ML20147J103

Motion by NRC Staff for Summary Disposition of Greene County Contention I.A,Citizens to Preserve the Hudson Valley Contention I.B.1 & Columbia County Survival Comm Contention 5.a.Affidavits & Cert of Svc Encl

ML20147J103
Person / Time
Site:	Green County
Issue date:	12/04/1978
From:	Lewis S, Beverly Smith NRC OFFICE OF THE EXECUTIVE LEGAL DIRECTOR (OELD)
To:
References
NUDOCS 7812270468
Download: ML20147J103 (34)

Text

~

12/4/78

(%- s NRC PUBLIC DOCUMENT ROOM 1

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA d1%

NUCLEAR REGULATORY C0f1 MISSION s BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD 98b %y b<

4 Y

In the Matter of POWER AUTHORITY OF THE STATE Docket No. 50-549 t Q ft e ,

0F NEW YORK A y (Greene County Nuclear Power Plant) )

NRC STAFF MOTION FOR

SUMMARY

DISPOSITION The U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Staff (Steff) moves that the following <

~ '

contentions,:

Security t Greene County Stipulated Contention I.A ,

External Flooding Citizens to Preserve the iludson Valley Stipulated Contention I.B.l'  !

Aircraft Impget Hazard Columbia Courity Survival Committee - Reuter Stipulated Contention 5.a admitted as matters in controversy in the above-captioned proceeding, be dismissed pursuan*, to 10 CFR s2.749 for want of a genuine issue of material 78122709/e6' l

j

.% 8 T 1/

i fact. The Staff believes that the attached affidavits, together with Intervenors' responses to discovery, demonstrate that there is no factual basis for these contentions and thus that, relative to the above-mentioned contentions, there are no genuine issues of material fact to be adjudicated at the hearing. Accordingly, the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board (the Board) should dismiss these contentions as a matter of law.

SUMMARY

DISPOSITION PROCEDURES The procedures relatin9 to motions for summary disposition are found in 10 CFR 2. 749. These procedures are analogous to those in rule 56 of the Federal Rules of Civil Proced:re, which relate to motions for suninary judgment. Alabama Power Co. (Joseph M. Farley Nuclear Plant, Units 1 and 2), ALAB 182, 6 AEC 210, 217 (1974) . Both the Commission and the Appeal Board have encouraged the use of summary disposition to resolve tenuous issues raised in the intervention process . Northern States Power Co. (Prairie Island Nuclear Generating Station, Units 1 and 2), CLI 73-12, 6 AEC 241, 242 (1973); Mississippi Power & Light- Co. (Grand Gulf Nuclear Station, Units 1 and 2), ALAB 130, 6 AEC 423, 424-25 (1973). The Appeal Board has explained that l a motion for summary disposition " enables the court to go beyond the l

l complaint itself and to determine, on the basis of extrinsic matter l

j such as affidavits submitted by one or more of the parties, whether 3/Although the Staff stipulated to some of the contentions in question in this mction, i t explicitly reserved all procedural rights, which includes the right to move for su"inary disposition pursuant to 10 CFR 2.749. See e.g. " Stipulation Entered Into Between Intervenor Greene County, et al ., Applicant, and NR(, Staff'; filed November 22, 1976.

9,

• i r 3- '

4 2

there is warrant for an evidentiary trial, i.e., whether there is

'a genuine issue as to any material fact' bearing upon the claim or claims as to which summary disposition is sought." Alabama Poger Co.,

s up ra .

In light of this standard, and for the reasons set forth below, the Staff urges the Board to grant this motion for summary disposition.

If the Board finds itself unable to grant summary disposition on all contentions addressed in this motion, then summary disposition should be granted on those contentions (or portions of contentions) as to which the Board is satisfied that there are no genuine issues of material fact to be heard.

l l

2/ Under 10 CFR 92.749 the Beard may summarily dispose of some portions of contentions, while declining to dispose of other portions. See, e.g., Public Service Company of Oklahoma (Black Fox Station, Units 1and2),LBP-77-46,6NRC167,178-79T1977).

1 l

.t. .

4 Greene County, Stipulated Contention I.A ,

"I. The Preliminary Safety Analysis Report ("PSAR") prepared by the Applicant does not provide reasonable assurance, as required by -

10 CFR 5550.35 and 50.40 that (a) the health and safety of the  ;

public will not be endangered, and (b) the App.licant is financially qualified to engage in the proposed activities in accordance with the Commission's regulations in the following respects:

A. The Applicant has not demonstrated that the proposed site is suitable from the point of view of complying with the security requirements of Part 73 of 10 CFR due to the easy access to 3 -

the site from the Hudson River and the resulting exposed nature.'d A. Statement Of Material Facts As To Which There Is No Genuine Issue To Be Heard ,,

1. In its Preliminary Safety Analysis Report, Applicant has provided for a  ;

physical barrier to be constructed around the entire perimeter of the plant.

(PSAR site plan Figure 1.2-3).

2. The Applicar.f. has committed in its supplemental testimony to provide an outer and inner barrier around the whole perimeter of the plant.

(Cherico. testimony, p. 7),

_3

/ Althoupb the prefatory language of Greene County, Stipulated Contention I raises the issue of the Applicant's financial qualification, we have concluded that this language refers only to part B of the 4

contention. We do not view contention I.A as raising a financial

?'

qualifications issue.

Y

.c .

t g

3. Applicant has also committed in its testimony to install an electronic intrusion detection system, and closed-circuit television cameras katween the two barriers. (_Cherico testtrony, pg 7).

4. In addition, Applicant has testified that there will be roads and foot paths for vehicular and foot patrols, and adequate illumination to allow continuous surveillance of the fence line by security forces. (Cherico testimony, p. 7)

5. There will be no unprotected access route to the plant from the Hudson River. (Gaitanis testimony, p. 2, filed November 8, 1978).

B. Argument As demonstrated by the attached affidavit of Michael J. Gaitanis, Greene County, Stipulated Contention I.A is an appropriate contention for summary disposition and dismissal. Intervenor seems to contend that, because of the easy access to the plant from the Hudson River, the plant does not comply with security reouirements of 10 CFR Part 73. On February 24, 1977 the Commission published new requirements for the physical protection of nuc-lear power plants against acts of sabotage in 10 CFR 673.55.

This new rule does not require a demonstration of compliance by applicants j for construction permits in the initial application. Demonstration of I

l compliance with 10 CFR 573.55 is not requ' ired until the operating license

! stage of a proceeding. Under 10 CFR 650.34(a)(4) the PSAR aust contain i

"a preliminary analysis and evaluation of the design and performance of l

structu es, systems, and components of the facility with the objective of l

1 -- _

l assessing the risk to public health and safety resulting from operation of the facility". This has been interpreted by Regalatory Guide 1.17 to necessitate the inclusion in the PSAR of a general discussion of measures to be taken to protect the vital equipment.

d 1

In light of this interpretation of 10 CFR 5573.55 and 50. 34, interrogatories i were propounded by the NRC Staff in order to learn the specific basis for and nature of the contention. Intervenor never answered these interrogatories.

Intervenor has made no attempt to point out any specific ways in which Applicant has allegedly violated the provisions of 10 CFR Part 73.

Applicant in its Preliminary Safety Ana'iysis Report (PSAR) stated that a physical barrier would be erected around the entire perimeter of the plant.

Applicant's witness later testificc that this outer barrier would be supplemented by another barrier in the form of a fence 50 feet in from the first, and that en electronic intrusion detection system and closed-circuit television cameras wou!d be installed between t_he two barriers.

Al Testimony of Phillip J. Cherico, p. 7. Mr. Cherico also testified that the perimeter would be sufficiently lit to allow continuous surveillance, and that the fence line would be monitored by foot pnd vehicular security patrols.

Finally, Applicant's witness pointed out that, since the plant is set back from the river, anyone arriving by water would still have to make a final approach to the plant via land-and thus through the barriers to be erected by Applicant. The NRC Staff evaluated Applicant's PSAR and supplemental testimony, and found that there was no unprotected access 4j Applicant has informed the parties that Mr. Mario Maltese is replacing Mr. Cherico as the sponsor of this testimony. Letter to Board dated November 8,1978.

route to the Hudson River. Gaitanis affidavit, paragraph 10. Intervenor has made no attempt to challenge this finding. The Staff also found that a satisfactory planning base was described by the Applicant upon which a complete security program could be developed to demonstrate compliance with 10 CFR 173.55 and to provide an acceptable level of physical protection to the site at the appropriate time. (SER 113.6, p.13-6).

C. Conclusion with Respect to Grec'ne: County,' Stipulated' Contention I.A As demonstrated above, no genuine issue of naterial fact remains to be resolved concerning the accessability of the plant from the Hudson River, which forms the subject forGreene County, Stipulated Contention I.A.

Therefore, the Licensing Board should find for the Staff as a matter of law and grant summary disposition and dismissal of Greene County, Stipulated Contention I.A.

Citizens to Preserve the Hudson Valley, Stipulated Contention I.B.1 "I. The Preliminary Safety Analysis Report ("PSAR") prepared by the Applicant does not provide reasonable assurance, as required by 10 CfW 6650.35 and 50.40 that (a) the health and safety of the public will not be endangered. and (b) the Applicant is financially qualified to engage it the proposed activities in accordance with the Commission's regulations in the following respects:

8. The PSAR is deficient with regard to its description and analysis of the following design features or principal safety considerations as required by 10 CFR 550.34:

51

1. Plant design with respect to external flooding phenomena."

A. Statement Of Material Facts As To Which There Is No Genuine Issue To Be Heard

1. The Greene County Nuclear Power Plant will be located at an elevation i of 30 feet, mean sea level (msl).

2. The maximum flood level on the Hudson River will be 28.5 feet ms1.

3. The occorrence of probable maximum precipitation in the area is estimated to result in a maximum water level of 30.2 feet msl, which was used by the Applicant as the controlling design basis flood elevation for external flooding.

4. The Applicant has committed in the PSAR to protect from flooding all safety related systems and components required for safe shutdown or for mitigation of the consequences of an accident by locating them in seismic 5/ Although the prefatory language of Citizens to Preserve the Hudson Valley, Stipulated Contention I questions the Applicant's financial qualifications, we have concluded that this language refers only to Citizens to Preserve the Hudson Valley, Stipulated Contention I.C. We do not view contention I.B as raising a financial qualifications issue.

9 Category I buildings with all access to these structures being six inches above plant grade (30.5 feet msl).

5. All construction joints which may be required to resist water pressure will have water stops.

6. Applicant has represented th>t penetrations of the service water lines of the annulus building will be sealed to prevent in-leakage.

7. Applicant has also represented that the annulus and containment structures will have a continuous waterproof membrane below grade. In adC; tion any potential in-leakage due to cracks in the annulos building walls or leaking water stops will be collected in sumps end pumped out.

B. Argument As demonstrated by the attached affidavits of Gale Turi and Marcus Greenberg, Citizens to Preserve the Hudson Valley (CPHV), Stipulated Contention I.B.1 is an appropriate contention for summary disporition and dismissal.

Intervenors contend generally that the PSAR is defficient in its description and analysis of plant design with respect to external flooding phenomena.

When asked by interrogatory to clarify this contention and provide a basis for it, Intervenors CPHV answered that the wrong design basis was used under Regulatory Guide 1.59. Staff interrogatory to CPHV S.I .B.1-1.

Intervenor argues that the flood level should have been investigated assuming a combination of a probable maximum floed, seismic failure of i

~

dams, and a probable maximum hurricane at the Battery, CPHV made nu attempt to establish that the design features to which the Applicant is committed, such as the use of water stops in joints subject to water pressure, and the use of a waterproof membrar.2 on the annulus and containment structures, would be inadequate to protect the facility from external flooding. .

The Staff independently evaluated Applicant's estimated flood level and

~ 'ff Applicant's maximum water level, considering probable maximum precipitation -

in the area. The Staff used Regulatory Guide 1.59, Revision 2, to conduct its analysis. The Anjerican National Standards Institute (ANS1) Standard N170-1976,

" Standards for Determining Design Basis Flooding at Nuclear Power Sites"--has been incorporated into this Regulatory Guide by Appendix A. This standard contains criteria for determining a probable maximum flood on streams, and for determining probable maximum surges and seiches on estuaries and coastal areas on oceans and large lakes. Turi, paras. 5-6. Using the criteria in the ANSI standard, five combinations of events having an effect on flooding were considered. Turi Testimony at 2-3.Three of these combinations have as one component one of the severe events mentioned by CPHV. The probable maximum flood, probable maximum hurricane, and seismic failure of dams are each individually considered to be design basis events.

The combination of these three independent events is too remote to be considered in determining the maximum flood level at the site. Further, the storms producing a pr.obable maximum flood and a probable maximum hurricane are meteorologically incompatible at this site. Turi, para. 7. Therefore, Regulatory Guide 1.59, Revision 2, can in no way be read to require consideration by either Staff or Applicant of the combination proposed by Intervenor CPHV.

The Staff reviewed Applicant's commitments concerning tha measures to be taken to protect those areas below plant grade from flooding. They were found to be in compliance with 10 CFR S 50.3?, even taking into ,

account that, were the probable maximum precipitation to occur in the area, there could be a temporary water depth'on the site of 2.7 inches above plant grade (30.2 ft, msl). Intervenor CPHV has not challenged this finding.

C. Conclusion with Respect to Citizens to Preserve the Hudson Valley Stipulated Contention 1.B.1.

As demonstrated above, no genuine issues of material fact remain to be-resolved concerning either the design basis used to deterniine the maximum flood level, or the adequacy of the description of flood protection measures, which are the subjects of CPHV stipulated contention I.B.l. -

Therefore, the Licensing Board should find for the Staff as a matter of law and grant summary disposition and dismissal of this contention.

{, _ . _ _ _ _ . . . . . - - - - - - - - - - - - _ - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

COLUMBIA COUNTY SURVIVAL COMMITTEE AND ARTHUR L. REUTER, STIPULATED CONTENTION SA The site is unsuitable by reason of its lying in an air corridor for international air travel. The Hudson River is a regular corridor for international air travel. More-over, the Cementon site is in the flight pattern for practice runs from Westover (Mass.) Air Force Base. It .

is obviously exposed to particular hazard.

A. Material Facts as to Which There is No Genuine Issue to be Heard

1. There are no significant airports or airstrips within 5 miles of the site. The nearest unpaved airstrip is located 8 miles from the site. The nearest public airport is 11 miles from the site. None of these airports are situated in close enough proximity to constitute an identifiable hazard to the site. (Read Supplemental Testimony, p. 1, line 19 - 23, p. 2, line

+

1 - 7).

2. A letter of Agreement is in effect between the FAA and D0D which restricts military traffic to designated volem- of airspace. Under this agreement, the nearest military practice actii is 53 miles to the north-east of the site. (Read Supplemental Testimony, p. 2, line 8 - 17).

3. There are no present or proposed flying activities originating at Westover Air Force Base which would involve flights over, or within ten miles of, the Greene County site. (Raad Supplemental Testimony, p. 2, line 18 - 20, Attachment A-1).

4. A Memorandum of Understanding exists between the D0D and NRC to prevent training missions from approaching operating nuclear power plants. (Read Supplemental Testimony, p. 2, line 21 - 23, p. 3, line 1 - 4).

10. The Staff calculated an accidental crash rate in U.S. Jet Routes of 5 x 10~II per plane mile. If one includes acts of sa'otage and accidents that are not likely to occur 'vhile aircraft are in Jet Routes (e.g., accidents associated with take-offs and landings), a rate of 3 x 10-10 per plane-mile can be obtained. This rate was assumed to be 5 x 10-10 per plane-mile in order conservatively to encompass statistical fluctuations due to small numbers of observations. (Read Supplemental Testimonj, p. 6, lines 2 - 9.

11. When considered with the plant area and assumed crash angle distribution contained in the Standard Peview Plan, on the order of a million overflights per year would he required to reach the Staff's criterion of 10-7 events per year for consideration as a design basis accident. Since the entire U.S. air carrier fleet nurbers fewer than 2,500 aircraft, it is extremely diffkult to project such traffic density over one given segment of the Jet Route System. (Read Supplemental Testimony, p. 6, lines 9 - 16).

B. Argument-The Intervenor's ccatention is that the proposed Greene County site is

" exposed to peticular hazard" and is, therefore, unsuitable because (1) it lies in air corridor for ir;ternational air travel; (2) the Hudson River is a regular corridor for international air travel; and (3) the Cementon site is in the flight pattern for practice runs from Westover (Mass.) Air-Force Base.

5. The nearest Federal Airway, V 489, passes six (6) miles to the east of the site. Federal Airway V 270 passes seven (7) miles to the north of the site. These airways intc* sect nine (9) miles from the site.

(Read Supplemental Testimony, p. 3, line 8 - 16).

6. By the criteria in Standard Review Plan 3.5.1.6, Federal Airways further than four nautical miles away from a nuclear power plant site do not constitute an identifiable hazard. (Read Supplemental Testimony, p. 3, line 23, p. 4, line 1, 2).

7. An aircraft in distress within V 489 would be expected to attempt to land et an airport at least 20 kms from the site on routes not leading toward the site. (Read Supplemental Testimony, p. 4, line 3 - 6).

8. The Jet Route System is above the Federal Airway Systen J 37 is above V 489 and it could be termed a " corridor for international air traval." The Jet Route System is a part of the U.S. domestic air traffic control structure, i and is regulated by the FAA without regard for the nationality of the air-craft being controlled. (Read Supplemental Testimony, p. 4, line 18 - 23,

p. 5, line 1, 2).

9. The normal air routes between New York City and Europe pass over the Long Island Sound about 100 miles southeast of the site. Air traffic from Europe to New York may approach from the north along J 37. The exact route would depend on many factors. (Read Supplemental Testimony, p. 5, line 3-16).

t .

4 The Staff pased interrogatories to CCSC to explore the meaning of, and 6/

bases for, Contention SA.- CCSC's responses were of little use to the Staff, as they relied solely on " personal observation" of aircraft by 7/

members of CCSC. Thus, for example, the response to Interrogatory S.5.a-4 indicated that CCSC's assertion that commerical and military flights pose a "particular hazard" to the proposed facility is based exclusively on observation by CCSC members of " numerous daily overflights."

CCSC also commented, it is not clear whether based on personal observation or not, that " 6_/ccasionally one girplane/ falls down". The answer to Interrogatory S.5.a-3 did clarify that CCSC had no basis for its assution that the proposed site "is in the flight pattern for practice runs from Westover (Mass.) Airforce Base".

In its review of the site, the Staff has used the criterion that the site would be unacceptable (unsuitable) if reasonable assurance could not be established that the public will not be exposed to an undue hazard as a result of an airplane crash into the proposed nuclear facility. The Staff has utilized its standard methodology for determining whether a site is exposed to an unacceptably high risk from an airplane crash. This criterion 6./

at:d methodology were recently reviewed and apnroved by the Appeal Board.

~

6/ NRC Staff Interrogatories to, and Request for the Production of Documents from, Arthur L. Reuter and the Columbia County Survival Committee, October 2, 1978.

L/ Columbia County Survival Coamittee's Responses to NRC Staff Interrogatories, November 1, 1978.

8/ Metropolitan Edison Co. (Three Mile Island, Unit 2) (hereaf ter "TMI"), 8 NRC 9 at 25-28 (July 1978). Unlike this case, a substantial commercial airport was located in proximity to the TMI site and questions arose there as to the probability analysis for heavy airplane crashes. 8 NRC 28.

~~

l The Staff's methodology for determining risk to a nuclear plant from an l

l airplane crash is succintly set forth in TMI (at 8 NRC 25, 26) and in the Standard Review Plan (NUREG-75/087, . 5.1.6). In summary, the Staff is of the opinion that most nuclear facilities need not be designed to withstand r crashes because the likelihood of a plane crash which might affect a facility is exceedingly low. See: TMI at 25; SRP 53.5.1.6 para. II. 2. As one gets closer to an airport, the probability of an airplane crash rises. TMI, 8 NRC 26, fn. 28. Determination of whether a specific aircraft crash analysis would have to be conducted would turn uron the proh!mity of the airport and the number of flights into it. TMI, 8 NRC 26. If it is determined that the probability of a crash is less 1 x 10-7 (i.e., less than one chance in 10 million) per year, "such events are deemed by the Staff to be of sufficiently low likelihood that their effects may be ignored, even though the consequences of such a crash may exceed those in 10 CFR Part 100.

Standard Review Plan (f!UREG-75/087), 53.5.1.6 (fn. omitted)." TMI, 8 NRC 26.

The use of 10-7 as an acceptable criteria for determining whether special design feature are required has been approved by the Appeal Board.

See: Long Island Lighting Company (Shoreham Nuclear Power Station), ALAB-156, 6AEC831845-46(1973); Public Service Electric and Gas Company (Hope Creek Generating Station, Units 1 ano 2), ALAB-429, 6 NRC 229, 234 (1977).

In the instant case, the affidavit of Dr. Read (as summarizef in the " state-ment of material facts") supports the following conclusions, which have not been contradicted by CCSC either in affirmative testimony or in its answers to interrogatories.

4

1. The site is not exposed to an unacceptable risk from aircraft activity at any airport in its vicinity or from overflights in Federal Airways.

2. The site is not exposed to an unacceptable risk from any present, -

or potential future, military aircraft activity.

3. The site is not exposed to an unacceptable hazard from flights in the ,

international Jet Route System, g C. Conclusion With Respect to Columbia County Survival Committee and Arthur L. Reuter, Stipulated Contention SA As demonstrated above, no genuine issues of material fact remain to be resolved concerning the suitabilit.y of the proposed site with regard to aircraft activity near the site. Accordingly, the Board should find for the Staff as a matter of law and grant summary disposition and dismissal of ,.

CCSC-Reuter Stipulated Contention 5A. ,

Respectfully submitted, 3 fa'il Stephen H. Lewis '

. Counsel for NRC Staff Dated at Bethesda, Maryland this 4th csy of December,1978. ,' // -

U,A lb, w h Barry H. Smith ~

l Counsel for NRC Staff 4

e m

UNITED STATES OF AMERIC, NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSisN BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD In the Matter 01 )

)

Docket No. 50-549 P0 DER AUTHORITY OF THE STATE )

0F NEW YORK (Greene County Nuclear Power )

Plant) )

AFFIDAVIT OF MICHAEL J. GAITANIS IN SUPPORT OF MOTION FOR

SUMMARY

DISPOSITION I, Michael J. Gaitanis, being first duly sworn, do depose and state:

1. I am a Reactor Safeguard Analyst, Reactor Safeguard Licensing Branch, Division of Operating Reactors, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation, U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, D. C. 20555.

2. I have prepared the statement of professional qualifications attached hereto.

3. As part of my duties, I participated in the review of the application of the Power authority of the State of New York for a construction permi.t to build the Greene County Nuclear Power Plant, which is the subject of the above-captioned proceeding.

E o

2-I

4. This affidavit addresses Greene County, Stipulated Contention I.A, which states:

"I. The Preliminary Safety Analysis Report ("PSAR") prepared by the Applicant does not provide reasonable assurance, as required by 10 CFR H550.35 and 50.40 that (a) the M41th and safety of the public will not be endangered, and (b) the Applicant is financially qualified to engage in the proposed activities in accordance with $

the Commission's regulations in the following respects:

A. The Applicant has not demonstrated that the proposed site is ,

suitable from the point of view of complying with the security requirements of Part 73 of 10 CFR due to the easy access to i the site from the Hudson River and the resulting exposed nature."

l

5. I have reviewed Applicant's Preliminary Safety Analysis Report and have found that it provides for a physical barrier to be installed around ,

the entire perimeter of the plant. (PSAR site plan Figure 1.2-3).

6. Since the plant is set back from the Hudson River, persons arriving by water will still have to make a final approach to the plant by land. ,

7. I have also independently reviewed Applicant's supplemental testimony and found that Applicant has committed to provide a second physical barrier 50 feet closer to the site. (Cherico testimony, p. 7).

8. Applicant has'also committed te install lighting along the fence line, and electronic intrusion detection systems and closed-circuit television <

cameras between the two barriers. (.Cherico testimony, p, 7),

9. There will be no unprotected access route tu the plant from the Hudson River.

(Gaitanis testimony, p, 2, filed November 8,1978). . ',

.,44 s

A

, 50 R

CONCLUSION

10. On the basis of the above, I conclude that the-Applicant has committed >

to adequate design provisions for prevention of physical access to the  ;

plant from the Hudson River.

I hereby certify that +.he following information is true and correct to the

• best of my knowledce end belief, 9

~

nQ .

j

'79fd~

Michael J. Gait s vs -

6 Subscribed and sworn to

. before me this /$# day of hmam ,1978.

c'

% s,M c LGxY'J e.

NotaijPublicg -~;

My Commission expires k 4 / / P P c2.> .

{/ G '

1 o

N 4

s.

e i

a

a Michael J. Gaitanis Division of Operating Reactors O. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission PROFESSIONAL QUALIFICATIONS ,

I cm a Reactor Safeguards Aaalyst in the Reactor Safeguards Licensing Branch, Of fice of Nuclear Reactor Regulation, U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission.' I am responsible for the technical aspects of safeguards reviews of plant physical protection systems and plans associated wi th licensing actions related to canmercial nuclear reactors used to generate electric power.

I received a Bachelor of Science degree in Chemistry from the Pennsylvania State University in 1948. Industrial Management was studied at the University of Tennessee, 1955-1956, and Electronics at the Knoxville School of Electronics, 1961-1964. Other educational background includes:

1. Oak Ridge National Laboratory (prior to 1962)

a. Radi och emi stry

b. Reactor Shielding

c. Statistics

2. Start courses related specifically to safeguards at

a. Georgia Institute of Technology - Management and Economics of Nuclear Fuels (1971)

b. American Society for Industrial Security - Public Utilities Security (1974) ,

c. Defense Industrial Security Institute - Industrial Facili ties Protection for Privately Owned and Privately Operated Facili ties (1975) '

d. George Washf ngton Univarsity - Introduction to Fault Free Analysis (1976) - Application of

. Systems Analysis Methods to Security Control Programs (1976)

8 . g$

From 1948 to 1951 I was employed as a chemist by Linde Air Products _-

Company and Koppers Company, Inc.

From February 1951 to August 1964 I was employed by Urion Carbide Corp., .

Nuclear Division at tne Oak Ridge National Laboratory in a number of technical and supervisory positions. Iwasinvolvedigkheanalytical chemistry of a number of irradiated fuel reprocessing syste s such as Purex, Thorex, and Volatility. I was associateo witn tr.e c.i,r. k3cieticri Level Analytical Facility, the Homogeneous Reactor (#1), the Molten Salt Reactor, the processing of plutonium and recovery of americium.

From August 1964 to July 1967 I was employed as the Plant Manager of the Quehanna Facility by the Martin Co. I was responsible for the safe, secure, and productive operation of personnel and facilities in pro-ducing radioactive fuels from Strontium-90 for thermo-electric generators.

From July 1967,to present I have been employed by the Atomic Energy Commission and the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. From 1967 to 1972 I was employed as an Isotope Fuel Specialist and then a Technical Manager by the Division of Space Nuclear Systems providing progt am direction and budgetary guidance in the production of heat sources for radioisotope thermoelectric generatcrs for space missions such as Apollo and'Pinneer.

e m .epesg ge i ge

.e e e 4 _~e J From 1972 to 1978 I was employed as an Operations Analyst and Reactor Protection Specialist by the Directorate of Standards Development.

~

There I was responsible for recommending, administering techni,, cal -

l programs, and participating in studies directed at providing the basis for new material protection guidelines;, criteria, standards and regulations.

5 In this capacity I have been the Tan Leader for the development and pre-caration of the following guides for publication:

Regulatory Guide _ Title 1.17 Protection of Nuclear Power Plants Against k Industrial Sabotage 5.10 Selection and Use of Pressure-Sensitive Seals on Containers for Onsite Storage of Special Nuclear Material 5.12 General Use of Locks in the Protection and Control of Facilities and Special Nuclear .

Materials 5,15 Security Seals for the Protection and Control of Special Nuclear Material In addition, I was one of four team leaders responsible for implementation of 10 CFR Part 73.50, " Requirements for physical protection of licensed activities," and 173.60, " Additional requirements for the physical protection of special nucigar material at fixed sites." Further I was the Task Leader 8 responsible for developing and preparing for publication in the Federal R_egister the regulations for the physical protection of nuclear power reactors 10 CFR Part 173.55. From May 1977 to May 1978 as a loanee from Standards Development to NRR and from May 1978 to the present as a

.h..' .

,e 1

Reactor Safeguards Analyst, I have been the lead reviewer for physical , .

security plans submitted by eight power reactorp licensees to meet the requirements of 673.55 at their sites.

e

• O a

4 4

0 g

e j .

O sen o

e

e .

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION BEFORE THE ATOM 1C SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD In the Matter of ...

POWER AUTHORITY OF THE STATE Docket No. 50-549 0F NEW YORK )

)

(Greene County Nuclear Power )

Plant) )

AFFIDAVIT OF GALE TURI I, Gale Turi, being first duly sworn, do depose and state:

1. I am a Hydraulic Engineer in the Hydrologic Engineering Section, Hydrology-Meteorology Branch, Division of Site Safety and Environ-mental Analysis, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation, U..S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555.

2. As part of my duties 1 participated in the review of the application of the Power, Authority of the State of New York for a con struction permit to build Greene County Nuclear Powee Plant, which is the subject of the above-captioned proceeding.

4

- - - - - - - - _ _ _ _ _ _ ~ _

2-

3. The statement which follows concerns Citizens to Preserve the Hudson Valley stipulated Contention I.B.1, which states:

I. The Preliminary Safety Analysis Report ("PSAR")

prepared by the Applicant does not provide reason-able assurance, at required by 10 CFR s553.35 - -

and 50.40 that (a) the health and safety of the public will not be endangered, and (b) the Applicant is financially qualified to engage in the proposed ,

activities in accordance with the Commission's regulations in the following respects: .

B. The FLAR is deficient with regard to its description and analysis of the fol- -

lowing design features or principal safety considerations as required by 10 CFR 650.35: ,

1. Plant design with respect to '

external flooding phenomena. ,

4

4. I hereby adopt my testimony concerning this contention filed on 4 November 8,1978, in its entirety as part of this affidavit. I also incorporate into this affidavit the statement of professional .

qualifications which I prepared with my testimony. I shall here add several pertinent comments.

5, In doing my analysis I followed Regulatory Guide 1.59, which, in

• Appendix A incorporates the American National Standards Institute Standard No. 170-1976 - Standards For Determining Design Basis Flooding At Power Reactor Sites. ,

". a o

e T

"b

4

6. This standard contains criteria for determining the probable maximum flood on streams, and the probable maximum surges and seiches at estuaries and coastal areas on oceans and large lakes.

7. The probable maximum flood, probable maximum hurricane, and seismic failure of dams are each individually considered to be design basis events.

The combination of these three independent events is too remote to be considered in determining the maximum flood level at the site. Further, the storms producing a probable maximum flood and a probable maximum hurricane are meteorologica11y incompatible at this site. .

Conclusion .

8. I find that, under the criteria established in Reg Guide 1.59, ,

applicant's estimated maximum flhod level of 28.5 feet ms1 and the maximum water level of 30 ? feet considering probable maximum precipitation'on the site are acceptable, 6

i

~

4 I hereby cercify that the following information is true and correct to the test of my knowledge and belief.

w Ga)eTuri .

Subscribed and st.orn to before me this # 74 day of DMrmBER ,1978.

M t. ~

Ad Notary Public tiy Commission expires h4/e-> /, /9R'.L.

W 0 6

1 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY CJMMISSION BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD In the Matter of POWER AUTHORITY OF THE STATE ) Docket No. 50-549 0F NEW YORK )

(Greene County Nuclear Power Plant) )

AFFIDAVIT OF MARCUS GREENBERG I, Marcus Greenberg, being first duly sworn, do depose and state:

1. I am a Systems Erigineer, Auxiliary Systems Branch, Division of System Safety, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555.

2. As part of my duties I participated in the review of the application of the Power Authority of the State of New York for a construction permit to build the Greene County Nuclear Power Plant, which is the subject of the above-captioned proceeding.

\. .__-____ ______ _ __- - _ -

3. This affidavit concerns Citizens to Preserve the Hudson Valley stipulated Contention I.B.1, which states: ,

I. The Preliminary Safety Analysis Report ("PSAR")

prepared by the Applicant does not provide reason-able assurance, as required by 10 CFR gs50.35 and 50.40 that (a) the henith and safety of the public will not be endangered, and (b) the Applicant is financially qualified to engage in the proposed activities in accordance with the Commission's regulations in the following respects:

B. The PSAR is deficient with regard to its description and analysis of the fol-lowing design features or principal safety considerations as required by 10 CFR 950.35:

1. Plant design with respect to external flooding phenomena.

4. I hereby incorporate into this affidavit my testimony and professional qualifications filed en November 8,1978, in their entirety.

I hereby certify that the following information is true and correct to the best of my knowledge and belief.

L %Awu' kWi Oci Fiarcus Greenberg l Subscribed and sworn to before me this # G day of DEdDu BE/L , 1978.

<L . j Notary Public he/a My (bmmission expires /, / 97A.

0

(/

. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NilCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD In the Matter of POWER AUTHORITY OF THE STATE ) Docket No. 50-549 0F NEW YORK (GreeneCountyNuclearPowerPlant) )

i AFFIDAVIT OF JACQUES B. J. READ I, Jacques B. J. Read, being duly sworn, depose and state:

1. I am a member of the Accident Analysis Branch in the Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation, NRC.

2. I prepared the NRC Staff's " Supplemental Testimony on Columbia County Survival Committee and Arthur L. Reuter Stipulated Contention 5A Concerning Aircraft Impact Hazard at the Greene County Site" and the statement of professional qualifications attached thereto. t'

3. I incorporate by reference into this affidavit my testimony and state- -

ment of professional qualifications.

I hereby certify that the above statements are true and correct to the best of my knowledge and belief.

\W\ \m $ \ ok. ."

Jatqu s B. J.' Read Suberkbedandsworntobeforeme this y To day of December, 1978.

\

LYNotary k.

r(L PLIDiic A -

My Commission expires: /, /9g.2

= - - - - --- -- _ - - - - - - - - - - - - - -- - -- -- ---

.2 . .

4 '

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD _ l In the Matter of

)l POWER AUTHORI1Y OF THE STATE OF h Docket No. 50-549 NEW YORK h>

(Greene County Nucler Power Plant))

i CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that copies of NRC STAFF MOTION FOR

SUMMARY

DISPOSITION, in the above-captioned proceeding have been served on the following by deposit in the United States mail, first class, or, as indicated by an '

asterisk, through deposit in the Nuclear Regulatory Commission's internal mail system, this 4th day of December,1978. 1 Andrew C. Goodhope, Esq., Chairman

• Ms. Rosemary S. Pooler Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Executive Director 3320 Estelle Terrace New York State Consumer Wheaton, Maryland 20906 Protection Board

• 99 Washington Avenue Dr. George A. Ferguson Albany, New York 12210 Professor of Nucicar Engineering Howard University Lewis R. Bennett, Esq.

Washington, D. C. 20001 Assistant General Manager -

General Counsel Dr. Richard F. Cole

• Power Authority of the State Atemic Safety and Licensing Board of New York -

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 10 Columbus Circle New York, New York 10010 Washington, D. C. 20555 Arthur L. Reuter, Esq. Town of Athens Attorney at Law c/o Alan Francis Ruf, Esq.

Sharpe's Landing Meadow, Ruf and Lalor, P.C.

Germantown, New York 12526 8 Reed Street Coxsackie, New York 12051 Mr. Peter D. G. Brown Columbia County Survival Chairnian - -

Mid-Hudson Nuclear Opponents Committee ~

P.O. Box 666 P.O. Box 27 New Paltz, New York 12561 Germantown, New York 12526

George J. Pulver', Jr. , Esq. Edward G. Cloke, Esq.

Bagley, Chadderdon, Pulver Steenbergh & Cloke

& Stiefel 28 Second Street 302 Main Street Athens, New York 12015 P.O. Bax 486 Catskill, New York 12414 Jeffrey Cohen, Esq.

New York State Energy Office ~~

Citizens to Preserve the Hudson Swan Street Building Valley Core 1, Second Floor c/o Robert J. Kafin, Esq. Albany, New York .12223 Miller, Mannix, Lemery &

H3 fin, P.C. Daniel Riesel, Esq.

11 Chester Street Winer, Neuburger & Sive Glenns Falls, New York 12001 425 Park Avenue New York, New York 10022 Nancy Spiegel, Esq.

Staff Counsel, State of New York ,

Public Service Commission Empire State Plaza .

Albany, New York 12223 Village of Catskill c/o Daniel K. Lalor, Esq.

Meadow, Ruf and Lalor, P.C. Albert K. Butzel, Esq.

8 Reed Street Butzel and Kass Coxsackie, New York 12051 45 Rockefeller Plaza Suite 2350 Algird F. White, Jr., Esq. New York, New York 10020 DeGraff, Foy, Conway and Hol t-Ha rris Honorable Edward D. Cohen 90 State Street Presiding Examiner Albany, New York 12207 Public Service Commission Empire State Plaza William J. Spampinato, Esq. Agency Building -

Rosenberg & Spampinato Albany, New York 12223 443 Warren Street Hudson, New York 12534 Edward R. Patrick, Esq.

Assistant Counsel for Energy Anthony Scott, Mayor New York State Department of Village of Athens Environmental Conservation 93 N. Washington Street 50 Wolf Road Athens, New York 12105 Albany, New York 12233 Mr. 6hn Nickolitch Honorable Donald Carson

~"

g Associate Hearing Examiner Cementon Civic Association 70 Short Street Department of Environmental Cementon, New York 12415 Conservation ,

50 Wolf Road Albany, New York 12233

*'**1_'._2_'__*L__._____

~

b..

3-

• Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel U.S. fluclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D. C. 20555

• Atomic Safety and Liceraing Appeal Panel _

U.S. tbclear Regulatory Commission WasSington, D. C. 20555

• 0ocketing and Service Section Office of the Secretary U.S. tbc1 car Regulatory Commission Washington, D. C. 20555 hpa ut ./ Q/

Stephen /H. Lewis Counsel for f4RC Staff e

mY

- - - - - . -.._ __ _ - . _ _ _ _ _ ___ _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ - _ _ __ ._ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __ _