ML20246E525
| ML20246E525 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Seabrook  |
| Issue date: | 08/21/1989 |
| From: | George Minor, Sholly S MASSACHUSETTS, COMMONWEALTH OF, MHB TECHNICAL ASSOCIATES |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20246E416 | List: |
| References | |
| OL, NUDOCS 8908290162 | |
| Download: ML20246E525 (9) | |
Text
-
21 August 1989 UNITI:.D STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION BEFORE 'ITIE COMMISSION In the matter of PUBIlC SERVICE COMPANY OF NEW HAMPSHIRE, et al.
Docket Nos. 54443-OL i
54444-OL (Seabrook Station, Units 1 and 2)
(Emergency Planning Issues)
JOINT AFFIDAVIT OF GREGORY C. MINOR AND STEVEN C SHOLLY REGARDING APPLICANTS' 10 CFR 50, APPENDIX E, SECTION IF.F.1, EXEMPTION REQUESTTO DEFER CONDUCT OF AN EXERCISE OF THE ONSITE EMFRGENCY PLAN FOR SPABROOK STATION I, Gregory C Minor, do make oath and say:
1.
My name is Gregory C. Minor.
I am a Vice President of MHB Technical Associates. My business address is 1723 Hamilton Avenue, Suite K, San Jose, California 95125. I received a B.S. in Electrical Engineering from the University of California, Berkeley, in 1960 and a M.S. in Efectrical Engineering from Stanford University in 1966.
2.
I have over twenty-five years of experience in the design, development, research, start-up testing, and management of nuclear reactor systems. From 1%0-1976, I worked for General Electric Company in the design, development, and testing of safety and control systems for nuclear plants. As part of these activities, I was responsible for system check out and
{
$gp2JD
{
0 G
u______---_--
l l
preparation of pre-operational test procedures for a nuclear research reactor. My responsibilit included equipment and systems design, as well as management of a large engineerin responsible for new control room design. These new designs required the detailed evaluation of I
the technical and ergonometric factors necessary to ensure that operations data presented to e
operators would provide them with the information necessary to make the proper decisions for safe operation.
3.
For the past thirteen years, I have been a independent technical consultant. In that capacity, I have participated in a variety of studies addressing nuclear facility economic, management, and safety issues for various organizations, including the Department of Energy /Sandia National laboratories, the Swedish Government, and the offices of several states' Attorneys General. I am currently a consultant on several nuclear plant cases in which design, management, and compliance with existing regulations are being investigated.
4 I am a member of the Nuclear Power Plant Standards Committee for the Instrument Society of America. Also, I participated in a Peer Review Group of the Nuclear Regulatory Comminion's Three Mile Island Special Inquiry Group. Further details of my quali6 cations and professional experience are anmmarized in my Rmament of Prof **=6n=1 O= Mentions. which is appended to this affidavit as Attachment 1.
I, Steven C. Sholly, do make oath and say:
5.
My name is Steven C. Sholly. Since September 1985, I have been employed as an Associate Consultamt by MHB Technical Associates,1723 Hamilton Avenue, Suite K San Jose, California 95125. I have previously been employed by the Union of Concerned Scientists as a Technical Research Associate and Risk Analyst from February 1981 to September 1985, and by the Three Mile Island Public Interest Resource Center as a Research Coordinator and Project
~ -.
,b q
. Director from January-1980 to January 1981.
I also have non nuclear experience in the wastewater treatment and science education fields from September 1975 to January 1980. I received a B.S. in Education, with a major in Earth and Space Science and a minor in Environmental Education, from Shippensburg State College.(now Shippensburg University),
i i
Shippensburg, Pennsylvania, in 1975.
1.
6.
For the lav a'ne and a half years, I have been engaged in analyzing technical-nuclear safety (includig neergency planning), design, construction, and regulatory issues, and providing technical advice to state and local governments (including the States of California, New York, Elinois, Pennsylvania, Maryland, Maine, Connecticut, and Massachusetts, and Suffolk -
County, New York) and independent orgamzations on these issues. I have presented expert-testimony concerning these issues in a number of state jurisdictions, as well as before the Atomic
' Safety and Ucensing Board in the Indian Point Special Investigation and the Catawba operating license review. I have also presented expert testimony before the United States' Congress and -
before the Sizewell Inquiry (United Kingdom). I have previously served as principal investigator i-for. monitoring of startup testing and low power operations for the Shorsham Nuclear Power Station for the New York Consumer Protection Board. Further details of my experience and quali6 cations are contained in my Statement of Profaaeinnal Oumhtinnt which is appended to this affidavit as Alias:bananG.
i DISCUSMQN 7.
Counsel for the applicants filed with the Commission on 11 August 1989 an j
application for an exemption from the requirement of 10 CFR 50, Appendix E, Section IV.F.1, to conduct an exercise of the onsite emergency plans within one year before issuance of a full-power operating license. MHB Technical Associates has been retained by the Office of the Attorney General, Commonwealth of Massachusetts, to assist in a review of the low power testing program
.t
i for Seabrook Station, Unit 1. Seabrook Unit I received a license from the NRC pe conduct of testing and operations at up to 5% of full power (License No. NPF-67)'o 1989, ~ As part of our activities under this engagement, MHB has been requested to revie evaluate the exemption request described above. We have completed this review, t.nd findings are set forth below.
8.
The applicants' exemption request fails to address a critically importa t factor -
which, when considered, casts substantial doubt on the validity of the Applicant's argu favor ofits Application.
1 9.
Neither the Brown affidavit nor the Applicant's Application for Exenrption even mention the events of 22 June 1989, during which - in the presence of three NRC e (including the Deputy Regional Administrator) - the Applicants' operations team (in licensed operators and senior management) failed to take action to manually scrant the i when a test condition was exceeded during a natural circulation test (! ST 22).1/
10.
Moreover, it should be noted that the Applicants' low-power operating license remains effectively suspended as a result of this incident. Seabrook Unit 1 may not be res absent the permission of the Regional Administrator. The fact that this suspenylon results s
an operating incident in which the Applicants' personnel failed to comply with the very t
I the process of emergency response (i.e., manually tripping the reactor when the telt criteria w known to have been exceeded) - and this in the first test of the Applicant's personnel under re
{
1/
In addition to the operations crew, there were six management personnel, fifteen ope on shift, sixteen more operators acting as observers as a formal ~part of their training),
and one representative from SAT were p/QC pers(onnel training department personnel, three QA resent during this test.
Rememr, Tris andYankee Mannement Effectiveness Analysis Renore Natural Tollowun Actiont at 5, Enclosure 4 to NYN-89086, letter dated 12 July j
1989 from 3dward A. Brown (President and Chief Executive Officer, New Hampshire Yankee) to William T. Russell (Regional Administrator, b7C Region I).
i I
4-
conditions, rather than an exercise -- cannot by any stretch of logic be interpreted adequate confidence that the Applicants' emergency response process is adequate. In Applicants have acknowledged that substantial revisions of adm!nistrative control personnel, and other similar actions are required as a result of the events of 22 June 1989.
Applicants cannot have it both ways - they cannot both not need an ERO exercise due to past "aperience", and at the same time proceed to make significant changes in their ap operations as a result of the shortcomings revealed by the actual experience of 22 June 1989.
In addition to circumstances discued above which the applicants' exemption 11.
request simply ignored, the Applicant's Exemption Application attempts to cast the most favorable light on othe.r circumstances which, when properly considered, similarly cast do the validity of the exemption request.
12.
The applicants' exemption request notes that the Commiulon has distinguished between onsite and offsite exercises by acknowledging that requiring onsite exercise of full-power licensing *is a recognition of the dhtinct nature of the participants involved in each instance"(52 FR 16823,16825,6 May 1987). Thus, the Commission recognized that onsit are not in the same category as offsite plans. The applicants' request asserts that the situation at Seabrook is "strikirtsfy different" from the " general nde" cited by the Commission, stating tha "largeproportion~ of the Seabrook ERO members have *panicipated in one or more aercises", an further stating, *All the key positions in the Seabrook ERO continue to be staffed by persons w participated in the June 1988 gradui exerche or a prior aerche."
(Applicants
- Exemption Application, at 11) In contrast, our review of Mr. Brown's affidavit (which is attached to the Applicants' Exernption Application, and which purports to provide the basis for the Application) indicates the following: - - - - - - - - -
g-V
~ CONTROL' ROOM _
Four of the' eight candidates for "Short Term Emergency
- a. -
Directors" have not participated in any exercises at Seabrook,
.and only one of the eight candidates participated in the 1988.
exercise.
TECHNICAL SUPPORT CERTER b.
Of the total of 22 candidates for ERO positions in the
' Technical Support Center, only 9 have anticipated in an ERO
- exercise in their current posinon, and 3 have not participated in an ERO exercise in any position.
Onl
' participated in some role in the 1988 exercise. y 10 of the 22 EMERGENCY OPERNITONS FAr1T ITY.
- Of the 12 candidates for key positions in the EOF,3 have not c.
participated in any ERO exercise, and 5 have not participated 1
in an ERO exercise in their current ERO position. Only 5 of the 12: candidates panicipated in some role in the 1988 exercise.
OPERATIONS SUPPORT c'RNTER d.
Of the 11 candidates for key positions in the OSC,4 have not participated in any ERO exercise, and 5 have not participated in an ERO exercise in their current ERO position. ' Only 4 of the 1,1 candidates participated in some role in the 1988 exercise.
OVERALL Although the above candidates average 3.08 years experience e.
in their current ERO position, more than half (25 of the 49 have not participated an an ERO exercise in their curren)t position, and more than a quaner (14 of the 49) hen 40%
have not partkipated in an ERO exercise in any role. Less t (19 of the 49) participated in the 1988 exercise.
f.
Ia addition, only about half of the 500 members the overall ERO o on have participated in any of the three ERO exercise held to date.
13.
Moreover, both Mr. Brown's affidavit and the Applicant's Application fail to take note of the significant changes in the management structure of Public Service Company of New Hampshire (PSNH), New Hampshire Yankee (NHY), and, to a lesser extent, at Yankee Atomic Electric Company (YAEC), which have occurred since the events of 22 June 1989. It can scarcely
O.
be asserted that management personnel who have assumed new roles in the interim do not need
' the practical benefit of an exercise of the onsite plans to provide the requisite assurance of the adequacy of their skills in handling potendal radiological emergencies.
14.
'Ihus, contrary to the Applicant's asserdons, the situation at Seabrook is far closer to a new plant than it is to one which has held an operating license for three years. The ERO staff is not " highly experienced" as asserted by the Applicants. In the " key" decision making positions in ERO organization, more than half have not pardcipated in an ERO exercise in their current positions, and more than one-quarter have not participated in any ERO exercise at all.
Accordingly, the Applicant's assertion that an exercise of the onsite plans is of " marginal utilty" i without merit. There remains substantial Asti5 cation to hold another onsite exercise "that the licensee's new personnel are adequately and promptly tmined and that exhting licensee personnel maintain their emergency response cqpability" (52 FR 16823,16824 25, 6 May 1987).
15.
The applicant's conclude that granting the requested exemption will not present an undue risk to the public health and safety. There is no basis for confidence in this conclusion given the performance of the applicants's personnel during the events of 22 June 1989.
16.
In tddition to th's circumstance, the Applicants' Exemption Application fails to explain that one of its fundamental premises is based entirely on speculation. The Applicants state, "ShonM he ASLB conclude that reasonable assumnce exists with respect to the emergencyplan t
for the Massachusetts portion of the EPZ and the 1988 graded exerche, a full power licerue s!umld issue promptly therraper.
Dgn both an onsite and offsite exercise will have been succeufully conducted within about seventeen to eighteen months of full power operanon."
(Applicants' Exemption Application, at 9; emphasis added) The outcome of the ASLB's decision is not a foregone conclusion, nor can it be assumed that the NRC staff will issue an operating license as soon as the ASLB decision, should it be favorable to the applicants, be rendered. Consequently, L
the above assumptions are not " facts" as stated by the Applicants, and there is no assurance that the extension of the period between the most recent onsite exercise and the issuance of the operating license will be limited to a "fve to sir month" period as asserted by the Applicants.
16.
Signed under the pains and penalties of perjury this 21st day of August 1989.
W Gregory C'Mmo(
37 s
e.e sbar
-8
~~~-'7--------------______.____..-----.-__
.f:
t
- : T.1,1.y i
EXHIBIT L
.