ML052700382

From kanterella
Jump to navigation Jump to search
New England Coalition'S Request for Leave to File a New Contention
ML052700382
Person / Time
Site: Vermont Yankee File:NorthStar Vermont Yankee icon.png
Issue date: 09/21/2005
From: Block J
New England Coalition
To:
Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel
Byrdsong A T
References
50-271-OLA, ASLBP 04-832-02-OLA, RAS 10512
Download: ML052700382 (33)
v • d • e


Text

R45 l5/ig?-

DOCKETED USNRC UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION September 21,2005 (3:43pm)

Before the OFFICE OF SECRETARY ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD RULEMAKINGS AND ADJUDICATIONS STAFF In the Matterof Docket No. 50-271-OLA Entergy Nuclear Vermont Yankee, LLC and ASLBP No. 04-832-02-OLA Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc.

(Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Station) September 21, 2005 (Extended Power Uprate)

NEW ENGLAND COALITION'S REQUEST FOR LEAVE TO FILE A NEW CONTENTION The New England Coalition, by and through its attorney Jonathan M. Block, files this request pursuant to 10 CFR 52.309(f(2) and the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Order (September 1, 2005) granting twenty (20 days) within which to make this request.

CONTENTION The Entergy Vermont Yankee [ENVY] license application Cincluding all supplements) for an extended power uprate of 20% over rated capacity is not in conformance with the plant specific original -licensing basis and/or 10 CFR Part 50, Appendix S, paragraph 1(a), and/or 10 CFR Part 100, Appendix A, because it does not provide analyses that are adequate, accurate, and complete in all material respects to demonstrate that the Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Station Alternate Cooling System [ACS]l in entirety, in its current actual physical condition (or in the actual physical condition ENVY will effectuate prior to commencing operation at EPU), will be able to withstand the effects of an earthquake and other natural phenomena without loss of capability to perform its safety functions. 2 ENVY must be able to demonstrate that the actual structures, systems and components comprising the ACS will perform satisfactorily in service at the requested increased plant power level.

'The ACS system includes, but is not limited to, towers, fill, structural members and bracing, shear pins and/or tie rods, basins, piping, pumps, valves and controls, fan motors, fan decks and fan gearing, emergency electrical supply, and all components vital to design basis objectives and licensing basis requirements intended to assure operability when the system is called upon in an emergency.

2 Under uprate conditions, in particular, the removal of additional decay heat generated by uprated reactor power, any seismically induced impairment of the ACS function is apt to eliminate already attenuated margins.

Femp latfe= 5C i-037 SEC/-

New England Coalition Requertfor Leave to FileA New Contention NRC Docket 50-271 ASLBP No. 04-832-02-OLA (September 21, 2005)

Page 2 of 19 BASES

1. Appendix S of 10 CFR Part 50 specifically requires that:

Each applicant for a construction permit, operating license, design certification, or combined license is required by § 50.34 (a)(12), (b)(10), and General Design Criterion 2 of Appendix A to this part to design nuclear power plant structures, systems, and components important to safety to withstand the effects of natural phenomena, such as earthquakes, without loss of capability to perform their safety functions.

10 CFR 50, Appendix S at I(a). Because Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Station was granted a construction permit before May 21, 1971, Appendix S may not provide the applicable seismic design basis requirements. Therefore, we also incorporate herein by reference the seismic criteria of 10 CFR Part 100, Appendix A, and the standard for compliance with the original licensing- basis, which appears to be whether or not'the plant is in conformance with the plant specific original licensing basis on which it was licensed by the Commission. See NUREG-0800, Standard Review Plan 14.2.1 Generic Guidelines for Extended Power Uprate Testing Programs at II "Acceptance Criteria" (December 2002).

Whichever standard one utilizes, the Alternate Cooling System and it components are not seismically qualified and ENVY has not provided analyses that are adequate, accurate, and complete in all material respects which contravene this assertion and demonstrate that the actual structures, systems and components comprising the ACS will perform satisfactorily in service at the requested increased plant power level.

2

New England Coalition RequestforLeave to File A New Contention NRC Docket 50-271 ASLBP No. 04-832-02-OLA (September 21, 2005)

Page 3 of 19

2. The alternate cooling system is (and it comprised of) structures, systems and "ccomponents important to safety" which must be able to withstand the effects of natural phenomena, such as earthquakes, without loss of capability to perform their safety functions." Id. They must also be able to perform satisfactorily in service at the requested increased plant power level.
3. 10 CFR Part 50 requires that Information provided to the Commission by an applicant for a license or by a licensee or information required by statute or by the Commission's regulations, orders, or license conditions to be maintained by the applicant or the licensee shall be complete and accurate in all material respects.

10 CFR 50.9(a) (emphasis added). In order to provide adequate assurance of occupational and public health -and safety during operation of the Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Station under extended power uprate conditions, ENVY must provide documentation, per 10 CFR 50.9(a), that, e.g., the ACS under uprate condition will be in compliance with the original design basis as licensed by the Commission and that the actual structures, systems and components comprising the ACS will perform satisfactorily in service at the requested increased plant power level.

4. The sole evaluation that ENVY has prepared as a seismic qualification of the ACS--

purportedly to analyze, and according to ENVY's motion to dismiss, satisfy New England Coalition's Contention 4--the ABS Consulting report---is not adequate, accurate, and complete in all material respects, and does not demonstrate that the entire Vermont Yankee 3

New England Coalition Requestforlave to File A New Contention NRC Docket 50-271 ASLBP No. 04-832-02-0LA (September 21, 2005)

Page 4 of 19 Nuclear Power Station Alternate Cooling System [ACS]3 in its current actual physical condition (or in the actual physical condition ENVY effectuates prior to commencing operation at EPU) will be able to withstand the effects of a Safe Shutdown or Design Basis earthquake and other natural phenomena without loss of capability to perform its safety functions. It does not demonstrate that the actual structures, systems and components comprising the ACS will perform satisfactorily in service at the requested increased plant power level.

SUPPORTING EVIDENCE

1. Attached hereto as Exhibit 1 is the Declaration of Dr. Ross B. Landsman in Support of New England Coalition's New or Revised-Alternate Cooling System Contention ["Dr.

Landsman's Declaration'J, nuclear engineer. Dr. Landsman is a qualified expert in his field, having worked for over a quarter of a century for the United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission as a reactor construction and operations inspector. He is a qualified expert on matters relating to the regulation and safety of all phases of nuclear power plant construction, operation, and decommissioning. Id at ¶2; see also Dr. Landsman's Resume, attached to Dr. Landsman' Declarationas Exhibit 'A'.

3 The ACS system includes, but is not limited to, towers, fill, structural members and bracing, shear pins and/or tie rods, basins, piping, pumps, valves and controls, fan motors, fan decks and fan gearing, emergency electrical supply, and all components vital to design basis objectives and licensing basis requirements intended to assure operability when the system is called upon in an emergency.

4

New England Coalition Requestfor Leave to FikeA New Contention NRC Docket 50-271 ASLBP No. 04-832-02-OLA (September 21, 2005)

Page 5 of 19

2. Dr. Landsman examined the relevant portions of the instant license application, other documents in this case, and relevant documents referenced in the license -application and other documents in thids case. Dr. LandsmanrsDeclarationat ¶¶5, 7, 8, 10, 11, 13-18.
3. It is Dr. Landsman's professional opinion, based upon his knowledge, experience, and review of the relevant documents, that ENVY has failed to provide adequate, accurate and complete documentation that the ACS under extended power uprate conditions will be in compliance with the original licensing basis and/or Part 50, Appendix S and/or Part 100, Appendix A. It has, thus, failed to demonstrate that the actual structures, systems and components comprising the ACS will perform satisfactorily in service at the requested increased plant power level. Dr. Landsmanrs Declarationat ¶¶6, 7, 20, 21.
4. Specifically, in Dr. Landsman's professional opinion, the ABS report, the only document ENVY has prepared on the seismic qualification of the ACS in connection with this license application, is "grossly deficient" in the following aspects: (a) ABS did not conduct a physical examination of the alternate cooling tower cell; (b) ABS's report lacks adequate documentation of the breaking strength of the tie rods; (c) ABS's report does not use added conservatism in accounting for the effects of aging mechanisms and/or moisture and/or cooling system chemicals; (d) ABS's structural analysis fails to assign a negative value to the replacement rate for degraded members; (e) ABS's report fails to account for changes to ACS after the report was completed; (f) ABS relies on incorrect and non-conservative assumptions concerning the condition of the concrete in the alternate cooling 5

New England Coalition RequestforDave to Fik A New Contention NRC Docket 50-271 ASLBP No. 04-832-02-OLA (September 21, 2005)

Page 6 of 19 tower cell and fails to take into account the unanalyzed effects of recent modification including steel splices; and (g) ABS does not provide reasonable assurance of seismic qualification of the ACS. Id. at ¶7.

5. Regarding the lack of a physical examination of the actual ACS, Dr. Landsman states that:

ABS consultants do not claim to have conducted a physical examination of the alternate cooling tower cell. The Vermont Yankee cooling towers are thirty-five year old wooden structures. The towers rest on and deliver water to substructure concrete basins. The towers operate in a caustic environment and are subject as well to other aging mechanisms including, e.g., vibration, biotic and chemical reductions, corrosion, and temperature extremes. Failure to collect and utilize field data indicating actual physical condition of these structures, as they would be affected under uprated loads, is not a sound engineering approach. The ABS Consultant report assumes that the "as is" condition of -the cooling towers -is -accurately reflected in existing plant -

documentation.

Id. at 8. Dr. Landsman, having reviewed, among other documents, the Declaration of Arnold Gundersen Opposing Summary Disposition of Contention 4, adds that the ABS report I reviewed fails to take into account the conditions [Mr.

Gundersen] describes, viz., operation in an unanalyzed safety condition due to the fact that although "the safety related seismic cooling tower had its fill replaced in the mid 1980's... that modification was never properly analyzed to determine if it effected the seismic qualification of the tower." It is apparent that Entergy Vermont Yankee will have to make additional fill modifications.

Because the fill holds more water, there will be increased loading. Additional loading reduces seismic performance margin.

Id. at 9. This leads Dr. Landsman to conclude that, "in [his] professional opinion this remains a serious issue that is included in New England Coalition's new or revised alternate 6

New England Coalition ReqwestforLeave to Fil A New Contention NRC Docket 50-271 ASLBP No. 04-832-02-OLA (September 21, 2005)

Page 7 of 19 cooling system contention and that the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board should examine in this case." Id.

6. Regarding the fact that the ABS report lacks adequate documentation of the breaking strength of the tie rods, Dr. Landsman states:

[TMhe ABS Consulting report fails to take into account the effects of lack of adequate documentation of the breaking strength of the tie rods connecting seismic and non-seismic cells. It also fails to take into account the effect of the absence of that data on seismic qualification of the alternate cooling system. Absent a complete analysis of the breaking strength of the tie rods, under both tensile and compressive loads, as well as horizontal loads transmitted through sixty-inch diameter heavy wall (1.2" thick) header pipes, ABS has no basis to conclude that the collapse of one or more cells would not propagate through additional cells.

Id. at 10; see also ¶11. Dr. Landsman concludes that this, too, is a serious issue that the Board should examine under New England Coalition new contention. Id. at ¶10.

7. Regarding the basis for his conclusion that the ABS report does not use added conservatism in accounting for the effects of aging mechanisms and/or moisture and/or cooling system chemicals, Dr. Landsman states:

Entergy's April 2005 ABS Consulting seismic evaluation and accompanying materials do not indicate that ABS took into account the actual "as-found" physical condition of the cooling towers at issue as there is an absence of additional conservatisms to account for the effects of aging and/or moisture and/or cooling system chemicals and/or biotic action on the wooden structural members, steel connecting hardware, reinforcement rods and concrete within tower basins.

Id. at 112. Dr. Landsman concludes that this is a serious issue into which the Board should inquire under a new New England Coalition contention. Id.

7

New England Coaliton RequestforLave to File A New Contention NRC Docket 50-271 ASLBP No. 04-832-02-OLA (September 21, 2005)

Page 8 of 19

8. Regarding his conclusion that the ABS report fails to assign a negative value to the replacement rate for degraded members, Dr. Landsman states, concurring with and quoting from the Declaration of Arnold Gundersen Opposing Summary Disposition, that the assumption in the ABS Consulting report, at 12 of 182, "that all lumber is capable of supporting the full design capacities based on ongoing inspection and replacement regime in place at VY" is intended to indicate that the material in the cooling towers is as sound, therefore as strong as new.

However, the "replacement" regime following visual inspection verifies that some structural members are found to be substandard and therefore they are replaced.

Id. at 113 (citations omitted). Dr. Landsman concludes that "a structural analysis which fails to assign a negative value to the rate at which degraded members require replacement is neither conservative nor acceptable" and, quoting Mr. Gundersen, "a cooling tower is only as strong as its weakest member" thus, to "retain original design conservatisms, one should even avoid using the AVERAGE age of structural components (due to replacements of portions), as the oldest will not behave like the average." Id. Again, Dr. Landsman believes that this situation raises serious concerns that are included within the New England Coalition's new contention, and that these matters should be taken up by the Board in this case. Id.

9. Dr. Landsman is also concerned that the ABS report fails to account for changes to the cooling towers after the ABS Study:

ENVY made changes, including the attachment of braces to the cooling towers[,] after the ABS Cooling Tower Seismic Evaluation was completed. In addition, NRC Inspection Staff noted degradation of cooling basin concrete.

See NRC Integrated Inspection Report 05000271/2005003 Ouly 20, 2005) 8

New England Coalition Requestfor Leave to FikA New Contention NRC Docket 50-271 ASLBP No. 04-832-02-OLA (September 21, 2005)

Page 9 of 19 (ADAMS #ML052020003) (at 1R23 Temporary Plant Modifications (71111.23), Inspection Scope (one sample) installation of structural steel splices in cooling tower CT2-1), at 1R15 Operability Evaluations (71111.15),

Inspection Scope (seven samples) (visibly obvious degradation of the alternate cooling deep basin cement wall)).

Id. at ¶14. Dr. Landsman is concerned because these are "unanalyzed conditions that could have a significant impact upon the structural integrity and seismic qualification of the alternate cooling tower cell." Id. In Dr. Landsman's professional opinion, without analyses of the modifications and changes in condition, there is no way to obtain an adequate assurance of seismic integrity. He therefore concludes that "[a]bsent analysis of these modifications.... [a]ssurance of occupational and public health and safety is...not possible." Id.

10. Dr. Landsman discusses his concerns that the ABS report relies on incorrect and non-conservative assumptions. Dr. Landrman's Declaration at ¶15. In this regard, he notes that the ABS Consulting report fails to account for the current, actual ("as is" rather than "as engineered") strength of the concrete cooling tower foundation basin and fails to utilize a seismic damping ratio for wooden structures that takes into account changes to the structure affected by structural steel splices. This leads him to the conclusion that the ABS report is flawed because it fails to conduct the necessary field investigations to determine where structural steel splices have actually been applied to the ACS, and the actual physical effects of such splices on the flexibility of the cooling towers. Id. at 15-17.
11. Dr. Landsman views ABS's questionable account for the current, actual strength of the concrete as a significant failing, given the unquantified and unanalyzed degradation of 9

New England Coalition Requertfor Leave to File A New Contention NRC Docket 50-271 ASLBP No. 04-832-02-OLA (September 21, 2005)

Page 10 of 19 the concrete in the cooling tower basin observed by the NRC Inspection. Id. at 15. Dr.

Landsman notes that the ABS engineers assumed that in all cases concrete strength increases over time. Id. In this regard, he finds it significant that ABS failed to take into account the physical condition of the structures they were analyzing. Although "ideal" concrete may increase in strength over time, " given the age and caustic environment within these towers,

[such an assumption] in not properly conservative." Id.

12. It is the case that "age does not improve the tension characteristics of reinforced concrete" because "rebar always degrades" and "[t]hat degradation [is] accelerated under the caustic conditions within the cells." Id. New England Coalition contends that this is a prime example of the need for an actual, physical inspection as the basis for any report prepared on the Appendix S qualification of the ACS (and its components) under extended power uprate conditions. The NRC Inspection of the actual condition of the concrete undermines the ABS engineers' paper assumptions about aging concrete "in general".
13. A similar consideration applies to the ABS engineers' utilization of a particular seismic damping ratio. The ABS engineers generalized about the damping of this "type" of wooden structure due to "bolted connections" which will "absorb energy due to friction and slippage inherent in the connections and support point." Dr. Landsman's Declaration at ¶16.

(citing ENN-DC-141, Design Input Record for ASS Calculations Nos. 1356711- 001 and 1356711- 002 for Vermont Yankee; ENN-DC-141 Design Input Record for ASS 10

New England Coalition RequestforLeave to FikA New Contention NRC Docket 50-271 ASLBP No. 04-832-02-OLA (September 21, 2005)

Page 11 of 19 Calculations Nos. 1356711- 001 and 1356711- 002 for Vermont Yankee (April 8, 2005) at 2757 and page 3 of 9).

14. Again, the ABS engineers failed to take into account that "steel splices" (observed in the NRC Inspection) modify the damping characteristics of the wooden structures. Dr.

Landsman's Declaration at 116. This failure undercuts the validity of the chosen seismic damping ratio and calls into question the conservatism of that choice. Id.

15. Dr. Landsman concludes that:

It is my professional opinion that where "structural steel splices" have been applied as identified in 1R23 above, these splices may add rigid nodes or fulcra to the structure. Credit for flexibility (friction and slippage) in bolted wooden joints must be re-examined following completion of any such modifications. It is not clear that ABS has ever reviewed the actual condition of the tower to identify all situations where "structural steel splices" have-been applied.

Id. at 17. He then adds that, in his professional opinion, this is a serious issue that the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board should under New England Coalition's revised alternate cooling system contention. Id.

16. Dr. Landsman compares the design basis earthquake ABS engineers used to preparing their report with the earthquake in the seismic hazard maps prepared for FEMA in 1988. Dr. Landsman's Declaration at ¶18-19. He concludes that the design basis earthquake that ABS engineers used in their calculations is not conservative:

The very design basis earthquake against which all of the calculations are measured, that is the Vermont Yankee design basis earthquake, is non-conservative. The FSAR for Vermont Yankee (VY) indicates that the Maximum Credible Event (MCE) for the design earthquake results in a 0.1 4g ground acceleration at the plant site. This acceleration appears to be the Safe Shutdown Earthquake (SSE) basis. However, seismic hazard maps prepared 11

New England Coalition RequertforLeave to FileA New Contention NRC Docket 50-271 ASLBP No. 04-832-02-OLA (September 21, 2005)

Page 12 of 19 for FEMA (1988) appear to indicate that a 0.15g ground acceleration is consistent with a 2400-year return interval.

Id. at 118 (citations omitted). He discusses this discrepancy in the context of his concerns regarding ABS's lack of adequate engineering conservatism:

the ABS evaluation relies on non-conservative assumptions that are neither properly supported nor supportable. The ABS evaluation also ignores the actual structural conditions of the cooling towers. ABS and Entergy invoke certain "conservations" throughout their filing that, in my professional opinion, must be put in perspective for the record. The very design basis earthquake against which all of the calculations are measured, that is the Vermont Yankee design basis earthquake, is non-conservative.

Id. His conclusion in this regard is very serious:

In a deterministic approach, the non-seismic towers would fail in an SSE. As I have previously pointed out, Vermont Yankee's towers have mixed seismic and non-seismic structures and components. If the worst-case single failure occurs during an SSE, it is not clear how Vermont Yankee survives. A failure modes and effects analysis with respect to the safety-related and non-safety-related cooling towers must be completed to provide this assurance. In my professional opinion, this remains a serious issue that is included in New England Coalition's new or revised alternate cooling system contention and that the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board should examine in this case.

Id. at ¶19.

17. Dr. Landsman summarizes, that, in his professional opinion, ENVY "has not demonstrated the seismic resilience of the alternate cooling system." Dr. Landsman's Declaration at ¶20. In referring to the alternate cooling system, Dr. Landsman describes it as comprised of, but not limited to:

towers, fill material, structural members and bracing of all kinds, shear pins and/or tie rods, basins, piping, pumps, valves and controls, fan motors, fan decks and fan gearing, emergency electrical supply, and all components vital 12

New England Coalition RequestforL-eave to File A New Contention NRC Docket 50-271 ASLBP No. 04-832-02-OLA (September 21, 2005)

Page 13 of 19 to design basis objectives and licensing basis requirements intended to assure operability when the system is called upon in an emergency.

Id. He remains concerned that the plant will be under increased stresses due to the power uprate and the alternate cooling system may not be able to survive the accident that triggers the need to rely upon it. Id. He also views this issue as properly within the scope of New England Coalition's alternate cooling system contention and a matter that should be of concern to the Board in this case. Id.

18. Dr. Landsman's final conclusion is that ENVY's ABS report is not adequate to address the seismic qualification of the alternate cooling system and that ENVY has not demonstrated the seismic resilience of the entire alternate cooling system. Id. at 21. Based upon his examinationrof the-relevant documents, Dr.-Landsman believes that New England Coalition's alternate cooling system contention should be taken up for consideration by the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board because ENVY has failed to demonstrate that the actual structures, systems and components comprising the ACS wili perforn satisfactorily in service at the requested increased plant power level.

NEW ENGLAND COALITION SATISFIES 10 CFR §2.309

1. The Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel in this case granted ENVY's motion to dismiss as moot New England Coalition's Contention 4. In granting the motion, the Board allowed New England Coalition twenty days in which to file the instant Request for Leave to File A New Contention. Order, Atomic Safety and Licensing Board, Docket 50-271-OLA, ASLBP-04-832-02-OLA at 5-6 (September 1, 2005).

13

New England Coaliton Requertfor Leave to FikA New Contention NRC Docket 50-271 ASLBP No. 04-832-02-OLA (September 21, 2005)

Page 14 of 19

2. The Board issued its Order dismissing the proceeding on the basis of characterizing New England Coalition's Contention 4 as one of "omission", the omission allegedly satisfied by the ABS engineering report. Order, upra at 4-5.
3. Neither Mr. Gundersen nor Dr. Landsman, New England Coalition's experts, viewed the ENVY report as adequately addressing the broader issue of seismic qualification of the entire alternate cooling system. Compare generaly, Declaration of Arnold Gundersen Opposing Summary Disposition with Declaration of Dr. Ross B. Landsman Supporting New England Coalition's Alternate Cooling System Contention. Both Dr. Landsman and Mr.

Gundersen are of the opinion that the report ENVY proffered is grossly deficient and does not constitute an adequate, complete and accurate seismic qualification of the alternate cooling system. Significantly, both are of the opinion that the ABS report fails to demonstrate that the actual structures, systems and components comprising the ACS will perform satisfactorily in service at the requested increased plant power level.

4. Given that neither of New England Coalition's experts believe that the ABS report satisfies the NRC requirement for seismic qualification of the alternate cooling system, there is no reason for New England Coalition or its experts to have acknowledged or responded to the report, when first available, as if it met that requirement. ENVY did not tell New England Coalition or its experts that the report, furnished by way of a discovery disclosure, was intended to satisfy Contention 4. Until ENVY filed for summary disposition or 14

New England Coaliion Requestfor Leave to File A New Contention NRC Docket 50-271 ASLBP No. 04-832-02-OLA (September 21, 2005)

Page 15 of 19 dismissal of Contention 4 as moot on or aboutJuly 13, 2005, New England Coalition had no notice that the ABS report would be proffered to the Board as supporting the motion.

5. During the pendency of the Board's decision on the motion, there was no reason for New England Coalition to submit an amended or revised contention, as New England Coalition reasonably believed that the Board would not dismiss its contention either as moot or under a summary disposition of the issue. In fact, the Board allowed in its Order that the issue was close, acknowledging that, "some of the language in NEC Contention 4 seems to support the proposition that it is not solely a contention of omission" and "[e]ven the second sentence of NEC Contention 4 has certain qualitative aspects". Order, supraat 4.
6. New England Coalition has good cause to file this contention based upon the arguments set forth above.
7. New England Coalition is already a party to the proceeding, has an admitted contention other than the one the Board dismissed as moot, and has been found to have standing to appear before the Board in this matter.
8. New England Coalition has already demonstrated its interest in the proceeding in order to be granted standing to appear. Those interests, insofar as they encompassed the subject matter of the moot Contention 4, are identical to the interests in the admission of the new Alternate Cooling System Contention at issue herein.
9. New England Coalition has already made a showing that there is no other party protecting its interests in this issue. The Department of Public Service has not raised the 15

New England Coalition Requestfor Leave to FileA New Contention NRC Docket 50-271 ASLBP No. 04-832-02-OLA (September 21, 2005)

Page 16 of 19 issue addressed in New England Coalition's Alternate Cooling System Contention and would have no basis to given that they have not expressed an interest in the issue and would not have any documents relating to that issue. The NRC Staff, having supported ENVY's motion to dismiss as moot or grant summary disposition, have declared themselves squarely in the applicant's camp on this matter. Certainly ENVY will not represent New England Coalition's interest in this matter. New England Coalition alone represents these interests.

10. New England Coalition has now retained former NRC staff member Dr. Ross B.

Landsman as an expert witness. With Dr. Landsman's expert assistance and direction, New England Coalition can assist the Board in developing a sound record on proposed Alternate Cooling System Contention.

11. New England Coalition has placed before the Board a new contention based upon the fact that ENVY intends on a grossly deficient report as seismically qualifying the ACS.

This is discussed above in detail in the section providing the supporting documentation for New England Coalition's contention. In that argument, incorporated herein by reference, in forming his opinion, New England Coalition's expert, Dr. Landsman, relied upon relevant portions of the application at issue and the NRC regulatory requirements ENVY must satisfy in order to obtain approval for the proposed extended power uprate. These documents form the basis and support for New England Coalition's new contention.

12. For all practical purposes, for the reasons presented above, the report at issue was not previously available, as it was only disclosed as intended for the purpose ENVY used it 16

New England Coalition Requestfor Ieave to FileA New Contention NRC Docket 50-271 ASLBP No. 04-832-02-OLA (September 21, 2005)

Page 17 of 19 for at the time it filed the motion to dismiss. ENVY plainly intends, according to the arguments expressed in its motion to dismiss, that the report satisfies the requirement for seismic qualification of the alternate cooling system. Dr. Landsman's and Mr. Gundersen's declarations on behalf of New England Coalition's position show that this remains an issue in dispute. As ENVY cannot obtain permission for the extended power uprate if, among other matters, the alternate cooling system and the components comprising it are not seismically qualified, the issue in dispute is material to the decision to grant or deny the application.

13. The matter at issue has already been found to be within the scope of the proceeding.

As it may be said again, that, as the license amendment at issue cannot be granted under existing NRC regulations unless the alternate cooling system and the components comprising it are seismically qualified, and the process of doing so involves provision of data, testing and reports demonstrating seismic qualification that are adequate, accurate and complete in all material respects, where, as here, a dispute exists over both the adequacy, accuracy and completeness of the process and its product, it is within the scope of the instant proceeding and should properly be before the Board as a new contention.

14. The fact remains that New England Coalition is contending that the report ENVY furnished to support its motion to dismiss as moot was not adequate, accurate or compete in all material respects and fails to demonstrate that the actual structures, systems and components comprising the ACS will perform satisfactorily in service at the requested 17

New England Coalition RequertforLeave to Filk A New Contention NRC Docket 50-271 ASLBP No. 04-832-02-OLA (September 21, 2005)

Page 18 of 19 increased plant power level. From New England Coalition's point of view, and that of its experts, there is still no proper seismic qualification of the alternate cooling system and all of its systems, structures and components under uprate conditions.

15. There is still nothing substantive from ENVY on which the Board could determine that the alternate cooling system and all of its components are seismically qualified under the NRC's own standard for reviewing the matter, viz. whether ENVY can "demonstrate that the actual structures, systems and components comprising the ACS will perform satisfactorily in service at the requested increased plant power level." NUREG-0800, Standard Review Plan 14.2.1, Generic Guidelines For Extended Poxver Uprate Testing Programs at I ("Areas of Review'v) (December 2002). Thus, New England Coalition's new contention remains, at least in part, a contention of omission, but with the qualification that the Contention contemplates seismic qualification of the alternate cooling system as requiring the provision of in-the-field examination, testing, data collection, analysis, and reporting on the actual condition of the system, not on design documents and company records that may not be current, complete or accurate.. Moreover, the report will need to address the actual condition of each and every component of the alternate cooling system based upon the existing condition of the system and the modifications that ENVY needs to make to implement the extended power uprate. Once that work has been assembled, upon it ENVY can create a final report through which it can attempt to demonstrate that the 18

New England Coalition Requestfor Leave to FikA New Contention NRC Docket 50-271 ASLBP No. 04-832-02-OLA (September 21, 2005)

Page 19 of 19 actual structures, systems and components comprising the ACS will perform satisfactorily in service at the requested increased plant power level CONCLUSION New England Coalition's new Alternate Cooling System Contention should be taken up by the Board and adjudicated in the instant proceeding as it satisfies the requirements of 10 CFR §2.309.

Respectfully submitted:

Jonathan M. Block Attorney for New England Coalition 94 Main Street P.O. Box 566 Putney, VT 05346 802-387-2646 jonb~sover.net cc: As per Certificate of Service 19

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION Before the ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD In the Matterof Docket No. 50-271-OLA Entergy Nuclear Vermont Yankee, LLC and ASLBP No. 04-832-02-OLA Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc.

(Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Station) September 19,2005 (Extended Power Uprate)

DECLARATION OF DR. ROSS B. LANDSMAN SUPPORTING NEW ENGLAND COALITION'S ALTERNATE COOLING SYSTEM CONTENTION I, Dr. Ross B. Landsman, declare as follows:

1. My name is Dr. Ross B. Landsman. I reside at 9234 Lowell Avenue, Skokie, Illinois.
2. The New England Coalition has retained me as an expert witness in the above captioned matter.
3. The United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission employed me as a staff member for twenty-seven years. During the course of-my employment, among other tasks,-I worked as a reactor construction and operations inspector. I am a qualified expert on matters relating to the regulation and safety of all phases of nuclear power plant construction, operation, and decommissioning.
4. My resume is attached as Exhibit A.
5. I have reviewed the report Entergy submitted as a discovery disclosure and in support of its motion for summary disposition of New England Coalition's contention concerning the lack of adequate proof of seismic qualification and structural integrity under extended power uprate conditions of the alternate cooling tower cell at the Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Station. I also read the affidavit of a Mr. George Thomas. In addition, I reviewed the following documents in preparation for this declaration: (a) Declaration of Arnold Gundersen in Support of Petitioners' Contentions, Docket No. 50-271 (August 30, 2004); (b) Declaration of Arnold Gundersen, Docket 50-271-OLA, ASLBP No. 04-

DecalrionofDr. Rows B. Landrman Supportin~g NEC'M Contention (September 19, 2005) Page 2 of 10 832-02-OLA (August 1, 2005); (c) Entergs Motion to Dismiss as Moot. or in the Alternative for Summary Disposition Of New England Coalition's Contention 4, Docket 50-271-OLA, ASLBP No. 04-832-02-OLA July 13, 2005); (d) New England Coalition's Answer to Entergs Motion to Dismiss as Moot. or in the Alternative for Summary Disposition Of New England Coalition's Contention 4, Docket 50-271-OLA, ASLBP No. 04-832-02-OLA, (August 3, 2005), (e) New England Coalition's Request for a Hearing. Demonstration of Standing. Discussion of Scope of Proceeding and Content, Docket 50-271 (August 30, 2004); (f) Vermont Yankee Final Safety Analysis Report

[relevant sections], Docket 50-271 (1971); (g) Vermont Yankee Updated Final Safety Analysis Report [relevant sections], (h) Hanson, Shanon & Wildon, Inc., and Wagner Heindel & Noyes, Inc., Site Characterization Data Report for the Vernon/Vermont Yankee Site. prepared by Battelle for Vermont Low-Level Radioactive Waste Authority (November 1991); Ci) Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Station - Letter. Safety Evaluation Report for Unresolved Safety Issue (US! A-46 Program Implementation (Seismic) (March 20, 2000); () Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Station, Docket 50-271, License Extended Power Uprate Application - Technical Specification Change No. 263

[relevant sections] and Amendments 28 through 31 (2003-2005).

6. It is my professional opinion, based upon my review of the above referenced materials, that, consistent with, and as a supporting basis of New England Coalition's new or revised contention, which encompasses my summary concerns set forth in 120 below, Entergy Vermont Yankee [ENVY] has failed to provide adequate assurances through the ABS study or any other means that the alternate cooling system for the Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Station will meet design criteria and/or the licensing basis and/or will function as intended under extended power uprate conditions.
7. A diligent search of the Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Station docket on ADAMS (05000271) from September 2003 to date uncovered no document other than the ABS Consulting report that ENVY produced to address seismic qualification of the Alternate Cooling System. It is my professional opinion that the ABS Consulting report prepared for Entergy is grossly deficient in the following respects: (I) ABS did not conduct a

Declarationof Dr. Ross B. Landsman SupportinM NEC': Contention (September 19, 2005) Page 3 of 10 physical examination of the alternate cooling tower cell; (II) ABS's study lacks adequate documentation of the breaking strength of the tie rods; (iII) ABS's study does not use added conservatism in accounting for the effects of aging mechanisms and/or moisture and/or cooling system chemicals; (IV) ABS's structural analysis fails to assign a negative value to the replacement rate for degraded members; (V) ABS's study fails to account for changes to the cooling towers after the study was completed; (VI) ABS relies on incorrect and non-conservative assumptions about the condition of the concrete in this alternate cooling tower cell in this facility and the seismic characteristics of steel splice; and (VII)

ABS does not provide reasonable assurance of seismic qualification. I further elaborate upon the basis for my opinion concerning each of these issues below.

I. Failure to Conduct A Physical Examination of the Alternate Cooling Tower Cell

8. Examination of the ABS Cooling Tower Seismic Evaluation and supporting material reveals that the ABS consultants do not claim to have conducted a physical examination of the alternate cooling tower cell. The Vermont Yankee cooling towers are thirty-five year old wooden structures. The towers rest on and deliver water to substructure concrete basins. -The towers operate in a caustic-environment and are-subject-as well-to-other aging mechanisms including, e.g., vibration, biotic and chemical reductions, corrosion, and temperature extremes. Failure to collect and utilize field data indicating actual physical condition of these structures, as they would be affected under uprated loads, is not a sound engineering approach. The ABS Consultant report assumes that the "as is" condition of the cooling towers is accurately reflected in existing plant documentation. See, Entergy's Motion for Summary Disposition, Exhibit 2, Cooling Tower Seismic Evaluation, at 6-12 of 182. It is my opinion that this assumption is non-conservative, and in this I concur with the Declaration of Arnold Gundersen Opposing Summary Disposition, and incorporate herein by reference his observations and conclusions on this point. See Declaration of Arnold Gundersen Opposing Summary Disposition of New England Coalition's Contention 4 at 18.
9. It is my professional opinion that Mr. Gundersen's discussion, observations, and conclusions concerning the lack of adequate seismic qualification of the alternate cooling

Declaration of Dr. Rau B. Landsman Supporting NECs Contention (September 19, 2005) Page 4 of 10 tower cell remain correct, as the ABS report I reviewed fails to take into account the conditions he describes, viz., operation in an unanalyzed safety condition due to the fact that although "the safety related seismic cooling tower had its fill replaced in the mid 1980's... that modification was never properly analyzed to determine if it effected the seismic qualification of the tower." It is apparent that Entergy Vermont Yankee will have to make additional fill modifications. Because the fill holds more water, there will be increased loading. Additional loading reduces seismic performance margin. In my professional opinion this remains a serious issue that is included in New England Coalition's new or revised alternate cooling system contention and that the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board should examine in this case.

II. Lack of adequate documentation of the breaking strength of the tie rods

10. It is my professional opinion that the ABS Consulting report fails to take into account the effects of lack of adequate documentation of the breaking strength of the tie rods connecting seismic and non-seismic cells. It also fails to take into account the effect of the absence of that data on seismic qualification of the alternate cooling system.

Absent a complete analysis of the breaking strength of the tie rods, under both tensile and -

compressive loads, as well as horizontal loads transmitted through sixty-inch diameter heavy wall (1.2" thick) header pipes, ABS has no basis to conclude that the collapse of one or more cells would not propagate through additional cells. In my professional opinion this is a serious issue that is raised in New England Coalition's new or revised alternate cooling system contention and one that should be examined by the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board in this case. Moreover, the age of these structures makes it all the more imperative that the ABS Consulting engineers use field data obtained from ascertaining the conditions of these rods and other components instead of relying on computer modeling or a "remove and replace" program for obviously failed components.

The ABS Cooling Tower Seismic Evaluation at page 6 of 182, states that only the Alternate Cooling System cooling tower cells (CT2-1 and CT2-2) are evaluated in "this calculation," and assumes that, "The remaining non-safety-related cells, 3 through 11, are

Declarationof Dr. Rars B. LandrmanSupporting NMC's Contntion (September 19, 2005) Page 5 of 10 separated by breakaway joints are [therefore] not addressed in this calculation." See Declaration of Arnold Gundersen Opposing Summary Disposition at 110.

11. I incorporate herein by reference the substance of Mr. Gundersen's discussion and conclusions concerning the lack of seismic qualification of the breaking strength of the cooling tower tie rods. Id. at 110(A) through (E). In particular, I agree that 'Without knowing the breaking strength of these rods, it cannot be said that the collapse of one or more cells would not propagate collapse throughout the entire see' and that "the shear characteristics of the breakaway joints as they exist today will not be the same as the shear characteristics of the breakaway joints as they were originally designed." Mr. Gundersen was correct to conclude, and I agree, that ABS's assumption that the rods will shear under the uprate conditions and in the caustic environment in which they have existed for thirty-five years is not based upon sound engineering judgment. I, too, am of the opinion that "one cannot analyze CT2-1 and CT2-2 without reanalyzing all of the breakaway characteristics between Cells 3 through 11 and those two cells." See id. at ¶S(C) through (D). As I noted in ¶10 above, these issues should be of great concern to the Board in this case.

III. Absence of additional conservatisms

12. Further, it is my professional opinion, in concurrence with Mr. Gundersen, that Entergy's April 2005 ABS Consulting seismic evaluation and accompanying materials do not indicate that ABS took into account the actual "as-found" physical condition of the cooling towers at issue as there is an absence of additional conservatisms to account for the effects of aging and/or moisture and/or cooling system chemicals and/or biotic action on the wooden structural members, steel connecting hardware, reinforcement rods and concrete within tower basins. In my professional opinion this remains a serious issue that is included in New England Coalition's new or revised alternate cooling system contention and that the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board should examine at hearing.

Declarationof Dr. Ross B. Landrman Sypporting NEC': Contention (September 19, 2005) Page 6 of 10 IV. Failing to assign a negative value to the replacement rate for degraded members

13. I also concur with Mr. Gundersen that assumption in the ABS Consulting report, at.

12 of 182, "that all lumber is capable of supporting the full design capacities based on ongoing inspection and replacement regime in place at VY" is intended to indicate that the material in the cooling towers is as sound, therefore as strong as new. However, the "replacement" regime following visual inspection verifies that some structural members are found to be substandard and therefore they are replaced. See R. Augustine, Job Entergy Vermont Yankee By Date, Job No. 1356711 at 17 (April 5, 2005), Calc. No.

1356711-C-001 Subject Cooling Tower Seismic Evaluation checked byJ. L. White (April 5, 2005) [ASSUMPTIONS]. It is my opinion, in concurrence with Mr. Gundersen, that a structural analysis which fails to assign a negative value to the rate at which degraded members require replacement is neither conservative nor acceptable. I also generally with Mr. Gundersen's statement that "a cooling tower is only as strong as its weakest member and to retain original design conservatisms, one should even avoid using the AVERAGE age of structural components (due to replacements of portions), as the oldest will not behave like the average." Declaration of Arnold Gundersen Opposing Summary Disposition at 4, ¶9. The failure of the ABS study to take account of this issue, in my professional opinion, remains a serious matter that is included in New England Coalition's new or revised alternate cooling system contention and that the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board should examine in this case.

V. Failure to account for changes to the cooling towers after the ABS Study

14. ENVY made changes, including the attachment of braces to the cooling towers after the ABS Cooling Tower Seismic Evaluation was completed. In addition, NRC Inspection Staff noted degradation of cooling basin concrete. See NRC Integrated Inspection Report 05000271/2005003 (uly 20, 2005) (ADAMS #ML052020003) (at 1R23 Temporary Plant Modifications (71111.23), Inspection Sc (one sample) (installation of structural steel splices in cooling tower CT2-1), at 1R15 Operability Evaluations (71111.15), Inspection

& (seven samples) (visibly obvious degradation of the alternate cooling deep basin cement wall)). These are unanalyzed conditions that could have a significant impact upon

DeclarationofDr. Ross B. i4ndrmanSupporting NEC': Contention (September 19, 2005) Page 7 of 10 the structural integrity and seismic qualification of the alternate cooling tower cell.

Absent analysis of these modifications and conditions it is not possible to adequately assure seismic integrity. Assurance of occupational and public health and safety is, therefore, not possible. In my professional opinion, this remains a serious issue that is included in New England Coalition's new or revised alternate cooling system contention and that the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board should examine in this case.

VI. ABS relies on incorrect and non-conservative assumptions

15. The ABS seismic evaluation relies on the proposition that concrete gains strength over time. Under 5-Assumptions, ABS states that The concrete strength of the cooling tower foundation basin is assumed to be 3000 psi based on the notes on Drawing G-2000357 (ref.7.11). This is used for determining allowable anchor bolt loads. This assumption is conservative since the value on the drawing is the minimum design strength (actual strength at the time the concrete is placed is normally much greater than the minimum design strength) and concrete strength increases with time.

See R. Augustine, Job Entergy Vermont Yankee By Date, Job No. 1356711 at 17 (April

- 5, 2005); Calc. No. 1356711-C-001 Subject Cooling Tower Seismic Evaluation checked by J. L. White (April 5, 2005) [ASSUMPTIONS] (emphasis added). Although under ig! conditions, concrete strength under compression increases with age; however, given the age and caustic environment within these towers, this assumption is not properly conservative. It is also the case that age does not improve the tension characteristics of reinforced concrete. Rebar always degrades. That degradation will be accelerated under the caustic conditions within the cells. As evidenced from the degraded concrete identified in IR15 of the NRC Inspection Report cited above, this general rule of thumb cannot form the basis of assumptions regarding the evaluation of any particular site.

16. The ABS evaluation mistakenly relies on a seismic damping ratio for wooden structures "of 5 percent of critical damping is used in the analysis for the MHE

[Maximum Hypothetical Earthquake]." ABS justifies this by stating that, "This type of wooden structure has significant damping since bolted connections absorb energy due to friction and slippage inherent in the connections and support point." See ENN-DC-141,

II DelarationofDr. Ross B. LandimanSutpporting NEC's Contention (September 19, 2005) Page 8 of 10 Design Input Record for ASS Calculations Nos. 1356711- 001 and 1356711- 002 for Vermont Yankee; ENN-DC-141 Design Input Record for ASS Calculations Nos.

1356711- 001 and 1356711- 002 for Vermont Yankee (April 8, 2005) at 2757 and page 3 of 9 However, ABS did not take into account the changes made to the structure by the "structural steel splices" referenced in the NRC Integrated Inspection Report at 1R23.

17. It is my professional opinion that where "structural steel splices" have been applied as identified in 1R23 above, these splices may add rigid nodes or fulcra to the structure.

Credit for flexibility (friction and slippage) in bolted wooden joints must be re-examined following completion of any such modifications. It is not dear that ABS has ever reviewed the actual condition of the tower to identify all situations where "structural steel splices" have been applied. In my professional opinion, this remains a serious issue that is included in New England Coalition's new or revised alternate cooling system contention and that the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board should examine in this case.

VIZ. ABS does not provide reasonable assurance of seismic qualification

18. In my professional opinion, the ABS evaluation does not provide reasonable assurance that Vermont Yankee's co6ling towers 6uldbe abl to thstasnd a desigin basis earthquake under extended power uprate conditions. As described above, the ABS evaluation relies on non-conservative assumptions that are neither properly supported nor supportable. The ABS evaluation also ignores the actual structural conditions of the cooling towers. ABS and Entergy invoke certain "conservations" throughout their filing that, in my professional opinion, must be put in perspective for the record. The very design basis earthquake against which all of the calculations are measured, that is the Vermont Yankee design basis earthquake, is non-conservative. The FSAR for Vermont Yankee (VY) indicates that the Maximum Credible Event (MCE) for the design earthquake results in a 0.14g ground acceleration at the plant site. This acceleration appears to be the Safe Shutdown Earthquake (SSE) basis. However, seismic hazard maps prepared for FEMA (1988) appear to indicate that a 0.15g ground acceleration is consistent with a 2400-year return interval. See Hanson, Shanon & Wildon, Inc., and Wagner Heindel & Noyes, Inc., Site Characterization Data Report for the

DeclarationofDr. Rosi B. Landsman Supporting NECr Contention (September 19, 2005) Page 9 of 10 Vernon/Vermont Yankee Site, prepared by Battelle for the Vermont Low-Level Radioactive Waste Authority (November 1991).

19. In a deterministic approach, the non-seismic towers would fail in an SSE. As I have previously pointed out, Vermont Yankee's towers have mixed seismic and non-seismic structures and components. If the worst-case single failure occurs during an SSE, it is not clear how Vermont Yankee survives. A failure modes and effects analysis with respect to the safety-related and non-safety-related cooling towers must be completed to provide this assurance. In my professional opinion, this remains a serious issue that is included in New England Coalition's new or revised alternate cooling system contention and that the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board should examine in this case.

General Summary

20. Upon review of the foregoing referenced documents it is my professional assessment that Entergy Nuclear Vermont Yankee has not demonstrated seismic resilience of the entire alternate cooling system. By the entire ACS system, I mean to include, but not be limited to, towers, fill material, structural members and bracing of all kinds, shear pins and/or tie rods, basins, piping, pumps, valves and controls, fan motors, fan decks and fan gearing, emergency electrical supply, and all components vital to design basis objectives and licensing basis requirements intended to assure operability when the system is called upon in an emergency. This lack is distressing because extended power uprate operating conditions will require the alternate cooling system, when needed, to remove a greater heat load than that for which it was originally designed. In my professional opinion, this remains a serious issue that is included in New England Coalition's new or revised alternate cooling system contention and that the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board should examine in this case.

Conclusion

21. For the above discussed reasons, it is my professional opinion that New England Coalition's contention addressing the above described inadequacies in the ABS Consulting engineering study on the seismic qualification of the cooling towers is

Declratonof Dr. Ross B. Lmndvwn Svpotlix NEC's Coknion (September 19, 2005) Page 10 of 10 supported by credible evidence based upon an examination of documents submitted as part of the license amendment process for the extended power uprate in this case. Based upon my experience working for the United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission and the documents referenced herein above, it is also my professional opinion that the issues discussed in summary in ¶20 above are serious safety considerations germane to the subject of the license application in this case. In my professional opinion, the above discussed issues are included in New England Coalition's new or revised alternate cooling system contention and the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board should examine all of these issues with care before making a final decision in the case.

I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct. Executed September 19, 2005.

Dr/Ross B. Landsman 9234 Lowell Avenue Skokie, IL 60076-1632

EXHIBIT 'A' DECLARATION OF ROSS B. LANDSMAN, Ph.D SUPPORTING NEC'S ALTERNATE COOLING SYSTEM CONTENTION Ross B. Landsman, PhD 9234 N. Lowell Avenue Skokie, II 60076 847-679-4632 E-mail:

ross~landsman.info

SUMMARY

OF QUALIFICATIONS Over 30 years experience in the design, oversight of construction, operation, and decommissioning of nuclear power plants PROFESSIONAL EXPERIENCE Senior Reactor Engineer Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC), Region III 1979-2005 Lisle, IL

  • General inspection oversight of the construction, pre-operational testing, operation, and decommissioning of numerous nuclear power plants to verify compliance with the NRC's license requirements
  • Regio-nal coordinator for th&inspection oversight of dry cask storage of spent nuclear fuel Senior Geotechnical Engineer Sargent & Lundy Engineers 1973-1979 Chicago, IL
  • Supervised the design and quality control/quality assurance construction programs for numerous foundations for electric power plants, both fossil and nuclear
  • Oversaw the preparation of safety analysis reports for submittal to the NRC for licensing review for nuclear power plants EDUCATION BS, MS, PhD Civil Engineering 1965, 1968, 1973 Illinois Institute of Technology Chicago, IL

IL UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION Before the ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD In the Matterof ENTERGY NUCLEAR VERMONT YANKEE, TLC Docket No. 50-271-OLA and ENTERGY NUCLEAR OPERATIONS, INC.

(Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Station) ASLBP No. 04-832-02-OLA (Extended Power Uprate) September 21, 2005 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I, Jonathan M. Block, counsel for New England Coalition, hereby certify that copies of the within Request for Leave to File a New Contention and New Contention (Alternate Cooling System) in the above captioned proceeding has been served on the following by deposit in the United States mail, first class within the permitted period of time following service on September 21, 2005, by e-mail upon all persons listed below except those listed with an asterisk (*)who were served by U.S. mail, first class.

Alex S. Karlin, Chair Dr. Anthony J. Baratta Administrative Judge Administrative Judge Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel - - 7Aoniic Safetyhd Liceri sing Board Panel U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, DC 20555-0001 Washington, DC 20555-0001 ask2@nrc.gov ajb5@nrc.gov Lester S. Rubenstein Office of the Secretary Administrativejudge ATIN: Rulemaking and Adjudications Staff Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 4760 East Country Villa Drive Washington, DC 20555-0001 Tucson, AZ 85718 HEARINGDOCKET@nrcgov lesrrrgcomcast.net Anthony Z. Roisman, Esq.

Office ofAppellate Adjudication* National Legal Scholars Law Firm U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 84 East Thetford Rd.

Washington, DC 20555-0001 Lyme, NH 03768 aroismangvalley.net

Jay E. Silberg, Esq. Sarah Hofmann, Esq.

Matias Travieso-Diaz, Esq. Special Counsel Douglas Rosinski, Esq. Department of Public Service Pillsbury Winthrop Shaw Pittman, LLP 112 State Street - Drawer 20 2300 N St., NW Montpelier, VT 05620-2601 Washington, DC 20037-1128 sarah.hofmann~state.vtus jay.silberggpillsbutylaw.com rnatias.travieso-diaz~pillsburylaw.com douglas.rosinskipillsburylaw.com Antonio Fernandez, Esq.; Jason Zorn, Esq., Raymond Shadis Sherwin E. Turk, Esq., Robert Weisman, Esq. Staff Technical Advisor Counsel for NRC Staff New England Coalition United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission P.O. Box 98 Washington, D.C. 20555 Edgecomb, ME 04556 set=nrc.gov, axf2@nrc.gov; jczgnrcgov, shadisgprexar.com rmw@nrc.gov Jonathan M. Rund, Esq., Law Clerk John M. Fulton, Esq.

Atomic Safety and iUcensing Board Panel Assistant General Counsel U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc.

Washington, DC 20555-0001 440 Hamilton Avenue jmr3@nrc.gov, src2@nrc.gov, ksv-nrc-gov White Plains, NY 10601 jjfultol entergy.com Respectfully submitted, Jonathan M. Block Counsel for New England Coalition

JONATHAN M. BLOCK ATrORNEY AT LAW 94 Main Street P.O. Box 566 Putney, VT. 05346-0566 802-387-2646 (vox)

-2667 (fax) jonb(asover.net September 21, 2005 Secretary United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, DC 20555-0001 AIT: Rulemakings and Adjudications Staff RE: In the Matter of Docket No. 50-271-OLA ENTERGY NUCLEAR VERMONT YANKEE L.L.C.

and ENTERGY NUCLEAR OPERATIONS, INC. ASLBP No. 04-832-02-OLA (Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Station)

Dear Rulemakings and Adjudications Staff:

Enclosed for filing are the original and txvo copies of New England Coalition's Request for Leave to File A New Contention, Declaration of Dr. Ross B.

Landsman Supporting New England Coalition's Alternate Cooling System Contention with attached Exhibit 'A'-Resume of Dr. Ross B. Landsman, and a Certificate of Service.

Thank you for your assistance in this matter.

Sincerely, athan M. Block Attorney for New England Coalition cc: As per Certificate of Service

Retrieved from "https://kanterella.com/w/index.php?title=ML052700382&oldid=2590106"