ML19289D590
| ML19289D590 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Green County  |
| Issue date: | 02/16/1979 |
| From: | Chipman G, Congel F, Coplan S Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML19289D585 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 7903080303 | |
| Download: ML19289D590 (12) | |
Text
'
FEB 161979 O
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULFORY COTWISSION BEFORE THE AT0!!IC SAFETY Afl0 LICEi:SIflG BOARD In the Matter of
)
)
POWER AUTHORITY OF THE STATE
)
Docket No. 50-549 UF NEW YORK (Greene County fluclear Power Plant)
)
STATE OF NEW YORK DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC SERVICE BOARD ON ELECTRIC GENERATION SITING Afl0 THE ENVIR0t4 MENT In the Matter of the Application
)
of the
)
)
POWER AUTHORITY OF THE STATE
)
Case 80006 0F NEW YORK
)
)
(Greene County Nuclear Generating
)
Facility)
)
SUPPLEMENTAL TESTIM 0tlY OF NRC STAFF CONCERflING PRICE-ANDERSON Gordon L. Chipman, Jr.
Seth M. Coplan Ira P. Diritz Frank Congel 7903080 3tt3
Gordon L. Chipman, Jr.
Seth M. Coplan Ira P. Dinitz Frank Congel l
This supplemental testimony is offered in response to Citizens 2
to Preserve the Hudson Valley, Contention II-B(b)(iv), which reads 3
as follows:
4 The Petitioner Citizens to Preserve the Hudson Valley 5
contend that "the cost of the Price-Anderson subsidy" is an 6
unintended consequence which is not even assessed and its 7
omission renders any cost / benefit analysis of gbious value.
1/
8 Under the Price-Anderson Act, there is a system of private 9
funds and governmental indemnity totalling up to $560 million to pay 10 public liability claims for personal injury and property damage 11 resulting from a nuclear incident. Above $560 million, neither tne 12 licensee nor any person is liable for these claims.
In the ever.t 13 that damages from a nuclear incident exceed the $560 million 14 liability limit, however, " Congress will thoroughly review the particular 15 incident and will take whatever action is deemed necessary and 16 appropriate to protect the public from the consequences of a disaster 37 of such magnitude." 42 U.S.C.52210(e). The Price-Anderson Act 18 requires licensees of commercial nuclear power plants having a rated 39 capacity of 100,000 electrical kilowatts or more to provide proof to 20 the Nuclear Regulatory Commission that they have financial protection in the form of private nuclear liability insurance, or in some other 21 f rm approved by the NRC, in an amount equal to the maximum amount of 22 liability insurance available at reasonable cost and on reasonable 23 24 Il Public Law 85-256, as amena'eifTTf U.S.C.52210.
1
Gordon L. Chipman, Jr.
Seth M. Coplan Ira P. Dinitz Frank Congel I
terms from private sources. That financial protection, at present 2
$495 million, is comprised of a primary layer of private nuclear 3.
liability insurance of $160 million 2] and a secondary retrospective 4
premium insurance layer of $335 million.
In the event of a nuclear 5
incident causing damages exceeding $160 million, each comercial 6
nuclear power plant licensee would be assessed a prorated share of 7
damages in excess of the primary insurance layer up to $5 million per 8
reactor per incident but not in excess of $10 million for each reactor 9
in any year. The difference of $65 million between the financial 10 protection layer of $495 million and the $560 million liability 11 limit is the present government indemnity level. Government 12 indemnity layer will eventially be eliminated as more commercial 13 reactors are licensed and licensees participate in the retrospective 14 premium system. At the time the primary and secondary financial 15 protection layers by themselves provide liability coverage of $560 16 million, Government indemnity will be phased out.
Under the current 17-level of primary liability insurance coverage, this will occur when 80 Commercial reactors haVe been licensed (i.e.
80 reactors x $ 5 million 2f Insurance in the amount of $160 million is preser.tly available, and the Comission is in the process of implementing regulations to require this increased amount of primary insurance.
While utilities are presently required to purchase only $140 million worth of nuclear insurance by approximately May 1,1979 this required amount will be increased to $160 million.
24 2
Gordon L. Chipman, Jr.
Seth M. Coplan Ira P. Dinitz Frank Congel I
+ $160 million = $560 million).
After that point, the liability limit 2
would increase in increments of $5 million for each new commercial 3
power reactor licensed.
4 We are not sure what the petitioner means by the " cost of the 5
Price-Anderson subsidy." We interpret this to mean the dollar 6
value of risk from accidents having consequences that exceed the 7
S495 million financial protection layer.
(Mathematically, risk 8
is the product of the probability that an accident might occur and 9
the consequences of that accident.)
10 In order to assess the need for consideration of the " subsidy" 11 in the cost-benefit analysis, we have evaluated the consequences of 12 a major loss of coolant accident (LOCA).
A LOCA is the largest 13 design basis accident that would result in potential hazards not 14 exceeded by those of any accident considered credible.
15 Tne radiological consequences resulting frca the release 16 of radioactive iodine and noble gases from a major LOCA at the j7 Cementon site is evaluated in section 15.5.1 of the SER. 3/ The 18 population dose model used in the Generic Environmental Statement 19 n Mixed 0xide 4/ and Uranium Fuel Cycle Impacts From Spent Fuel 20 J/ For purposes of this analysis the LOCA assumptions utilized in 2I the SER were used.
In Chapter 7 of the FES a " realistic' 1.0CA 22 is ' evaluated which results in significantly lower releases of 23 radioactivy.
24 y rn[ REG-0002, GESMO.
3
Gordon L. Chipman, Jr.
Seth it. Coplan Ira P. Dinitz Frank Congel igRepraessingandRadioactiveWaste5] proceedings was used to 2
estimate the Jose to the population resulting from a release of the 3
same quantities of radioactive iodine and not,ie gases from the 4
proposed Greene County nuclear facility. The model accounted for the 5
population density around the Greene County facility.
A dose of about 6
2,000 total body man-rem was estimated to result from all pathways 7
to the population within 50 miles. This dose was determined assuming 8
no interdictive measures are undertaken to reduce the population 9
dose.
Such measures would include holding of foodstuffs until the 10 contamination had decayed, restricting access to highly contaminated 11 areas and decontaminating structures and land.
If we were to 12 conservatively assume the value of $1,000 per total body man-rem used 13 for normal releases in Appendix I calculations, the dollar value of 14 consequences of a major LOCA, without interdiction, would be about 15
$2 million.
16 If interdictive measures were taken in order to reduce the 17 population dose, the population exposure would be reduced while the 18 cost of interdiction would rise. While a detailed analysis has not 19 been performed, we would not expect the interdiction costs to exceed 20 the dollar value of the population dose. Nevertheless, we have 21 considered a cost of $10 million to represent the upper bound cost 22
' associated with a. design basis LOCA. That amount includes both the interdicted man-rem cost and the cost of such interdiction.
Only 23 24 5/ NUREG-0216, Table S-3.
4
Gordon L. Chipman, Jr.
Seth M. Coplan Ira P. Dinitz Frank Congel
'I accidents of greater potential severity than that LOCA could result 2
in costs in excess of the Price-Anderson limit on liability.
Such 3
accidents involve sequences of successive failures more severe 4
than those postulated for establishing the design bases of protection 5
systems and engineered safety features and need not be considered 6
in the environmental assessment of the proposed Greene County facility.
7 (FES, Chapter 7).
8 Our analysis demonstrates, therefore, that the upper bound g
cost of credible accidents is well within the $160 million 10 primary insurance layer. The premiums for nuclear insurance 11 have been included in the cost-benefit analysis for the proposed 12 Greene County facility. 1/ (FES, Section 10.4.2.1 and Appendix H, 13 Table H.4).
14 ff The figures in Table H.4 for commercial liability insurance 15 reflects the cost of $125 million worth of insurance The 16 computer program from which Table H.4 was derived has been 37 updated since the analysis for the Greene County FES was 18 compl eted. The program now reflects the cost of premiums for $140 million worth of insurance, and the prorated cost 39 of retrospective premiums.
Calculations based on the 20 updated computer program are not expected to affect the 21 cost / benefit analysis.
22 23 24 5
v GORDON L. CHIPitAN, JR.
PROFESSIONAL OUALIFICATIONS ACCIDENT ANALYSIS BRANCH DIVISION OF SITE SAFETY AND ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS
' Since February 1976, I have been a Section Leader in the Accident Analysis Branch, Division of Site Safety' and Environmental Analysis, U.S.
Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
In this capacity, I supervise the evaluation of reactor siting and radiological safety, and the development and evaluation of analytical models used in design basis and realistic accident analysis.
I have' participated heavily in the development of new or revised Regulatory Guides and Standard Review Plans. On numerous occasions I have made pres.entations to the ACRS and testified at ASLB hearings.
I had primary review responsibility of the risks associated with the Floating Nuclear Power Plant.
I attended the University of Nebraska where I majored in Electrical I graduated Engineering and participated in the Navy Regular ROTC program.
with a Bachelor of Science dapree and was commissioned as a regular officer in the United States Navy in une 1965. Additional graduate level studies in nuclear reactor theory, health physics and related engineering fields were completed in 1966 at the Officer fiaval Nuclear Power School, Mare Isiand, California.
I subsequently studied and qualified as a Senior Reactor Operator at the Naval Reactors Nuclear Power Facility in klest Milton, New York.
My association with the Naval Nuclear Propulsion program provided me with five years of professional experience in the nuclear field, primarily
> oweeei.
with pressurized water reactors.
I have been qualified as a Senior Reactor Operator on three flavy nuclear propulsion plants.
For two years I was assigned to an operating nuclear submarine, during which time my duties included d.irecting, training and supervising technicians in the operation, maintenance and repair of various equipment and systems, including the nuclea.r propulsion plant.
Starting in 1969, I was assigned to the crew of a nuclear submarine under construction.
My duties included supervising the Electrical Division and the Reactor Control Division, testing of the nuclear propulsion plant, directing and supervising technicians in the inspection, testing and operation of various equipment and systems and
' training of technicians for examination and qualification as reactor operators and various other operating positions.
In 1970 I was assigned as an instructor in advanced tactics at the Officers Submarine School where I instructed and trained the officers of nuclear submarines.
I joined the Regulatory staff of the Atomic Energy Commission in September 1972 as a reactor engineer.
Since then I have participated as an Environmental Project Manager in the analysis and evaluation of the environmental features of design of the Dresden Units 2 and 3 facilities.
As a Project Manager in operating reactors, I participated in the review and = valuation of safety considerations associated with the design and operation of several' licensed power reactors.
Subsequently and prior to joining the Accident Analysis Branch, I participated in the analysis and evaluation of engineering safety features of design of power reactors under
, license application review.
I have been particularly closely associated with the reviews of the Westinghouse Electric Corporation's Reference
3-1 Safety Analysis Report, RESAR-41, and Boston Edison Company's Pilgrim
';uclear Gelierating Station, Unit 2 and the preapplication review of South Carolina Electric and Gas Company's Virgil C. Summer Nuclear Station Unit 2.
O e
O e
O
PROFESSIONAL QUALIFICATICNS SETH M. COPLAN Technology Assessment Analyst U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Staff My name is Seth M. Coplan.
I am employed as a Technology Assessment Analyst by the United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation, Division of Site Safety and Environmental Analysis, Cost-Benefit Analysis Branch.
I received a Bachelor of Science degree in Physics from the University of Maryland in 1965 and a Master of Science degree in Physics from that University in 1970.
From 1969 to 1973, I was employed by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (and its predecessor organization, the Environmental Science Services Administration) as a geophysicist, specializing in seismology.
Since 1973, I have been employed by the NRC and its predecessor, the United States Atomic Energy Commission.
From 1973 to 1976, I was re-sponsible for the evaluation of the seismological aspects of proposed nuclear power reactor sites.
I have been in my present position since 1976.
I am responsible for the evaluation of a variety of engineering economic aspects of proposed nuclear power reactors and sites.
In addition to my involvement in the Seabrook review, I have been responsible for about twelve other licensing reviews. These include responsibility for overview of the National Labor-atory review of alternatives and cost-benefit balancing for Grand Gulf, Erie, Sundesert, LaSalle, Comanche Peak, Yellow Creek, Bellefonte, South Texas, and Susquehanna applications.
I have had direct review responsibi-lity for the economic aspects of the Perryman alternate site review and extensive involvement in the liquid pathway risk assessment for Floating Nuclear Plant (FNP).
I have also been involved in a variety of generic studies including costs of the nuclear fuel cycle and the value-impact analysis of the staff posi-tion on Anticipated Transients Without Scram (ATWS).
I have taken formal courses at the University of Maryland in Microeconomics and Econometrics.
I am a n: ember of the American Association for the Advancement of Science and the American Geophysical Union.
4
.m.
~-
4 Professional Qualifications of Ira P. Dinitz B. A. City College of New York,1966 M.P..i. Syracuse Universi ty,1967 July 1967 - August 1971 - Contract Negotiator and Administrator, U.S. Atomic Energy Commission, New York Operations Office September 1971 - June 1972 - Contract Specialist, U. S. Atom:c Energy Commission, Washington, D.C.
July 1972 - Present - Indemnity Specialist, formerly with U.S. Atomic Energy Commission and now the Nuclear Regulatory Commission In my present position I develop and recommend policies and procedures for the indemnification, pursuant to Section 170 of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended, of licensees and others against public liability claims arising out of nuclear incidents and implement the indemnity program for licensees through the issuance of appropriate indemnity agreements.
. ~.
~
FRANK J. CONCEL PROFESSIONAL QUALIFICATIONS I am the Section Leader of the Radiological Impact Section in the Office
~
of Nuclear Reactor Regulation, Nuclear Regulatory Co= mission. My responsibilities include supervision of, as well as direct participation in the technical review and evaluation of the environmental radiological impact associated with reactor and other fuel cycle facility operation.
I was born in Syracuse, New York. My undergraduate study was done at Le Moyne College, Syracuse, N.
Y., where I received the B.S. degree in Physics in 1964.
I entered thd physics graduate department of Clarkson College of Technology, Potsdam, New York, and received the M.S. degree in 1967 and the Ph.D. degree in 1968.
Both degrees include a concentration in nuclear physics and a minor in mathematics.
After completing the Ph.D. degree requirements, I accepted an appointment as a postdoctoral research assistant in the Radiological Physics Division of the Argonne National Laboratory, Argonne, Illinois.
During my nine-month stay at the laboratory, I was engaged in a project to determine the environmental neutron flux.
This work included both instrumentation design and data analysis and interpretation.
I subsequently accepted an academic position in the Physics Department-of Malcalester College,
C
-e
,,..* ?f e 2
St. Paul, Minnesota.
I continued fundamental research at the college and also taught physics courses to undergraduates at all icvels.
My research expanded to include measurement and interpretation of gamma ray spectra in the vicinity of elect'rical generating stations.
In February,1972, I accepted a position with the U.S. Atomic Energy Co= mission.
4
/
- j e
s 1
l s
e e
9
.