those maps?
i
A. Yes. Those maps include measured contours, as well as
- computed contours, however. According to LILCO's witness, Mr.
Dippell, the map includes measured contours for WPLR-FM and WELI-AM. The contours for the other stations in LILCO's EBS network are computed. ggg Dippell deposition, at 81. At this time we do not have available to us the data necessary to assess the accuracy of the measured contours.
Q. Please explain what is meant by a computed contour.
A. A computed contour is the estimated or predicted coverage of a radio signal. For the purpose of application for an FCC license, stations must submit computed contours of interference-free or reliable signal coverage.
Q. LILCO asserts that computed contours are generally very conservative, and that most stations' actual broadcasts would be heard at distances well beyond those shown by computed, or pre-l
! dicted, contours. Do you agree?
4 A. Not necessarily. The accuracy of computed contours can l
f vary greatly. While it is true that some signals can be heard I
beyond computed contours, it is also true that some signals might not reach the outer limits of their computed contours. To our 1
l knowledge, LILCO has not tested eight of the 10 stations in its l
proposed EBS network, to determine whether their signals actually l
l l
~
l
b reach their computed, or predicted, contours. Given the signifi-cant consequences of a radiological emergency at Shoreham, we consider this a serious omission by LILCo.
Q. Can densely populated areas affect the accuracy of com-puted contours?
A. Yes. In more densely populated areas, there will likely be more interference. Sources of such interference include power lines, elec'tric appliances, automotive ignition systems, and interfering signals from other radio stations. The FCC defines "densely populated" as those communities with a population of 2,500 or more persons. The EPZ has several such communities within it.
Pursuant to 47 CFR S 73.182(e), under daytime conditions a signal level of 0.5 mV/m is generally considered sufficient to provide meaningful and reliable service. In more densely popu-lated areas, however, considerably more signal is generally assumed to be required. As a guideline, the FCC assumes that a signal level of 2.0 mV/m or greater is required for communities with populations of 2,500 or more. There is no indication, however, that Cohen and Dippell took this FCC guidance into account in laying out the computed contours for eight of the 10 star. ions in LILCO's EBS network. Sag Cohen and Dippell engineering report (September 1987), Figure 1.
4 9
Q. Cohen and Dippell's September 1987 report also includes, as Figures 2 and 4, maps of the purported nigh.ttime AM and FM coverage of the EPZ. Are you familiar with those maps?
A. Yes. Those maps demonstrate that, even according to Cohen and Dippell, LILCO's proposed EBS network essentially fails to provide any AM or FM coverage west of the EPZ.
(Minor) Thus, LILCO's EBS proposal fails to comply with NRC regulations and guidance, as well as LILCO's own Plan.
l 2
Q. Does that conclude your testimony?
A. Yes.
l l
l l
l l
o e
4 ATTACHMENT 1 I
i 1
'9
-RESUME [
Charles G. Perry, III Moffet, Larson & Johnson, Inc. 1 1925 North Lynn Stree, Suite 700 ,
Arlington, Virginia 22209 i Married: Evelyn R. Perry ,
Children: Charles G., IV David Reis Languages: Spanish ;
Fluent both in oral and written State Department FS-3 rating !
- Education: BSEE University of Tennessee,1966 Honors graduate MBA coursework - Specializing in finance - no degree Syracuse University 1969 - 1970 i
Western Illinois University 1970 - 1973 ,
. t Temple University 1974 - 1977 l
Professional Engineer in Virginia (15347 4
Prof essional Engineer in South Carolina $10608 i Foreign experience:
Columbia, South America 1961 - 1964 One of first 25 Peace Corps Volunteers Worked in Community
- Development 2 years and Educational TV one year.
Mexico City 1968 Planned an installed Channel S Studio and Production Center for Television i
r
Resume of Charles G. Perry, III Work Experience:
1984 to Present: Moffet, Larson & Johnson, P.C..
Seventh Floor 1925 North Lynn Street Arlington, Virginia 22209
Title:
Partner .
Duties: Consulting engineering in the field of telecommunications.
Responsibilities:
- 1. Prepare FCC Forms and Documents for clients
- 2. Work with Client and with client Legal Counsel as required
- 3. Provide Expert Testimony when necessary before courts or FCC
- 4. Work with other FCC Consulting Engineers as necessary.
- 5. Prepare quotations and prices for bid requests f rom prospective clients.
- 6. Supervise client projects as required, indlucing design and construction of actual projects. .
7 Perform environmental testa at client sites (Radiation Hazards).
- 8. Supervise employee work as necessary.
- 9. Treasurer of firm.
e
Resume of Charles G. Perry, III 1978 to Dec.1983: Westinghouse Broadcasting and Cable, Inc.
888 7th Avenue New York, New York 10106 3/82 to 1984: MUZAK Corporation
Title:
Vice President - Affiliate Relations Immediate Supervisor: Tony Hirsh - President Duties: Brought on board to help resolve serious operational difficulties and an impending rebellion by f ranchisees caused by several years of poor management and neglect by MUZAK and Telepromptor management.
Responsibilities:
- 1. Represent company to Affiliate Group (Franchisees)
- 2. Manage sales of private label audio products to f ranchise group
- 3. Improve profitability of audio product sales
- 4. Contract with FM stations for provision of side channel (SCA) required for carriage of MUZAK signal in owned and operated f ranchises
- 5. Recontract satellite transponder service to improve quality of signal ,
delivered to MUZAK operations
- 6. Develop new tape player for on-premises tape playback
- 7. Redesign Satellite Communications System using Westinghouse satellite.
1 r
I r
l
{
l
a Resume of Charles G. Perry, III 12/78 to 3/82
Title:
Vice President Opirations and engineering Immediate Supervisor Daniel L. Ritchie, President and CEO Duties: Job was multif aceted, including responsibility for new technologies investigation, capital investment planning and management, and operations and engineering consultation to senior staff of radio, television, and cable operations of the company.
Responsibilities:
- 1. Develop and implement capital investment plan of $30-40 million annually
- 2. Provide engineering and operating liaison between senior staff and stations group
- 3. Investigate and make recommendations concerning new technologies
- 4. ' Develop group purchase arrangements for better financial efficiency
- 5. Select and develop engineering management personnel for company
- 6. Interface with Westinghouse Electric staff as required.
Major Accomplishments:
- 1. Completion of $15 million studio building for KPIX-TV
- 2. Ass,isted purchase of one TV and four FM f acilities
- 3. Construction of major satellite communications system for broadcast group
- 4. Rebuilt AM, FM, and TV transnitter plant for sil facilities
- 5. Planned and obtained funding for rebuild of 60,000 subscriber cable system in South Georgia.
- 6. Organized 9 Station FM group in Houston, Texas to build a 2000 foot broadcast tower. Leased side space on tower to new TV station.
- 7. Organized Charlotte TV stations to apply for and obtain permission to build a 2000 f oot tower in Charlotte.
- 8. Plsnned and set up a Teletext experiment at KPIX-TV in San Francisco.
Reason for leaving: Requested to take Muzak job
Resume of Charles G. Perry, III 1977 to 1978: Durham Life Broadcasting Co.
410 South Salisbury Street Raleigh, North Carolina T i t.' v : Director of Engineering Immediate Supervisor Douglas R. McClarty '
Vice President and General Manager WPTF-TV Duties: Responsible for engineering design and construction of a new television bromdcast f acilit for Durham Life Broadcasting, Inc. Moved transmit location for beccer market coverage, and corpletely rebuilt studio operation while maintaining normal on-air operation.
Res ponsibilities :
- 1. Design and construct new transmit site to include tower, building, transmitter, and accessory equipment
- 2. Redesign studio facility for modern operation while maintaining normal studio operation
- 3. Plan purchases, obtain necessary approvals, and negotiate contracts for major items
- 4. Hire and develop staff as required f or proper operation of station
- 5. Operate and maintain physical equipment plant
- 6. Work as required with Durham Life staff.
Major Accomplishments:
- 1. Completion of $2.5 million transmitter plant within timetable
- 2. Reduced tower cost by $40,000 through use of new technology
- 3. Completed studio installation with no loss of air time, and within budget
- 4. Developed highly capable eleven man engineering staff Reason for leaving: Of f ered position by Westinghouse Broadcasting and Cable, Inc.
Resume of Charles c. perry, III 1973 to la77: Jerrold Electronics Corporation Hatboro, Pennsylvania
Title:
Manager of Applications Engineering Immediate Supervisor: William H. Lambert Vice president - Marketing Duties: Responsible for engineering design of cable television plant and for preparation of proposals for sales force.
Provided cable plant design for customers and Turnkey Construction Department.
Worked with engineering and with marketing to properly posture CATV products for, market.
Responsibilities:
- 1. Managed staff ranging f rom 75 to 15 engineers, designers and support people to serve CATV marketing and sales groups.
- 2. Turnkey sales of head end equipment, including design, proposals, construction, and installation
- 3. Worked with engineering, sales, marketing and construction groupb to improve products, system designs, and customer relations Major Accomplishments:
- 1. Mechanized design department using programmt 'e calculators to substantially improve both accuracy and output of group
- 2. Developed and implemented pre-packagir.g of CATV head-end equipment, improving quality and profit margins
- 3. Combined proposal writing team with system design team for improved efficiency and flexibility.
Reason for leaving: Offered position by Durham Life Broadcasting, Inc.
O
Resuma of Charles G. Perry, III 1970 to*1973: Barris Broadcast Products Quincy, Illinois
Title:
Manager of Television service Immediate Supervisor: Curtis King Television Sales Manager Duties: Responsible for service support function for televieion transmitter line recently introduced by Barris, set up service department, and developed a program to supply parts and service 4
as well as installation supervision and training.
Responsibilities:
- 1. Managed staff of three to tive people to provide service parts and advice on a twenty-four hour basis
- 2. Planned and implemented a service parts inventory, and set up a manning system for 24 hour2.777778e-4 days <br />0.00667 hours <br />3.968254e-5 weeks <br />9.132e-6 months <br /> coverage
- 3. Worked with engineering, sales, and marketing as necessary to improve products, and to facilitate sales.
Major Accomplishments:
- 1. Worked to identify and to resolve serious electrical problems with the new transmitter line before damage to the marketing program became serious
< 2. Worked to eliminate a serious vendor problem before it could damage the program
- 3. Installed, checkout out, and obtained FCC approval for the highest powered TV transmitter ever built.
Reason for leaving Offered position by Jerrold Electronics Corporation.
o w
Resume of Charles G. Perry, III 1966 to 1970: Visual Communications Products Dept.
General Electric Company Syracuse, New York
Title:
1966: TV Service Engineer 1968: Regional TV Service Engineer 1969: Coordinator TV Demo Studio ;
Immediate Supervisor: M. R. Duncan 1966-1968 Television Service Manager Paul Schonewolf 1969-1970 Manager - Marketing Duties: Started out in TV service, then became a regional engineer in the Washington, D.C. area. Travelled extensively for the company, including jobs in Europe, Asia, and South America.
Transferred to Syracuse to run a demonstration TV studio, where I was responsible for presentations and sales assistance.
Reason for leaving: Accept a management job with Barris.
4 e
e e
e o
ATTACHMENT 2 e
ENGINEERING REPORT MOFFET. LARSON & JOHNZON INC.
.aos 6ea .w.o me cossutti%o titicouuusicatioss %oi%ttas .. u. e v.e v. ano.i History of Mof fet, Larson & Johnson, Inc.
Moffet, Larson & Johnson, Inc. is a Virginia based consulting telecommunications engineering firm located in Falls Church, Virginia.
The corporation moved to Virginia in 1977 from 711 Fourteenth Street, N.W., Washington, D.C. 20005. Moffet, Larson & Johnson, Inc. is licensed under the State Corporation Commission, Commonwealth of Virginia. We represent or-have represented, in an engineering capacity, radio (AM and FM) and television stations in every state of the union. This includes commercial and non-commercial stations. We also represent or have represented CATV systems, cellular systems and common carrier operations.
Our corporation's founding f ather was John A. Hoffet, Sr., who passed away June 1, 1983. He joined the firm of Silliman, Hoffet and Rohrer in 1952 as a senior partner. In 1977, Mr. Moffet became President of the firm of Silliman, Moffet & Kowalski, and its successor firms. He remained President and Chairman of the Board until his death.
H. Drew Larson, Jr. was a Senior Engineer with the firm from May,1969 until his death, July 11, 1984. At his death, he was Vice President and a member of the Board of Directors. Mr. Larson prepared or supervised preparation of a large number of r.echnical studies and applications in all of the communications fields and was the author of numerous sophisticated computer programs in use by the tirm.
Wallace E. Johnson became a partner in Moffet, Larson & Johnson, Inc.
May 1, 1982. For 37 years, he was employed as an engineer by the Federal Communications Commission and was Chief of the Broadcast Bureau from August, 1971 to May, 1979. He has served as Executive Director of the Association of B*oadcast Engineering Standards (ABES) since June, 1979.
He also serves on the FCC/ Industry Radio Advisory Committee and is Chairman of the Technical Sub-Group. On June 24, 1983, he became President of the firm, succeeding Mr. John A. Moffet.
Douglas B. DeLawder is a Senior Engineer, partner and corporate Vice President in the firm. He has been associated with the firm since 1958.
As an engineer, he has prepared or assisted in preparing a large number of applications filed with the FCC including AM, FM, TV and auxiliary type proposals as well as various types of common carrier proposals such as microwave, cellular, paging, two-way radio, multiple distribution systems, and point to point microwave for control operations.
ENGINEERIN3 REPORT MOFFET. LARSON & JOHNCON. INC.
saos Lassevmo pins CONSULTlho TELECOMMUNICATIONS FhGINttRS raLLs cmuncu.va.saoa, History of Mof fet, Larson & Johnson, Inc. (Continued)
Charles G. Perry, III joined the firm in January, 1984 Previously he was associated with Westinghouse Broadcasting & Cable, Inc. where he last served as Vice President of Affiliate Relations for the Muzak Corporation and earlier as Vice President of Broadcast Operations and Engineering. He has had extensive technical experience in cable, broadcasting, and private radio areas.
Marianna W. Cobb has been associated with the firm as a consultant since 1967. Mrs. Cobb is a recognized expert in the field of antenna design in the medium frequency band and in AM, FM and TV broadcast allocation studies.
Philip L. Rice, Sr. is associated with the firm as a consultant. Me is a recognized expert in the field of propagation and while with the National Bureau of Standards was the primary author of NBS Technical Note 101 which is the prime propagation prediction model used by engineers.
There are 25 additional engineers and staff personnel in the firm.
Detailed resumes of the above noted senior engineers and additional engineers associated with the firm are available upon request.
The full service type of quality engineering work done by our firm includes preparation of detailed equipment specifications for transmitters, antennas, towers, transmission lines, test equipment, closed circuit television systems and other TV, AM and FM equipments and systems. Our engineers conduct or participate in the measurement of AM, FM and TV antenna patterns, VSWR, etc., at the station site or at the manuf acturers antenna test range. Our professional engineers also observe and/or participate in the checkout of TV antennas and/or other equipment at the purchaser's location.
Moffet, Larson and Johnson, Inc. prepares and/or directs the preparation of application engineering work, allocation engineering work and feasibility studies insolving TV, FM and AM or common carrier facilities.
Our engineers testify as erpert witnesses before the Federal Communications Commission in hearings.
l l
'd
ENGINEERING REPORT MOFFET. LARSON & JOHNCON INC.
esos 6s ..v.o .ma cowsuttisc teticouuu%icatioss escists as nu cau.c v. ano ,
History of Moffet, Larson & Johnson, Inc. (Continued)
We maintain a computer to process computations for complex propagation diffraction analysis, the analysis of proximity effects at points near a radiator and detailed TV and FM frequency searches using the corporation's completely computerized data banks in these areas. We have numerous sophisticated computer programs dealing with antenna design and adjustment, radio propagation, microwave path selection and optimization, terrain analysis, general allocations, TV and FM frequency searches and data base management.
Field work is facilitated by a 3/4 ton van equipped with a 30' telescoping mast for FM and TV measurements. The van is also fitted with a 1.5 kW AC generator and computer facilities for data collection and processing. All test equipment for AM field work is also available.
The firm has a staf f trained and experienced in the measurement of Radio Frequency Radiation (RFR) referenced to ANSI and other standards, and has equipment to do required measurements. RFR measurements provide assurances that licensing requirements are met and that on site personnel area not exposed to hazardous levels of Radio Frequency Radiation.
Measurements can be performed either on a broadband basis or based on specific frequencies of interest.
The firm operates broadcast Data Services, (BDS) a division of the parent firm. BDS maintains AM, FM and TV broadcast facility data bases and associated applications programs. BDS is used by many consulting engineers and private broadcasters as a source of both FCC data and various computer programs. BDS also provides a research service for clients upon request.
Hoffet, Larson & Johnson, Inc. serves clients on a local to national scale including every class of broadcast station together with cellular radio, common carrier operations and other fields.
e e
6 9
6 ATTACHMENT 3 l
9
o PROFESSIONAL QUALfFICATIONS OF GREGORY C. MINOR GREGORY C. MINOR MHS Technical Associates 1723 Hamaton Avenue Suite K San Jose, Califomia 95125 (408) 266 2716 EXPERIENCE:
1976 to PRESENT Vice-President MHB Technleaf Assoelates. San Jose. Califomia Engineering and energy consultant to state, federal, and private organizations and indMduals.
Major actMtles include studies of safety and risk involved in energy generation, providing technical consulting to legislatNo, regulatory, public and prtvate groups and expert witness in behalf of state organ!zations and citizens' groups. Was co-editor of a critique of the Reactor Safety Study (WASH.1400) for the Union of Concerned Scientists and co-author of a risk analysis of Swedish reactors for the Swedish Energy CommisSlon. Served on the Peer Review Group of the NRC/TMt SpecialInquiry Group (Rogovin Committee). ActNely involved in the Nuclear Power P! ant Standards Committee work for the (nstrument Society of America (ISA).
1972 1976 Manaaer. Advanced Contrd and instrumentation Enoineerina. General Electric Com Nuclear Enerav DMalon. San Jose. California Managed a design and development group of tNrty-four engineers and support personnel designing systems for use in the measurement, contrd and operation of nuclear reactors.
involved coordination with other reactor design organ!zations, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, and customers, both overseas and domestic. Responsibattles included coordinating and managing and design and development of control systems, safety svstems, and new control concepts for use on the next generation of reactors. The position included responsib81ty for standards applicable to control and instrumentation, as well as the design of short term solutions to field problems. The disciplines mvolved included electrical and mechanical engineering, seismic design and process computer control / programming, and equipment qualification.
1970 1972 Manacer. Reactor Contrc4 Systems Desion. General Electric Comoany. Nuetear Enerov DMston. San Jose. California Managed a group of seven engineers and two support personnel in the design and preparation of the detaHed system drawings and control documents relating to safety and emergency systems for nuclear reactors. ResponsibDity required coordination with other 1
- design organizations and interaction whh the customer's engineering personnel, as well as regulatory personnel. , ,
1963 1970 1
Deslan Enaineer. General Electric Comoanv. Nuclear Enerav DMslon. San Jose CalNomia j Responsible for the design of specific centrd and instrumentation systems for nuclear ,
reactors. Lead design responsibahy fet various subsystems of instrumentation used to l
measure neutron flux in the reactor during startup and intermediate power operation. t Performed lead system design function in the design of a major system for measuring the power generated in nuclear reactors. Other responstbalties induded on she checkout and testing of a complete reactor control system at an experimental reactor in the Southwest.
HeceNed patent for Nuclear Power Monitoring System.
1960 1963 Advanced Enoineerino Proaram. General Electric Comoanv Asslanments in Washincton' l Califomta. and Arizona i Rotating assignments in a variety of disciplines:
Engineer, reactor maintenance and instrument design, KE and D reactors, i Hanford, Washington, circuh design and equiprrent maintenance coordination. i Design engineer, Microwave Department, Palo Ato, Califomla. Work on d3 sign of cavty couplers for Microwave Traveling Wave Tubes (TWT).
\
Design engineer, Computer Department Phoentx, Arizona. Design of core drking f circutry, l
Design engineer, Atomic Power Equipment Department, San Jose, Califomla.
Circuit design and analysis.
1 Design engineer, Space Systems Department, Santa Barbara, Califomla.
l Prepared conuof portion of satenite proposa!.
Technical Staff . Technical Mattary Planning Operation. (TEMPO), Santa Barbara.
- [
Califomla. Prepare analyses of misste exchanges.
1
) During this period, completed three year General Electric program of extensNe education j in advanced engineering principles of higher mathematics, probabity and analysis. Also completed courses in Kepner.Tregoe, EffectNo Presentation, Management Training Program, and various technical seminars. -
l j .r. i 4
8
EDUCATION l Ur*ersity of Calliomia at Berkeley, BSEE,1960.
Advanced Course in Engineering three year curriculum, General Electric Company,1963. ;
Stanford Ur.iversity, MSEE,1966.
HONORS AND ASSOCIATIONS Tau Beta Pi Engineering Honorary Society Co-hdder of U.S. Pat.>.1 No. 3,565 760, 'Nudear Reactor Power Monitoring $
System,' February,1971, .
- I Member: American Association for the Advancement of Science.
Member: Nuclear Power Plant Standards Committee, Instrument Society of Americ4. 't I
PERSONAL DATA eom: June 7,1937 f, tan',ed, three chidren Residence: San Jose, Califomia i
PUBLICATIONS AND TESTIMONY 4
. 1. G. C. Minor, S E. Moore, 'Conted Rod Signal Muttlplexing,' IEEE Transactions on Nuclear Science,Vd. NS 13 February 1972. '
i 2.
G. C. Minor W. G. Miam, 'An Integrated Contrd Room System for a Nudear Power Plant,'
NEDO 10658, presented at International Nudoar Industries Fair and Technical Meetings, i October,1972, Basie, Switzertand.
- 3. The above article was also pubilshed in the German Technical Magazine, NT, March,1973. !
- i
- 4. Testimony of G. C, Minor, D. G. Bridenbaugh, and R. B. Hubbard before the Joint I Corr,mittee on Atomic Energy, Hearity held February 18,1976, and published by the Union of Concemed Scientists, Cambridge, Massachusetts.
- 5. I Teatimony of G. C. Minor, D. G. Bridencaugh, ard R. 8. Hubbaro before the Califomia State l Assembly Comm!ttee on Resources, Land Uss, and Energy, March 8,1976. I
- 6. Testimony of G. C. Minor and R. B. Hubbard before the Ca!!fomla State Senate Committee on Public UtEities, Transit, and Energy, March 23,1976.
1 j i I
f 3 !
I
7.
Testimony of G. C, Minor regarding the Grafentbelnfeld Nuclear Plant, March 16 17, 1977, Wurzbuerg, Germany, 8.
Testimony of G. O. MW before the Outf Lake Board of Inquiry, Reglaa, Saskatchewan, Canada, ScNember 21,1977.
9.
The Risks of Nudear Power Reretors A Review of the NRC Resetor Safety Study WASH-1400 fNUREG 75/014). H. Kenda!!, et al, edited by G. C. Minor and R. B. Hubbard for the Union of Concemed Scientists, August,1977.
10.
Swedhh Reactor Safety Studv Barseback Risk Assessment. MHB Technical Associates, January,1978. (Published by Swedish Department of Industry as Document Dsl 1978:1) 11, Testimony by G. C. Minor before the Wisconsin Public Service Commission, February 13, 1978,less of Coolant Accidents: Their Fababmtv and Consecuence.
12.
Testimony by G. C. Minor before the Califomla Legislature Assembly Committee on Resources, Land Use, and Energy, AB 3108, April 26,1978, Sacramento, Califomla.
13.
Presentation by G. C. Minor before the Federal Ministry for Research and Technology (BMFT), Meeting on Heactor Safety Research, Man / Machine interface in Nudear Reactors.
August 21, and September 1,1970, Bonn, Germany, 14.
Testimony of G. C. Minor, D. G. Bridenbaugh, and R. B. Hubbard, before the Atomic Safety and Ucensing Board, September 25,1978, in the matter of Black Fox Nuclear Power Station Construction Permit Hearings, Tulsa, Okiahoma.
15.
Testimony of G. C. Minor, ASLB Hearings Related to TMI 2 Accident, Rancho Seco Power Plant, on behalf of Friends of the Earth, September 13,1979.
16.
Testimony of G. C. Minor before the Michigan State Legislature, Special Joint Committee on Nuclear Energy, ledkations of Three Mite ts!and Accident for Nudear Power Plants in Michican. October 15,1979.
17.
A Crltical View of Resetor Saferv. by G. C. Minor, paper presented to the American Association for the Advancement of Science, Symposium en Nuclear Reactor Safety, January 7,1980, San Francisco, Califomla.
18.
I,he Effects of Aoina on Safety of Nudear Power Plants. paper presented at Forum on Swedish Nuclear Referendum, Stockholm, Sweden, March 1,1980, 19.
Minnesota Nudear Plants Gaseous Emissions Study. MHB Technical Associates, September 1980, prepared for the Minnesota Poflution Control Agoney, Roseville, MN.
- 20. Testimony of G. C. Minor and D. G. Bridenbaugh before the New York State Public Service Commission, Shoreham Nuclear Plant Construction Schadute, n the matter of Long Island Ughting Company Temporary Rate Case, case # 27774 September 22,1980.
21, Systems Interaction and Sino's Falfure Criterion. MHB Technical Associates, January,1981, prepared for and avalable from the Swedish Nuclear Power Inspectorate, Stockholm, Sweden.
4 w
22.
Testimony of G. C. Minor and D. G. Bridenbaugh before the New Jersey Board of Public Utiltles, Ovster Creek 1980 Refuelina Outaae Investiaation. In the matter of the Petition of Jersey Central Power and Ught Company for approval of an increase in the rates for electrical service and adjustme.it clause and factor for such service, OAL Docket No. PUC 3518-80, BPU Docket Nos. 804 285,807-488, February 19,1981.
- 23. Testimony of G. C. Minor and D. G. Bridenbaugh on PQRV's and Pressurizer Heaters. Diablo Canyon Operating Ucense hearing before ASLB, in the matter of Pacific Gas and Electric Company (Diablo Canyon Nuclear Power Plant, Units 1 and 2), Docket Nos. 50 275-OL,50-323-OL, January 11,1982.
- 24. Testimony of G. C. Minor and R. B. Hubbard on Emeroency Resoonse Plannina. Diablo Canyon Operating Ucense hearing before ASLB, Docket Nos. 50 275-OL, 50-323-OL January.11,1982.
- 25. Systems Interaction and Sinato Failure Criterion- Phase il Reoort. MHB Technical Associates, February 1982, prepared for and available from the Swedish Nuclear Power Inspectorate, Stockholm, Sweden.
- 26. Testimony of G. C. Minor, R. B. Hubbard, M. W. Goldsmith, S. J. Harwood on behalf of Sutfolk County, before the Atomic Safety and Ucensing Board, in the matter of Long Island Ughting Company, Shoreham Nuclear Power Station, Unit 1, regarding Contention 7B, Safety Ctassification and Systems Interaction. Docket No. 50-3224L AprB 13,1982.
- 27. Testimony of G. C. Minor and D. G. Bridenbaugh on behalf of Suffolk County, before the Atomic Safety and Ucensing Board, in the matter of Long Island Ughting Company, Shoreham Nuclear Power Station, Unit 1, regarding Suffolk County Contention 11. Passive Mechanical Vatve Failure. Docket no. 50-322-OL, AprE 13,1982.
- 28. Testimony of G. C. Minor and R. B. Hubbard on behalf of Suffolk County, before the Atomic Safety and Ucensing Board, in the matter of Lcng Island Ughting Company, Shoreham Nuclear Power Station, Unit 1, regarding Suffolk County Contention 27 and SOC Contention
- 3. Post Accident Monitorina. Docket No. 50-3224L, May 25,1982.
- 29. Testimony of G. C. Minor and D. G. Bridenbaugh on behalf of Suffolk County, before the Atomic Safety and Ucensing Board, in the matter of Long Island Ughting Company, Shoreham Nucisar Power Station, Unit 1, regarding Suffolk County Contention 22. SRV Test Proaram. Docket No. 50-3224L, May 25,1982.
- 30. Testimony of G. C. Minor and D. G. Brkfenbaugh on behalf of Suffolk County, before the Atomic Safety and Ucensing Board, in the matter of Long Island Lighting Company, Shoreham Nuclear Power Station, Unit 1, regarding Reduction of SRV Cha!!ences, Docket No. 50 322-OL, June 14,1982.
- 31. Testimony of G. C. Minor on behalf of Suffolk County, before the Atomic Safety and Ucensing Board, in the matter of Long Island Lighting Company, Shoreham Nuclear Power Station Unit 1, regarding Environmental Qualification. Docket No. 50 3224L, January 18, 1983.
.s.
32.
Testimony of G. C. Minor and D. G. Bridenbaugh before the Pennsylvania Public UtElty Commission, on behalf of the Office of Consumer Advocate, Reaardina the Cost of Constructlna the Susauehanna Steam Electric Station. Unit 1. Re: Pennsylvania Power and Ught, Docket No. R 822189, March 18,1983.
- 33. Supplemental testimony of G. C. Minor, R. B. Hubbard, and M. W. Goldsmith on behalf of Suffolk County, before the Atomic Safety and Ucensing Board, in the matter of Long Island Ughting Company, Shoreham Nuclear Power Station, Unit 1, regarding Safety Classification and Systems Interaction (Contention 78). Docket No. 50-322, March 23,1983.
- 34. Verbal testimony before the District Court Judge in the case of Sierra Club et. al. vs. DOE regarding the Clean-up of Uranium Mill Tallings. June 20,1983.
- 35. Systems Interaction and Sinale Failure Criterion: Phase 3 Reoort. MHB Technical Associates, June,1983, prepared for and available from the Swedish Nuclear Power inspectorate, Stockholm, Sweden.
- 36. Systematic Evaluation Proaram: Status Reoort and Initial Evafuation. MHB Technical Associates, June,1983, prepared for and available from the Swedish Nuclear Power inspectorate, Stockholm, Sweden.
- 37. Testimony of G. C. Minor, F. C. Finlayson, and E. P. Radford before the Atomic Safety and Ucensing Board, in the Matter of Long Island Ughting Company, Shoreham Nuclear Power Station, Unit 1, regarding Emeroency Plannina Evacuation Times and Doses (Contentions
- 65. 23 D and 23.H). Docket No. 50 322-OL-3, November 18,1983.
- 38. Testimony of G. C. Minor, Sizewell 'B' Power Station Public Inquiry, Proof of Evidence Recardina Safety issues. December,1983.
- 39. Testimony of D. G. Bridenbaugh, L M. Danielson, R. B. Hubbard and G. C. Minor before the State of New York Public Service Commission, PSC Case No. 27583, in the matter of Long Island Ughting Company Proceeding to investicate the Cost of the Shoreham Nuclear Generatina Facility - Phase ll. on behalf of County of Suffolk, February 10,1984.
- 40. Testimony of Fred C. Finlayson, Gregory C. Minor and Edward P. Radford before the Atomic Safety and Ucensing Board, in the Matter of Long Island Ughting Company, Shoreham l Nuclear Power Station, Unit 1, on behalf of Suffolk County Regarding Emeroency Plannina .
Shetterina (Contention 61). Docket No. 50-322-OL, March 21,1984.
- 41. Testimony of G. Dennis Eley, C. John Smith, Gregory C. Minor and Dale G. Bridenbaugh before the Atomic Safety and Ucensing Board, in the matter of Long Island Ughting company, Shoreham Nuclear Power Station Unit 1, regarding EMD Diesei Generators and 20 MW Gas Turbine. Docket No. 50-322-OL, March 21,1984.
- 42. Revised Testimony of Gregory C. Minor before the Atomic Safety and Ucensing Board, in l the matter of Long Island Ughting Company, Shoreham Nuclear Pown Station Unit 1, on behalf of Suffolk County regarding Emeroency Plannina - Recovery and Reentry (Contentions 85 and 88). Docket No. 50 322 OL, July 30,1984.
- 43. Testimony of Dr. Christian Meyer, Dr. Jose Roesset, and Gregory C. Minor before the Atomic Safety and Ucensing Board, in the matter of Long Island Ughting Company, 6-
- Shoreham Nuclear Power Station Unit 1, on behalf of Suffolk County, regarding Low Power Hearinas - Seismic Caoabilities of AC Power Sources. Docket No. 50-322-OL, July 1984.
44.
Affidavit of Gregory C. Minor, Emergency Planning Legal Authority Court Case, State Court of New York, September 11,1984.
45.
Surrebuttal Testimony of Dale G. Bridenbaugh, Lynn M. Danielson, Richard B. Hubbard, and Gregory C. Minor, Before the New York State Public Service Commission, PSC Case No.
27563, Shoreham Nuclear Station, Long Island Lighting Company, on behalf of Suffolk County and New York State Consumer Protection Board, regarding Investlaation of the Cost of the Shereham Nuclear Generatina Facilltv. October 4,1984.
46.
Direct Testimony of Dale G. Bridenbaugh, Lynn M. Danielson and Gregory C. Minor on behalf of Massachusetts Attomey General, DPU 84-145, before the Massachusetts Department of Public UtBities, regarding Prudence of Exoenditures by Fitchbura Gas and Electric Llaht Comoany for Seabrook Unit 2. November 23,1984,84 pgs.
47.
Direct Testimony of Dale G. Bridenbaugh, Lynn M. Danielson and Gregory C. Minor on behalf of Maine Public Utilities Commission Staff regarding Prudence of Costs of Seabrook Unit 2. Docket No. 84113, December 21,1984.
48.
Direct Testimony of Dale G. Bridenbaugh and Gregory C. Minor on behalf of Suffolk County regarding Shoreham Emeroency Diesel Generator Loads. Docket No. 50-322-OL, January 25,1985.
i 49.
Direct Testimony of Dale G. Bridenbaugh, Lynn M. Danielson, and Gregory C. Minor on behalf of the Vermont Department of Public Service, PSB Docket No. 5030, regarding Prudence 11,1985. of CentralVermont Public Service Coroorations Costs for Seabrook 2. November
- 50. Surrebuttal testimony of Gregory C. Minor on behalf of the Vermont Department of Public Service, PSB Docket No. 5030. Prudence of Central Vermont Pubile Service Corocrations C_osts for Seabrook 2, December 13, 1985.
- 51. Direct Testimony of Dale G. Bridenbaugh, Gregory C. Minor, Lynn K Price, and Steven C.
Sholly on behalf of State of Connecticut Department of Public Utlity Control Prosecutorial DMslon and DMslon of Consumer Counsel regarding the Prudence of Excenditures on
- Millstone Unit 3. Docket No. 83 07 03, February 18,1986.
I 52. Direct Testimony of Dale G. Bridenbaugh and Gregory C. Minor on behalf of Massachusetts Attomey General regarding the Prudence of Exoenditures by New Enofand Power Co. for Seabrook Unit 2. Docket Nos. ER 85-646 000, ER 85-647 000, February 21,1986.
1
- 53. Direct Testimony of Gregory C. Minor on behalf of the Prosecutorial DMslon of CDPUC regarding CL&P Construction Prudence for Mittstone Unit 3. Docket No. ER-85 720 001 l March 19,1986.
1
) 54. Direct Testimony of Dale G. Bridenbaugh and Gre;ory C. Minor on behalf of Massachusetts Attorney General regarding WMECo Construction Prudence for Millstone Unit 3. Docket No.
85 270, March 19,1986.
7
55.
Direct Testimony of Dale G. Bridenbaugh and Gregory C. Minor on behalf of Massachusetts Attomey General regarding WMECo's Commercial Ooeratina Dates and Deferred Caoltal Addhions on Millstone Unit 3. Docket No.85-270, March 19,1986.
- 56. Rebuttal Testimony of Dale G. Bridenbaugh and Gregory C. Minor on behalf of Massachusetts Attomey General regarding Rebuttal to New Enofand Power Comoany's Seabrook2, Docket Nos. ER 85-646401, ER 85-647 001, Apri 2,1986.
57.
Direct Testimony of Dale G. Bridenbaugh and Gregory C. Minor on behalf of State of Maine Staff of Public UtDitles Commission regarding Construction Prudence of Millstone Unit 3. In the matter of Maine Power Company Proposed increase in Rates, Docket No. 85 212, AprR 21,1986.
- 58. Imolications of the Chemobvi-4 Accident for Nuclear Emeroency Plannina for the State of New York. prepared for the State of New York Consumer Protection Board, by MHB Technical Associates, June 1986.
- 59. Direct Testimony of Dale G. Bridenbaugh and Gregory C. Minor on behalf of the Vermont Department of Public Service, regarding Prudence of Costs by Central Vermont Pudig Service Corocration for Millstone 3. Docket No. 5132, August 25,1986.
60.
Surrebuttal Testimony of Gregory C. Minor in the matter of Jersey Central Power and Ught Company, regarding TMI Restart and Performance incentives. (Oral testimony), OAL Docket No. PUC 7939-85, BPU Docket No. ER851116, September 11,1996.
61.
Surrebuttal Testimony of Gregory C. Minor on behalf of State of Vermont Department of Public Service, regarding CVPS/NU Construction Prudence related to Miffstone Unit 3.
Docket No. 5132, November 6,1986.
62.
Direct Testimony of Gregory C. Minor and Lynn K. Price on behalf of State of Vermont Department of Public Service, regarding Prudence of Excenditures for Seabrook 1. Docket
! No. 5132, December 31,1986.
63.
Direct Testimony of Gregory C. Minor on behalf of Suffolk County, before the Atomic Safety and Ucensing Board, concerning Shoreham - Protective Action Recommendations fContention EX 36L in the matter of Long Island Ughting Company, Shoreham Nuclear Power Station, Ur911, Docket No. 50-322-OL-5, February 27,1987.
- 64. Direct Testimony of Gregory C. Minor et. al. on behalf of the State of New York and Suffolk County, before the Atomic Safety and Ucensing Board, regarding The Scoos of the Emeraency Plannina Exerelse fContentions EX 15 and 161, in the matter of Long Island L!ghting Company, Shoreham Nuclerr Power Station, Unit 1, Docket No. 50-322-OL-5, AprH 6,1987.
- 65. Direct Testimony of Gregory C. Minor reg'arding Emeroency Plannina Receotion Centers -
Monitorino and Decontamination. Shoreham Docket 50-322 OL-3 (Emergency Planning),
AprH 13,1987.
l 66.
Testimony of Gregory C. Minor, Steven C. Sholly et. al. on behalf of Suffolk County, regarding ULCO's Receotion Centers - Plannina Basis, before the Atomic Safety and
~8-
Ucensing Board, in the matter of Long Island Ughting Company, Shoreham Nuclear Power Station Unit 1, Docket No. 50-322 OL-3, Apri 13,1987.
67.
Rebuttal Testimony of Gregory C. Minor and Steven C. Sholly on behalf of Suffolk County regarding ULCO's Receotion Centers (Rebuttal to Testimony of Lewis G. Hufman). In the matter of Long Island Ughting Company, Shoreham Nuclear Power Station, Unit 1, Docket No. 50-322-OL-3, May 27,1987.
68.
Direct Testimony of Dale G. Bridenbaugh and Gregory C. Minor on behalf of Massachusetts Attomey General, before the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, regarding Gang!
Electric Comoany Prudence Related to Seabrook Unit 2 Construction Excenditures. Docket No. ER06-704@1, July 31,1987.
69.
Direct Testimony of Dale G. Bridenbaugh and Gregory C. Minor before the Pennsylvania Public Utility Commission, Regarding Beaver Valley Unit 1, Docket No. 179070318, OCA Statement No. 2, August 31,1987.
l l
l
.g.
O e
ATTACHMENT 4 l
l l
i
.- .v_. . , ,,._m._ ._.-. , _ ___ , _ , _ _ .__.4 _
_m - _ , ,m
g
. , a.
!3 N 'I l
'3 as *9 , lWLNGSITE *,
f 41, 00, g <
- % ._ g jj g'j ArenoxlMATE ..> aa ponton 40FG _g
- f
/R%
-.a J =-- r-- *EPZ*- BOUNDARYgNo..
- - . S*"* g\,\nwn -
b[kkh p . g - [ [-- -
- "'~"
Ig% N' " '
o
~
.-inea - f.,lWLNG 15.2mV/mNMTLIMITCONTWRl <a ,
j o., k. ?bn s . . , n
.N r sa, r--- -
c..vf w.w..=,. .y e g 6%
g 39 i .,g ,
I ., .oo t 7 l
,i,b '.Y' 28 I O O b ""
4
.b M$',
', t . g- -
'.~p \ s, %~ %1,.g ' .t _A -- .,
38 _MS . .-
<~ k 1.s e
,e ." ,y r .v- j
- /
t * - ,e} f F . . 4
,7 g > ' . . .
'g ,- y' < M, e . -
& r .. .- o En. /cw ~E .g -
e 62 -
i
' s _'Jb j p_
y .'s.v. (U E/
n.Hy'? d # ' v 4 3, . , ,
J~ y n n . : .,. 9 / it g 1
g s
{2 & ** - " T 25 g,, :_ _ g ,1_ syl, g ,p \2
- v .ana . -
% ,. "5 s ,es;
~ me 4- ,
~. -
2
.6 ye(, My w d% u =5# - - ;
it p m y "
I:,
gn=tR=:?~~ ,O % : .
<s-
. _ Ys.a, x -f[ c"p y
2~ I
-l o , $' t y % p :[- U
,,,..- . ,' N. -
~ '
C';'~)
..- , f _ m:w _-
','"' . ..-~ .
,.p**' i 7 82NI
, /e3;&n: i.as \
FIGURE No. 7 i
%,%ig.,,', % ;
V fgfdNr l SUFFOLK CO..NEW YORK CALL: WLNG FREQ: 1600 kHz.
/ , , ,
PLACE: SAG HARDOR. NY. POWER: 0.5 kw.
raiviuaro - re. . . es...es.. .e . ...e i. ...i.i ....*
MARCH 1988 MOFFET.LARSON &-JOHNSON INC.
3 o S to as d u **.awa* "'***
MEAS. BELOW NIGHT LIMIT. .O s a s no is . n rs so na-- -
MEAS. ABOVE NIGHT LIMtT. .O s o S to is N.wtetal Md.9 ;
- s
- * . . . m__.
l
, .s
,,c ac sg '
, , sy ,
3 89 70 ; 30, 'i err sounoany l 4i. oo- l l arnoxiuave - - .__
j_ .g_ ,
j L c ' ma x y ,,,
. ;,, , s_s. m./ p og ,te,j
,,p .T , g q.. -
_ c 4,, - ./
%- l witowooo start ran g L <*a=- L,,7 i , rat m-g\.1,,p.f n -
.ro w e o '
[
i s
Nr g- Yg ' -
^
N.
~
- s. % s.e <r M , ," . . , 9 hcie-
,. .. d * ** , . - aW c
\ Q ' j.$" o.,,
f . . VQ+Q* f4;f _ ,y;- 3p.R
(.
t i
- y J.<>%,,: +,_
Seony Bro W , 13 '54*m D '% . ' '.J 2 ..L
.A,V * ; f . {*' .
.e , p
- ,, f 4 't A
)
t
. . %,a,,, . . -
n.,
, , b .4 gy
$g/ , . _ h ;
{ .
m % f.wng&.)M'A4%ggpW' Af'5' d' 4. 1 i - 9 -s M - e
- k ~'
.'.3 /
4MMR;;;
- c. '>
-s '. h kAlg.. s '
lh . ,!
&uQ g
&e*%fl@lT'$ '( $ ' L 'dM ~ p/
wS -
[' ,.t IY$ n \ If +My
%} }&l J ' .f? /r.** /
,N , ,
303cve; R y {? y;~ g.'
th', .. y , .gn *f*' '
f h f %~
4 ,,1 s? ., W
./~l:h
~
a s ~ '
M , g;pt r t-v ~
,o n -
w' O q %' ...* .:"'[7,f,",h
- ... . . . ,/cw.' ,y '
ego [ /#;. . f 'M '/;'
J Nl w'n"}wIe
~
g ds; gO f, I f F1GURE No.8
[ *'
SUFFOLK CO..NEW YORK
(~~~' e-* e / * " *
[ AREA OF SIGNAL STRENGTHS BELOW AM NIGHT LIMITS sV A*m agap _y (AREA OF EXCESSIVE SIGNAL INTERFERENCE) sv.traro - e,. . ......i.. .. ....... i. .........e** . MARCH 1988 MOFFET.LARSON & JOHNSON,INC.
g p C ,w._s ,
" - ^ O
~e % -
l-
, , ,, ,, ,, ,, 3o m, , ,
d '
, l 3 "o 3 to is n c.: w.i s _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ - -
- Y
. ._, . --w str* . . . .
.