ML20206C758

Atty General Jm Shannon Application for Stay of Licensing Board Order Authorizing Issuance of OL to Conduct Low Power Operation.* Requests That Board Grant Stay to Preserve Status Quo.Dg Bridenbaugh & Gr Thompson Affidavits Encl

ML20206C758
Person / Time
Site:	Seabrook
Issue date:	04/06/1987
From:	Bronstein D MASSACHUSETTS, COMMONWEALTH OF
To:	NRC ATOMIC SAFETY & LICENSING APPEAL PANEL (ASLAP)
Shared Package
ML20206C684	List: ML20206C682 ML20206C758 ML20206C869 ML20206C979
References
OL, NUDOCS 8704130155
Download: ML20206C758 (54)

Text

__.

4 MC E UNITED STATES OF AMERICA gS 4RC NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING' APPEAL BOARD ji AMI -7 M123 BEFORE ADMINISTRATIVE. JUDGES:

0FFICE OF SE:47 Alan S. Rosenthal, Chairman. 00ChEit ggfitvicE Gary J. Edles Howard A. Wilber

)

In the matter of' ) Docket Nos.

) 50-443-OL PUBLIC SERVICE COMPANY OF ) 50-444-OL NEW HAMPSHIRE, et al. ) (On-Site EP)

(Seabrook Station, Units 1 and 2) ) April 6, 1987

)

ATTORNEY GENERAL JAMES M. SHANNON'S APPLICATION FOR A STAY OF LICENSING BOARD ORDER AUTHORIZING-ISSUANCE OF OPERATING LICENSE TO CONDUCT LOW-POWER OPERATION Attorney General James M. Shannon (" Petitioner") hereby applies for a stay, pursuant to 10 C.F.R. 52.788, of the Atomic Safety and-Licensing Board's order of March 25, 1987 authorizing the' issuance of an operating license to conduct low-power (up to 5 percent of the rated power) operation.1/ The Appeal Board should grant a stay to preserve the status' quo pending resolution of important: issues on appeal. In the alternative, if this Appeal Board should conclude that a stay is not warranted, it should, at a minimum, grant a stay to allow the Attorney General to seek a stay from the Commission or, if necessary, from the Court of Appeals.

1/ There is' currently a' stay in effect as a result of the Commission's Order of January 9, 1987 ordering review of ALAB-853.

Since the instant stay ~ petition must_be filed within ten days of the-Licensing Board's March 25, 1987 decision, the Attorney General has filed this petition despite the current stay.. It is respectfully suggested that the Appeal Board should~ defer ruling on this stay petition until such time, if ever, that the Commission lifts its-stay of the issuance of a low-power license.

8704130155 870406 PDR ADOCK 05000443 0 _POR

4 I.

SUMMARY

OF THE DECISION TO BE STAYED On June 17, 1986, the Applicants filed their Motion'for Issuance of Operating License for Operation Not in Excess of 5% Rated power.

On July 2, 1986, the Attorney General filed his Answer to'that motion,-objecting to issuance of a low-power operating license, and also filed a petition-seeking waiver of 10 C.F.R. 550.47(d). On March 25, 1987, the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board issued its Partial Initial Decision. The Licensing Board concluded that all on-site safety issues have been' resolved to its satisfaction, with the exception of deficiencies found in the safety parameter display system, which must be corrected prior to full-power operation, and certain environmental qualification shortcomings, which require the filing of materials prior to issuance of a low-power operating license. The decision authorizes issuance of an operating license for operation not in excess of five percent of rated power upon the filing of these environmental qualification materials.

II. GROUNDS FOR A STAY An analysis of the four criteria for a stay set forth.in 10

~

C.F.R. 52.788(e) compels the conclusion that a stay of the issuance of a low-power operating license is warranted in this case. Where, as here, full-power operation is at least one year away -- and may well never occur -- there can be no justification whatsoever for I

beginning low-power operation immediately. Low-power operation j should be postponed until the important issues raised in this appeal are resolved and until there is a greater likelihood than now appears that full-power operation will be authorized, .Such a postponement will result in no harm to the applicants.

l

~

\

A.. Petitioner is Likely to Prevail on The Merits of This Appeal.

.The issues which Petitioner will raise on appeal are discussed

-below. There is a high likelihood that the Licensing Board's Partial-Initial Decision will be reversed by this Appeal Board, by the Commission, or by the Court of Appeals, t 1. Issuance of a Low-Power Operating License Without Preparation of a Separate-Environmental Impact Statement Addressing

)

i Low-Power Operations-Violates the National Environmental Policy Act. The Licensing Board erred in issuing its decision without ordering supplementation of the environmental impact statement [EIS).

See Answer of Attorney General Francis X. Bellotti to Applicants' Motion, filed July 2, 1986, 18. Issuance of a low-power-operating license is a major federal action within the meaning of the National Environmental Policy Act, 42 U.S.C. 4321 et seg., and consequently-a separate environmental impact statement is required in order to assess the costs and benefits of low-power operation separately from

the costs and benefits of full-power operation, particularly since i

it now appears that no full-power operating license is likely to be j

issued.

t Petitioner is aware that the Commission has denied supplementation of an EIS in the Shoreham case. Long Island Lighting Co. (Shoreham Nuclear Power Station, Unit 1), 21 N.R.C.

1587 (1985). However this case and the Shoreham case are markedly different in terms of the likelihood of a full-power operating license being issued. In Shoreham, the Commission concluded that there had been contradictory statements by suffolk County concerning participation in emergency planning. Here, the Commonwealth and the Massachusetts towns have consistently stated that no emergency plan t

will work and have not wavered from their consequent refusal to.

participate in emergency planning. Even more importantly, in Shoreham the utility submitted its own emergency plan. Here, the Applicants have failed to do so. .Thus, their application is not even yet complete and it cannot therefore be assumed that full-power operation is assured. 10 C.F.R. S50.33(g). Finally, the utilityfin f Shoreham never attempted the last-ditch' effort which-Applicants have I

sought in this case: seeking waiver of a crucial' regulation (10 550.47(c)(2), which mandates a 10-mile EPZ) in its gamble to

~

C.F.R.

obtain licensing. !

There is a far greater likelihood here than in.the Shoreham case that full-power operation will not occur. Therefore, the benefits of low-power operation, which occur only as a result of.the energy produced by full-power operation, will most likely not be realized.

2 See Affidavit of Dale Bridenbaugh, 115 (Exhibit 1, hereto). On the other hand, low-power operation creates significant environmental and monetary costs, see Affidavit of Dale Bridenbaugh, 118-16, and Affidavit of Gordon Thompson (Exhibit 2, hereto). Since the EIS does not assess the costs and benefits of low-power operation, supplementation is warranted.

2. The Licensing Board Erred in Authorizing a Low-Power License Where the Applicants Have Failed to Comply'With the Application Requirements of 10 C.F.R. 550.33(g). In the Attorney General's earlier appeal from the order dated October 7, 1986, authorizing issuance of an operating license allowing fuel loading 2/ It should be noted that the low-power license in Shoreham was issued in June 1985 and that now, nearly two years later, there is neither any full-power operating license nor any prospect for its

' issuance in the near future.

1 l

T l and precriticality testing,-he argued that no operatin<! license.

could issue prior to the filing of emergency plans for Massachusetts. 10 C.F.R. 550.33(g). .The Commission is currently-reviewing.this Appeal Board's decision in ALAB-853 rejecting that argument. Since this Board's decision, the applicants have indicated no intention to submit Massachusetts plans, choosing-to rely'instead on their request for waiver of.the 10-mile EPZ regulation. Given the plain terms'of 10 C.F.R.-550.33(g) and the continuing failure to. submit plans, petitioner is likely to prevail before the Commission or the Court of Appeals.

3. Issuance of the Low-Power License Violates 10 C.F.R.

S50.47(b)(5) and Part 50, App. E, IV D 1, 3.

The regulations require that means of notifying the population in the event of an emergency be in place prior to low-power operation. The Licensing Board erred in rejecting two late-filed contentions which allege serious deficiencies in the sirens installed in communities within the EPZ, resulting in an inability to satisfy these standards. Attorney General Shannon's late-filed contention asserted that the-sirens in portions of Merrimac, Massachusetts fail to meet either of the alternative NRC/ FEMA sound level acceptance criteria for providing reasonable assurance that the populace will hear the sirens during'an emergency. See Motion of Attorney General James M. Shannon To j

\

Reconsider Late-Filed Contention With Revised Basis And To Reopen The Record, dated March 3, 1987 (Exhibit 3, hereto). In addition, SAPL's late-filed contention. detailed problems and malfunctions which occurred during a test of the sirens in East-Kingston, New Hampshire. -See Seacoast Anti-Pollution League's-Contention and t

' Motion To Admit Late-Filed Content' ion, Reopen The Record On.On-Site Emergency Planning, And Condition The Issuance Of A License Up To 5%

Of Rats <'.' Power On Applicants' Compliance With '10 CFR 50.47(b)(5),:

dated February 6, 1987 (Exhibit 4, hereto). .The Licensing Board's decision to reject these contentions constituted an abuse of~

discretion.

The Environmental Impact Statement Is Inadequate In Its

~

4.

consideration Of "Citss 9" Accidents. Under regulations promulgated by the Council of Environmental Quality, the NRC is required to evaluate impacts "which have a low probability of occurrence but which would be expected to result in catastrophic consequences if they do occur." 51 Fed. Reg. 15618, 15621. The EIS for Seabrook did not include any analysis of consequences of a Class 9 accident; did not consider site-specific data; included no discussion of 1

external events, such as sabotage, which could affect the risks; and did not quantify the uncertainty bounds. Thus, the Licensing Board erred in its order of May 11, 1983 granting Applicants' motion for summary disposition on SAPL Contention 3, which raised these issues.  :

Issuance of a Low-Power Operating License Prior to j 5.

Resolution of Emergency Planning Issues Denies the Right to a i

Hearing Under S189(a) of the Atomic Energy Act. For the past thirteen years, beginning with litigation of the construction permit and.throughout the litigation of the operating license, the' Attorney-

. l General has sought early determination of important emergency planning issues affecting off-site safety. Pursuant to S189(a) of-the Atomic Energy Act, 42 U.S.C. 52239(a), petitioner.is entitled to  ;

l a hearing on these issues prior to the issuance of any operating l

l 1

. .~ ..

A

. 1 l

't 4

license. Sh'olly v. N.R.C., 651 F.2d 780 (D.C. Cir. 1980), vacated.

.on other grounds, 495'U.S. 1194-(1983). .Although congress at one

' time allowed issuance of~ low-power licenses prior to completion of the required hearing, 42'U.S.C. S2242, that authority expired by-the

~

express terms of the legislation on December 31, 1983. 42 U.S.C.

t S2242(e). Thus, 10 C.F.R. S50.47(d) which allows issuance of a low-power license prior to determination of emergency planning--issues, ,

is invalid.

There is every reason to suppose that if the required hearing on emergency planning were held, the operating license would be denied. As this Board is well aware, the applicants have been -

unable to file any emergency plan by the Commonwealth of Massachusetts or the six Massachusetts towns within the EPZ, nor have they filed their own plan in an effort to " compensate" for the lack of Massachusetts plans. Rather, the applicants have taken the i extraordinary and unprecedented route of-petitioning for waiver of the ten-mile plume exposure pathway EPZ, seeking reduction of_the i

zone to only one mile. Under these circumstances,-it cannot meaningfully be contended that the litigation of emergency issues is a mere formality or that the issuance of the license is inevitable-or even likely.

PetitionerLand the public should not be required to suffer the irreparable harm attendant upon low-power operation when their.right to a hearing on vital issues has thus far been denied. ~ Although the q invalidity'of 10 C.F.R. S50.47(d) may not be raised before this Board or the Commission, Petitioner is likely to prevail on this issue before the Court of Appeals. Moreover,- the Licensing' Board-

abused

its discretion in denying waiver. of 550.47(d) despite-

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ - - ;______ _ __ f _ , _

P-L

. Petitioner's argument that issuance of-a low-power license before determination of emergency planning issues is inappropriate. See Petition of Attorney General Francis X. Bellotti To Revoke Regulation 50.47(d) Or In The Alternative To Suspend Its Application-In The Seabrook Licensing Proceeding, dated July 2, 1986 (Exhibit 5, hereto).

B. Petitioner Will Suffer Irreparable Injury if the Licensing Board Decision is Not Stayed.

Attached to this Application for a Stay are affidavits from Dale Bridenbaugh, Gordon Thompson, and Geoffrey Beckwith (Exhibit 5, hereto), which are incorporated herein by reference. Those-affidavits demonstrate that the following irreparable harm will occur if low-power operation commences: (1) high level radioactive waste will accumulate from low-power operation (Thompson Affidavit) which will require safeguarding on-site for at least 15 years and subsequent disposal for tens of thousands of years at a cost of $20 to $30 million dollars (Bridenbaugh Affidavit, 114.);

(2) irradiation of the nuclear fuel and plant components essentially commits the plant to use as a nuclear facility and, in the event no full-power operation occurs, will result in the site becoming a long-term radioactive waste storage facility (Bridenbaugh Affidavit, 110); (3) low-power operation will cause worker exposure to potentially harmful radiation (Bridenbaugh Affidavit, 111); (4) the irradiated fuel will lose its salvage value, at a cost of approximately $80 million (Bridenbaugh Affidavit, 112); and (5) the irradiated plant components will lose their salvage value, at a cost of at least $20 to $30 million (Bridenbaugh Affidavit, 113).

Moreover, Petitioner will suffer irreparable harm from the commencement of low-power operation prior to resolution of the

e 4

issues raised in this appeal because Petitioner's right to have these issues first resolved will be irrevo5 ably lost.- See Scripps Howard Radio Inc. v. FCC, 316 U.S. 4,-9-10 .(1942).

C. Applicants Will Not Be Harmed By A Stay.

Low-power operation generally only requires approximately three months to complete.and the test program:for'Seabrook as specified in the Final Safety Analysis Report-is scheduled to last only four months. Bridenbaugh Affidavit, 14. Lengthy delays in the time between the completion of low-power operation and the ,

commencement of-full-power operation require-repetition of certain tests. Id.

In this case, it is apparent that no full-power operation 3

can occur for at, least one year / and most likely.not at all.

Even assuming that full-power operation will eventually be authorized, the Applicants will not be harmed -- and may, in fact, be aided -- by a short delay in low-power operation pending resolution of these issues and a stronger showing that full-power operation is likely.

D. The Public Interest Favors a Stay.

A short delay in low-power testing will not delay-the eventual full-power operation (if any) of the plant. On the other hand, the harm to the environment from low-power operation and the unrecoverable monetary expenses which will be incurred thereby should be avoided until full-power operation becomes more certain.

Moreover, the important issues raised herein concerning hearing 3/ The most recent annual report of the primary applicant, Public Service Company of New Hampshire, projects a start-up date for Seabrook Station no earlier than June, 1988.

e f.

rights, NEPA violations, and emergency' notification demand resolution prior to the irreversible consequences resulting from low-power operation.

CONCLUSION For.the reasons stated above, it is respectfully requested that this Appeal Board grant a stay of the Partial Initial Decision, authorizing issuance of an operating license for operation not in excess of five percent of rated-power, pending resolution of the issues raised in this appeal. In the alternative, if this Appeal Board denies the requested stay, Petitioner requests a stay sufficient to allow further appeal to the Commission and, if-necessary, the Court of Appeals. See Long Island Lighting Co.

(Shoreham Nuclear Power Station, Unit 1), AT AB-810, 21 NRC 1616 (1985).A!

Respectfully submitted,-

JAMES M. SHANNON, Attorney General By: Ad([ . 6 Donald S. Bronstein Carol S. Sneider Assistant Attorneys General Environmental Protection Division Department of the Attorney General One Ashburton Place, Room 1902 Boston, MA 02108 (617) 727-2265 Dated: April 6, 1987 i

i 4/ This Appeal Board should, at a bare minimum, issue a stay ,

pending response'by the Applicants and the Staff and decision on this Application for a Stay.

' +I d ,

EXHIBIT 1 AFFIDAVIT OF DALE G. BRIDENBAUGH

1. My name is Dale G. Bridenbaugh. I am President of MHB Technical Associates ("MHB"), a technical consulting firm specializing in nuclear power plant safety, licensing, and~ regulatory matters, located at 1723 Hamilton Avenue, Suite K, San Jose, California 95125. I received a Bachelor of Science degree in mechanical engineering from South Dakota School of Mines and Technology in 1953 and am a licensed professional nuclear engineer. I have more than 30 years experience in the engineering field, primarily in power plant analysis, construction, maintenance, and operations. Since 1976, I have been employed by MHB and have acted as a consultant to domestic and foreign government agencies and other groups on nuclear power plant safety and licensing matters. Between 1966 and 1976, I was employed by the Nuclear Energy Division of General Electric Company ("GE") in various managerial capacities relating to the sale, service, and product improvement of nuclear-power J

reactors manufactured by that company. Between 1955 and

- 1966, I was employed in various engineering capacities working with gas and steam turbines for GE. Included in my duties at GE was supervision of startup testing of equipment

_ , ,- , - , ,e t .-,-w , , , , .

J' in fifteen to twenty fossil and nuclear power plants. I also was responsible for various nuclear fuel. projects ranging from the remote disassembly of irradiated fuel to the supply of reload fuel for operating nuclear plants.- I have authored technical papers and articles on the subject of nuclear power equipment and nuclear power. plant safety and have given testimony on those subjects. Other details of my experience and qualifications are contained in 1

Attachment #.7.

4

2. My experience with the Seabrook plant began in September 1983 when my firm was retained by the Massachusetts Attorney General to evaluate the prudence of expenditures by Fitchburg Gas and Electric Company on Seabrook Unit 2. Since that initial assignment I have i

evaluated various phases of the Seabrook project in five different engagements. In my work as consultant on the Seabrook plant, I have performed diverse assignments, focusing primarily on technical reviews and analysis of safety and cost issues. I have visited the plant on several occasions and have participated in a number of interviews

and/or depositions of key Seabrook management personnel.

d i =-

e e

in fifteen to twenty fossil and nuclear power plants. I also was responsible for various nuclear fuel projects ranging from the remote disassembly of irradiated fuel to the supply of reload fuel for operating nuclear plants. I have authored technical papers and articles on the subject of nuclear power equipment and nuclear power plant safety and have given testimony or those subjects. Other details of my experience and qualifications are contained in Attachment #1.

2. My experience with the Seabrook plant began in September 1983 when my firm was retained by the Massachusetts Attorney General to evaluate the prudence of expenditures by Fitchburg Gas and Electric Company on Seabrook Unit 2. Since that initial assignment I have evaluated various phases of the Seabrook project in five different engagements. In my work as consultant on the Seabrook plant, I have performed diverse assignments, focusing primarily on technical reviews and analysis of safety and cost issues. I have visited the plant on several occasions and have participated in a number of interviews and/or depositions of key Seabrook management personnel.

1 l

l l

J

e

3. The purpose of this Affidavit is to explain the technical reasons why_ low power testing to 5 percent power-at Seabrook is of no value if subsequent power operation at or near full power is not authorized. It will further explain that there are, in fact,'several irreversible changes which would result from testing at the 5% level while no significant electrical power would be produced.

These changes would limit the options available for the plant and plant site in the event that full power operation is not subsequently authorized.

SEOUENCE OF TESTING AND POWER OPERATION

4. Every nuclear plant needs to have fuel loaded and syatems tested before it is permitted to operate at power levels sufficient to turn the turbine and generate electric power. The typical test sequence is to perform non-nuclear zero-power tests first, then proceed to "zero-power" nuclear tests and subsequently to low-power nuclear operation with no electrical production. Electrical production is usually deferred until the test program achieves a power level of 10-15%. Permission to proceed to a higher power level is in general predicated on fulfillment of the test objectives at 1

the lower levels. When the testing is completed safisfactorily at the lower levels and other requirements are satisfied, the plant is then permitted to operate at higher power levels and ultimately at a level at which sufficient steam is generated to allow production of electricity. Power levels are gradually increased and tests are conducted until full power operation has been achieved and the unit is considered to be in commercial. operation.

The minimum length of time in which this process can be completed is about three months. At Seabrook, the test program as specified in the Final Safety Analysis Report is

~

scheduled for four months. All other factors being equal, the initial operating phase at a new nuclear' unit can be most efficiently performed if a smooth transition is made from fuel loading to low power operation and on to the power testing above 5%. If a significant delay between the testing steps occurs, it is most burdensome for that delay to take place after power operation has begun ( The reason for this is because the power test program isLdesigned so as to be able to proceed from the completed tests at a lower authorized power level to tests at the next power step. If lengthy delays are introduced, it then becomes necessary to repeat certain activities such as instrumentic'alibrations

)

~

l l

1 e

f

and heat balance calculations to assure safe and smooth transition ~to the next authorized level. A delay prior to

. initial nuclear operation does not bring about the need for duplication of these operations.

5. In the case of Seabrook Unit 1, the loading'of fuel into the reactor has now been completed and-the company has completed the tests intended to be performed prior to nuclear operation of the unit. This work was authorized by the granting of a "zero" power license by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission ("NRC") on October 17, 1986, and fuel i

loading was begun on October 22, 1986. William B.

Derrickson's 1/ September 26, 1986 presentation to the NRC's Advisory Committee of Reactor Safeguards ("ACRS")

indicated that the scheduled time for completion of the.non-nuclear tests following fuel loading was 4 to 6 weeks

Our request is to be able to load fuel and do the hot testing with the coolant system at operating temperature and pressure.

We have several tests to run, from. tests from I the original hot functionitests. This whole effort from the day we receive the license to completion of the hot functional tests will 1/ Mr. Derrickson is a Senior Vice-President of Public.

Service of New Hampshire and has_ primary responsibility for the Seabrook project.

t

-s-l

e.

I take about a month or six weeks. (ACRS Transcript, pp. 14-15)

6. In the case of Seabrook, the operating license has been requested in not one, but three separate phases. The first phase which consists of fuel loading and hot functional tests (but no criticality.and no irradiation of the fuel) has now been completed.. 'The second phase, now under review, would permit low power testing and subsequent heatups involving operation at up to 5% of full. power. The third phase, if authorized, will permit operation between 5%

and 100% power.

7. .The NRC action to permit low power operation at-Seabrook at this time is a deviation from common past practice. The traditional licensing practice was in the past to grant an operating license as a result of a single licensing action. In those cases, fuel loading and low power test activities were then performed and integrated with ascension to full power. Shortly after the'Three Mile Island accident, the NRC began to issue licenses.in a two-step (low power-full power) process. This two-step process was implemented to help ease the licensing review backlog which resulted from the-licensing hiatus following the 1979

! accident. Initially, this two-step process worked i

l 1

e --

d l.-

t reasonably well. Plants that were granted a low power

)

license generally completed the fuel loading and low ~ power i

testing by the time the full power license-was issued, with i

the low power testing and the full power licensing.

i relatively close together in time. 2/ Since 1984,.however, there have been several cases of lengthy delay between the low power-license and the approval for operation above 5%.

Examples of these delayed cases include:

1) Diablo Canyon 1, where a-three year delay was experienced between the initial low power license (September 1981) and full power approval.(November 1

1984).

2) Shoreham, where a low power license was awarded in j

July 1985 and full power authorization is'yet to be issued.

1 '

l

3) Perry, which received low power authorization in March 1986, did not receive full power approval' until December 1986.

1 1

2/ Of the 15 plants licensed for low power operation between March 1979 and June 1984 which also received a full power license during that period, the' average time

! between the low power and full power licenses.was less 1

than 5 months. The average-time from initial criticality to award of the full power license was only 1/2 month (excluding Grand Gulf which was delayed for approximately two years because of improperly drafted Technical Specifications). See Attachment-#2, portions of letter from NRC Chairman Palladino to Congressman Edward Markey, June 15, 1984.

i

Ju 1

i These delays illustrate clearly that-NRC approval.of low power operation gives no assurance that timely authorization of power operation is forthcoming. This would appear to be particularly relevant for Seabrook'wh'ich is heavily engaged l in the' resolution of complex emergency planning issues.

IRREVERSIBLE CHANGES IN STATUS QUO RESULTING FROM LOW POWER OPERATION

8. Before a reactor "goes critical" as it does for the first time during low power testing, neither the nuclear f fuel nor the reactor or its components, are irradiated or contaminated by radiation. (The uranium contained in the fuel is of course naturally radioactive, but this material is at a very low level and is fully contained within the fuel rods.) Low power testing, however, necessarily causes irreversible changes to a nuclear reactor and its supporting systems. l l

9. There is necessarily significant irradiation of the nuclear fuel as a result of low power testing. This irradiation results in the build-up of quantities of fission products within the fuel which requires that the fuel subsequently be handled, transported, and treated as i

4 i

f

,-, , - , , ,- v, - ,

s; i

irradiated fuel.-~0nce-these fission products have been

. produced, they.cannot be removed from the fuel by any usual means. Thus, the irradiation from low power testing is irreversible. .During. low power testing some components of-the'Seabrook plant would also be irreversibly irra'iated d while other components will become contaminated with activated corrosion ~ products and/or fission products. These include the reactor-pressure vessel and internals, the steam generators, the control rods, ~incore n~2 clear I

instrumentation, and other reactor components, equipment, and piping.. Once contaminated by substantial quantities of radioactive fission products, special care would be required

! in handling these items.

10. The irreversible changes to the plant resulting from power operation as described above makes a significant ,

change in the way in which the Seabrook plant must be.

considered. Prior to power operation, the plant equipment i

and components are radiation free (with the exception of nuclear fuel and some sensors), and there is no limitation j as to what future option for the plant and the plant site may be selected.- It is possible in this condition that the r

. plant could be abandoned, coverted to non-nuclear use, or operated as a nuclear unit as planned. Once. radioactive,

_9_

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

- .~ --. . -.

^4 the~ options are' reduced. Both'the plant and plant site-become nearly irreversibly committed.to a nuclear-facility.

This.is because much of the plant equipment will be made-1 fi; A '

lV, . radioactive'and because.the site itself-becomes (de-facto) ' a y

long-term radioative waste storage facility since there is

' no. approved storage facility available to receive the irradiated nuclear fuel.

1

11. Because of the unavoidable irradiation and '

4 contamination described above, the conduct of/ low power testing of necessity requires some worker exposure'to potentially harmful radiation during-the course of the' testing as well as after the testing is completed. The ,

amount of exposure may not be large and unless errors are made, probably would not exceed allowable limits. However, .(if it is an additional unavoidable impact which resultsJ from'"

low power testing. The necessity of performing the associated ' health physics protection requirements further complicates maintenance and operation steps and makes plant security a more critical and time consuming function.

1

12. In its non-irradiated condition, the fuel loaded into the Seabrook core probably3 has a recovery (or. salvage) value that is likely equal to or a major fraction of the ss

( . ,

h --

. ..v t

i L

y y - , .,nw . , , .- - -.-..r,. ,, ~ ,, -- -,ve.

original purchase value of that fuel. This fuel, if not irradiated, likely could bs sold to other nuclear plants to use as is, or, if necessary, to be reconfigured for a different reactor. (For example, some bundles might require manual disassembly and rod rearrangement or reconfiguration of the pellets for the ncessary pattern of enrichment.)

Once the fuel is substantially irradiated and there is a significant build-up of fission products as would occur during the proposed 5% power operation, it makes fuel reconfiguration, and therefore most opportunities for reuse of the fuel, more complicated and costly and therefore far less likely-to be implemented. Based or . esent day nuclear fuel costs, the value of the Seabrook fuel is approximately

$50-80 million. Salvage value approximately equal to this amount could be realized from the fuel in its present condition. While it is technically possible that irradiated fuel could be transferred to a different reactor of the same design and subsequently used, there would be significant penalties associated with such an action. It would be necessary to ship the fuel in shielded casks which may or may not be readily available. The fuel itself would not be of optimum design for equilibrium operation. Such a transfer has, to my knowledge, never been done in U.S. power f

I

~

4

. l reactors and would probably require lengthy review by the NP.C and/or other regulatory bodies. Consequently, I conclude that the fuel has little or no value if used for testing up to 5% power.

13. The proposed 5% power operation would also result in the loss of potential salvage value for other plant components that would be substantially irradiated or contaminated (i.e., steam generators, reactor components such as control rods and other internals, coolant pumps and seals, valves, piping and instrumentation sensors). I estimate the salvage value of these components to be at least $20-30 million. These components are virtually identical in all Westinghouse Pressurized Water Reactors, many are periodically replaced, and others are useful for replacement in the event of component failures. Thus, a l

resale market for them should exist unless they are irradiated. In an interview conducted in conjunction with a Vermont proceeding (Vermont Public Service Board, Docket 5132), William B. Derrickson, Vice-President of PSNH stated his estimate of the salvage value of the cancelled Seabrook Unit 2 to be approximately $25 million. (See Attachment #3, November 12, 1986 Interview, William B. Derrickson, p. 74.)

It is likely, however, that if these same components were 1

l l

irradiated and/or contaminated by power operation, they-would have little or no or perhaps negative salvage value.

, 14. Additional costs resulting from a decision to-perform low power testing are the costs of decontaminating, decommissioning, and disposal of the fuel and portions of the reactor system following a low power testing period in the event that a full power license is not obtained. The cost of necessary removal / disposal / decontamination efforts could be tens of millions of dollars, depending on the.

specific disposal requirements. Such efforts also carry with them the-potential for additional worker radiation exposure. In addition, the irradiated fuel will need to be treated as high level radioactive material and would likely_

ultimately be disposed of as spent fuel. Because of the .

lengthy time periods during which spent fuel must be isolated from the environment, Federal-law has assigned the responsibility for its ultimate disposition to the U.S.

Department of Energy (DOE). 2/ DOE will perform the 2/ Guidelines for the recommendation of nuclear waste i sites were enacted in 10 CFR Chapter III, Part 960'on' l November 30, 1984. These guidelines do not specify precisely the length of time that~high level waste must be safeguarded from the environment.- The guidelines do, however, give an indication of the time periods required by including numerous statements of 4

" Qualifying" and " Favorable" Conditions such as:

t

l 1

J 4

, ultimate disposal of high level waste, but.is'also required to recover the full-cost of disposal from the-utility. DOE has published expected costs for the receipt and ultimate disposal of irradiated-fuel. These expected costs are.

currently being collected at a rate-of $.001/ kwhr of generation for fuel exposed now to be disposed-of by' DOE:in the future. Fuel typically operates at a design exposure of-20,000 MWD (t)/ ton. For such fuel, this collection rate is equivalent to approximately $150,000 per ton.- DOE has not-established a rate for fuel exposed to the lower level (b) Favorable Conditions. (1) Site conditions-such that the pre-waste-emplacement ground-water .

travel time along any path of likely radionuclide travel from the disturbed zone to the accessible

environment would be more than 10,000. years.-

(2) The nature and rates of hydrologic processes operating within the geologic setting-during the

Quaternary Period would, if continued into the _

future, not affect or would favorably affect the

, ability of the geologic repository to. isolate the waste during the next 100,000 years.

(Part 960 - General Guidelines For the Recommendation of Sites for Nuclear Waste Repositories, 10 CFR, Chapter III)'

Citation of the above guideline is not intended to imply that the Seabrook site will be required to store the irradiated fuel for the next 10,000 to 100,000 '

years. It does however, give an indication of the irreversible effects involved in the decision being considered.

G

- -. - ,, e n, - - -, ..r., ,m.- . . ~ , , . . - , - . - , , - . , ,, , e-

associated with the 5% power test operation, but there is no reason to expect that the cost per ton could be negotiated to much below DOE's published rates as DOE is required by law to obtain full cost recovery. Accordingly, the potential cost for disposal by DOE of the 90 tons at Seabrook could be as much as $13,000,000, not counting transportation or possible cost increases. In addition, no disposal facility is planned or_ expected until after the year 2000, at least 15 years in the future. It would therefore be necessary to store and safeguard the spent fuel on site until that time. Assuming an operations and security staff of at least 10-15 people for this chore, an annual cost of $500,000 to $1,000,000 is not unreasonable and is probably low. The cost of spent fuel disposal alone thus becomes a $20 to 30 million obligation. Reactor components removal, handling and disposal would be additionally required.

THERE IS NO PURPOSE SERVED, AND THE BENEFITS PRODUCED BY LOW POWER TESTING ARE OUTWEIGHED BY THE ADVERSE AND IRREVERSIBLE CHANGES IN THE STATUS OUO

15. The essential purpose of a low power license is to test reactor systems which cannot be effectively tested in noncritical conditions. It is necessary to conduct such l

l 4

t testing prior to operating the plant at higher power levels-

- (i.e. , greater than 5% power) . At 5% power, the reactor would barely produce enough steam to spin the turbine and synchronize the generator. Taking into account the. station auxiliary power needs, it is likely_that there would be no 4

net electric power supplied to the grid as a result of the testing, and there would be no. displaced oil or fuel cost' savings. Instead, power from the grid would be required to run the plant during the tests. Thus, none of the benefits I assumed in the NRC's Environmental Impact Statement for l

l Seabrook would be achieved by low power testing; however, as 4

noted, low power operation would result in environmental

impacts, such as plant contamination with radioactive material, the likely loss of the resale value of the fuel and other components once they become irradiated, the' cost of decontamination, decommissioning and disposal, worker exposure, and last but not least, the potential commitment

! of the site to lengthy radioactive waste storage use.

i

! 16. Because low power testing standing alone produces i

no net benefits but does have serious adverse effects, it is my opinion that there is no reason to conduct low power testing just for its sake alone. Rather, low power testing can he rationally justified only in circumstances where 1

_ --_._. D

there is no substantial doubt that the plant subsequently will operate at higher power levels so that its benefits (i.e., generation of electricity) will be available to offset the adverse effects (fuel irradiation, radioactive contamination, potential worker exposure) which cannot be avoidt3. In my technical opinion, the optimum time for performing low-power testing of any nuclear reactor is shortly before full-power operational approval is reliably anticipated to be obtained.

n /

BRIDENBAUGil- /

~

DALE G.

to before me Subscribed on this 3/ ~'and daysworg//

of / . /,1987. New

<P"""OFFICL1L SLAL

( f "( %' i MYPL1 L CAR,1y p

• "'I c r P ; .ic - cAufm.;;A j J yQ SYiTA CL'M C:'X;Tt

-~)j')'//

/ lg ajs w , gig i e , ~

Ifi Comm. Ex::T1 JL:I 24,1::: ,

~

' ~ " ' ~ " "*

(/JOTARYPUBLIC My commission expires: 6 .2 v// /

1 i

l l

1 1

l

PROFESSIONAL QUALIFICATIONS OF DALE G. BRIDENBAUGH DALE G. BRIDENBAUGH MHB Technical Associates 1723 Hamilton Avenue Suite K San Jose, California 95125 (408) 266-2716 EXPERIENCE:

1976 - PRESENT President - MHB Technical Associates, San Jose, California Co-founder and partner of technical consulting firm. Specialists in energy consulting to governmental and other groups interested in evalua-tion of nuclear plant safety and licensing. Consultant in this capacity to state agencies in . California, New York, Illinois, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Oklahoma and Minnesota and to the No.wegian Nuclear Power Committee, Swedish Nuclear Inspectorate, and various other organizations and environmental groups. Performed extensive safety analysis for Swedish Energy Commission and contributed to the Union of Concerned Scientists's Review of WASH-1400. Consultant to the U.S. NRC - LWR Safety Improvement Program, performed Cost Analysis of Spent Fuel Disposal for the Natural Resources Defense Council, and contributed to the Department of Energy LWR Safety Improvement Program for Sandia Labo-ratories. Served as expert witnet in NRC and state utility commission hearings.

1976 - (FEBRUARY - AUGUST)

Consultant, Project Survival, Palo Alto, California Volunteer work on Nuclea.r Safeguards Initiative campaigns in California, Oregon, Washington, Ari; aa, and Colorado. Numerous presentations on nuclear power and alternative energy options to civic, government, and college groups. Also resource person for public service presentations on radio and television.

1973 - 1976 Manager, Performance Evaluation and Imorovement, General Electric Com-pany - Nuclear Energ! Division, San Jose, California Managed seventeen technical and seven clerical personnel with responsi-bility for establishment and management of systems to monitor and mea-sure Boiling Water Reactor equipment and system operational performance.

Integrated General Electric resources in customer plant modifications, l

l

coordinated correction of causes 'of forced outages and of efforts to im-prove-reliability and' performance hof BWR systems. Also responsible for-development of Division thster Performence- Improvement Plan !as wellf as for numerous Staff special assignments on long-range studies. Was on special assignment for the management lof two different ad hoc projects formed to resolve unique technical problems.

1972 - 1973 Manager, Product Service, General Electric Company - ' Nuclear ' Energy Division, San Jose, California Managed - group of twenty-one technical and four . clerical personnel.

i Prime responsibility was to direct interface and liaison personnel involved in corrective actions required under contract warranties. Also in charge of refueling and -service- planning, performance analysis,- and service communication functions supporting all completed commercial nuclear power reactors supplied by General Electric, both domestic and ~

overseas (Spain, Germany, Italy, Japan, India, and Switzerland).

, 1968 - 1972 Manager, Product Service, General Electric Company - Nuclear Energy I

Division, San Jose, California Managed sixteen technical and six clerical personnel with the responsi-bility for all customer contact, planning and execution of work ~ required after the customer acceptance of department-supplied plants ' and/or equipment. This included quotation, sale and delivery of spare and re-newal parts. Sales volume of parts increased from $1,000,000 in 1968 to over $3,000,000 in 1972.

f 1966 - 1968 Manager, Complaint and Warranty Service, General Electric Company -

1 Nuclear Energy Division, San Jose, California Managed group of six persons with the responsibility for customer con-i tacts, planning and execution of work required after customer acceptance of department-supplied plants and/or equipment--both domestic and over-seas.

1963 - 1966

~

Field Engineering Su3ervisor, General Electric Company, Installation and Service Engineering Jepartment, Los Angeles, California i

~

Supervised approximately eight field representatives with responsibility for General Electric steam and gas turbine installation and maintenance work in Southern California, Arizona, and Southern Nevada. During this

' period was responsible for the installation of eight different central station steam turbine-generator units, plus much maintenance activity.

Work included customer contact, preparation of quotations, and contract negotiations.

l i,

,--,.,y-y..-- - . , ,. .,

,.,_~..my.,%.,__.-.,---_r. m.__, y.%,__,.m._,.._ .-. v mw., ,-.~,-

4 t

1956 :1963 Field Engineer, General Electric Company, Installation and ' Service Engi-neering Department, Chicago, Illinois

Supervised installation and 'naintenance of steam turbines.of all sizes. '

t-Supervised crews of from ten to more than one hundred ren, depending on i the job. Worked primarily with large utilities but had significant work i with steel, petroleum and other process industries. Had four ' years of experience at construction, startup, trouble-shooting 'and refueling of . q the first -large-scale commercial = nuclear power unit.-  ;

1955 - 1956' ,

Engineering Training Program, General Electric Company,' Erie, 1

Pennsylvania, and Schenectady, New York Training assignments in plant facilities design and in : steam turbine-testing at two General Electric factory locations.

1953 - 1955 United States Army - Ordnance School, Aberdeen,-Maryland.

, Instructor - Heavy Artillery Repair. Taught classroom and shop disas-

• sembly of artillery pieces.

1953 i I- Engineering Training Program, General Electric Company, Evendale, Ohio

Training assignment with Aircraft Gas Turbine Department.-

4 EDUCATION & AFFILIATIONS:

1 BSME - 1953, South Dakota School of Mines - and Technology, Rapid. City, South Dakota, Upper 1/4 of class.

4 Professional Nuclear Engineer - California. Certificate No. 0973.

Member - American Nuclear Society .

! Various Company Training Courses during career including Professional i

Business Management, Kepner Tregoe Decision Making, Effective Presenta-tion, and numerous technical seminars.

HONORS & AWARDS:

L Sigma Tau - Honorary Engineering Fraternity.

l General Managers Award, General Electric Company.

L i

. _ ._ - - ~ _ .

PERSONAL. DATA:

Born November 20,- 1931, Miller, South Dakota Married, three children 6'2", 190 lbs., health - excellent Honorable discharge from United States Army Hobbies: Skiing, hiking, work with boy Scout Groups PUBLICATIONS & TESTIMONY:

1. Operating and Maintenance Experience, presented at Twelfth Annual Semi-4 nar for Electric Utility Executives, Pebble Beach, California, October 1972, published in General Electric NEDC-10697, December 1972.

2. Maintenance' and In-Service Inspection, presented at IAEA Symposium on Experience From Operating and Fueling of Nuclear Power Plants, Bridenbaugh, Lloyd & Turner, Vienna, Austria, October,1973.

3. Operating and Maintenance Experience, presented at Thirteenth Anr.ual Seminar for Electric Utility Executives, Pebble Beach, California, November 1973, published in General Electric NED0-20222, January 1974.

4. Improving Plant Availability, presented at Thirteenth Annual Seminar for Electric utility Executives, Pebble Beach, California, November 1973, published in General Electric NED0-20222, January, 1974.

4

5. Application of Plant Outage Experience to Improve Plant Performance, Bridenbaugh and Burdsall, American Power Conference, Chicago, Illinois, April 14, 1974.

6. Nuclear Valve Testing Cuts Cost, Time, Electrical World, October 15, 1974.

7. Testimony of D. G. Bridenbaugh, R. B. Hubbard, and G. C. Minor before the United States Congress, Joint Committee on Atomic Energy, February 18, 1976, Washington, D.C. (Published by the Union of Concerned Scien-tists, Cambridge, Massachusetts.)

8. Testimony of D. G. Bridenbaugh, R. B. Hubbard, and G. C. Minor to the i California State Assembly Committee on Resources, Land Usc, and Energy,

March 8,1976.

9. Testimony by D. G. Bridenbaugh before the California Energy comission, entitled, Initiation of Catastrophic Accidents at Diablo Canyon Hear-ings on Emergency Planning, Avila Beach, California, November 4,1976.

10. Te'stimony by D. G. Bridenbaugh before the U. S. ' Nuclear Regulatory Com-mission, subject: Diablo Canyon Nuclear Plant Performance, Atomic l Safety and Licensing Board Hearings, December,197-6.

l l 11. Testimony by D. G. Bridenbaugh before the California Energy Commission, i subject: Interim Spent Fuel Storage Considerations, March 10, 1977.

. _ _ . . _ ~ _ - _ _ _ _ _ _

c ~ ._~ - -. . . -. .. . .- _ __

[. . -

3 .

12. Testimo'ny of D.' G. Bridenbaugh before the New York State Public Service -

Commission Siting Board-Hearings concerning the Jamesport Nuclear ~ Power i: Station, subject: Effect of Technical and Safety Deficiencies'on Nuclear i

Plant Cost and Reliability, April,1977.

[ 13.. . Testimony by D. G. Bridenbaugh' ~before the California State Energy lCom-

j. mission, subject: Decommissioning ~ of Pressurized Watar Reactors,: Sun-

[

desert Nuclear Plant Hearings, June 9, 1977.

14.-

~

Testimony by D. G. Bridenbaugh before the California State. Energy'-Com-

.. mission, subject: Economic Relationships of Decommissioning Sundesert

Nuclear Plant, for the Natural Resources Defense Council, July 15, 1977.

15. The Risks of Nuclear Power Reactors: A Review ~of the NRC Reactor Safe'ty l

Study WASH-1400, Kendall, Hubbard, Minor & Bridenbaugh, et. al., for. the -

Union of Concerned Scientists,- August,1977.

I 16. Testimony by D. G. Bridenbaugh before the ' Vermont State Board of Health, subject: Operation of Vermont Yankee Nuclear Plant and Its Impact on Public Health and Safety. October 6,1977. .

17. Testimony by D. G. Bridenbaugh' before the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Com-

i. mission, A.tomic ' Safety and Licensing Board, subject: Deficiencies in Safety Eva?uation of Non-Seismic Issues, lack of a Definitive Finding of

{ Safety, DTablo Canyon Nuclear Units. October 18, 1977, Avila Beach, Cal-i iforn a.

l r l 18. Testimony by D. G. Briceabaugh before the Norwegian Commission on Nuclear Power, subject: Recctor Safety / Risk. October 26, 1977.

19. Swedish Reactor Safety Study: Barseback Risk Assessment MHB Technical i

Associates, January, 1978. (Published by the Swedish Department' of Industry as Document Ds! 1978:1)

20. Testimony by D. G. Bridenbaugh before the Louisiana State Legislature Committee on Natural Resources, subject: Nuclear-Power Plant Deficien-i cies Im3 acting on Safety & Reliability ' Baton Rouge. Louisiana, February-13, 1973.

21. Spent Fuel Disposal Costs, report prepared by D. G. Bridenbaugh for the

, Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC), August 31, 1978.

.. 22. Testimony of D. G. Bridenbaugh, G. C. Minor, and R. B. Hubbard before

' the Atomic Sifety and Licensing Board, in the matter of the Black Fox Nuclear Power Station Construction Permit Hearings, September 25, 1978,

[ Tulsa, Oklahoma.

23. Te'stimony of D. G. Bridenbaugh and R. B. Hubbard before the ' Louisiana Public Service Commission, Nuclear Plant and Power Generation Costs,

{. November 19, 1978, Baton Rouge, Louisiana.

i b

? .

l .- , . - - . . _ - . -.:-.--. - - . - .. - _- _ - .-_.- - . --

24. Testimony by D. G. Bridenbaugh before the ' City Council and Electric '

Utility. Commission of Austin,-. Texas.- Design, Construction, and Operating Experience of Nuclear Generating Facilities,-. December 5,1978 Austin, Texas.

+ 25. Testimony by D. G. Bridenbaugh for the Commonwealth of Massachbsetts, Department of ' Public Utilities, Impact of Unresolved Safety Issues, General Deficiencies, and Three Mile Island-Initiated Modifications on ,

Power Generation Cost at the Proposed Pilgrim-2 Nuclear Plant, June 8,

! 1979.

26. Improving the Safety of LWR Power Plantis, MHB Technical - Associates,

] prepared for U.S. Dept. of Energy, Sandia Laboratories, September 28.-

1979.

, 27. BWR Pipe and Nozzle Cracks, MHB Technical Associates,- for the Swedish

! Nuclear Power Inspectorate (SKI), October,1979. _

28. Uncertainty in Nuclear Risk Assessment Methodology. MHB Technical Asso-j ciates, for the Swedish Nuclear Power Inspectorate (SKI), January 1980.

29. Testimony of D. G. Bridenbaugh and G. C. Minor before the Atomic' Safety <

l and Licensing Board, in the matter of Sacramento Municipal Utility Dis-l trict, Rancho Seco Nuclear Generating ~ Station following TMI-2 accident,

subject

Ooerator Training and Human Factors Engineering, for the Cali-fornia Energy Commission, February 11, 1980.

30. Italian Reactor Safety Study: Caorso Risk Assessment,- MHB Technical Associates, for Friends of the Earth Italy, March, 1980..

, 31. Decontamination of Krypton-85 from Three Mile Island Nuclear Plant, H.

j Kendall, R. Pollard, and D. G. Bridenbaugh, et al, The Union of Con--

l cerned Scientists, delivered to the Governor of Pennsylvania, May 15,

1980.

i

32. Testimony by D. G. Bridenbaugh before the New Jersey Board of Public i

utilities, on behalf of New Jersey Public Advocate's Office, Division of

! Rate Counsel, Analysis of 1979 Salem-1 Refueling Outage August 1980. I I 33. Minnesota Nuclear Plants Gaseous Emissions Study, MHB Technical Associ-

ates, for Minnesota Pollution Control Agency, September,1980. l 1- I

34. Position Statement, Proposed Rulemaking ~ on the Storage and Disposal of i Nuclear Waste, Joint Cross-Statement of Position of the New England Coalition on Nuclear Pollution and the Natural Resources Defense Coun-cil, September,1980.

l

! 35. Testimony by D. G. Bridenbaugh and G. - C. Minor, before the New York-1 State Public Service Commission, in the matter of Long Island Light Com-I pany Temporary Rate Case, prepared for the Shoreham Opponents Coalition, 1 September 22, 1980, Shoreham Nuclear Plant Construction Schedole.

l

- . - . - . - ... . -. - - - . . - . . . ~ - - - _ - . . . -._ - - --

36. Supplemental Testimony by D. G. Bridenbaugh before the New Jersey Board of Public Utilities, on behalf of New Jersey Department of the Public Advocate, Division of Rate Counsel, Analysis of 1979 Salem-1 Refueling Outage, December,1980.

37. Testimony by D. G._ Bridenbaugh and G. C. Minor, before the New Jersey Board of Public Utilities, on behalf of New Jersey Department of the Public Advocate, Division of Rate Counsel, Oyster Creek 1980 Refueling Outage Investigation, February 1981.

38. Economic Assessment: Ownership Interest in Palo Verde Nuclear Station, NHS Technical Associates, for the City of. Riverside, September 11, 1981.

39. Testimony of D. G. Bridenbaugh before the Public Utilities Commission of Ohio, in the Matter of the Regulation of the Electric Fuel Component Contained Within the Rate Schedules of the Toledo Edison Company and Related Matters, subject: Davis-Besse Nuclear Power Station 1980-81 Outage Review, November,1981.

40. Supplemental Testimony of D. G. Bridenbaugh before the Public Utilities Commission of Ohio, in the matter of the Regulation of the Electric Fuel Component Contained within the Rate Schedules of the Toledo Edison Com-pany and Related Matters, subject: Davis-Besse Nuclear Power Station 1980-81 Outage Review, November 1981.

41. Systems Interaction and Single Failure Criterion, Phase 2 Report, MHB Technical Associates for the Swedish Nuclear Power Inspectorate (SKI),

January, 1982.

42. Testimony of D. G. Bridenbaugh and G. C. Minor on behalf of Governor Edmund G. Brown Jr. , before the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board, regarding Contention 10, Pressurizer Heaters, January 11, 1982.

43. Testimony of D. G. Bridenbaugh and G. C. Minor on behalf of Governor Edmund G. Brown Jr. , before the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board, regarding Contention 12, Block and Pilot Operated Relief Valves, January 11, 1982.

44. Testimony of D. G. Bridenbaugh before the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, Department of Public Utilities, on behalf of the Massachusetts Attorney General, Pilgrim Nuclear Power Station, 1981-82 Outage Investigation, March 11, 1982.

45. Testimony of D. G. Bridenbaugh before the Pennsylvania Public Utility Commission, on behalf of the Pennsylvania Office of Consumer Advocate, Beaver Valley Outage, March, 1982.

46. Interim testimony of D. G. Bridenbaugh and G. C. Minor before the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board, on behalf of Suffolk County, in the matter of Long Island Lighting Company, Shoreham Nuclear Power Station Unit 1, regarding Suffolk County Contention 11, Passive flechanical Valve Fail-ures, April 13, 1982. -

47. Testimony of D. 'G. Bridenbaugh- and G. C.: Minor before the _ Atomic Safety and Licensing Board, on behalf.of Suffolk County, in~ the matter of:Long _

Island Lighting Company, Shoreham Nuclear Power Station,-Unit-1, regard-ing Suffolk County Contention 11. -Passive Mechanical Valve- Failures, 2

April 13, 1982.-

i 48. Testimony of D. G. Bridenbaugh and'R. B. Hubbard _in'the Matter of_Jer -

sey Central Power and Light Company For an. Increase in Rates for Elec-trical Service, on behalf of New Jersey Department of: the Public Advo--

p cate, Division of Rate Counsel, Three Mile Island Units 1 & 2,: Cleanup

and Modification Programs, May, 1982.

j' 49. Testimony of D.-

G. Bridenbaugh and - G. -C. Minor _ on Lbehalf of. Suffolk 1 County, before the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board. in the matter of j Long Island : Lighting _ Company. Shoreham Nuclear Power Station, Unit 1

regarding Suffolk County Contention 22, SRV Test' Program, May 25, 1982.

Bridenbaugh and G. C. Minor on behalf 'of Suffolk-

~

I 50. Testimony of D. G.

County, before the Atomic _ Safety and Licensing _ Board -in the matter _of Long Island Lighting : Company. - Shoreham' Nuclear: Power Station, Unit 1, regarding Suffolk County Contention 28(a)(vi) and SOC Contention 7A(6),

Reduction of SRV Challenges June 14, 1982.

51. Testimony of D. - G. Bridenbaugh before the Illinois Commerce Commission,

( on behalf of the Illinois Attorney General's Office, Expected Lifetimes j and Performance of Nuclear Power Plants, June 18, 1982.

52. Testimony of D. G. Bridenbaugh and R. B. Hubbard on behalf of the Ohio

._ Consumers Counsel, before the Public -Utilities Commission of Ohio, re-l garding Construction of Perry Nuclear Generating Unit No.1, October 7 '

1982.

53. Issues Affecting the Viability and Acceptability of Nuclear Power-Usage in the United States, prepared by 31HB Technical Associates for Congress of the United States Office of Technology Assessment- for use in con- .

junction with Workshop on Technological and Regulatory Changes in l

Nuclear Power, December 8 & 9,_1982.

54. Testimony of D. G. Bridenbaugh on behalf of Rockford League of Women

Yoters, before the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board, in the matter of j

Commonwealth Edison Company, Byron Station, Units 1 and 2, regarding i

Contention 22, Steam Generators, March 1,1983.

i

55. Testimony of G. C. Minor and D. G. Bridenbaugh before the Pennsylvania l Public Utility Commission, on behalf of the Office of Consumer Advocate,

! Regarding the Cost ~ of Constructing the Suscuehanna Steam Electric 'Sta-

! tion, Unit I, Re: Pennsylvania Power and Lig1t, April 20, 1983.

! 56. Surrebuttal Testimony of D. G. Bridenbaugh before the Pennsylvania Pub-  ;

i lic Utility Commission, on behalf of the Office of Consumer Advocate,

! Regarding the Cost of Constructing the Suscuehanna Steam Electric Sta-tion, Unit I, Re: Pennsylvania Power and Light, April 20, 1983.

i

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

57. Testimony of D. G. Bridenbaugh In the Matter of Public Service Gas &

Electric, Base Rate Case, Nuclear Construction Expenditures, on behalf of New Jersey Department of the Public Advocate Division of Rate Coun-sel, October 13, 1983.

58. Affidavit of D. G. Bridenbaugh, in the Matter of Jersey Central Power and Light, on behalf of New Jersey Department of the Public Advocate, Division of Rate Counsel, TMI Fault Investigation, November 23, 1983.

59. Testimony of D. G. Bridenbaugh, in the Matter of Public Service Electric

& Gas, on behalf of New Jersey Department of the Public Advocate, Divi-sion of Rate Counsel, LEAC Investigation, Salem Outages, December 1, 1983.

60. Rebuttal Testimony of D. G. Bridenbaugh, in the Matter of Public Service Electric & Gas, on behalf of New Jersey. Department of the Public Advo-cate, Division of Rate Counsel, LEAC Investigation, Salem-1 Outages, January 18, 1984.

61. Testimony of D. G. Bridenbaugh, L. M. Danielson, R. B. Hubbard and G. C.

Minor before the State of New York Public Service Commission, PSC Case No. 27563, in the matter of Long Island Lighting Company Proceeding to Investigate the Cost of the Shoreham Nuclear Generating Facility --

Phase II, on behalf of County of Suffolk, February 10, 1984.

62. Testimony of D. G. Bridenbaugh, in the Matter of Jersey Central Power &

Light Company, on behalf of New Jersey Department of the Public Advo-cate, Division of Rate Counsel, Base Rate Case, Oyster Creek 1983-84 Outage and 0&M and Capital Expenditures, May 23, 1984.

63. Direct Testimony of Dale G. Bridenbaugh and Richard B. Hubbard, Before the Illinois Commerce Commission, Illinois Power Company, Clinton Nuclear Station, Docket No. 84-0055, available from Illinois Governor's Office of Consumer Services, July 30, 1984.

64. Joint Direct Testimony of Dr. Robert N. Anderson, Professor Stanley G.

Christensen, G. Dennis Eley, Dale G. Bridenbaugh and Richard B. Hubbard Regarding Suffolk County's Emergency Diesel Generator Contentions, Before the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board, Long Island Lighting Com-pany, Shoreham Nuclear Plant, NRC Docket No. 50-322-OL, July 31, 1984.

65. Direct Testimony of Dale G. Bridenbaugh, Regarding Peach Bottom Units 2 and 3 - Investigation of Outages Due to Intergranular Stress Corrosion Cracking, Before the Pennsylvania Public Utility Commission, Philadel-phia Electric Co., Docket No M-FACE 8408, on behalf of Pennsylvania Office of Consumer Advocate, September 1984.

66. Surrebuttal Testimony of Dale G. Bridenbaugh, Lynn M. Danielson, Richard B. Hubbard, and Gregory C. Minor, Before the New York State Public Ser-vice Commission, PSC Case No. 27563, Shoreham Nuclear Station, Long Island Lighting Company, on behalf cf Suffolk County and New York State Consumer Protection Board, October 4,1984.

9

+ --- - - - - , ,

4

67. Direct Testimony of' Dale G. Bridenbaugh, Lynn M. . Danielson and- Gregory i

.C. Minor on Behalf of Massachusetts Attorney General', DPU 84-145, Before  !

the Massachusetts Department of Public Utilities, regarding the prudency l of expenditures by-Fitchburg Gas and Electric Light Company.on Seabrook i

. Unit 2, November 23, 1984, 84 pgs. l

68. l Direct Testimony of Dale G. Bridenbaugh, Richard B. Hubbard and Lynn K.-

Price on - Behalf of Massachusetts Attorney General. . DPU 84-152, Before the Massachusetts Department of Public Utilities. regarding the investi .

gation by the Department of the Cost and Schedule of Seaborok Unit 1 December 12, 1984.

r

69. Direct Testimony of Dale G. Bridenbaugh . Lynn .M. Danielson and Gregory C. Minor on Behalf of Maine Public-Utilities Commission Staff-regarding

Seabrook Unit 2, Docket No.84-113, December. 21,1984.

. 70. Direct Testimony of-Dale G. Bridenbaugh and Gregory C. Minor Regarding

! Suffolk County's Emergency Diesel Generator Load Contention, Docket No.

! 50-322-OL, January 25, 1985.

j .

! 71. Direct Testimony of Dale G. Bridenbaugh, in the Matter of the Motion of Public Service Electric & Gas, on behalf'of New Jersey Department of the Public Advocate, Division of Rate Counsel, Motion To Increase The Level of the levelized Energy Adjustment Clause, Docket No. - ER 8501166 and Docket No. 837-620, April 24, 1985.

4 72. Direct Testimony of Dale G. Bridenbaugh~ on behalf of the' Attorney General of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, in the Matter of Boston

Edison Company DPU 85-18, A Hearing to Determine Whether Fuel and Pur-

, chased Power Costs Associated with the Outage' at Pilgrim Nuclear Power Station Which Began on December 10, 1983 and Ended on December 30, 1984 l Were Reasonably and Prudently Incurred. May 13, 1985.

73. Direct Testimony of Dale G. Bridenbaugh on behalf of the . Residential Ratepayer Consortium, in the Matter of the Application of Consumers Power Company for a Power Supply Cost Reconciliation proceeding for the 12-month period ended December 13. 1984, regarding Palisades Outage Re-view, Case No. U-7785-R, August 28, 1985.

74. Direct Testimony of Dale G. Bridenbaugh, Lynn M. Danielson, and Gregory C. Minor on behalf of the Department of Public Service, State of Vermont Public Service Board Docket No. 5030. Central ' Vermont Public Service

, Corporation, November 11, 1985.

75. Direct Testimony of Dale G. Bridenbaugh on behalf of New Jersey Depart-ment of the Public Advocate, in the matter of JCP&L for an. increase in rates, Base Rate Case, Oyster Creek 0&M and Capital Expenditures, November 25, 1985.

4

76. Direct Testimony of Dale G. Bridenbaugh on behalfiof New Jersey Depart-i ment of the Public Advocate, in the matter of JCP&L', TMI-Restart - LEAC, Re: TMI-Restart Commercial Operation Standards & Reliability of Service, January 31, 1986.

t

J 4

77. Direct Testimony of- Dale G. Bridenbaugh,- Gregory C. Minor, Lynn . K.

Price, and Steven C. Sholly on behalf of State of Connecticut ~ Department

. of- the Public. Utility Control Prosecutorial" Division and Division-'of

_ Consumer Counsel regarding - the prudence 1 of ' expenditures on Millstone Unit 3, February 18, 1986.

-78. Direct _Tastimony of Da_le G. Bridenbaugh' and Gregory C. Minor _ on behalf of Massachusetts Attorney General regarding the prudence of expenditures by New England Power Co. on Seabrook Unit 2. February.21,1986.

l 79. Direct Testimony of Dale G. Bridenbaugh and Gregory C. Minor on behalf

of Massachusetts Attorney General regarding WMECo Construction Prudence L for Millstone Unit 3, March 19,1986. .

80.~ Direct- Testimony of Dale : G. .Bridenbaugh and Gregory C. Minor on ~ b'ehalf' of Massachusetts Attorney General regarding WMECo's Commercial' Operating

l. Dates and Deferred Capital _ Additions on Millstone - Unit 3. March 19, i 1986.

i 81. Rebuttal Testimony of Dale G. Bridenbaugh and Gregory C. Minor on behalf of Massachusetts Attorney General regarding New England Power Company's

! Seabrook 2 Rebuttal, April 2,1986.

82.

Direct Testimony of Dale G. Bridenbaugh and ' Gregory C. Minor on ' behalf.'

of . State of Maine Staff of Public Utilities Commission regarding . Con-struction Prudence of Millstone Unit 3, April-21, 1986..

83. Direct Testimony of Dale G. Bridenbaugh' and Peter M. Strauss on behalf-

of New Jersey Department of the Public Advocate, Division of Rate Coun-l sel, regarding Base Rate Case: In-Service Criteria.for. Hope Creek, Hope

' Creek 0&M and Decommissioning Costs,'and Operating Plant-0&M Costs, May 19, 1986, 107 pp.

4

84. Direct Testimony of Dale G. Bridenbaugh on behalf 'of.New Jersey Depart-ment of the Public Advocate, Division of Rate Counsel, regarding Base

Rate Case: Hope Creek Commercial- Operating Date and Criteria, Hope Creek i O&M Costs, Operating Life, Capital' Additions, and Decommissioning Costs, j May 27, 1986, 85 pp.

85. Direct Testimony of Dale G. 'Bridenbaugh, Richard B. Hubbard, and Lynn K.

Price on behalf of State of Illinois Office of ~the Attorney General ~and i Office of Public Counsel, regarding Evaluation of Clinton Costs, Docket No. 84-0055, July 9, 1986.

! 86. Direct Testimony -of Dale G. Bridenbaugh and Gregory-C. - Minor on behalf of the Vermont Department of Public Service, regarding Tariff Filing of l

t Central Vermont Public Service Corporation Requesting a 12% Increase in Rates, Docket No. 5132, August 25, 1986.

i 87. Direct Testimony of Dale G. Bridenbaugh and Richard B. Hubbard on behalf

' of'the ' Pennsylvania Office of Consumer Advocate, regarding Pennsylvania Public Utility Comission vs. Duquesne Light Company and Pennsylvania Power Company, Docket Nos. R-860378 and R-850267, September 22, 1986, i

f g__.._o..- -. -- . . . _ . . .

l d

f **e %

- UNITED STATES

[ g . /~[4j y i *- .i-  ;

.Y4R REGUCATORY COMMISSION l g'.C j g 2,j wammm o.c. anssa -

4,y June 15, 1984 .

CHAIRMAN

\

l l

l The Honorable Edward J. Mar. key, Chairman l Subcomittee on Oversight and Investigations Cemittee on Interior and Insular Affairs United States House of Representatives Washington, D.C., 20515

Dear Congressman Markey:

Your lettee of March 30, 1984 reouested an explanation of the risks associated with low power operation at cormercial nuclear power reactors.

In addition, you raised five specific questions which we have responded to

- in Attachment I to this, letter. .

With regard to the risks associated with its power oceration, Attachment 2 is a Comission pacer developed by the staff addressing this issue. As indicated by this paper, the overall conclusion that the staff must reach for fuel loading and low powe testing up to 5 percent power, is that there is no undue risk to the health and safety of the public for the limited coerations autWorized. In practice, the staff has develooed analyses that indicate that 'the risks of 5 percent power operation can be expected to be appreciably less 'than the risks of 100 percent power operation.

Comissioner Gilinsky did not participate in the preparation of this reply.

We trust that this infant.ation is responsive to your cencerns.

Sincerely,

' ~ ~ '

yy ' LLYs &

/

O Nunzio J. Pciladino Attachents:

As stated

Rep. Ron Marlenee 0

--8406250054 840615-- -- ~ ~ - -

6 l N0r h0MamNsb one m _

o .

- y ,-

___. - 3 -

p ,o . _ . . . ..

.i CUESTION 5: for . 9; reactors licensed since the accident at Three Mile Islan'd, please provide the following (A) the date of issuance of the low power license; (B) the date of initial criticality; (C) the date of 5 percent power operation; (D) the date of issuance of the full pcwer licenre (E) the date that power levels of 25 percent or higher were first attained; (F) the date that power levels of 90 percent or higher were first attained; (G) exerpsions granted by the N:C to the low pow ~er licensee and, (H) exemptiens granted by the

NRC to the full power licensee.

ANSWEE.

The data recuested is provided in the attached Table 5.1. We interpreted the cate of 5 percent pcwer coeration to be the date that this power level was excceced. Where the plant has not achieved the event listed the symbol N/Ahasbeenused.g ,

m. -

e.

q r

• 9 I

i

_. I 9

,t . . l

l

~

.mo r __g,,

'6* ** eM

_ .se

.. h e

.e .

e-

'(

e dr wz , - - - - - .

. o e.m.m - , _. I l g U*.

-=-. 6 ar .

I o

= = h e.

kll1 l

. s j

. l l

b s N%d: i IfI i

7.7,, E 5-+ '

CE .-

• "t*f ar " " ' .'.I.8 e 8 s""

i * ". ee e .

g e

.a=-; m' .

4 t. l

r.  % me ' .

d. n .)

N.

i.

% CO f*  % C. C %f.::.

k 'k'". :C: %'%

. ts oc est ee"..

= t. a : L

= %.% % M ks. -

- % .2 .= r % % :. .

5-~

, :- -- N :G e F' l  %%

L:D:  ::.% %- % %.W e -W N. .. ,

t

. l ,

. . . - t 1

. e i

. . . . e

2. .

-. . . i .

e ..

M.- s ; l . s ,

-=O

,a

=

. . I

.e !g l

. a e . t U~ d =-. =F ac. t.--t-:::. n; i

@ll:., *

• g b=m Ic N.: .,:

e e i

.- L. >.c-  % % % .tn:%I c. ,e&%% l ,. all:

n. =,,r. . .% :wk.  :. , .4 - c as.

_- -; Q . r . L- -

= - s.: = = N

c. =- =Q=r. ----=L.6 . T. . ac: == .,

oa: = = =. ;

e

= w=, l:  ; It i w

ll'l

.=.' h-E ..I e lll

.::- -.:-! i; I l i!

l

, t=

e <T. t  ; [ i * .'- -

c -.- .I .. l w . I I. . I l ' l l

- - . .  : w l.

g --

. ~:.. g

. i . !. .i;..

. .' .. . u

= .. .

.. I

• .

• g. . .

.s. I l . . - .e .

c. ~I ---[E * .%.

6....

• . .::=.. !E.

~

=.

%a.

i.'".-

g -.e:y:

-" . N.K,

=.

.cl t%%. h.

' W' .=cln

-- ; % N%L.::N.v' C.:

N-t e,: p-l ~ ' .-

c.

(* - .

2 - -

N

- %N  %%%--  % %. .: M.  %-

• s.~. ..N== 0 5: ^ .

8 .. . s I -.=.s 4. :ll .6 .:.:N .::. . ..

I t :"l hal . l, !. j i s .

% ... i e g 3

, ll. t r

l - ..

I l,.I l s

g!ll! I l. .

.t . l , , ,.. , _

m-

._ g .~ ;

=

i. .

6 I .se ...*

.*. ' J -- -

' , , .1,.

. ~ .% cC C- .'L.

ae, M.. '..M.'.**>.--

-t :-

N.r.s2.. %~,.;- t.. a .F=if*.  ;

, .%.N .%

Q.=v';.g,La,

% % k .,.

2l:

- 't 4,' -

~.

N .,. z. .% -  % % % .% .. % 4. % , .,, . %. !.,

r .i M ::- S  ::' 0: .--:ll .;/ M %.;;:.

, e .L*'.N.". s . .*,.. . .

l i . , l .. , p l

. e , l e .

.e .

i li.e . . . .a .p .,

e N- ' . '

't I

_. . . - . y .' 4 e 5 *q. a g e e p 8 . e N g e l8 *

. ' ' ' i

• g;w* *W.* *I

^

O .;

.c.... .C.====':.

" 00. :C T.:y":.. ** *

""., .N f'M .r.

-'s..'. 3 .2 %

i ..

.at,. . ; r.. . ; ; . p, , . , . , , ,

l

e. - :-.. : :l.

% e,  % .

...s ,

. ' n.k:;., .. .  %. .. 1.:.r .:%. . c. . :- ,. . .. . . . .

it

- .  :;, sw-

-v i N L-1 r-

r. . . :::: c ;%

.-av ~ :,.::-- .%

.e. .. .-

r - . . . .

.s.!

1.I,i.1

} I,i I ,! il .l .7 .

.r .. i w . I ,

I- .m t*

s q'!;I. . r.. ' '

b w.g .

a p=u'.

u.

E- ..E. -

km D. ~ cc.

• • c*a* .a",".' c-k~ h.-. .".

c".", D.. b. ,$iI'

....e' $.--% $ .. (.

t .'. ..*.* . . _b w

~ ,,. :p . -o ~~ .v Ny ~ .

t: r~ -- - n - m.- e~

c:

G.., ,  %% % S -%ks .% % -  % . % ::-. .:. -%s l *c ..:. e%

1. . .llllt IN a .:ll p L:5:* -. .: L.: N c @ .: p.:.N. - %**

e i

.=.., l t t t I l . **=

N! ! f.

M

• 0' bc W! lLP. -t 6 e .h . 3 gs- .

5*.; lh l *==

N- .

.d' = , *

• P.

.t.. J,- C.- c:T.=. . C .== -

.I

1. " , s' -

4

%Q l

"""..'.;>'."'.,.C g - s.m .- C .

y Q

ye, t$-

w=e

=a r.

.y..,.s..,.

q 2 ,s.... ,c.c p ..3-ee a-.m.-- y ,. p=

= .=. . . ..

=.

t c: r.c..ctaiEi ct = 5.

v m.* d. .u:: ~m. .  :-;

0

^

+-  ;

Le P_S 3

. g.

I s

i ' STATE ~OF. VERMONT '

PUBLIC SERVICE BOARD .

s

, _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _.- - - -.x-IN RE: Tariff Filing Of  :

. Central Verment Public Service  :

'Corporatica Recuesting A  : Docket No. 5132 i 12 Percent Increase In Rates -  :

! To Take Eff ect June 2, 1986.  :

l  :

________________x .

t J

INTERVIEW WITH: WILLIAM B. DERRICKSON '

k l 6

• i ____

I i +

Seabrook Staticn New Hampshire Yankee General Of fice Building Seabrook, New Hampshire Wedn esday, November 12, 1986 10 :07 a.m.

i i

l TA!GIE J . TISCHLER l

CERTIFIED SHORTHAND REPORTER -

REGISTERED PROFESSIONAL REPORTER

=\ P.O. Box 571 (603) 77 8-7 47 0 cr Exeter, N.H. 03833

, 1-800-527-3311 l

l

se

'.i I:

2'

'l PRESENT:

1 2 M.H.B. Technical Associates

' Gregory C.-Mincr, Vice President and '

3 Judith R. Liebermma, . Associate Consultant

! 1723 Hamilten Avenue, Suite K-4 San Jose, Calif ornia 95125 '

l i

5  ! Cahill, Gorden &1Reindel I (by Thomas R. Jones, Esquire) 6 80 Pine Street l

New York,'New York 10005; 7 for Public Service Company of New- Hampshire.

8 Dcwns, Rachlin & Martin (by . Elizabeth B. Mullikin, Esquire) 9 100 Dorset Street, Suite 1 P.O. Box 190 10 Burlington, Vermen t 05402-0190;

^

for Central Verment Public Service Corporation.-

11 Department of Public Service

( 12 .

(by Christopher Micciche, Special Ccunsel) l 120 State Street 13 l Mentp elier, Verment 05602 1

14 Swidler & Berlin (by Andrew Weissman, Esquire) 1000 Thomas Jeff ersen Street, NW 15 Washington, D.C. 20007; for C.V.P.S.C.

16 17 18 INDEX 19 Interview with: Direct 20

' William B. Derrickscn 3 21 (by Mr. Minor) 22

( .

t l

[ _ _ _ - - , - - . . - - . - , - - - --

e il i

, 3 P R O C E E'D I N G S '

2  !

I 3 .-

EXAMINATION 4

) BY MR. MINOR:

5 Q This is not a deposition. I guess I should start 6

by saying that. - Just for the usual pattern of

~7 these type of . things, I will 'intrcduce myself. I' 8 am Greg Minor of M.E.B. To my right is 9

Judy Lieberman, also of M.H.B.; Chris Micciche of.

10' j the Department of Public Services in Vermont.

11 l And we are here, Mr. Derrickscn, to ask you 12 some questiens about the - proj ect; and I understand 13 .

you have schedule restraints; and I appreciate your 14 being here today.

l 15 .

i I would like to just go back and start, if you 16 would, by telling me your first association with 17 this proj ect and whether that was as a censultant 18 to Florida Power and Light or direct involvement 19 1 I with the positien at New Hampshire Yankee.

20 A Okay.

We did have an involvement at Florida Power 21 and Light Company with respect to Public Service to 22 send some people up here to provide some assistance 23 to Public Service in 1983, I believe, and we did s  ;

i

x

(" -

, 73.

1 uniquely cut and bent f or. this plant. Structural 2 steel is the sarse way, uniquely cut, specific 3 . connections out here. You would have to. design a '

4 building around that structural steel. I don ' t 5 think.we are going to find too many people excited 6 to do that. I think moisture separators, 7 reheaters, simply because not that many plants .are 8 being buil t. , They have copper nickel ' tubes, and I ,

9 dca't think there is much of a market for those.

10 Other components we are going to have to look 11 .

at en a case-by-case basis. Original large motors 12 for replacement, and we will go to and make an 13 atte=pt to see what we can do in those areas.

14 Other than that, I dca ' t know.

We haven 't looked 15 at that. We have to get a teen together to really 16 go out and catalog model, make and see if we can 17 find a match up around the country semeplace.

19 Q Is it vichie to sell the Model F steam generators 19 as a replace = cat parf unit?

20 A There are two uses for them. One would be a 21 cenplcte steam generator chcnge out in another 22 facility that could use them. Another would be a 4

23 lot of utilities cre putting training f acilities in

. y 4 i

74 1 where they are taking the tube section, the tube 2 sheet sectica and using it to practice any current 3 testing and tube plugging. We may be able to do c, ,

4 something like that. I dcn ' t know. We will work-5 cn it. If that is the marching crders, that is 6 what we will,do, o.

7 Q Have you made any estimate of salvage values?

8 A I think the g,uys did. I think they are looking at

..

• 8 9 S26 millic.. I say 2 5 plus or minur,. ?>That is for 10 scrap and for what they thought they could sel 11 -

intact, which is a lot. ,-

s c

12 Again, we are competing with Marble Hill's 13 exact nuclear steam system, so we are ccmpeting

14 with someone else's parts. I have been arcund the

! 15 country, and I found Marble Hill ~all over the 16 coun t ry. So it 's quite interesting.

17 13. >21;OR: Thank you very much 13 f or ccming in, Mr. Derrickscn.

19 20 (Whereupc., at 11:50 a.m., the 21 interview was adjourned.) ,

22 23 l

l

~- o.

I

'('/ .

4 75 1

CERTIFI C A'T E -

---

l 2

STATE OF ND! HN-!PSHIRE 3

I, Marianne Kusa-Ryll, Registered Professicnal

~

.4 Reporter, do-hereby certify the_ foregoing to be 5

a true copy of the interview of WILLIAM B. DERRICKSCII, 6

held at the ew Har.pshire Yankee General Office 7

Building, Seabrook, New Har.pshire, en Wednesday, 8

^

liover.her .12, 1986.

10

. la..u.. u..... + . ,A b...//~..

' Marianne Kusa-Ryll, CSR, RPR 11 -

. 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 I

i 19 .'

i EO 21 22 23

EXHIBIT 2 1 Affidavit of Gordon Thompson 19 February 1987 page1 Affidavit of Gordon R Thompson PhD I, Gordon Thompson, hereby depose and say:

My qualifications are set forth in an attached resume (Attachment 2). This indicates that I have experience in studying the characteristics of nuclear power plants and the management of radioactive wastes.

This affidavit addresses the implications of low-power operation of the Seabrook nuclear plant in terms of the generation of radioactive wastes.

Specifically, I have estimated the production of radionuclides in the fuel assemblies of the Seabrook plant for various periods of operation at 5% of rated power, and have compared the resulting concentrations of radionuclides with the NRC standards governing near-surface disposal of radioactive wastes. The results of this analysis are summarized in an attached table (Attachment 1).

The standards in question are laid down in the NRC's Final Rule,' Licensing Requirements for Land Disposal of Radioactive Waste"(Federal Register, Vol. 47, No. 248,27 December 1982, pp 57446-57482). At section 61.55, this document provides tables showing the concentrations of radionuclides which are acceptable for near-surface disposal of radioactive wastes. My analysis considered intact Seabrook spent fuel assemblies as articles of radioactive waste, and compared the concentrations of radionuclides within those assemblies with the NRC standards. For the alpha-emitting transuranic nuclides, the conte Ntions are expressed in Curles per unit mass, for all other nuclides the contentrations are expressed in Curles per unit volume.

The production of radionuclides at Seabrook was estimated using the ORIGEN2 computer code, run at the Oak Ridge National Laboratory at my request. 0peration at 5%-power was assumed for periods of 1,10 and 100 days. Production of nuclides in reactor components other than fuel assemblies (such as in control rods) was not considered.

Attachment I summarizes the results. This table shows the concentration of each relevant radionuclide, in an average Seabrook spent fuel assembly, as a fraction of the concentration permissible for near-surface disposal of that assembly as radioactive waste. A 3 year delay is assumed between reactor shut-down and disposal of the spent fuel as waste.

i Affidevit of Gordon Thompson 19 february 1987 page2 The table shows that, af ter 100 days of operation, the spent fuel approaches permissible concentrations of several fission and activation products. For example, the concentration of Cs-137 in this case is 31%

(3.1x10-I) of the permissible level. In addition, however, it will be noted that the spent fuel contains concentrations of transuranic alpha emitters which are well above permissible levels even for a period of operation of I day. In fact, even fresh untrradiated fuel would not be acceptable for near-surface disposal because of its high concentration of alpha emitters.

Ninety-five percent of the long-lived (half-life more than 5 years) alpha activity present af ter i day of operation is contributed by the urantum isotopes present in fresh fuel.

However, unirradlated Seabrook fuel could be transferred to another nuclear plant and used there. If the fuel is Irradlated, this may not be feasible. If re-use of irradiated fuel is not feasible and the Seabrook plant is tested at low power but does not receive a full-power license, then the Seatrook fuel will become radioactive waste. f1y analysis shows that this waste will not meet the NRC's requirements for near-surface disposal.

Signed under the pains and penalties of perjury, this 19th day of February 1987:

W ne Le

//,j pg .pf Gorden R Thompson PhD Institute for Resource and Security Studies p ,/

a'. .

h h ['

27 Ellsworth Avenue Cambridge, f1A 02139 Attachments: (1) Table titled " Concentrations of Varlous Radlonuclides In Seabrook Spent Fuel, as a Fraction of Concentration Permissible for Near-Surface Disposal,3 Years After Operation for 1,10 or 100 Days at 5%-Power' (2) Resume for Gordon Thompson, January 1987.

e Concentrations of Various Radionuclides in Seabrook Spent Fuel, as a Fraction of Concentration Permissible for Near-Surface Disposal, 3 Years After Operation for 1, 10 or 100 Days at 5%-Power Period of Operation 1 day 10 days 100 days Short-lived Radionuclides Ni-63 NA NA. NA Ni-63 in activated metal 1.5x10-5 1.5x10-4 1.5x10-3 Sr-90 1.9x10-3 -2 1.9x10 1.9x10-1 Cs-137 3.1x10-3 3.1x10-2 -1 3.1x10 Long-lived Radionuclides C-14 NA NA. NA C-14 in activated metal 3.5x10-6 3.5x10-5 3.5x10-4 Ni-59 in activated metal 3.9x10-6 3.9x10-5 3.9x10-4 Nb-94 in activated metal 1.2x10-3 1.2x10-2 1.2x10-1 Tc-99 7.1x10-4 7.3x10-3 7.1x10-2 I-129 NA NA NA 1

Transuranic alpha emitters 1.4x10 2.1x10 1

9.2x10 1

with half-life over 5 years

( except Pu-241 )

Pu-241 NA 1.4x10-4 2.4x10-1 Cm-242 NA NA NA Notes (a) NA means result not available; concentrations are very small in each Case.

(b) Details of calculations are available from author.

I

I Resume for Gordon Thompson January 1987 Professional Exoertise Consulting scientist on energy, environment, and international security issues.

Education

• PhD in Applied Mathematics, Oxford University,1973.

• BE in Mechanical Engineering, University of New South Wales, Sydney, Aus_tralia,1967.

• BS in Mathematics and Physics, University of New South Wales,1966.

Current Accointments -

• Executive Director, Institute for Resource & Security Studies ( IRSS ),

Cambridge, MA.

• Coordinator, Proliferation Reform Project ( an !RSS project ).

• Treasurer, Center for Atomic Radiation Studies, Acton, MA.

• Member, Board of Directors, Political Ecology Research Group, Oxford, UK.

• Member, Advisory Board, Gruppe Okologie, Hannover, FRG.

Consultina Exoerfence ( selected )

• Natural Resources Defense Council, Washington, DC, 1986-1987 : preparation of testimony on hazards of the Savannah River Plant.

• Lakes Environmental Association, Bridgton, ME,1986 : analysis of federal regulations for disposal of radioactive waste.

• Greenpeace, Hamburg, FRG,1986 : participation in an international study on the hazards of nuclear power plants.

• Three Mile Island Public Health Fund, Philadelphia, PA,1983-present :

studies related to the Three Mlle Island nuclear plant. '

• Attorney General, Commonwealth of Massachusetts, Boston, MA,1984-present : analyses of the safety of the Seabrook nuclear plant. 1

• Union of Concerned Scienti-sts, Cambridge, MA, 1980-1985 : studies on  ;

energy demand and supply, nuclear arms control, and the safety of nuclear installations.

2

• Conservation Law Foundation of New England, Boston, MA,198S :

preparation of testimony on cogeneration potential at the Maine facilities of Great Northern Paper Company.

• Town & Country Planning Association, London, UK, 1982-1984 : coordination and conduct of a study on safety and radioactive waste implications of the proposed Sizewell nuclear plant.

• US Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, DC, 1980-1981.

assessment of the cleanup of Three Mile Island Unit 2 nuclear plant.

)

• Center for Energy & Environmental Studies, Princeton University, Princeton, l NJ,1979-1980 : studies on the potentials of various renewable energy sources.

• Government of Lower Saxony, Hannover, FRG, 1978-1979 : coordination and .

I conduct of studies on safety aspects of the proposed Gorleben nuclear fuel center.

, Other Exoerlence ( selected )

• Co-leadership ( with Paul Walker ) of a study group on nuclear weapons proliferation, Institute of Politics, Harvard University,1981.

• Foundation ( with others ) of an ecological political movement in Oxford, UK, which contested the 1979 Parliamentary election.

• Conduct of cross-examination and presentation of evidence, on behalf of the Political Ecology Research Group, at the 1977 Public inquiry into proposed expansion of the reprocessing plant at Windscale, UK. ~

• Conduct of research on plasma theory ( while a PhD candidate ), as an associate staff member, Culham Laboratory, UK Atomic Energy Authority, 1969-1973.

• Service as a design engineer on coal plants, New South Wales Electricity Commission, Sydney, Australia,1968.

Publications ( selected )

• The Nuclear Freeze Revisited ( written with Andrew Haines ), November 1986, Nuclear Freeze and Arms Control Research Project, Bristol, UK.

• Nuclear-Weacon-Free Zones : A Survey of Treaties and Prooosals ( edited with David Pitt ), Croom Helm Ltd, Beckenham, UK, forthcoming.

• International Nuclear Reactor Hazard Study ( written with fif teen other authors ), September 1986, Greenpeace, Hamburg, FRG ( 2 volumes ).

• 'What happened at Reactor Four" ( the Chernobyl reactor accident ), Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists. August / September 1986, pp 26-31.

l

• The Source Term Debate : A Reoort by the Union of Concerned Scientists

8 3

( written with Steven Sholly ), January 1986, Union of Concerned Scientists,

. Cambridge, MA.

• " Checks on the spread"( a review of three books on nuclear proliferation ),

Nature.14 November 1985, pp 127-128.

• Editing of Persoectives on Proliferation. Volume I, August 1985, published i

by the Proliferation Reform Project, institute for Resource ano Security Studies, Cambridge, MA.

• "A Turning Point for the NPT ?", .ADIU Reoort. Nov/Dec 1984, pp 1-4, University of Sussex, Brighton, UK.

• " Energy Economics", in J Dennis (ed), The Nuclear Almanac. Addison-Wesley,

Reading, MA,1984.

• "The Genesis of Nuclear Power", in J Tirman (ed), The Militarization of Hiah Technoloov. Ballinger, Cambridge, MA,1984.

• A Second Chance : New Hamoshire's Electricity Future as a Model for the Nation ( written with Linzee Weld ), Union of Concerned Scientists, Cambridge, MA,1983.

• Safety and Waste Management imolications of the Sizewell PWR ( prepared with the help of 6 consultants ), a report to the Town & Country Planning Association, London, UK,1983.

• Utility-Scale Electrical Storage in the USA : The Prosoects of Pomoed Hydro.

Comoressed Air. and Batteries. Princeton University report PU/ CEES *120, 1981.

• The Prosoects for Wind and Wave Power in North America. Princeton University report PU/ CEES

• 117,1981.

• Hydroelectric Power in the USA : Evolvina to Meet New Needs. Princeton University report PU/ CEES

• 115,1981.

• Editing and part authorship of " Potential Accidents & Their Effects", Chapter <

t lil of Reoort of the Gorleben international Review. oublished in German by the Government of Lower Saxony, FRG,1979 -- Chapter lll available in English from the Political Ecology Research Group, Oxford, UK.

• A Study of the Consecuences to the Public of a Severe Accident at a Commercial FBR located at Kalkar. West Germany. Political Ecology Research Group report RR-1,1978.

Exoert Testimony ( selected )

• County Council, Richland County, SC,1987 : Implications of Severe Reactor

! Accidents at the Savannah River Plant.

• International Physicians for the Prevention of Nuclear War,6th Annual l Congress, Koln, FRG,1986 : Relationships between nuclear power and the

( threat of nuclear war.

l

t 4

• Maine Land Use Regulation Commission,1985 : Cogeneration potential at facilities of Great Northern Paper Company.

• Interfalth Hearings on Nuclear issues, Toronto, Ontario,1984 : Options for Canada's nuclear trade and Canada's involvement in nuclear arms control.

• Sizewell Public inquiry, UK,1984 : Safety and radioactive waste implications of the proposed Sizewell nuclear plant.

• New Hampshire Public Utilities Commission,1983 : Electricity demand and supply options for New Hampshire.

• Atomic Safety & Licensing Board, Dockets S0-247-SP & S0-286-SP, US Nuclear Regulatory Commission,1983 : Use of filtered venting at the Indian Point nuclear plants.

• US National Advisory Committee on 0ceans and Atmosphere,1982 :

Implications of ocean disposal of radioactive waste.

• Environmental & Energy Study Conference, US Congress,1982 : Implications of radioactive waste management.

Miscellaneous

• Australian citizen.

• Married, one child.

• Resident of USA,1979 to present; of UK, 1969-1979.

• Extensive experience of public speaking before professional and lay audiences.

• Author of numerous newspaper, newsletter, and magazine articles and book reviews.

• Has received many interviews from print and electronic media.

• • • • • u*** ::::

l L ._

- .7 EXHIBIT'3 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION ATOMIC SA?ETY AND LICENSING BOARD Before Administrative. Judges:

Sheldon J. Wolfe, Chairman Emmeth A. Luebke Jerry Harbour

)

In the Matter of ) Docket Nos. 50-443-OL-1

) 50-444-OL-1 PUBLIC SERVICE COMPANY ) (On-Site Emergency Planning OF NEW HAMPSHIRE et al. ) And Safety Issues)

)

(Seabrook Station, Units 1 and 2) )

)

) March 3, 1987 MOTION OF ATTORNEY GENERAL JAMES M. SHANNON TO RECONSIDER LATE-FILED CONTENTION WITH REVISED BASIS AND TO REOPEN THE RECORD Attorney General James M. Shannon hereby moves that the Board reconsider its Memorandum and Order of February 6, 1987, denying his motion of January 12, 1987, requesting that the Board admit a late-filed contention and reopen the record in the on-site emergency planning phase of this. proceeding.

In seeking this reconsideration of his late-filed contention, the Attorney General submits a revised basis for admitting the contention. The contention and the revised basis are as follows:

(

l ._

e 5.

contention: Applicants have failed to comply with the

~

provisions of110 C.F.R. 550.47(b)(5) .and-Partf50, Appendix E, SIV(D)(1)'and-(3), because no' administrative or physical means

~

'have been established to provide early notification'and clear instruction'to the populace within the plume exposure pathway located within the Town.of Merrimac, Massachusetts.

Basis: In some populated ~ areas:of Merrimac (specifically' along Bear-Hill Road, in Merrimacport,-and'in Merrimac Terrace)'

~

the Applicants' alert and notification siren system fails to meet either of the alternative NRC/ FEMA sound level acceptance criteria ~for providing reasonable assurance that the populace

will hear the sirens during an emergency. See NUREG-0654/ FEMA-RFP-1, Revision 1, Appendix 3,-SSC.3e and f, at pp. 10-11; FEMA-REP-10, SE.6.2.1, SE.6.2.1 (Fixed Sirens). i compliance with these criteria requires a showing that either

(1) the expected sound level coverage is at least 60 dBC; or (2) the expected sound pressure level exceeds the average measured summer daytime ambient sound pressure levels _ by :10 dB. Id. Applicants admit that the first standard is not met in these areas because the expected siren sound pressure level in these areas is below 60 dBC, falling between 50-60 dBC..

See Affidavit of James A. MacDonald, dated 1/22/87, accompany-Applicants' Response to Attorney General's contention (hereinafter "MacDonald Affidavit"] at-Attachment "A," Letter of HMM Associates, dated July 7, 1986-[ attached hereto as

e Exhibit "A"). The alternative standard is not met either, because Applicants have not submitted reliable' ambient background sound measurements, as required by NUREG-0654 and FEMA-REP-10, to show that the expected sound pressure level 4

generally exceeds the average summer daytime ambient background noise levels in these areas of Merrimac by at least 10 dB.

(Because the expected pressure levels fall between 50-60 dBC, and therefore could be as low as 50 dBC, the ambient background noise levels must not exceed 40 dB to meet this "10 dB above background" standard.)

Background dB measurements taken by Applicants to document compliance with the "10 dB above background" standard were.

taken.in the wrong octave band, not "in a band about the siren signal frequency," as required by FEMA. See NUREG-0654, App.

3, SC.3.f. Applicants' measurements were taken in the-1000 Hz octave band. See MacDonald Affidavit at Attachment "B," Letter of HMM Associates, dated January 20, 1987 [ attached hereto as Exhibit "B"]. The 1000 Hz octave band has a band width of 708Hz to 1410 Hz. The frequency signal of the warning sirens in Merrimac are 680 Hz, and are thus not within the 1000 Hz octave band. See Affidavit of Brian Koning, attached hereto, at 15. Background dB measuremets taken in'the 1000 Hz band will produce readings " roughly 3 dB" lower than those taken in the 500 Hz octave band (band width of 355 Hz to 708Hz), which should have been used for the measurements. Koning ASfidavit l

1

at 15. In addition,-Applicants' sound measurements.were taken' ,

on an inappropriate, non-representative day, a federal and state holiday (Martin Luther King,.Jr., Day),'when both commuter and. commercial: traffic would be diminished and background noise level presumably lowered. Background measurements taken in Merrimac in the proper frequency and on a-more. representative day indeed indicate'that the'"10 dB above background" standard is not met in at least three separat'e locations in Merrimac. See Koning Affidavit at 16.

Furthermore, applicants have not complied with the FEMA

requirement,-contained in FEMA-REP-10, that the documentation submitted to support a claim that the'"10 dB above background" i standard is met include all of the following

A description of how the average. summer daytime ambient sound pressure levels were determined,1 including survey locations and the. rationale for their selection;

Identification of actual measurements. including frequency range, time span, and location; Any assumptions used to determine the neasured ambient along with rationale for those assumptions; Relationships of population density to measured ambient levels; i

Effects of major transportation routes; and j Effects of any commercial activities in the area.

! See FEMA-REP-10, Guide for the. Evaluation of Alert and Notification Systems for Nuclear Power Plants, November,1 1985, at.E-8,9. Only the second of.the items-listed above was

_4-

described in the HMM letter _of January'20, 1987 attached hereto-as Exhibit "B."]

The failure of this siren system to comply with either of NUREG 0654's sound level criteria is a serious deficiency such that there is currently no assurance that all persons ~in Merrimac will' hear the sirens.

While Applicants could attempt to meet the requirements of 10 C.F.R. 550.47 (b)(5) and Part 50, Appendix E SIV(D)(1) and (3), either by enhancing the capability of the siren system or by providing other alerting methods to these areas in Merrimac, Applicants have not done so.

While many of the issues relevant to the adequacy of the Applicants' Alert and Notification System will be addressed in the off-site emergency planning phase of this licensing hearing,1/ the Commission has determined that the means to notify the population within the plume expo,sure EPZ must be in place prior to low power operation. See Statement of Consideration, 47 Fed. Reg. 30232, 30234 (July 13, 1982) 1/ In light of Applicants' Response to the original late-filed contention submitted by the Attorney General, which establishes that two sirens in Merrimac will be operated by battery-power, Attorney General Shannon omits from the basis set forth in this revised contention the allegation that there are no operable sirens in Merrimac. However,' the. Attorney' General reserves the right to litigate at the off-site phase of this licenseing proceeding the issue of whether batteries will, in the event of a radiological emergency, reliably provide sufficient power for sufficient time to enable the use of the speaker system to instruct the populace in Merrimac.

, . - - , , , -, . , , - v ,- --

'=.-- -

-(Commission-Response to Issue 6). -See also, Southern California Edison Company'(San Onofre Nuclear Generating Station, Units 2 and 3),~15.NRC 61, 191-195 (1982) (affirming.

.the need to provide means to notify the off-site public and response organizations during low-power operation.) In light of this, no decision authorizing the issuance of a low-power license should issue until-the Applicants have demonstrated the means to notify and instruct the populace in the Town of Merrimac in the event of a radiological emergency.

I_t The Attorney General Had Good Cause For Not Filing This Contention, With This Revised Basis, At An Earlier Date -  ;

In its Memorandum and Order of February 6, 1987,-the Board found that the Attorney General "has not shown good cause for-failing to file its contention in a timely manner" as required

by 10 C.F.R. 52.714(a)(1). This ruling-is based on the reasoning that, I As of May 22, 1986, Massachusetts knew or should have known that the Town had refused to permit the electrical hooking up of sirens.. Moreover, as of June 2, 1986, it knew or should have known'that the Town i- had ordered immediate cessation of all work on sirens.

Memorandum and Order of. February 6, 1987 at p. 4. The Board has attributed too much significance to these votes.

Although the Attorney General was' informed last July that

i the design number of notification sirens were not in place ~in ,

l

the Town of-Merrimac, he-was not aware of the reasons. The Attorney General is not responsible for monitoring resolutions of Massachusetts towns and was not aware until recently of the actions taken by the Merrimac Town _ Meeting on May 6, 1986, and by the Board of Selectmen on June 2, 1986. Even if'the Board were. correct, however, that the Attorney General "should have known" as of May 22 that the Town had voted not to allow further hook-up of sirens, the Attorney General could not have known at that time what the Applicants' response to these votes would be. Applicants have never' acknowledged being legally bound by the Selectmen's resolution of June 2, 1986. In fact, Applicants have consistently disregarded that resolution insofar as it also required the removal of sirens and the cessation of "all work" on siren " operation." Applicants have not removed the two existing s.irens in Merrimac nor have they ceased "all work" which keeps them operable. See Mcdonald Affidavit (acknowledging that the Applicants replace the batteries in the sirens and perform an " operability test" every two weeks). Furthermore, Applicants have not conceded that this resolution imposes a legal barrier to the installation of I battery-operated sirens.

Moreover, although the actions of the Town impose a legal impediment to the installation of a third siren in Merrimac, Applicants have remained free to take compensatory measures to ensure that the entire populace of Merrimac receives early l

notification of an emergency at the Seabrook nuclear plant.

For example, perhaps the siren system could have been enhanced outside of Merrimac to ensure that greater sound pressure levels reached those portions of the town which otherwise would be inadequately covered, or perhaps alternative notification methods could have been implemented within Merrimac.

Thus, the actions taken by the Town in May and June did not clearly put the Applicants in a position of unremediable _

non-compliance. It was not unreasonable to expect that in the last nine months Applicants would resolve this siren problem prior to low-power operation.

Indeed, the Applicants announced publicly throughout the summer and fall of 1986 that the " sirens will be operational" prior to initial criticality. See letters from John DeVincentis to Vincent Noonan, dated May 6 and October 16, 1986, attached to the Attorney General's original motion to admit this late-filed contention, dated January 12, 1987.

These letters certainly implied that the NRC staff was addressing'this important safety issue. Only in January, when issuance of the low-power license seemed imminent and, despite applicants' representations to NRC, there had still been no measures taken to compensate for the lack of a third siren in Merrimac did it become necessary to file a late-filed contention to ensure that the public in Merrimac would be notified in the event of an emergency at Seabrook.

Only now, as a result _of-the papers filed by the Applicants.

and the NRC staff in response to the Attorney General's motion, has it become apparent that the Applicants were attempting to compensate for the lack of the third siren by demonstrating compliance with the "10 dB above background" standard.2/

In addition, it has now become clear, for the first time, that the manner in which the NRC Senior Resident Inspector for Seabrook-addressed this issue was totally inadequate and in complete disregard of the requirements of NUREG-0654-and FEMA-REP-10.

In his affidavit, attached to the NRC Staff Response to Massachusetts' Motion To Admit Late Filed Contention, the NRC Senior Resident Inspector states that he " met with Seabrook-personnel on a number of occasions during the summer of 1986 to discuss, among other things, the operability of the' sirens in-Merrimac." Affidavit of Antone C. Cerne at 13 (attached hereto as Exhibit "D"). Regarding the adequacy of having two sirens in Merrimac, he states as follows:

6. During the meetings last summer, the licensee indicated that they were encountering difficulties in installing the planned third siren in Merrimac.

The licensee at that time submitted an analysis 2/ It is also only as a result of these1 pleadings of Applicants and Staff which attempt, for the first time, to demonstrate compliance with the "10 dB above background" standard, that the Attorney General'has had cause to hire an acoustics expert to take sound measurements in-Merrimac.

Applicants did not take their own background measurements until-January 19, 1987. Thus, the Attorney General could not have asserted earlier that the Applicants' measurements were'in error and that the siten system does not meet-the "10 dB above background" standard.

-r, -

performed by HMM Associates to demonstrate that this third siren is not needed in order to.

Provide notification to any part of the town.

The_ analysis concluded that the two remaining sirens would' produce. noise levels of at least 10 decibels above normal in all areas of Merrimac.

The standard of 10 decibels above normal has been accepted by the NRC and FEMA.

Nevertheless, we now know, from the two HMM letters (attached hereto as Exhibits "A" and "B") submitted with the Applicant's Response of January 22, 1987,' that the analysis HMM submitted to NRC last cummer did not include any background noise measurements. Instead, HMM's conclusion that two sirens in Merrimac would be adequate was:

based in large part upon our judgment that an ambient sound level survey there would reveal backgrout.d noise levels of less that 40 dBC, and thus the siren coverage would comply with FEMA's "10 dB above background" criterion specified in Section 3.c.f. of Appendix 3 of NUREG-0654/ FEMA-REP-1, Rev. 1.

Letter from HMM to James A. Mcdonald, PSNH, dated July 7, 1986, at p. 1 (attached as Exhibit "A").(emphasis supplied). Indeed, HMM stressed in that letter that they "ha(d] made no background noise measurements to confirm i

this [judgnent)." Id. at p. 2. The NRC Senior Resident Inspector, for reasons not explained in his affidavit, accepted HMM's " judgment" / despite the requirements of NUREG-0654 and FEMA-REP-10 that the "10 dB above 3/ One cannot help but wonder how many other-safety requirements were similarly checked by NRC, without regard to the regulatory requirements, by asking Applicants for their

" judgment" whether the requirements were met.

r background" standard can only be met through the submission of properly-taken measurements of the. background sound levels.

Even the standard cited in the Cerne Affidavit to.

demonstrate the acceptability of Applicants' siren system is inaccurate. The standard is-not 10 decibels above normal as-cited, Cerne affidavit at 16, but 10 dB (or more) above "the average measured summer daytime. ambient sound pressure 3

levels." FEMA-REP-10, SE.6.2.1. at p. E-8 (emphasis supplied). Therefore, the standard itself requires that measurements be taken.

' In summary, the Attorney General has good cause for failing to file this contention, with this revised basis, at an earlier point in these proceedings. The motion to reopen the record.is

" timely" for the same reasons.

l II. Other Standards For Late-Filed Contentions And Motions To Reopen The Record Are Met The Attorney General has raised an exceptionally grave safety issue: portions of the populated areas of Merrimac will not receive early notification of an emergency at Seabrook.

i Through the testimony of the Attorney General's acoustics experts from Cavanaugh Tocci Associates, the Attorney General's participation may reasonably be expected to assist in developing a sound record. See 10 C.F.R. 52.714(a)(1)(iii).

i  !

The substance of their testimony is contained in Mr. Koning's  ;

~ .- . , .-

affidavit attached hereto. 1The proceedings will be broadened and delayed minimally,-see 10 C.F.R. 52.714(a)(1)(v), but for.

good and important safety reasons.- A short discovery period:

and a one-day hearing is all that would be' required to resolve-this contention. The filing of' proposed findings and conclusions could occur within two weeks thereafter. Indeed,-

the Attorny General still maintains that this. contention could easily be. resolved by summary disposition even_with this revised basis.

Given that the low-power license-is currently being stayed by the Commission, a reopening of the record at this time should not result in any undue delay in issuance of a low-power license decision. Moreover, even' a short delay in low power operation will not affect the commencement of full power operation, if any, since issuance of a full-power operating license is at least one year away. Furthermore, a reopening of the record is required in order to ensure the correction of.a previously unrecognized serious safety flaw that the NRC' staff has not addressed in exercising its safety oversight .

responsibilities. For these reasons, and.for the reasons stated in the Attorney General's previous motion of January 12, the-motion to reopen the record meets all the. requirements of 10 C.F.R. S2.734(a)(1).- Therefore, the Board should reconsider its Order of February 6,-1987_and admit the Attorney General's contention with-its revised basis. ,

I i

l l

l

Respectfully submitted, JAMES.M.-SHANNON ATTORNEY GENERAL hi e d ' '5 . .'5M . tt t ., ,

Carol S. Sneider

. Donald S. Bronstein Assistant Attorneys-General-Environmental Protection Division One Ashburton Place, Rm. 1902 Boston, Massachusetts 02108 617-727-2265 DATED: March 3, 1987 4

- i.

r 7 m a_

hm '

s maar asena ossesse,asa pmsn une eu no e m e HMN Ref. No. 379 July 7,1984 Mr. James A. Mcdonald Radiological Assessment Manager  ;

PSMH - Seabrook Station P.O. Box 300 Seabrook, NH 03874 SUSJECT: Seabrook Station Alert and Notification System Analysis of Coversee without Siren MM-3 Osar Mr. Mcdonald:

As directed by Mr. James Robinson, HMM Associates has undertaken a brief analysis of the adequacy-of-coverage of the Seabrook Alert and Notification System in the event that the Merrisac Siren NN-3 cannot be installed as planned. Our analysis suggests that, even with fiiren MM-3 reesved the Seabrook stren system would still satisfy the guide 1Ines of Section C.3.f of Appendix 3 of NUREG-0654/ FEMA-REP-1, Rev. 1.

A draft copy of a reviced siren system coverage esp, without l Siren MM-3's contribution, is enclosed.

The deletion of Siren MM-3 would result in a reduction in the design siren sound coverage throughout such of northern and central Merrimac, MA, and portions of Amesbury, MA and Newton and South Hampton, MN. West of this area will still be covered l by a stren sound level of at least de dBC, osintaining l compliance with the FEMA criterien specified in Section C.3.e of Appendix 3 of NUREG-OdS4/ FEMA-REP-1, Rev.1. In several small areas, however, the design siren sound coverage will be i reduced beloe 60 deC, to between 50 and 60 deC3 less then a  ;

total of one-quarter of a square mile will be so affected. Our '

conclusion that adequate siren coverage will be maintained  !

throughout these areas is based in large part upon our judgeant i that en ambient sound level survey there would reveal I background noise levels of less than 40 #C, and thus the siren l coverage would comply with FEMA's "10 dB ebove background" criterion specified in Section 3.c.f of Appendix 3 of NUREG-0454/FCMA-REP-1, Rev. 1. l 1

e 4 l l

I I

i

_2 l

Although not densely populated, people do live within the areas 1 where siren coverage will be reduced to between 50 and 40 OSC.

Examination of USGS topographical . maps of these areas shows houses located along Bear Hill Road in Merrimac, MA; along Amesbury Road in Newton, NH; and along the shores of Tuxbury Pond in South Hampton, NM and Amesbury, MA. Hence, FEMA would not consider siren coverage to be adequate unless it can be shown that the sound levels of the siren tone in these areas exceed the esisting background level by 10 d5 or more; FEMA normally requires ambient noise level measurements for this purpose. Again, it is our judgment that the ambient noise levels in these areas would be found to be sufficiently low that the "10 de above background' criterion can be me:.;

however, we have made no background noise measurements to confirm this.

Should you decide to submit a formal amendment to the FEMA-REP-10 report documenting the deletion of Siren NN-3, we recommend that background measurements be made in those areas where coverage has been reduced to between 50 and 40 dSC. Such measurements would take about one day to complete. Please let ,

us know if you want us to proceed with an ambient noise level survey in these areas.

Very truly yours, Robert S. Serens R$8:160 0501w cc: John Robinson John GeVincentis i

. , . , . - , ~ , - - . - , , -,w ,,=-- - -

,-,.---.----,,-,.-.-,..-,,--,-.v.--., ~ . , . , . - . , - - , - - - , - - . .

r ,

f1rl hm

,es. -

ggggg M ester Avenue Ceness beneamenwooete 01742 t 3 atn 371.ient i

HMM Ref. No. 979/3378f i

January 20, 1987 1 Mr. James A. MacDonald New Hampshire Yankee Seabrook Station P.O. Box 300

, Seabrook, New Hampshire 03874 RE: Background Noise Measurements in Merrimac, Massachusetts

Dear Mr. MacDonald:

As indicated in our letter to you of July 7,1984, most of the town of Merrienc, Massachusetts is covered by a siren design sound level of 60 dBC or more from the existing two sirens in that town or from sirens in adjacent communities. A siren design coverage of 60 d8C or more is considered acceptable for lightly-populated areas such as Merrimac under Section C, 3, e of Appendix 3 of NUREG-0654/ FEMA REP-1, Revision 1.

There are, however, five small areas in Merrimac where the airen ,

design sound level coverage is between 50 and 60 dec. Two of i these areas are unpopulated and appear inaccessible by road. '

The other three areas contain residences. These are along a portion of Bear Hill Road part of Merrimacport, and in Merriesc i

Terrace. On January 19,1987, HMM conducted background noise esasurements in these populated areas.

The background noise esasurements were conducted in accordance I 1

with Section C, 3, f of Appendix 3 of NUREG-0654 and with FEMA REP-10/ FEMA-43. Data were observed continuously for a period of 30 minutes at each location in the standard 1000 Hz octave band and were subject to a statistical analysis. The L90 levels (i.e., the levels exceeded 90 percent of the time during the measurement period at each location) are reported belos:

Location LFO Bear Hill Road 26 dB Merrimacport 40 dB Merrimac Terrace (no.) 34 og l Merrimac Terrace (so.) 34 dB e k

-2 These measured levels are all 40 $ or less. Hence, a siren design sound level of 50 dBC or more provides adequate coveraSe in these. areas, in accordance with Section C, 3,-f of Appendix 3 of NUREG-0654/ FEMA REP-1.

Yours trulyf f yDavidN.Kaast v DNK/jf I

i 1

1 I

b ,

UNITED' STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION Before The ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD In The Matter of )

)

PUBLIC SERVICE COMPANY OF ) Docket Nos. 50-443-OL-1 NEW HAMPSHIRE, et al ) 50-444-OL-1 (Seabrook Station, Units 1 ) (On-Site EP and and 2 ) Safety Issues)

)

AFFIDAVIT OF BRION KONING I, Brion Koning, do depose and say as follows:

1. I am employed as a Staff Consultant with Cavanaugh Tocci Associates,.Inc., Consultants In Acoustics, 327 F Boston Post Road, Sudbury, MA, 01776. I have been' employed by this firm in.my present capacity, and previously as a . sound and i

vibration measurement technician, since March 10, 1979.

During this time I have had extensive experience with the measurement and analysis of environmental sound levels.

2. Cavanaugh Tocci Associates, Inc. has been retained by The Commonwealth of Massachusetts, Department of the Attorney General, to conduct background Lgo sound lever reasurements in the standard 1000 Hz octave band at four specified measurement locations in Merrimac, Massachusetts. On February 11, 1987, I conducted L90 measurements at roadside locations adjacent-the property addressees listed in the j

table below.

3. The measurement instrumentation consisted of a Bruel ti Kjaer Type 2231 modular precision sound level meter outfitted with a Type 4145 one-inch condenser microphone, Type 1624 octave band filter set, .and Type BZ 7101 statistical analysis module, mounted approximately 5 feet above grade atop a Type UA 0801 tripod. A type 4230 sound level calibrator was used to confirm instrumentation calibration immediately prior to,

. and following environmental sound level measurements. The statistical analysis module provides the system capability to automatically display octave band L99 levels, thereby eliminating any manual calculation methods. The I

l instrumentation and measurement procedures - comply with current American National Standards Institute (ANSI) standard Sl.4 for Type 1 Precision Sound Measurement Instrumentation.

l u el l C 1

t

, .- -l 6

Affidavit'of Brion Koning Page 2 of 3 1

1

4. While sound measurements were being conducted, measured I temperatures ranged from 34 -

36 , and estimated wind velocities ranged-from 0-10, mph occasionally gusting to 15 mph, with the exception of Location #4 where winds ranged from 5-15 mph with gusts to 25 mph. It is important to note that' observed wind activity was intermittent, often exhibiting lulls between breezes. It is estimated, to a high i level of confidence,.that audible wind activity occurred-less than 90% of the time, thereby rendering the measured Lgo sound levels representative of background levels occuring on less windy days.

5. Appendix 3, Section (C3a) of NUREG-0654 indicates that'large sirens emit sound energy in "... a predominately narrow band 300 to 800 Hz..." Section (C3f) states: " Background dB should be determined in a band about the siren signal frequency. Inclusion of background noise energy from'outside i

this band could be misleading." Although Section (C3f) does not specify the band band width (octave, 1/3 octave, 1/10 octave, etc.), it clearly indicates that background measurements should be conducted in a band that includes the siren signal frequency.

The standard 1000 Hz octave band (specified for - these

, measurements) encompasses a frequency band width of 708 Hz to 1410 Hz. I have been advised that the siren design report submitted for the warning sirens subsequently installed in the Merrimac area, indicates design sound energy was to be generated at a fundamental frequency of 700 Hz. Furthermore, i

Ifrequency have also been advised that the actual fundamental of warning sirens installed in the Merrimac area is 680 Hz. Therefore, assuming band width of one octava to be sufficient, it may be more appropriate to measure background i

noise in the standard 500 Hz octave band (band width 355 Hz to 708 Hz) in connection with audibility studies for these

, sirens.

4 In addition, generally measured octave band background

environmental sound levels are characterized by sound pressure levels at lower frequency bands that are roughly 3  !

decibels higher than adjacent higher frequency bands. j Specifically, this 3 dB per octave " slope" indicates that _;

background sovnd levels in the 500 Hz, octave band are most i i often roughly 3 dB higher than the adjacent 1000 Hz octave i band. Accordingly, L9o (5 min.) measurements in the 500 Hz band were conducted to augment the specified L90 (30 min. )

measurements int eh 1000 Hz band. The measurement data

, indicates that background sound level in the 500 Hz octave band (encompassing the siren fundamental frequency) were i higher than measured 1000 Hz octave band levels by 3 dB or i more. I

Affidavit of Brion Koning Page-3 of 3

6. The measurement locations, octave band levels,.and time intervals are as follows:

Time Interval-Location ikHz L90(30 min.) 500 Hz L90(5 min.) (approx.)

1. 1 21 Pleasant St. 41 dB 46 dB -ll:55am-12:30pm

1. 2 25 Merrimac St. 39 dB 42 dB 12:35am-1:15pm

1. 3 4 River Rd. 34 dB 40 dB 1:20pm-1:55pm

1. 4 64 Bear Hill Rd. 41 dB 47 dB ll:10am-ll:50ar Signed under the penalties of perjury this 12th day of February, 1987.

/s/ d .

F Brion Koning t

6 9

t I

I

e UAITED STATES OF' AMERICA NUCT, EAR REGULATORY COMMISSION BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD In the Matter of ) _

) Docket Mos. 50-443 OL-01 PUBLIC FERVICE COMPANY OF ) 50-444 OL-01 net' HAMPSHIRE, et al.

~~

) On-site Emergency Planning

) and Safety Issues (Seabrook Station, Units 1 and 2 )

AFFIDAVIT OF ANTONE C. CERNE

1. I am the NRC Senior Resident inspector for the Seabrook ,

fccility. I have been a resident inspector at Seabrook for 6 years. Prior to joining the NRC in 1978, I was involved with heavy construction and i project management and inspection with the United States Army Corps of Engineers. I hold a Masters Degree in Nuclear Engineering from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. l

2. The purpose of this affidavit is to address the issue of the operability of emergency alert and notification sirens in the town of Merrimac, Massachusetts.

3. The question of the operability of alert and nctification sirens for Seabrook first came to my attention in the spring cf 1986 as a result, of an inspection item raised during the NRC Region I Office's emergency preparedness implementation appraisal of Seabrook conducted at that time.

As a result, T met with Seabrook personnel on a number of occasions ts */

4 o

during the summer of 1986 to diserss, among other things, the operability of the sirens in P!errimac.

i

4. The licensee had originally intended to- have three sirens cover the town of P.!errimac. Licensee personnel have informed me that because  !

of problems in hooking up to the electrical grid, the licensee was rel3dng upen hatteries to power two of the sirens in ' Merrimac. I was also informed that the br.tteries will be replaced every two weeks to assure a  !

Wennuous power supply for the sirens.

L As part of my review of the licensee's preoperaticnal testing progrm for Seabrook, I have reviewed copies of test reports that indicated that the two sirens in Merrimac have been tested and are i

operable. I have also reviewed the licensee's schedule for future testing - l to assure the continued operability of the sirens; the sirens at Pferrimac viill be tested every two weeks to assure that they remain operable.

The Staff Ands this cchedule to be acceptable.

6. During the meetings last summer, the licensee indicated that l they were encountering difficulties in installing the planned third siren in Merrhaac. The licensee at that time submitted an analysis performed by  ;

I HMM Associates to demonstrate that this third siren is not needed in order to provide notification to any part of the town. The analysis concluded that the two remaining sirens would produce noise levels of at least 10 decibels above normal in all areas of Merrimac. The standard of 10 decibels above normal has been accepted by the NRC. and FEMA. The l

/ i l

l '

I l

. .