ML19270H260

Direct Testimony on Behalf of Applicant Re Alternative Sites.Elaborates on Util Siting Study for Long Range Generating Capacity Expansion

ML19270H260
Person / Time
Site:	05000471
Issue date:	05/11/1979
From:	Frascino P, Griffin W BOSTON EDISON CO., UNITED ENGINEERS & CONSTRUCTORS, INC.
To:
References
NUDOCS 7906260027
Download: ML19270H260 (12)

Text

. . . .

f

?

s c -

k'g ,

1 NRC dUllitC DOCUMENT WM .

3 e

. [.

~

f. q %s a :x**

- y ,h o

. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA W. .s.@3 \

. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION j W ,'

- i; s). , ,

y'4 h e (/

i .

+

O '

/, s i BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD

.,.. .,a.

.~;.

iXmis . 2 (u" .

aa et, - + .

. *.x .-

l

. ..,ma ,/ .. ..e . .

In the. Matter of W.

.x. .. ,4.e

) . . o.

..n

~

50-471-Boston Edison'.,.m..

c.,, .3 ..

Company, .

s.

...o e ba3. M.g.y.-N, I 4 .*

~.~ [Cocket No.E . .

.y

( Pil grim ' Nucl ea r . Generating S tation , . ) % M.

, i

-E ^, '

, L Un_it 2).,'. w,e v av

.T.

n. m'C- W ~,

.: ; e . ..,:

- n.

c.n,..eyn.a.5.n..,,. m.; .r 4- >y.a.,s~.,.9.,pc %m.c. +7).?,.J. ..,.m.N m- -,' aw

..  ; x. ;..a:.: e . ~. , .

.~. xy n. .

< .u -- . r q q, ,,m. .

g.,w ~ m,<-r , %m os ,.m. w .,c a m,;..n., a

.c i .

. .n ~. e 3. m- _yru .y ._a . . - w M .af . . %.c fu. . .

- ,,4, - .e .n -

s.r .m,e-s . 1

.. ?s.,.. g

.- e s. , .%.-. -

... e. . .. e

.> . t.%e.,.,.

..c, ...-a- .. . .

!.,v..J,

.r . ..

.,a..,,,r ~.. e..; u m~.v.s.. -

w.- . ,>. .e. %., c,n..e. e .. .. m., ~ ,s.. - . ~ w.

, e,2. ;i .

a,

~ <

7

,-s.- .:s.r .v.,$.:.. n.a ,. v -x ..m,. +

% w.m a

a y; e

> ~ -.

, . . ... # <q +S.. u ,.

. ,f * '

s.,-

.T _

,,..')',.'W'4*. ,. .

.e*i

• g...p.

+

. . IN< t 3

....y',-

. . a,.

• a, . i s

. N -

l '

m.: 2 .-

. , e= .

r' , ,

- ,, ... g, - .,.,..o*.

m. . ~ . . o. . n' w-, . m.i 4.*g

. . ', q , ? w -h. 3. ,+ ".g. , ;e,. n' s 4..~ s ( 7 .f. -

4.

, . s , . ~ .

j%q, AJ.

l4 ~ n..

.- ' 's

,N L W L M.m &[.y,'.4.7,p,.,*f-SQ:;

f:g n, n m .: .

n. ,; -x.

7.f .c .

i M ##.9M.r.4 APPLICANTS' DIRECT,TESTIMONYg%Z

._'- i~ k . WON ALTERNATIVE ~ SITES: ,

gg{~62Mk { ] .11 % %!p4-1 m;t

. ~ 2. , p;.Wn a

a 4, .L s., .1l!:64,31..,m.y.,,q e N.@%d.Qgl@CM,sM.Mg.p'Q, m

[a%. v, *r ,.c p . pc w .-pd r%. e, 3 g. N. m c*' p i s w : N ;. & m ; - M a

..v gw ,;.,p 4..g%

,mm..

- /M mM..

-w. '. -ci %p .sg.." -

.w . g.%. 4 - ..e

+ -

r w . ' . ', ,u}w.th , s.'~ n

.v '

r 2 s J Q; > ..

s

• q;s .

' *:- ;' .-.:9.<...

? ,,. < . y' y ;.*':%'$ d%,  % L. p,3 "

.g, 'g m C. . - m%%' y 1.,t . . n.y Qf : h,L .\y,f.n , %'.k.,' %g j] M.g* 4m

.  % v - L - . f ', '-?-' - v i " ~, s T - y. ~y< %' ' %,~

• > a

,.,R., ,

4-2.* ,w,x.

v .

4.. %O,- - e 7.. r,. .. .y'e q,c:i. -te g,. h.- *,~ -' L-&.. . v v fc . .. j. _ .< .,...o;;~V v .-4,%. u_. . .e e, 2 . , ,. . i , --

O -

3 w,yv,g . , m,y*. J y g.t. .a,ww r s ,.M. .wr.9 < s s.- ....<

~ '

.,:.. E'

n , 9. g, .? O ~.

• / -' *

. [$' ,"

. k .g f - I .,

Y'

., y; .;v , y z.p:m: .s M.;.:[ , x.:A.c mgh a.~.:%.G w'?% p. :1: . p Qg s...,o, 3y b.:;.hl: m.u:m:'M...gj., w p s:/~: ,;g.[. ,

], ys.., %,

. ,' ns :;&.  %,. < ~ '

• - ' ~ aA, eG: , ' y". . - T t. f ., . y.. $ ~ ,

l. F,c .c ?,QM t,f 2 'i? .Q} Yi .(*l % 4 ?* *? ; .b.1 b mg (q'x?!"-.i"* r.y .,r.p{GM)y.

( , ?-.M.4 .,, WG_ ppr. y ,W~:. ,. 4., MK. A_ N,s-g.n

,@ry;M'C:s - ,s M.a@;F .,l.yv@' yc,s W , '

7g u .S. 'iy

.. . . . , . -. a-. g.x p g .

v.- s p,.f w iA,. 6. y_,gfp; +..Sd R.p" M g,7,J:

_.7m e y_u:.W-

~ <

%*. ah, ' * ',..',4- Z ps,.-7 & y. q Q.;,.g  % +., y. ,r- .<-

.t Q ;.??lp@',;Q lfcO d=6 a -3A'M,}f;N i*,'. _ r; \ ;,. ~'s ' ' y' '7;f

. ' ii .

.y

" . q,3 g,y 4l'h .. gw- .r.-,

r nM. . .,

• 3.., u ' 71 h,4 "

< y.M- a , u.76 o g h,. , , u <..+' ..w@'/.k'i'.~o .

.v , 3 , f, .Y,

@..)

s~ y' 1 *.-.

..-y.

.(

, q # ,,, _ ..s.. ,

.g1. . y. 6

%.Q *t , <t- s,. Vsm.a ,# g;p at ,1e p$5.$p< y. r, n. . (p , @t,# .,,n,...qgr.~..g; e?.*j.

.- 10 .4,V k ;g-

,: 'n$ ' *, w

,.. . i . .. g . N -

g( q .., . / 3..p "1,. Q.m,* 'r. r,.n<..- , . .JJ'.,"<

, C' , ,. .

..A n (-n.> 0, , f.

.:.4 5: , y 7 ^-A ,*n' a . -%[a, ' * . vft~,h M. k I$

• b ,*,.

, , g $ .*

(h. .' j ' E.7 ( [b.' . ~d\ ' '{ f ',, ;

wpp.. A.mw.u: y m.y .wn.pg/; .~

n ,vr. . + . ' .~a. .e: -.n.. - .

s . e

2. .;p.n.c..,p

.# s e r.

, y .;y.,

3.y:i,., g.7., w A< y w.,j

.,. .. f n3 , , . a.

. . . >..,,,. 1 ,,M+.-,*.,,,r.%-. ..

y p. y .

m..1

,,~

y , . r . s, , .;

.,,,.g,, ,

-. / f. o_> r.$

., /, ,t.,C. y # - *,j..*...:, - % , ,p -- 4 ., - w...

,;. , ._.q, + . a s g.t s 7 +4 p. . .,g *. ,,4

. <-'.- a**t.> .,,c.,,;.- .

s.,, ,

/ . , I ' . "* e.

..~'%- -t

- ~ . - .. ,gg. .* . a% sw . ,,e T",e w ..,s < * .". _. w '4 ,s % r f rW

.~.g,

f. r . s t. S'

/h < .- ) a ,' T. , 'f ';.-,

a .

-. . -; 4,[J : ; y A'y.';-4 / n...Q(p M, g i; ?.* M* .,/.&*-(e.s'd.s.,

~%,

4

• s 3'"

,j.N<. T <, -- .:.,./,,-Q. ,

,.F.

Sj.* -

w wgc, gg41p

.J ' .'~.., .i, cs y<.

.g . s. .3 L p. y*.,g. .) ; . ,gv; (* - {'.'{.,c.,g,.;m s . ,- '

- Q y.,p-A> .. -

w

? ,' r.

s

..,j e<.;.' ,;;g. , ,. wsp, ,

• * . , s v .. -4, : s o - s-

. v.A o 4

, ,. ,.m5W 9,st e 4 9 -D 4* ~ ,< . -

• s

<I,...4' . ' .

,.4 <

. t. c < . '%

~, 4.

s - ,

• =

.J.".f'

• ~e . ' ,* ., y.

't' j , /: ,s

• . ' c' ,N,..; ', <s'..-AJ l_ ,L ' < '

J.

.t' , . ,

y , .

, j e- .r . f

, +g,

' ^

f. **

o ,} [, o " w ~.m m . w, f,f ',

, o .. I . ~. . : . . .

n g i .. .

. , , ....,y

,Vbj .'+ d, s'4 d. u 4J J. :3 i ,

J % ?,'$.u.[s i ,1.?*.;-' ?.:

'. M .T. '

.,,[ m. sa .' < n .

's s . ;(ar , , ~ c. - a.; ,.: ,:,.F<.+ a: . . . ~ ; y < . . m y ' . .,U,.;,

a '

a. ' .y 8 ..y .

.

• l. , . . y - ,

• m'

( A , -~ .9 . '. r y ... .._,i..,1-

..q x-

.. ...% ,,g2 ..  ;

. ,. . .'. f. c. . ; 9, A,,$.p .

i d y 7-*, ' s ,', . ..%}..n h. <.

g

• • , ,. . ne#t m.;.,< #,K L -: .p.fcc -

e,~, O a Q y<

s. t .' . ~. - m Q . ~ 9., . .

1 . r , t,f e ,s.

s. . p = O.jl. 4l .s A.k?"3. L %. '. ga,.C',l 5 e .i.-

b; .'.8.y. ^ ;f - Lj'

.c f. v... ..-": C_ .

. ~ ' C' ^ , .

-y.. C.' -4, _ ,q t.- q.p r . ~. n , . 4- ~yy .

,, l. ., w y;. .,. a;, . y + y-.,j ,. . x. ,

- S. .n,a. ,sn ..

.. .. - .. . ,. w v ' , m e . , .a ,

1 *j.,,*4 .$ e, (,

I q

' " 'g e g **J*,.. ,,

• j s .

w+ f + z. 9 3. ,,v , ,A.*.'g u.c . . -

'.ci + 4 ,, .

s.,..q...}...

. * >/

-,-'q

,.,.'..--.-; .t ,,,.,.3,.

c ;-., , -

. i

. ,, . ;.,. ;<. ,., g < .G. <

-y ,-

's a.- , . ' p. , . *; - ,

y~e

. . ~

,vVe

,. t g , - .' ,vr ,'W.I. .s.

;* a 1 - fwl, A , . . .,4~* . .' ., ge

, , f e

. t t . f.

',e.,,-.,,,.?-

7 s

-' , . Y e g ,.. r L a 4 y

.e x O, ,-,

3 w/. ., o *

% ep,,..s, *l ,s <~ . a, fy ,;

e

~, _ ,

c. x. uo.:: p. ;.&. -w. 3.,k s s,," 9lD;6 A,s . 2_6 0.0>T. v'.f....T.,. f.. . M . _.

s .

t. b' e+ '

- a*' ',  %- A s

• g 4;, =,3

/ 6 , - ,,,3

~ - > . , u '. .a.'

,. , , .'7 - *w,

. 5 , s n _,_

m _

w W: -

. . .. ag.g ,

u

.4 ;__-,.,* ~, .-c;.,

.. e ,

APPLICANTS DIRECT TESTIMONY ON ALTERNATIVE SITES

• Panelists: William R. Griffin, Project Licensing Engineer, Boston Edison Company Peter J. Frascino, Manager, Facility Siting Group United Engineers and Constructors, Inc.

-4 k-F I'

.2 I

• See: Intervenors' Commonwealth of Massachusetts,Cententions 4,12 Intervenor Daniel F. Ford, Cententions F, M 2314 048 6 a e

• wa- -- . .- e.--

m ,-e,e -

kJ 1 Q. Please state your rame.

~~

2 A. William R. Griffin.

3 Q: By whom are you employed?

c 4 A. Boston Edison Company.

5 Q: What position do you hold at Boston Edison?

6 A: Project Licensing Engineer.

How long have you held this position?

[' 7 Q:

8 A: Since February 1978.

j 9 Q: Will you describe your educational background?

J, 10 A: I received a Bachelor of Civil Engineering Degree from Georgia Tech 11 in 1970. I studied envirc mental engineering at Northeastern University

. 12 and received an M.S. degree in 1974. I studied law at Suffolk University b

13 and was awarded a Juris Doctor degree in 1978.

I 14 Q: Will you state any professional certificates or licenses that you hold?

15 A: Since 1970 I have been registered as an Engineer-in-Training in the State 16 of Georgia. Since 1978 I have been a member of the Bar of the Common-17 wealth of Massachusetts.

18 Q: With which professional organizations are you affiliated?

19 A: I am a member of the American Society of Civil Engineers, the Boston 20 Society of Civil Engineers Section of the American Society of Civil 21 Engineers, the Northeastern Section of the American Nuclear Society, and 22 the American Association for the Advancement of Science.

2314 049

I 2.

1 Q. Would you briefly describe your professicnal work experience?

2 A. I was employed by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency from 3 1970 to 1972 as an environmental engineer. I was employed by United 4 Engineers and Constructors from 1972 to 1975 as an enviornmental 5 engineer and as project coordinator. During the latter period I 6 was a principal investigator on two alternate sites study projects t

7 which have been reviewed during this proceeding. From 1975 to 1977 8 I was employed by Anderson-Nichais as a project manager in the 9 Environmental Sciences Division. I have been with Boston Edison 10 since 1977. As ' Project Licensing Engineer for Pilgrim Station Unit 2, 11 I manage preparation of environmental and safety-related material for 12 submission to NRC Staff.

13 Q. Describe your involvement in siting study work since the 1974 Study.

14 A. While at UE&C I led a siting study effort for New York State Electric 15 and Gas Corporation. Later I helped organize a larger siting study 16 for the same utility which included nearly all of New York State.

[

17 I also led a siting study review for Jacksonville Electric Authority I

18 which included much of northern Florida.

19 Q. What was your role with respect to the infonnation on alternative's

'~

20 developed by UE&C for Boston Edison in 1973?

r i 21 A. I acted as one of the principal investigators on this effort, which L.

22 compared Pilgrim 2 with a hypothetical power plant at Edgar Station 23 in Weymouth, Mass.

24 Q. What was your role with respect to the study entitled " Boston Edison 25 Comoany Siting Study for Long Range Generating Capacity Expansion -

26 1975 - 2000" which has sometimes ceen referred to in this proceeding 27 as the "1974 Study"?

__ 28 A. I was a principal investigator, a member of a team of about six people 2314 050

] -

4 3.

I who worked full time for nearly a year on the effort. I developed

- 2 much of the environmental data in the study through research in 3 numerous libraries and government agency offices, and through sur-

~

4 veys on and near sites. Along with the project team I assisted in 5 analyzing data used in site comparisons, and I helped prepare the 7

l, 6 report.

, 7 Q. Would you describe the purpose and scope associated with the 1974 Study?

}

8 A. The subject matter of the study was directed to alternative sources 9 and sites. The purpose of the study was to develop a comprehensive L' J 10 infomation base and perfom an evaluation of the alternative sources 11 and sites for Boston Edison for the time period 1975-2000. Ultimately, 12 over 500 references were reviewed. The alternative sites portion of J 13 the study dealt with base load, intemediate and peaking power genera-P 14 ting stations. Fuel types included oil, coal and nuclear. Boston 15 Edison requested that our effort in the alternative sites portion 16 of the study be directed primarily to environmental concerns.

Thus

, 17 the majority of the project team included environmental specialists.

18 Q. Please describe the activity associated with the alternative sites 19 portion of the study.

L 20 A. The initial focus of the site search was to detemine the geographic 21 scope. Our ultimate objective was to identify a reasonable number

, 22 of sites for fossil and nuclear stations. Thus we did not start with 23 any hard and fast rules with regard to geographic scope. Rather, 24 we adopted two guidelines as starting points, with the understanding 25 that we would expand our search if an adequate number of sites could 26 not be identified. Our initial guicelines were as follows:

27 1. Because Boston Edison has no service territory outsice the 28 Correnwealth of Massachusetts, the initial search should be 2314 051

!4 4.

I within the Commonwealth.

2 2. The site search should begin within the BECo Service territory s..

3 and expand outward until a reasonable number of siting options r, 4 had been identified.

5 Ultimately, t:1ese guidelines proved adequate for purposes of our

['

u 6 study, and it was not necessary to enlarge upon them. Although some 7 elements of the study covered the entire conmenwealth, an adequate fi 8 number of sites for all fuel types were identified in the eastera 9 half of Massachusetts.

10 In parallel with the site search effort, a number of topical studies 11 were conducted, most of which addressed environmental subjects. For 12 exemple, lengthy literature searches were undertaken on land use and 13 land use planning, water supply and water sources planning, water q

14 quality, terrestrial ecology and other subjects.

The information 15 base developed in these topical studies was later used in the site 16 identification and comparison phases.

17 While the site search began with the BECo service territory, which I<j 18 consisted of the City of Boston and approximately 39 surrounding j, 19 municipalities, tne ' scope of the site search was expanded beyond

' 20 the BECo service area because of the dense population and limited i 21 land and water resources in that area. Most sites for base load 22 power plants were ultimately identified outside the BEco service 23 territory. The radial expansion was accomplished by increments based 24 upon the location of major water bodies, including the principal river valleys as far west as the Blackstone and Nashua Rivers.

-~

25 26 During the course of the study, areas along the 1500 mile coastline 27 of the Ccmonwealtn were examined for offshore and onshore power m 28 plant sites.

2314 052

5.

r 1 Although we did not employ the term " resource area" per se, the 2 study broke the Commonwealth into areas for which that term pro-

. 3 vides a good definition.

4 We came to some important general conclusions regarding these 5 resource areas. The Merrimack River, with a flow averaging 5000-6 8000 cfs, is the only river in eastern Massachusetts which is 7 probably capable of supplying a major base load power station without 8 the need for creating a major new water impoundrrst. The second 9 group of rivers are much smaller, having average flows of approximately

]

J 10' ten percent of the Merrimack. None of these streams could supply water 11 for evaporative cooling to a major base load power plant without the 12 installation of a major water impoundment. The rivers in this b 13 category include the Concord, the Nashua, the Taur. on and tne Blackstone.

] 14 Although the potential for constructing impoundments was examined, 15 ~ f t was concluded that it would be difficult or imposstSle to develop 16 on-stream reservoirs of the required size because of development along 17 these streams. Thus it was determined that these smaller rivers were 18 probably not suitable for base load stations, but might be capable of 19 ' supporting smaller fossil stations such as those which produce inter-u 20 mediate and peaking power.

21 Coastal areas were also examined, and sites were initially identified 22 in all coastal areas. For nuclear units it was concluded that the 23 Massachusetts coast nortti of Boston was clearly less attractive 24 than the coast south of Boston. This was primarily due to two factors.

25 First, the population density north of Botton is generally higher.

26 Second, the conformation of the coastline north of Gloucester, with 27 wetlands as much as five miles wide and a National Wildlife Refuge a 28 spanning much of the coast, presented environmental conflicts.

23!4 053

3 .

l, 6.

1 With res;ect to Cape Cod, because of land use conflicts, the

- 2 area was eliminated as a location for nuclear units. The best 3 sites available were determined to be located on the coast 4 between Boston and the Cape Cod Canal, and on the west coast of 5 Buzzards Bay.

f L 6 Thus, three resource areas emerged as most suitable for nuclear 7 units. These included the Merrimack River and the two coa. ital q

8 areas mentioned above. In these resource areas approximately ten 9 sites were found to be most suitable. Approximately a dozen sites 10 were deferred from further consideration. These were not rejected p

j 11 as being unsuitable; rather, they were found suitable, but less

-, 12 attractive than the ten sites ultimately selected. The ten sites t

13 are described in the 1974 Study, the Supplement to the FES, and

, 14 numerous documents suoplied to the NRC Staff during the past year.

a 15 The group includes: sites using open cycle cooling and closed

., 16 cycle cooling; sites on fresh water and salt water; sites on water-17 front land as well as landlocked sites; and sites located northwest 18 of Boston, southeast of Boston and tcuth of Boston, f 19 I believe this group of sites represents a reasonable rumber of 20 environmentally and geographically diverse alternatives, and that 21 each of these sites is potentially licensable. Other than Pilgrim 22 Station, I do not feel there are any nuclear sites in eastern Massa-23 chusetts which are obviously superior to those in the group identified 24 in the 1974 Study.

25 Q. What was yoru role with respect to the alternative sites infomation L 26 provided to NRC Staff during 1978?

27 A. I oversaw the processing of all technical and environmental material

" ~

2314 054

t; 7.

I prepared in response to questions from NRC Staff.

2 0. Please describe the purpose and scope of your effort in 1978.

3 A. First, we evaluated the currency of tne data base for each of the 4

sites which the NRC Staff had selected for their analysis. This was 5

done to ensure that the Staff would not be working with obsolete in-I 6 fomation. Where changes in the data base had occurred, we communicated LJ 7

these to the Staff. UE&C also examined each site in light of the P This was done to

_ 8 siting and licensing criteria existing in 1978.

9 determine whether evolution in siting and licensing criteria since

~

1974 would have rendered any of the sites unlicensable. The results 10 11 of the analyses described above were transmitted to the NRC Staff.

12 Most of the infomation was transmitted in the fom of responses to

[; 13 questions raised by NRC Staff. Other infomation developed during our effort, although not specifically requested by NRL questions, was p 14 15 also forwarded to NRC when it was felt that such infomation would 16 be relevant to their analysis. Based primarily upon published data, L,

17 we also provided information on the major nuclear sites in southern n

[> 18 New England so that these could also be evaluated by the Staff and oltima'ely be compared to the Rocky Point Site. In summary, our F 19 20 1978 effort was intended to er.sure that the Staff would be evaluating 21 licensable sites on the Basis of up to date data. Boston Edison did 22 not attempt any comparison of sites in 1978. Yhe NRC Staff conducted

> 23 all such comparisons.

24 Q. Would you name and briefly describe the principal documents submitted 25 by BEco to NRC Staff during their alternate sites effort in 1978?

26 A. The 1974 siting study entitled " Boston Edison Company Siting Study 27 for long tem Generating Capacity Expansion - 1975-2000" ll was st. 'itted .

to th9 Staff by letter on January 26. 1978. This was a major

~ 28 .

2314 055

j 8.

I comprehensive study of alternative sites and alternative sources 2 of power. The Staff reviewed this document and responded with 3 questions in its letter of April 7,1978. BECo prepared responses 4 to NRC questions, and these were forwarded by letter of April 5 13, 1978. 2_/NRC Staff decided that, although the 1974 Study had some 6 deficiencies, it was substantial enough such that it cos:ld be the starting 7 point for the Staff's alternate sites evaluation. The Staff began a 8 detailed review of the 1974 Study, and one of the outputs of their 9 eview was a lengthy list of questions and infonnation requests 10 transmitted to BECo by letter of May 10, 1978. BECo provided responses 11 to most of these questions by letter of May 30, 1978. EThe documents 12 described above contained the bulk of the infonnation provided to NRC.

13 However, further infonnation was supplied as follows. By letter of 14 August 2,1978d8ECo submitted written opinions, prepared by legal d 15 counsel in states adjacent to Massachusetts, discussing the legal and

[ 16 institutional impediments which would be anticipated if there were an la 17 attempt to locate P*1 grim 2 outside Massachusetts. By letter of

18 August 11,1978d8Eco submitted information supplementary to that

~19 transmitted on May 30, 1978. By letter of August 18,1978MECosub-20 mitted informational documents having the follcwing titles: " Addi tional 21 Environmental and Economic Information on che Seabrook, Millstone,

.a 22 Charlestown and Montague Sites", " Transmission Cost Study for Alter-23 native Sites Evaluation", and " Realistic Appraisal of Schedule and 24 Cost Impacts of Locating Pilgrim Unit 2 at Alternate Sites instead 25 of Pilgrim Station." Finally, I should note, in response to interrogatories 26 from the Attorney General of t?e Commonwealth of Massachusetts, BECo sub-

~

27 mitted on September 8,1978 answers primarily dealing with the _

28 methodology used to prepare population density estimates during our -

2314 056

g,

.~

~

1 1978 effort.

2 References c~

3 1/ " Boston Edison Company Siting Study for Long Term Generating 4 Capacity Expansion - 1975-2000," United Engineers and Constructors, -

- 5 February 1974.

6 2_/ Untitled letter from R. M. Butler /BECo to W. H. Regan/NRC,

[-

7 April 3,1978.

8 3/ " Alternative Sites - Responses to NRC Questions and Additior-1 9 Information", letter from R. M. Butler /BECo to W. H. Regan/NRC,

.. 10 May 30, 1978.

~

11 4_/ Untitled letter from R. M. Butler /BECo to W. H. Regan/NRC, 12 August 2,1978.

g 13 5/ Untitled letter frem R. M. Butler /BECo to W. H. Regan/NRC, 14 Augus t 11, 1978.

15 6/ "NRC Review of Alternate Sites for Pilgrim 2: Submission of 16 Additional Information", letter from R. M. Butler /BECo to W. H.

17 Regan/NRC, August 18, 1978.

18 19 2314 057

!- 20 21 l ~'

c 22 23 ,

24 25 26 27 9 28 m

4

... -m e. . - - . . - - .*

N -A--* N-'-p N nm -- -- w-- . . . .

~~

l . . .

I 1 Q. Please state your name 2 A. Peter J. Frascino.

3 Q. What is the name and address of your employer?

~

p 4 A. United Engineers and Constructors,100 Sumer St., Boston, Mass.

i 5

Q. What position do you hold at UE&C?

6 A. I am Manager of the Facility Siting Group.

7 Q. How long have you been involved in electric power plant siting P

8 work at UE&C?

9 A. Since 1973.

I" 10 Will you describe your educational background?

Q.

11 A. I was awarded a BS in Environmental Engineering by Rensselaer 12 Polytechnic Institute in 1972. I did graduate work in Enviroamental tj 13 Engineering and was awarded a Master of Engineering Degree by RPI q 14 in 1973.

I 15 Q. Please describe your professional background.

16 A. I joined UE&C in 1973. Virtually all my work since that time has v

17 involved assessment of the environmental impact of energy facilities.

18 I have coordinated and supervised siting studies for nuclear stations, r 19 coal fired stations, and coal plant solid waste disposal facilities, t

20 I have participated in the development of federal and state licensing 21 documents for new generating stations and transmission facilities.

22 As part of these activities, I have participated in the development 23 of conceptual design of water and wastewater treatment systems, cooling -

24 systems, flue gas desulfurization systems and solid waste disposal 25 systems. I have served as supervisor of environmental activities on 26 several recent power plant siting studies. During the 1978 effort in 27 support of Bosten Edison, all UE&C technical specialists reported to me. I 2314 058

, ~ -...m -_ - - - ,