ML20083D380
| ML20083D380 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Seabrook  |
| Issue date: | 08/28/1991 |
| From: | Melvin W NEW HAMPSHIRE, STATE OF |
| To: | NRC |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 9109300248 | |
| Download: ML20083D380 (42) | |
Text
_._
STATE OF NEW HAMPSHIRE '
[)
e i
I, API'Y ll. S110KLER =
GEORGIE A. TilOf1AS Cl{ AIRMAN SECRETARY 1-l NUCLEAR DECOMMISSIONING FINANCE COMMITTEE State House 7
l Concord, New Hampshire 03301 b
\\
August 28, 1991 f
4 4
j To:- All Part,i_es on Service List in NDFC 91-1 Enclosed is Procedural Order No.
9, with attachments
-consisting of Report of Hearing Officer on Shelley Nelkens Data Requests and Objection and Rtponses, and Transcript of i
= Pre-Hearing Conference held on August 7, 1991.
4 Sincerely yours, f$h72f 0*F Winslow Melvin Administrative Assistant to Committee i
o109300248 910828 c
DR ADOCK 0500 3
p l
. ~. =..
-. _ _ ~
'g.
NDFC 91-1 NUCLEAR DECOMMISSIONING FINANCING COMMITTEE SEABROOK NUCLEAR DECOMMISSIONING FUND
..O..
REPORT OF HEARING OFFICER ON SHELLEY NELKENS DATM REQUESTS AND OBJECTIONS AND REPONSES THERETO 1.
Background.
In accordance with the procedures established and set forth in Amended Procedural Order No. 1 on' February 25, 1991, Shelley Nelkens, a General Intervenor in the above-proceeding, on May 28,
- 1991, filed.11 Data Requests to be responded to by New Hampshire Yankee.
On May 31, 1991,.
New Hampshire Yankee filed an.
. Objection to cer.tain Data Requests from Ms. Nelkens.
In -.its Objection, New Hampshire Yankee indicated that
.- i t was-proceeding to answer a
great majority of those requests-and' stated that Requeste 2 a-d, 3,
4, and 11, were neither relevant to the present proceeding nor reasonably
- calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence.
It: also indicated that although Request 2 e which related to providing an estimate of all isotopes (curies), that would I
be.on site after 40 years of the operation of the Seabrook l
Nuclear Plants.can also arguably be characterized as neither L.
relevant nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery-
.of admissible
- evidence, New Hampshire Yankee would nevertheless attempt to provide an answer to it, since it at least was directed to the approximate time of decommissioning.
1
'A On June 20, 1991, Shelley Nelkens filed a Response to the Objection by New Hampshire Yankee-to the-Data Requests setting forth reasons why the requests were relevant and reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence.
In this response, Ms. Nelkens stated with respect to Request 2 a-e.that supplying the response to 2 e would be.
sufficient.
With respect to Requests 3 and 4,
Ms. Nelkens stated that these requests were obviously relevant to these proceedings.and reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence.
The basis of the statement by Ms. Nelkens was related
-to the choice of DECON as the preferred method of decommissioning.
Ms. Nelkens indicated that DECON must have L
been predicated ~on some knowledge of the health impacts and subsequent costs of each method of decommissioning on a comparative basis.
With respect to Request 11, Ms. Nelkens set forth the basis. of her request as being the fact that-the amount of low-level waste generated may be greater than anticipated and for that reason the information sought by-Data Request l
No. 11, which was an update - on the status-reports and the i
findings provided in RP 7-1 and RP 9-1 which were INPO Evaluation Reports which she attached to her response. ;< '
4 On June 24, 1991, New Hampshiro Yankee filed a reply to
!)s.
Nelkens response to its objection on the Discovery Requests.
In the reply New Hampshire Yankee indicated that relevance must be determined with reference to the statutory authority of the Nuclear Decommissioning Financing Committee as set forth in RSA 162-F:1, II and 14 et sog.
In its reply, New Hampshire Yankee quoted the pertinent part of RSA 162-F:1 II as follows:
"The Legislature.
hereby establishes a procedure which will provide assurance of adequate funding by utilities for tne Decommissioning of those Nuclear Electric Generating Facilities which complete their anticipated energy-producing lives." (emphasis added)
New Hampshire Yankee further set forth in its reply a reference to the Report and Order of the Committee dated June 2,
1989 at pp.
8-9, wherein the Committee ruled that under the provisions of Chapter 162-F, Sections 14-26, the Committee had two fundamental issuee to decide:
1.
The amount of the Nuclear Decommissioning Financing Fund to be established for the Seabrook I Nuclear Station.
2.
The amount of the regular monthly acnedule for payments into the Nuclear Decommissioning Financing Fund to reach the amcunt established.
New Hampshire Yankee's reply further indicated that the issues in the present proceeding were identical, except that* _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ - - _ - _ _ _ - _ _ _
' they_ concern " changes" in the " establish" and not in its related monthly payment schedule.
New Hampshire Yankee's ' reply further contended that Nelkans Data Request 2 a-d, 3, 4 and 11 were not relevant to the statutorily prescribed issues.
New Hampshire Yankee also fudicated that Nelkens Data Request 11 (c) was objectionable for an additional reason in-that it would adver'sely affect unfettered quality-assurance self-criticism L
and referred to a
proceeding before the N.H.
Public Utilities Commission, Docket No. DR 91-011, which related to PSNH Objections to Nelkens Data _ Requests in that proceeding.
2.
Pre-Hearing Confo:ence.
A Pre-Hearing conference
- was scheduled by Hearing Officer Alexander J.
Kalinski, and the conference was held on August 7, 1991 at the Offices'of the N.H.-Public Utilities Commission at 8 Old SuncccK Road,
- Concord, N.H.
Filing appearances at-the conference were Ms.
Shelley Nelkens and Attorney Edward A.
Haffer for 'New Hampshire Yankee.
Also in attendance at the Hearing were Winslow Melvin, Administrative Of ficer of the Committee and 6
John'Tuthill, an Intervenor who was present as an observer.
Initially, at the commencement of-the conference, Ms.
- Nelkens indicated that since the answer to her T<equest 2-e had been provided that this was sufficient to cover the entire Data Request. 2 a-e.
In
- addition, Ms.
Nelkens.
indicated that she had provided documents entitled RP 7-1 and RP 9-1 referred to in hec Data Request No.-Il and was-no ii N
longer requesting New Hampshire Yankee to provide these documents.-
These were INPO Assessment Documents which will be' referred to herein.
-Attorney Edward Haffer on behalf of New Hampshire Yankee stated the Objection to the remaining Nelkens s
Requests 3,
4 and 11 is based on its contention that they were neither relevant to the proceeding nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of-admissible evidence.
In response to a query from the Hearing Officer, Attorney Haffer indicated that he was not informed as to the availability of the data that is being sought by the Nelkens.
' Data Requests, but that if there was an order that they be o
produced then,_if they are available, it would be_ produced.
Attorney Haffer indicated that the two requests that were in issue, were not relevant to the major issues before the Committee, namely, the cost of decommissioning at the time of completion of the plant's anticipated 4
energy-producing
- life, and the amount of the monthly payments necessary.to accumulate the funds necessary to
-decommission the plan 6. at that time, as-these were expressed in the statute, nor was the information that was requested reasonably calculated to-the discovery _of admissible evidence on these issues.
With respect
.to.
Nelkens Data Request No.
11, New Hampshire Yankee - had an additional ground beyond those two
- principal - -obj ec t i ons.
This additional' ground was that, to.
... =. _
j
.L
- i i
i-provide the kind'of information. sought by that request, in l
that it-dealt with~ matters that were collected as a matter of: quality assurance, and such information being voluntarily gathered by New Hampshire Yankee is referred to in Public 4
- i Utilities commission Docket DR 91-011, to produce that kind L
of information that has not already reach the public would I
l-
-adversely affect the kind of quality assurance l
l self-criticism that would be provided by New Hampshire Yankee and other Nuclear Plant Operators.
t
}:
This information Attorney Haffer indicated comes about from.
- INPO, an industry self-critiquing organization,
~ critiquing ~itself and critiquing other industry members and L
.providing information to inoustry members about how they might improve the operation of facilities.
He indicated further that it-was designed to provide the'information in confidence and in ordor for that information to be fairly provided to the industry member, it had been decided by the Public Utilities Commission in Docket DP 91-011 that, to the extent that the information is not otherwise in the public domain, it should be kept in confidence in order to keep the information going freely from INPO to the industry member.
Attorneyi Haf fer, on behalf of New Hampshire Yankee, also indicated that certain INPO information which was already - l'n the public domain was ordered by the N.H.
Public Utilities in Docket DR 91-011 to be released but that there were updates-and - - f ollow-ups that involve information that
~
)
c has not been publicly disclosed.
To the extent.new information is available not already in the public domain, the Public Utilities Commission ordered that information need not be disclosed.
In summarizing the objections of New Hampshire Yankee to the Nelkens Data Requests, Attorney Haffer indicated that they.were based on nonrelevance and the fact that they were not-likely to lead to the discoverability of discoverable information and that, on the basis of the order of the N.H.
Public Utilities Commission in DR 91-011, the quality-assurance reason specifically applies to Nelkens Data Request No.-11.
Ms.
Nelkens indicated in her statement that the requests she filed were obviously relevant to the proceedings and reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence.
Her Data Requests 3 and 4 related to health impacts and subsequent costs to the-individuals and society if they were not objectively evaluated or even addressed and that accordingly, these
-health impacts and costs must be brought out, addressed and dealt witil in.the cost considerations for decommissioning of the Seabrook Nuclear Plant.
Ms. Nelkens indicated that the choice of DECON as the l
preferred method of decommissioning must have been l
. predicated on some knowledge of the health impacts and
e subsequent costs of each method of decommissioning on a comparative - basis, in that this information must be made available 1 public scrutiny if the health impacts and subsequent costs to the individuals in society were not objectively evaluated or even addressed.
With-respect to Request No. 11, Ms. Nelkens pointed out that she was a
Legal Intervenor in-Public Utilities Commission Docket DR 91-011, and stated that Attorney Haffer had taken the Commission's ruling out of context.
The particular ruling by the Public Utilities Commission, she l-indicated, had to do with the updated status rcquest that were put forth by her to New Har, a re Yankee.
Ms. Nelkens indicated that the original findings that she is referring to, from INPO RP-71 and RP-91, as well as CY-32, were put
-.into the public domain last year and they were indeed confidential reports from INPO to New Hampshire' Yankee.
Ms. Nelkens further indicated that what Mr. Haffer was referring to was the fact that the Public Utilities Commission did rule that the status reports which were made public does not mean that, by virtue of those status repcrts having been made-public, that all-status reports in the future-would have to be made public tecause that would have a chilling effect.
~In this' proceeding Ms. Nelkens indicated.that.she was requesting the Committee to require New Hampshire Yankee to answer her Data Request No.
11 and provide these updated E __.
-. ~.
_.m
)
9 status reports so.that the Nuclear _ Decommissioning Financing Committee -can rule as to whether reasonable care has-been taken to reduce--the amount of low-level waste that is being produced.
Her contention was.that it was necessary to have the status report so that it can be known whether or not New Hampshire Yankee will be producing more-low-level waste than is necessary, whether there was going to be contamination to more parts of the plant than is necessary, and indicated that she was willing to have this information given to her L
undtr a protective order so that at some future point the committee could rule whether or not this information should be put into the public domain if that was a concern of New 3
- Hampshire Yankee.
Ms.
Nelkens addressed this issue at length as the attached-transcript of the Pre-Hearing Conference indicates.
3.
State and Federal Statutory Provisions.
In order to determine whether or not the Data Requests-are relevant
- to the issues' before the ccmmittee 'in this proceeding, a review of the statutory provisions pertinent to this matter-is-- in order.
The= pertinent provisions are set forth in RSA' 162-F, Sections 14-26.
Sections 14 and 15 of that law established the Nuclear-Decommissioning Financing Committee and then the legislature defined the.
decommissioning of the Nuclear Electric Generating Facility as follows:,
4 II.
" Decommissioning of a
nuclear electric generating facility" means, 'but is not limited to, any or all of the - following as may be required by any federal or state agency with jurisdiction when any radioactive portion of the facility is permanently removed from service:
(a)
- Removal, relocation,
- shipment, containment, demolition, dismantling or storage or a combination thereof of any radioactive equipment, materials, nuclear wastes or contaminated structures and future. and present storage of radioactive debris.
(Amended'1985, 141:1, eff. July 19, 1985).
(b)
Restoration and rehabilitation of the physical and aesthetic appearance of the decommissioning site.
It-should be noted that the definition of-
" decommissioning" by the legislature is couched in terms of the various physical steps required to remove radioactive equipment, materials, nuclea r wastes or
~ contaminated structures and, future.and present storage of radioactive debris as well as the restoration and rehabilitation of the physical and. aesthetic appearance of the decommissioning site.
There is no mention or -reference to the health and safety costs-which may.or may not be incurred by members of the public in relation to and with reference to the.-.
~.
existence, operation, and in particular, the decommissioning of the nuclear electric generating-facilities.
+
Section 19 of the law requires the establishment of a separate Nuclear Decommissioning Financing Fund for each nuclear genere. ting facility in the stata.
It also requires the establishment of a regular monthly schedule for payment of monies into the fund by the owner. or owners of the facility.
It further provides that the monthly payments
-shall not be less than necessary to reach the specified amount needed for decommissioning as determined by the l-committee.
Section 21 relates to the establishment.of-the funding requirements for the Nuclear' Decommissioning Financing Funt, Paragraphs II and III of Section 21 provide as follows:
II.
The amount of the fund shall be sufficient to
(.
cover all costs of decommissioning the facility when carried out by methods of which have been proven to be s,ekable and capable of achieving and maintaining-the level of decommissioning required by the United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission or its successor organization, or standards set by any.
state agency with jurisdiction over decommissioning
[
vhich are not less than those-levels set by the United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
III.
Each committee shall rely on all available data and experience in determining the amount of __
~.
5 auch fund including, but not limited to, information from the United States Regulatory Commission or its successor organization:
the public utilities l
commission; the owner or owners of the facility; counsel for the public appointed under RSA 162-F:9; counsel for the legislative utility consumers council; and relevant construction cost indices.
The committee shall publish a transcript of all proceedings during which information was presented or offered into testimony and a detailed analysis of j
the facts and figures used in determining the amount a
of the fund. (Emphasis added) 1
- Again, it should be noted that these provisions in
-Section 21 speak in terms of the physical removal of the radioactive components of the Nuclear Electric Generating Facility.
As for example, the language which refers to "and
!~
relevant construction cost indices."
There is no reference to health or safety costs in this section of the law.
In short, there does not appear to be any statutory authority in RSA 162, Sections 14-26 which requires the committee to factor health and safety costs into the decommissioning equation, in dismantling and removal of the Nuclear Electric Generating Facility after it has completed' its useful life.
Insofar as the legislative expression of t
s intent. with respect to the decommissioning procedure is concerned,-in 1981 the' legislature enacted the provisions of RSA 162-F 1, II which provides as follows:
I-I. -
The legislature further recognizes that to ensure the safety and well-being of the public and of future generations, a costly and comprehensive decommissioning procedure is necessary at the end of the.useful-or serviceable life of nuclear electric generating facilities.
Because the costs are substantial and because those costs are the-direct and predictable result of operating such a facility and should not have to be borne by the state, it is found to'be in the public interest to-require that adequate fiscal responsibility be established to ensure proper-and safe decommissioning and subsequent Aurveillance of nuclear r(actor sites to the extent necessa: y to prevent such sites from constituting a hazard to future generstions.
The legislature, therefore, hereby
-estAlishes-a procedure which will provide assurance of adequate funding by utilities for the decommissioning of those nuclear electric generating facilities which
-complete their anticipated energy.-producing lives.
In this provision, the legislature speaks in terms of the costs - that are the direct and' predictable result'of operating thel Nuclear Electric Generating Facility in order
to prevent such sites from constituting a hazard to future generations.
.The legislature indicated, therefore, that it established -a procedure which would provide assurance of adequate fonding by utilities for the decommissioning of those' nuclear electric generating f aci-lities which complete their anticipated energy-producing lives.
Und6r Federal tawa the Nucledt Regulatory Commission has been delegated certain responsibilities with respect to public health and safety considerations involving nuclear electric generating facilities.
In 42 USCS, Section 5843 an L
office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation is established.
In subparagraph (b) entitled
" Functions of Director",
it provides in part as follows:
(b)
Functions of Director.
Subject to the provisions of this Act, the Director of Nuclear Reactor Regulation shall perform such functions as the Commissien shall delegate including:
.(2)
Review the safety and safeguardo. of all such facilities, materials, and activities, and such review functions shall include, but not be limited to -
(A)
Monitoring, testing and recommending upgrading of systems designed to prevent substantial health or safety hazards; and (B)-
Evaluating methods of transporting special nuclear and other nuclear materials.
c.
and transporting and storing high-level radioactive wastes to prevent radiation hazards to cirploye e s and the g^neral pubile.
Section 5844 of 42 USCS
?stablishes an office of
!!ucl ear Safety and Safeguards in the Nuclear Regulatory Commissien, and defines its duties with respect to the licensin, and regulation of all facilities and materials licensed under the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended, as well as reviewing safety and safeguards of all such facilities and mcterials.
In the case of Pacific Legal roundation_v. State Energy nosources Conservation and Development Commission {1981, CA9 (659P II 903)] the Federcl Court of Appeals ruled that there was no indication in the Ttomic Energy Act (42 USCS Sections 20110t seq), that Congress intended to preempt any State Legislation other than that involving radiation hazards, and that States are permitted to regulate the generation, sale or transmission of electric power produced through nuclear facilities under the same regulatory authority as electricity produced by any other means, and that states also have the power to regulate radioisotopes and other less hazardous nuclaar materials.
Under that decision, the Court has indicated that Congress preempted any State Legislaticn involving cadiation hazards when it enacted the Atomic i
i i
Energy Act.
Any of the health and safety costs incurred therefore, by the operation of a Nuclear Electric Generating Facility would come within the scope and jurisdiction of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission rather than any State Agencies such as the Nuclear Decommissioning Financing Committee.
i 4.
Relevancy of Nelkens Data Requests Under the applicable State and Federal statutory provisions, Nelkens Irata Requests 3 and 4 are not relevant.
f With respect to Nelkens Data Request No.
11, New llampshire Yankee is - not required to respond to this data f
r regt-r, based on the policy considerations expressed by the Public Utilities Commission in'its decisions in Docket Nos.
DR 90-186 and DR 91-011.
An order will issue accordingly.
Dated: August 27, 1991 det A
/T
/
S Alexander J.
Yplinsk{
llearing Of ficer of the Committee i
Nuclear Decommissioning Financing Committee 8 Old Suncook Road Concord, N. ll.
03301
-l e
f 9
T
_ _ -.. _ -._-.. _.a_,
__.__...~...___...._._.__...-_;
i liDFC 91-1 NUCLEAR DECCX4MISSIONING FINANCING CCt4MI'ITEE SEABROOK IUCLFAR DratNIOSICNING FU!ID TRANSCRIPT OF FRE-liEARING CO!?FERENCE HELD LY HEARING CFFICER ALEXANDER J. KALINSKI ON WEDNESDAY, AUGUST 7,1991 AT Tile OFFICE OF THE PUBLIC 17fILITIES COMMISSICti,
' OLD SLHCOOK ROAD, CONCORD, NEM liAMPSilIRE HEARTIC OFFICER KALINSKIt This is t. Pre-!! caring conference in Docket No. !DFC 91-1.
The Nuclear Decomissioning Financing Comittee Seabrock Nuclear Decommissioning Fund. I hm Alexander Kalinski, llearing Of ficer of the Comittee who has been delegated procedural authority in terms of resolving scheduling discovery disputes and pre-hearing matters with the right of the Appeal to the Comittee.
For the record, may ve note appearances of parties that are present today.
Mr. Haffer.
MR. IIAFFER:
Mr. Kalinski, I am Ed liaifer appearing for New llanpshire Yankee.
SHELLEY NELKINS: Shelley Nelkens.
HEARING OFFICER KALINSKI The purpose of this Pre-liearing Conference this morning' is to address the issues raised by an objection by N.H. Yankee to certain discovery requests filed by Shelley Nelkens, and, the specific data requests which N.H. Ya".kee's Cbjection is related to were --originally, - request 2-a-d, 3,-4-and 11.
Since that-time I undarstand that the answer to 2e has been provided and according to the response by Shelley Nelkens that that was cufficient.
Is that correct?
l
(
4 SilELLEY NELKINS Yes.
IEARDE OFFICER KALINSKI:
The issues before the cculttee in this proceeding are two broad issues of 1) establishing the awunt of the Nuclear Decomissioning Financing l'und and the amount of the ncnthly paymenha within the scope of those two issues at the tino that the electrlq tenerating facilities complete their anticipated energy producing lives.
In the scope of those two general issues, the evidence according to RSA 541-A, the comittee has to decide whether or not to i
exclude irrelevant material or any unduly repititious as set forth in RSA 541-A Section 18.
11ow rer, with respect to disecvery as in legal l
proceedings, any discovery request which is directed t.t cliciting information which may be of help in arriving at the evidence - on the iscues before the comittee should be made available. W e data requests i
that are remaining, that have not been responded to are number 3, "Please provide ' the most recent toxicological studies on all isotopes nontioned in response to data request No. 2".
As indicated, 2e has been answered.
No. 4 is:
"Please give an estimate of the cancer, birth defects and so forth associated with each method of decomissioning and P
the total costs associated with these ailments".
Include health care i
costs, lost labor costs and so forth.
Please provide findings RP 7-1, I<P 1, CY 3-1, CY 3-2 from - three sources a) INPO evaluation of I
September of 89, b) Updated status reports, c) All information from IhPO evaluation conducted January, 1991 regarding radiological protection including solid radioactive vaste and radioactive contamination control and chemistry.
Since the objection has been made by N.ll. Yankee, may I i
hear from you Mr.11affor with respect to your objectJons, and also, with e
respect to the availability of the information requested in the data requests.
SITELLEY NELKENS:
Excuse me, may I make one correction first?
In my response to N.11. Yankee's objection, I provided RP 7-1 and RP 9-1 and at this point that is no longer being requested. What I am asking for is simply the updated status reports on those findings.
i i
. ~
L i
l IIEARING OFFICD1 YALINSKit
'1 hank you Ms. Nelkens.
I forgot to note that, that you did submit those wit.h your response and thst you've withdrawn your request providing the CY J-1.
50 all you are 1 coking for l
is CY 3-2.
Mr. Haf fer, would you please respond to, please state your cbjections rather, md indicate what the availability is of the data l
that_ is being sought by Ms. Nelkens.
l MR. IIAFFER:
If I could address the second question first Mr.
Kalinski, I don't know of _ the availability of the information.
I have not specifically discussed that with N.H. Yankee.
If there is an order
-that we must produce it then obviously if it is available it will be produced.
l As to the first point, our objection is that these specific
- requests, 3,
4 and 11 are neither relevant to this proceeding nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence.
RSA 162 P-1 II sets up the purpose for the Committee's decommissioning proceedings,
- and, it is basically to ascertain the cost for decomissioning at a time of completion of the plant's anticipated energy producing life.
As the comittee itself determined consistently-with the statute in the prior proceeding, the two major issues that the comittee must address is the amount needed to decomissioning and the appropriate monthly schedule to reach that ultimate amount.
The three requests that are now in issue, we submit, are not relevant to _ those two major issues nor to the purpose as expressed in the statute nor is the information that is requested reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence, i
e With respect to request No. II, we have an additional ground beyond those two principal objections.
That is that to provide that kind of information, at least as I understand the nature of the
-information being requested, it deals with matters that ate collected as a matter of quality and assurance and in a related proceeding, PUC DR
-3
4 91-013, the PUC as I understand it, has ruled that to the extent information is not already in the public arena and to the extent it is still held in confidence as a result of this quality assurance
- colf-criticism that is internally conducted within the industry, to produce that kifid of informtion that has not already reached the public domain would adversely af feet and would chill that kind of quality
[
assurance self-criticism. So that with respect to request No. II, we do make that additional objection and we would submit that the request on those particular items should be denied having in mind that we have done our best to answer all cf the remaining requests. Thank you.
!! EARING OFFICER KALINSKI:
Excuse me, let m ask Mr. llaffer a question:
What is that docket nunber again in the Public Utilitics Conrnission?
MR. IIAFFER:
PUC DR 91-011.
It is a transcript of proceeding dated June 13, 1991.
IIEARING OFFICER KALINSKI Is that a transcript that I can be provided a copy of? Is it an extensive transcript?
MR. IIAFFER:
It is not _ an extensive transcript but I don't think I have a copy with me now.
I can provido you with a copy.
IIEARING OFFICER KALIMSKI:
I would like to see that.
Is your point on Request-No.
Il that this connittee may not have any jurisdiction to require that data to be furnished?
MR. IIAFFER:
It is not so noch a matter of jurisdiction.
To the extent, as I understand PDC 91-011, and I think Ms. Nelkens can
- onnent nore knowledgeably on that since she is actively participating
{
. in it. -IUPO is an industry self-critiquing organization, critiquing of other itidustry menbers and it provides infornation to industry members about how they might improve the operation of the facilities.
It-is designed to provide the information in confidence and in order for that
~4-
i information to be freely provided to the industry trember, it has twen determined in 91-011 the extent that that information is not cthervisa in the public domain that it should be kept in confidence in crder to keep the information flowing freely from I!TO to the industry monber.
To the extent that the irformation is alread/ in the publie
{
domain, and I understand that is true of part of the IhTO study that the PUC has ruled, the cat is already out of the bag, and there is no point
[
in putting a clamp of confidence on it.
As I understand it, in any cases there are updates and follow-up studies that involvo inferration t
that has not been publicly disclosed, and my interpretation of _ the transcript of that June 13, 1991 proceeding, PUC DR 91-011 is that, to the extent new information la provided not already in the public domain, the PUC, in that proceeding, ordered that that information need not be disclosed, and the underlying rationale was that to require disclosure i
.cf that k nd of information would chill or adversely effect the quality assua.nce self-criticism that the. PUC thinks is appropriatc, to encocrage. I think like reasoning should apply here as an additional basis-above and beyond the arguments alsout non-relevance and not likely to lead to the discovecebility of discoverable information.
Above and beyond.those reasons, I think that that quality assurance reason applies to Objection Request No. 11.
IIEARING OFFICER KALINSKI:
Does that data have anything to do with the Isaves involved here, establishing the financing fund and the 4
amount of the monthly payment.
Does it relate to it in any way whatsoever?
MR. IIAFFER: To my understanding, no.
IIEARING OFFICER KALINSKI:
Alright.
Anything further Mr.
Haffer?
MR. HAFFER: No sir.
- -S-l
f i
?
i IllW41NG O' 10171 KALINSKI!
Ms. Nelkens please...
911ELLEY NELKINS:
I veuld like to address requests 3 and 4 l
first.
Mr. llaf fer has pointed out that he believes and N.11. Yankee believes and NUSCO believes and I believe PSNil believes that these requests are not relevant nor reasonably calculated to lead to admissible evidence. !!ovever, de has in no way given any repudiation of f
my contention that both these requests are obviously relevant to these proceedings and reasonably calculated to lead to tt 7 discovery of admissible evidence.
i I proferred in my rebuttal to N ll. Yankee's objections, the choice of DECON as the preferred nethod of decomtesioning must have-I been predicated on.some knowledge of the health impacts and subsequent cost of each method of decomissioning, on a conparative basis.
This information nust be rude available for public scrutiny if the health impacta and subsequant costs to the individuals and society were not objectively evaluated or even addressed.
This too must be brought out, addressed and dealt with in the cost considerations.
Mr. Itaffer did not even allude to my rationale for inslating that-both requests 3 and 4 are obviously relevant to these proceedings and reasonably calculated.
All he did was repeat that they are not relevant ner reasonably calculated but in no way substantiated his allegations.
As far as request No.11, I am a legal intervonor in DR 91-011 and I am afraid Mr. llaf fer took the comission's ruling, out of context, might be a kind way to phrase it.
This particular ruling by the comission-had to do with updated status requests that were put forth by no to N.II. Yankee.
The bulk, the original findings that I am referring
- to here, RP-71 and RP-91 as well as CY-32, were put into the public-domain last year and they were indeed confidential reports from INPQ to r
N.11. Yankee.
I L
+
l
. 6--
~
~
l t
The status reports that I requested of the comittee on the findings that vero relevant to 91-011 which vero in the September '89 INPO Report ' vero given to no under protective order. Subsequently, the Boston Globo had a pebile hearing before the PDC and the June 13th order nado the ugiated status reports that vero given to no under protective order, public, hhat Mr. Haf fer is referring to is tho f act that the i
comnission did rule that that does not nean that all status reports, therefore, by virtue of these etetus reports having been nodo public, that all status _ reports in the futuro would have to bo mado public i
. because that would have a chilling ef fect.
Their intent was that it should be dono on a caso by caso basis.
In this particular instanco, theco up3ated stetus reports aro I
indeed necessary so that the commission, not the commission, so that tho consnittee, the Nuclear Docontnissioning Financing Committee, can rulo as to whether reasonable care has been taken to reduco the ancunt of low-level vaste that is being produced.
I think it its quito clear, if you road the findings, that duo care is not, at least at the point the findings vero written, due caro to reduce the amount of low-level vasto produced was not being adequately addressed.
It is necessary to havo tho status report so that we can know whether or not wo aro going to be producing moro lov icvel vasto than is necessary, whether wo are going l
to be contaminating nere parts of the plant than is necessary, and I am perfectly willing to have this information given to no under protective order and - then, at some future point, the committee can rule whether or notlthis infornation should be put into the pubile domain if that is the concern of N.ll. Yankee.
I have a very good track record if something is given to no under protective order, I will not release it in any way, shapo or form.
The information is indeed relevant. Again, for Request 11, Mr.
l
!!affer simply repeated that it is not relevant nor reasonably calculated to lead to admissibio evidence.
Ito did not rebut my contention that it is given that the sourco of all low-level vasto is the fuel reds becauro t
'..._,_-.._.-.._...-.-.-.--_-7--
_ _ ~. _
i j
fuel rods can't be perfectly realed.
1'here vill always be some radioactive materials (ficsion products) that vill como out of the fuel rods into the primary ecolant.
A perfcetly scaled heat exchanger also dcas not. exist and therefore, there vill always be come transfer from the primary coolant into the cecondary coolant which will then tw carried away to the turbine.
Although the turbine loop is also a " closed" Icop there vill always be some leakage between the turbine and the condenser and cono radioactive material vill go out with the condenser vator.
This i
transfer fission product can be expected to increase aa the reacter ages.
In crder to rei in the integrity of the plumbing at Seabrcok (ie. runt - reduction) thereby minimizing the transfer of radioactive m terial from one " closed" loop to another it is imperative that an optical chemical balance be maintained.
l The September 89 INTO evaluation CY-32 (onclosed) clearly shows that excessive Icakage vill result if chemistry problems are not corrected. If future lh)V evaluations and plant responses determine the findings are being addressed so as' to reduce future contamination, the nonies necessary for decontamination can be adjusted accordingly.
I'd
- like to add either raised or lowered.
i r
If N.H. Yankee is not addressing ~ CY-32, (my request for CY-31 being withdrawn) properly, future contamination vill increase and cost projections must be' adjusted upwards.
It is self-evident that if future evaluations and plant responses show they have not been properly addressed, the amount of low-level vaste generated will be greater than anticipated. Obviously, this request is relevant and reasonably eniculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence.
I
?
w-mwww-a,,,,,m nr,- w, ~ -, - -,, - - - = -, ~ - - + ~ ~ ~ - - * ~ ~ ~ ~ * *
' ' ~ " ' ' ' " * ~ * " * ' " "
' " " " ' " " ~ ~ ~ ^ ~ ' " * ~
~~
~
e i
If larger volumes of radioactive waste are being produced due to poor controle on the part of N.H. Yankee, the cost of doccamissioning l
nust be adjusted to reflect this condition. Might I add that this will
[
not only inpact the cost of decomissioning, it will also impact the cost of low-level waste that is tving generated that is not being included in 69eomissioning, the 7400 cubic feet of lev-level waste that N.11. Yankee projected in its statements, that will be produced every year, is not being included in decomissioning. 'Ihat is something that in 1996 will become the responsibility of the State to dispose of.
+
At that point N.ll. Yankee can charge the State whatever the m rket vl31 bear to store the vaste on site if we do not have a low-level waete iepository established withia the State of New Hampshire since no other state at this point is willing to take the stuff.
I might also add that that 7400 cubic feet, although this is not totally relevant to the proceeding, is not the same figure that is given in the PSAR, the Final Safety Analysis Report that is on file in Exeter.
I believe that Mr. Smukler may have a copy of that in his office.
In the PSAR's it is listed at 10,125 cubic feet of low-level waste that will be generated yearly by N.ll. Yankee.
I believe that my data requests are very pointedly relevant, very pointedly reasonably calculated to lead to admissible evidence and perhaps, I believe N.H.
Yankee doesn't want to supply it tocause it will damage their case.
'Ihank you.
Hi%RItK1 OFFICIM KALINSKIt May I ask you a couple of questions Ms. Nelkens.
On 'i and 4, toxicological studies and estimates of costs associated with health care costs and things of that nature, are you aware of any euch studies?
i L
SilFLLEY NELKENS:
Yes.
ATSDR has studies on radium, on 4
plutoni tam.
One of the reasons I asked for this is there is a plethora
+
of lack of knowledge in these areas.
There is much guess work being put forth by the plant as to what the impacts will be and I think it is very
_9_
. ~..
e important that the ccanission be made aware of the lack of basic knowledge that their assumptions are being predicated upon.
!! FARING OFFICER K ALINSKIt Are these studies available to you from another source or is this...
SIIELLEY NELKD4St I have the draft reports of the ATSDR Reports and those my not be used in a public forum. Those are draft reports and they have disclainers 4.
them.
The final reports would havo to be obtained by N.H. Yankee and nade available.
!! PARING OFFICER.KALINSKIt How do thoso reports bear on the issues of financing costs, the doccmissioning financing costs at the end of the useful life of the plant?
SHELLEY NELKDIS:
Because of the anount of radio-nuclides that will be generated and will be dealt with in the doc-missioning, it will be necessary to understand the exposures and the impacts of thoso exposures on the workers as well as the general public.
There will be costs associated with all of these exposures as to the health impacts.
Different methods of decommissioning expose workers to different ancunts
- of radioectivo contaminations.
HEARING OFFICER KALINSKIt But there are no definite data at the present time that can be factored into the process you are telling me?
SHELLEY NELKUJS There are some that can, there are some that 1.
can't.
There is seco knowledge out there which would, I believo, clearly show that there are certain methods of decontamination which.
would bolster ~ the ca.a that certain methods of decontamination would
- expose the workers to less of certain radionuclides and therefore impact their health either more adversely or less adversely. There are studies that are just not done, there are studies that are partially done, there is a plethora of information being done on exposure to low-Icvol wasto j
and it is greving by leaps hnd rounds.
As far as any definitive studies, it is all a natter of argunent by experts, but I think one thing that wculd be clearly shown by this is that this may not be the preferred method from an economic point of view, if you factor the health inpacts and the cost of those health inpacts into the decomissioning study.
4 ffEARING OFFICER KALINSKI llow #.s that going to inpact the decomissioning cost ultimately?
EllELLEY NELKDIS:
h' ell, whether or not you choose DECCU or i
nothballing...
IIEARIIM OFFICER KALINSKI Explain your position.
11o9 does t
that impact the decommissioning costs?
SilELLEY NELKENS If you choose nothbslling, that may in the long run be cheaper because you will be exposirig workers and the general i
public to less radiation and therefore down the road incur fewer health care costs as well as future costs to society for lost work hours. And although right now it might look as if DECON may be a cheaper l
alternative, it might be a very short sighted view because future costs, f
once factored in, will show that mothballing might actually be the f
cheaper way to go.
Therefore, the noney that arculd be set aside for I
nothballing now might actually be cheaper even though it looks from the studies that they proferred that DECON might actually cost less.
If the actual health care costs. are factored in, DFCO:1 might turn out to be nere expensive.
liFJ@IIM OFFICER KALINSKI: hho would L.o bearing the health care costs?
SifELLih NELKENS:
hho would be bearing the health care costs?
Most likely the gen.eral public would.
i
? -
t
)
IIFARI!Ki OFFICER KALINSKI Then how doca that relate to the decomissioning cost then?
l SIIELLEY NELKniS Because the general public should not te
[
bearing those costs.
If the cost of the health impacts are caused ty the deconmissioning itself, those costs should, if only from an ethical f
viewpoint, bo borno by those people who are getting the benefit of the electricity and creating the vasto problem.
It should not bo sloughed off onto an unsuspecting community.
IIFARING OFFICER KALINSKI:
You are aware of the fact that the comittoo is under a statutory obligation to review its deccedesioning I
-findings on _ a yearly basis Ms. tiolkens, and that, any cost that are ultimtely determined to be a part of the decommissioning financing i
costs,- have to be adjusted as the years unfold towards the tine when the plant will to decomissioned and, in that regard, since the request, your data request, directed to this subject you indicato is not very well established at the present time.
It is something that could be addressed as the committeo goes along over the years len't it?
S!!ELLEY NELKDISt No.
What I said was that there is a plethora of-information that is not available.
There is a tremendous number of I
radionuclides available. There is also a lot of informtion on specific radionuclides that is available and thoso -inpacts, many of them have been well documented.
I believe that that committeo should start i
addressing those issues now. _You will have plenty of work over the next 40 years as more information comes out of the impacts of different radionuclides.
Whether they are problems that are due to ingestion, either ~ alpha,- beta or gama radiation, what parts of the bcdy they will irnpact, whether they will impact future generations.
Thero is no lack l-of material for the comittee to start working with now, and I belicyo the committee will start seeing' a trend if they start dealing with this now as to what the actual cost of these different types of
- cbcommissioning vill be, i
l
' 33
HEARI!G OFFICER KALDiSKI:
liow can the comittee adjust the financing fund if they don't know what these costs are and there is no rpecific data at the pretent tiro available to accceplich that information?
SHELLLY l'ELKI2JS:
I think it vill teccco verf obvious if you just look at the cost of treating one cancer patient er having to care for one child who has a birth defect, that it will becomo very obvious that anything you can do to reduce the arount of exposure to the verkers x to the general public vill be core than compensated in choosing a nethod cf deccmissioning that may be rcre expensive up front. I think it vill boccco extremely obvious in a very short period of tino and ncet likely in this first round cf hearings. I think we vill find that Dacon is not the prc' erred nothod from on economic point of view, just from staat is known now, and if you factor in what is not known about the health impacts at this point, the studies that have not been done, those cost savings will be conpounded.
IIPMUM OFFICER KALI!iSKI:
What your telling us is that there
? no definitive studies that, first of all, identify the particular problems that you're telling us about, er the estimated cost of those.
Si1ELLEY tiELK12iS:
tJo.
What I'm saying is there are not definitive studies on all the radionuclides.
'Ihere are definitive studies on sece of the radienuclides. ATSDR has dono definitive studies on some of the radionociides and there are other studies that are available.
HEARTIM OFFICER KALINSKI:
Have you tried to get this information from ATSDR?
SIIELLEY 11ELKf21S:
As I have already said, I have the draf t reports.
I do not have the final reEcrts because they are incredibly expensive and I do not make it a practice to, I get all of ATSDR's draft _ _ _ -
reports. Wey are provided to the public for free, I do not get all of their final repcrts because of the expence involved.
IIEARING OFFICER KALINSKI: Let me ask you a question about data request Go. 11.
In PUC Docket DR 91-011 that has Pycn referred to, have you requested the Public Utilities Ccanission to get that data through the Public Utilities Commission in the other proceeding that you are participating in?
SHELLFY NELKENS:
No.
That was FITAC.
The Puel and Purchase Power Agreement Clause is91-011 and I had requested updated status reports on those findings that vere relevant to that particular procce,i' 1 These findings and their updated status reports were not relevant to that particular proceeding.
We commission granted my request for the updated status reports and they were issued to me under protective order.
Subsequent to that, the Boston Glcbo requested they be made public.
HFJJIING OFFICER KALINSKI.
I understand that, but you indicated that the 1991 ir. formation has not been made svailable to you, and all I am asking is, can you get that from the Public Utilities Ccanission rather than from the Committee, since that seems to be more in their jurisdiction rather than in the comnittee's jurisdiction?
SHELLEY NELKENS:
No.
I believe it is in the committee's jurisdiction. This is totally irrelevant to the PUC.
I HEARING OFFICER KALINS"I: Allright.
Is there anything further that you vish to add?
SHELLEY NELKENS:
No, other than I do not believe that Mr.
Haffer has made any caso other than to repeat the lav that it is not relevant ner reasonably calculated but has given absolutely no substantiating evidence to back up his claim. _-___- ______- ___- - __________
IIEARItJG OFFICER KALI!1 SKI:
Mr. I!affer le there anything that you wish to add?
MR. IIAFFERt I dif fer enphatically with Ms. ?!elkens. Again, as I said earlier, the two issues before the comittee are the cost of decomissioning and the nonthly schedule to achieve that cost.
As I understand Ms. 1:elkens argunent on Requests 3 and 4, she is raising an issue about health costs, and I do not interpret the statute as building in a health cause factor.
It is a decommissioning cost factor.
That is the focus of the comittee analysis and I think that is tha focus of the committee analysis based on what the statute itself provides.
Accordingly, I think the comittee and all the participants in this proceeding are tcund by the statutory boundary that has been provided fer thin proceeding and I think that what Ms. !Jelkens is cpeaking to are ferves that are outside that boundary.
Furtherncre, to the extent that Ms. !Jelkens argues health and safety issues, and I don't denigrate those issues at all, I simply say that they are not a part of this proceeding, I would also say that health and e fety issues are sonething that as the United States Suprene Court itself has stated in the Pacific Gas case and other, that health and safety issues are Federal issues.
'Ihey are issues that are appropriately the concern of the tJuciaar Regulatory Comission.
The State hes an appropriate concern with economic issues.
I think she is mking an argument in terms basically of health and safety issues which are appropriately the concern of the !!RC.
As for Pequest tio. 11, my understanding is, tnd I stand to be corrected by Ms. 13elkens since she is particioating in the PUC proceeding and I am not, but I t nderstand that the January 1991 I!!PO evaluation is not a mtter of public record and certainly the contentions we make to chilling quality assurance self-criticism would apply at 1 cast to that.
If I am misinferned on that point Ms. tJelkens can correct me.
My understanding is the January 1991 It!PO report remains confidential...
HEARI!1G OFFICER KALINSKI Thank you.
Ms. tielkens?
SHELLEY !!ELKf2;S: Thank you. He IJ ccrrect. The January, 1991 INPO report does re: rain confidential that has not been part of the protectiw order ner were the updated status reports that I requested.
What was rade public van the September, 1989 evaluation repert and the subsequent status reports from those findings.
That was rrode for the FCRM Hearing, that was trade public in the 90-186 Docket, the 91 evaluation had not even been performed at that point.
I would like to address this health and safety issue as not being part of this issue.
HEARI!JG CFFICER KALINSKIt Yes.
I would like you to.
As I understand the statute, I believe Mr. Haffer's position is correct and I would like to hear what you have to way on that point.
In other werds, that is what I was trying to get at before.
Is it really wit!in the purview & scope of this committee'c statutory authority to try to factor into the decem.issioning financing cost, the health and safety cost that you are seeking infortration on?
That would bear on whether the inferration is relevant an3 natorial. Go ahead.
SHELLEY 11ELKENS:
There are two points I would 1ike to make.
- 1) In the costs that are being proferred for decommissioning by N.H.
Yankee, health and safety is indeed put in because the amount of exposure that the workers are being subjected to is under consideration.
That is certainly a health issue.
I would like to read something frca the NRC.
It is from a document on work being deferred or cancelled that was put out in 1986.
This particular page is:
Radiation Risk Managetront, and its a termination of a research program on Radiation Risk Management.
"1.
The safety issue. Major scientific decisions of the NRC are made using the best data base available.
Such decisions often control the tranagement of radiation risks asscciated with URC licensed operatior s.
In nony cases the adequacy of the data base is an important issue and is of ten the deciding facter.. _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
i j
Current treatnent by the imC: hhere deficient data base can bo l
l significantly improved at reasonable cost, imC recearch and technical assistance funds are used to support risk nenagenent decielons.
{
Role of deferred research.
Currently available data for developing residual radioactivity criteria for a regulation on the decomissioning of lands and structures are inadequate. This situation prevails also for certain implenentation asfocts of the proposed revision of standards for protection against radiation,10 CFR Part 20,
~
and for the managenent. of releases of radionuclides into sanitary sever systems.
The deferral of support funds-will curtail the solution of-j certain part 20 problems, vill terminate residual radioactivity research i
and will prevent solution of the canitary sever _ disposal.
Problem prospects of work being done by industry, none.
)
l Occupational radiation protection, we have essentially the same situation.
Radiation Risk Assessmer.t, also the termination of a research program.
Safety issue regulatory actions for controlling radiation risks are based to the extent possible on current scientific information regarding adverse health effects."
tJow remember, this is 1986, we are now 1991.
" Caps in existing knowledge often require the IEC to -base its decisions at 1 cast temporarily on technical assumptions.
Subsequent requirements nay therefore provide inadquate personnel protection or they may be overly rectrictive and costly.
hhere infernational gaps of this information are specific to NRC licensed activity so that other Federal Agencies are not prepared to fund the necessary _ research, needed research products are funded by the !mC and the recults are used in tM tmC decision-naking_ process regarding regulatory standords and practices.
'Ihe rule of deferred research in this case would be the gaps of
-the type mentioned above include the behavior and offects of certain radionuclides following deposition in the body.
Since the necessary research has been deferred, regulatory controls. will continue to be i.
- based on assumptions.
The prospects of work being done by industry, none."
-17.
l
.0
{'
[
I l
We have a chance to ensure that industry, in this caso N.H.
{
i Yankee, does do an update of the effects cf these radic.nuclides on the workers and to ensure that we take the cheapest alternativo from an economic point of view.
This is not just an health and safety issue, l
this is an economic issue.
As the ancunt of exposure to workers, as a knowledge baeo t
increases, the anount of exposure to workers, the allowable exposnro is j
being decreased snd the comittee can very clearly see this trend which l
neans that it will be very cicar, I tolievo, once wo have this information before the Committee, i
Although it is very technical and it is going to be dif ficult for the committee to assimilato it, that is not going to be an excuse l
for the comitten to throu its back on it and turn its hands up in despair and say "well, we can't deal with this.
Let the imC handle it" when the imC has very clearly said that they are incapable of handling it because they don't have the funds to deal with it.
f I
Wo have an obligation to not just the ratepayers but to ti o public at largo to make sure that we find the cheapost alternative to decomnissioning and the cheapest alternative will impart be predicated on the health caro cost to both the workers and the public.
I cannot for the -life of tre understand how anybody can say that this is not relevant under the present laws.
IIEAllING OFFICIR KAL7NSKIt The over-riding question issue that L
Mr.11affer raises that the committee will have to address is whether or not, under the N.!!, Statute, whether health and safety costs are to be factored into the Nuclear Docommissioning Financing Costs which they are required by the N.11. Statuto to determino, if in fact thoso health and i
sat'ety issuon are within the jurisdiction of the imC or some other Federal Agency rather than the committee.
I'ra going to leave that to the committee.
t
, 1
.~.
_ _._, _ _ I
i O
Is there anything further that you wish to add to what has been said?
hhat I propose to do is to review all of the material that is presented, including the inferration that has been presen.ed at this a
conference and then issue an order based on my understanding of the situation and then if either party is diesatisfied, then the entire comittee vill have to rect on appeal from the order to discuss the tratter further and make a determination whether or not the data should be provided.
I would do that promptly because the hearing schedule hac been set and the date for eubmitting final data requests is coming up August 21st I believe.
I would like to give the committee a chance to handle l
this if what I determine to be the situation is not satisfactory to the parties.
SIIELLEY IJELKENS:
I would like to add one more thing.
In an i
inspection report put out by the imC dated May 23, 1991, one of the things that is discussed is the licensee not controlling accese to a high radiation area and this was a violation that had been mudo in 1990.
This is an example of the type of problem that exists at the plant that was alluded to in the Inpo report of 1989.
The licensee issued a radiological occurrence report for the event because the licensee had not controlled access to a high radiation area, which therefore allowed contamination to come into areas that did not necessarily need to be contaminated. The licensee also did nor have adequate controls on nonitoring radionuclides in the laundry room.
It that has not been corrected we need to know it.
.t In this inspection report the following matters were brought to the licensee's attention.
The licensee developed a special procedure for colection and qualification of contracted radiation protection
-technicians.
However, the procedure provided limited gridance for evaluation of the experience of the contractor radiation protection technicians.
There was limited guidance as to what constituted f
119-
acceptable exterience.
- Also, there was no apparent guidance fer evaluating the qualifications of contract of radiation protection supervisors.
The inspector questioned a qualified radiolcgical centrols technician who was acting in the capacity of shif t radiological contols technician as to the mgnitude of radiation dose ratec that could be encountered under the reactor vessel with the irradiated instrumentatinn retracted.
'1he individual was uncertain as to the expected radlation dose rates indicating an apparent lack of working knowledge of expected cbse rates on plant systems.
N.11. Yankee is going to be responsible for decommissioning the plant.
If they are not properly addressing radiological concerns while the plant is operating, that is going to have a severe impact on how well they will control radiolcgical problems during the decommissioning.
It is secothing that the comittee has to be aware of.
It also has an inpact as to the credibility of their testinony.
HEARING OFFICER KALINSKI
'jhose matters are matters for the Public Utilities Commission and the Nuclear Regulatory Commission rather than this comittee I believe Ms. Nelkens.
The operation of the plant is not something that this committee, I believe, under the statute has any jurisdiction over whatsoever.
SIIELLEY NELKENS:
But it can't just turn a b)ind eye.
I beld oc t. 3 comiree has to take into consideration the track record of t' o Ngw that is going to be performing the work in question.
IIEARING OFFICER KALINSKI:
Again, I will have to leave that to the committee.
I am just stating my understanding of what the terpective jurisdiction is of the ccrnmittee and the NRC and the FUC.
I may be atatFJ
- t incorrectly, but maybe if the committee adopts your position thi / wou $ consider exploring these issues further.
Is there anything furtae trom either party? Ms. Melkens? -
o e,
e S!!ELLEY NELKINS: No.
I have nothing further. Thank you.
MR. IIAFFIRt I have nothing further, Mr. Kalinski.
IIEARI!G OFFICIR KALINSKI: Are you Mr. Tuthill?
MR. 'IUri1ILL: I am.
Yes.
IlEARI!E OFFICER KALTNSKIt I just want to note for the record that you are present.
That you cane in af ter the conference started.
Is there anything that you wish to participate in thia Pre-liearing conference in any way?
MR. 'tVIIIILL: No.
I am simply here as an observer.
11 EARING OFFICIR KALINSKIt You don't want to have any input into the issues?
MR. 'IUrilILL: No.
IIFJJtING OFFICER KALINSKIt Allright.
Thank you.
If that is the case then ao I indicated, this will close this Pre-Ilearit.g conference and I will review overything and issue a further order and if
~
either party is dissatinfled, then please make your appeal promptly so that we can set up a Comnittee 11 earing to review this matter further.
'thank you.
'Ihc Pre-1 tearing Conference adjourned at 10:50 A.M.
l l'
i c
e f
NDPC 91-1 NUCLEAR DECOMMISSIONING FINA!JCING COMMITTEE SEABROOK NUCLEAR DECOMISSIONING FUND
..O..
E. E E $ E E E R h. h Q 3 p 3 R_
N,, 9 9,,
WilERE AS : Shelley Nelkens, a General Intervonor, flied Data Requests on May 28, 1991, consisting of eleven specific requests for datal and W 11 E R E A S, on May 31, 1991, New Itampshire Yankee, acting by its attorney, Edward A.
Itaffer, filed an Objection to certain Data Requests of Ms. Helkens, setting forth that although New lla mps hi re Yankee was proceeding to answer the great majority of those Requests, Requests 2 a, d,
3, 4 and 11 vero neither relevant to the present proceeding nor reasonably calculated to Icad to the discovery of admissible
- evidence, further indicating that it would attempt to provide an answer to Request 20 and requesting an order of the committee that it need not answer Ms.
Nelkene Data Requests 2 a-6, 3, 4 and 111 and WilER E AS, on June 20, 1991, Ms. Shelley Nelkens filed a response to the Objections of New fla.nps h i r e Yankee to the Data Requests setting forth reasons why New llampshire Yankee ehould be required to answer those Data Requests; and W11ER E AS, on June 24, 1991, New flampshire Yankee ffled a reply to Ms.
Nelkens response to the Objection on the
e Discovery Requests and indicated in general that those requests were not relevant to the statutorily prescribed issues as set forth in the Committee's Report and Order dated June 2,
1989 at pages 8 and 9, and further indicating that Nelkens Data Requests ll(c) was objectionable for additional reasons in that it would adversely affect unfettered quality-assurance self-criticism, referring to the case before the N. ll.
Public Utilities Comnission in Docket No. DR 91-011 and WiiER E AS, Alexander J.
Kalincki, llea ri ng Officer of the Committee, set up and held a pre-hearing conference on Wednesday, August 7,
1991 at the Office of the Public Utilities Commission at 8 Old Suncook Road, in Concord, New Ilampshire in order to address the Data Requests.
the Objection filed by New flampshire Yankee, the response of Ms.
Shelley Nelkens and New llampshire vankee's reply to the Nelkens roeponse; and WilER S A S,
at the pre-hearing conference Ms.
Nelkens l
Indicated that the answer to her request 2 e had been provided and was sufficient: and WilER S AS, the remaining requests not responded to which were at secue were as follows:
4 3.
Pleano provide the most recent toxicological studies (i.e.
ATSDS reg.) on all isotopes mentioned in response to data request 2.
2-
F, 1
e 4.
Please give an estimate of the a) 8 of
- cancers, birth
- defects, etc.
associated with each method of decommissioning b)
& the total costs associated with these ailments (include health care costs, lost labor costs, etc.)
11.
Please provide Findings R.P.
7-1, R.P.
9-1, CY 3-1, CY 3-2 from a)
INPO Evaluation of Sept. '89 b)
Updated sta?At reports c) all information from INPO Eva.tuation conducted Jan 91 ret Radiological Protection (including solid radioactive waste and radioactive contamination control) & chemistry.
WHEh'AS, Alexender J.
Kalinski, as Hearing Officer has issued a Report based on the Data Requests submitted by Ms.
Melkens and the Objection of New Hampshiro Yankee and the responses by both parties which is attached hereto and hereby incorporated by reference.
It is ORDERED that:
1)
New Hampshire Yankee is not required to respond to Nelkens Data Requests 3 and 4.
2)
On the basis of the Report and Order of the Public l
Utilities Commission in its Docket DR 90-186, l,
i Public Service Company of N.!!./ Northeast Utility Service Company relating to the rnquest of the Boston Globe for production of documents, which Report and Order were dated July 16, 1991,and the Public Utilities Commission Docket DR 91-011, j
Public Service Company of N.ll./ Northeast Utilities Service Company relating to PSNH Objections to Nelkens Data Requests, which Report and Order are dated August 20, 1991, New Hampshire Yankee is not required to respond to Nelkens Data Request No. 11.
By order of the Nuclear Decommissioning Financing Committee this 27th day ;f August, 1991, by:
bbn/b
$d A ex6nder J.6Kalinski Hearing Officer of the Committee Nuclear Decommissioning Financing Committee 8 old Suncook Road Concord, N. II. 03301 1
l l
~4-
,,