ML20236N085

Answer to 760621 Interrogatories.Affidavits of B Siegel, R Hofmann,J Sears,J Delaney,D Allison,C Stepp,M Parsont, M Fliegel,K Murphy & M Goldman & Certificate of Svc Encl

ML20236N085
Person / Time
Site:	Diablo Canyon
Issue date:	07/08/1976
From:	Davis L NRC OFFICE OF THE EXECUTIVE LEGAL DIRECTOR (OELD)
To:	AFFILIATION NOT ASSIGNED, SAN LUIS OBISPO MOTHERS FOR PEACE
Shared Package
ML20236J368	List: IA-87-214, Discusses ACRS 92nd Meeting on 671207-09.ACRS Completed Review of PG&E Application for Const of Nuclear Unit at Diablo Canyon Site.Facility Can Be Constructed W/O Risk to Public Health & Safety ML20236J366 ML20236J587 ML20236J622 ML20236J671 ML20236J804 ML20236J841 ML20236J985 ML20236K008 ML20236K057 ML20236K327 ML20236K351 ML20236K384 ML20236K422 ML20236K563 ML20236L228 ML20236L279 ML20236L316 ML20236L364 ML20236L420 ML20236L474 ML20236L565 ML20236L647 ML20236L689 ML20236L706 ML20236L724 ML20236L756 ML20236L787 ML20236L806 ML20236L866 ML20236L901 ML20236L922 ML20236L931 ML20236L986 ML20236M007 ML20236M024 ML20236M065 ML20236M681 ML20236M725 ML20236M744 ML20236M771 ML20236M777 ML20236N015 ML20236N032 ML20236N085 ML20236N115 ML20236N139 ML20236N193 ML20236N208 ML20236N255 ... further results
References
FOIA-87-214 OL, NUDOCS 8708110368
Download: ML20236N085 (42)

Text

{{#Wiki_filter:O /\\ /lb j E'I 'b Ul11TED STATES OF AMERICA p. 3 NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION JUL 121976 > r E BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSillG BOARD ogg,,e; ; 9;.;, 10 ' s.v... 'b In the Matter of p;If m Docket Nos. r>0 [75 O M PACIFIC GAS AND ELECTRIC COMPANY ) ) 50-323 0.L. (Diablo Canyon !!uclear Power Plant, ) Units 'los.1 and 2) ) NRC STAFF RESPONSE TO MFP AND FORSTLR JOINT It1 TERR 0GATORIES In a discovery request dated. June 21, 1976, the San Luis Obispo Mothers for Peace and John J. Forster (Interveners) jointly subiaitted a list of 27 interrogatories to be answered by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission Staff (Staff). Enclosed as attachment A, question by question, are the Staff's responses to the jointly-propounded interrogatories. The affidavits of Byron Siegel, Renner Hofmann, John Sears, Joe Delaney, Dennis Allison, Carl Stepp, Mike Parsont, Myron Fliegel, and Ken Murphy are attached as attachments B through J, respectively, and certify that the responses are true and correct to the best of their knowledge. Respectfully submitted, 00 Gvw L. Dow Davis Counsel for NRC Staff Dated at Bethesda, Maryland this 8th day of July,1976. J 8708110360 870729 PDR FOIA ,CONNOR B7-214 PDR

l ' UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY 5ND LICEf! SING BOARD In the Matter of ) ) PACIFIC GAS AND ELECTRIC C0:1PANY ) Docket Nos. 50-275 0.L. r L ) 50-323 0.L. l (Diablo Canyon Nuclear Power Plant, ) Units Nos. 1 and 2) ) CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE ) I hereby certify that copies of "NRC STAFF RESPONSE TO MFP AND FORSTER ] JOINT INTERROGATORIES", dated July 8,1976 in the above captioned matter, { have been served on the following by deposit in the United States mail, first class or air mail, this 8th day of July,1976: l 1 Elizabeth S. Bowers, Esq. Andrew J. Skaff, Esq. l 1 Atomic Safety and Licensing California Public Utilities Commission l ) Board 5246 State Building U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 350 McAllister Street Washington, D. C. 20555 San Francisco, California 94102 i Mr. Glenn 0. Bright Raye Flening Atomic Safety and Licensing 1746 Chorro Street Board San Luis Obispo, California 93M1 U. S. !!uclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D. C. 20555 Mr. Frederick Eissler Scenic Shoreline Preservation Dr. William E. Martin Conference, Inc. 1 Senior Ecologist 4623 More Mesa Drive Battelle Memorial Institute Santa Barbara, California 93105 Columbus, Ohio 43201 Mrs. Sandra A. Silver Philip A. Crane, Jr., Esq. 5055 Radford Avenue Pacific Gas and Electric Company North Hollywood, California 91607 77 Beale Street San Francisco, California 94106 Mr. Gordon Silver 5055 Radford Avenue Elizabeth Apfelberg North Hollywood, California -91607 1415 Cozadero San Luis Obispo, California 93401 d

William P. Cornwell Atomic Safety and Licensing P. O. Box 453 Appeal Board Morro Bay, California 93442 U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Conmission Washington, D. C. 20555 Paul C. Valentine 400 Channing Avenue. Atomic Safety and Licensing Palo Alto, California 94301 Board Panel U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Yale I. Jones, Esq. Washington, D. C. 20555 100' Van Mess Avenue ~ Docketing and Service Section 19th Floor San Francisco, California 94102 Office of the Secretary of the. Commission U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Contmission Washington, D. C. . 20555 O %, I'\\Lw &:- w - 1 L. Dow Davis Counsel for l'RC Staff l t e

ATTACHMENT A Interrogatory No. 1 l Please list and identify all meltdowns and partial meltdowns which have occurred in nuclear reactors of any type or size, experimental or not, whether in t!RC, ERDA, AEC, or other files. l 4 l l Interrogatory No. 2 i Please list and identify all incidents of fuel-rod melting which have occurred in nuclear reactors,of any type or size, experimental or not, whether in flRC, ERDA, AEC, or other files, j I Response to Interrogatories 1 and 2 1 The NRC Staff contacted the fluclear Safety Information Center (NSIC) at Oak Ridge, Tennessee to obtain the information requested. IISIC has iden-tified 176 listings that are categorized under the subject " fuel melting". A copy of the printout is enclosed as Attachment K. If duplicate listings (e.g., numerous listings for the Enrico Fermi Reactor incident), which l cover different aspects of the same event, are eliminated, there are 25 events in which partial core meltdown or fuel rod melting has occurred. As indicated by the double check on the left-hand side of the printout, there were 10 events that could be classified as partial core meltdown. The remainder of the events, indicated by a single check, are events in 4

2. '

which single fuel rod or ' fuel element melting has occurred, and some of l these were intentional destructive tests in test reactors. It is important to note that no incidents of core meltdown or fuel rod melting in commercial light water reactors (LNR's) appear in the listings. We are not aware of any commercial LWR events in which melting has occurred. Interrogatory flo. 3 Indicate what you know about,the existence of a geological uplift analogous i to the "Palmdale Bulge" of. Southern California, A. In the neighborhood of the Hosgri-San Simeon Fault Zone B. In the neighborhood of the San Andreas Fault where that fault approaches the proximity of Diablo Canyon.

Response

A. To the Staff's knowledge, there is no known phenomenon sirailar to the Palmdale Bulge in the vicinity of the Hosgri and/or San Simeon Fault Zones. B. To the Staff's knowledge, there is no known phenomenon similar to the Palmdale Bulge in the vicinity of the San Andreas fault at its nearest approach to Diablo Canyon.

-3 Interrogatory No. 4 List and specifically identify all reports, studies, letters, memos, l drafts, and documents pertaining to nuclear reactor and nuclear fuel { l cycle-related sabotage and terrorism, which have been performed by or for NRC/ERDA/AEC. Interrogatory No. 5 Answer question no. 4 for the case of studies A. In progress B. Projected for the future,. 1 Response to Interrogatories 4 and 5 Enclosed as Attachment L, is a list of documents and studies pertaining to nuclear reactor and nuclear fuel cycle-related safeguards which have been performed for.NRC. Studies projected for the future have not as yet received full and budgetary approval and thus are not available. Interrogatory No. 6 List and identify by date, place, and nature, all acts and attempted acts of sabotage or terrorism involving or related to A. Nuclear reactors B. Nuclear industry excluding reactors. S I

) , l R_esponse Enclosed as Attachment M, is a listing of all threats to all nuclear facilities which were reported to the NRC. Interrogatory No. 7 Please identify by date and brief description all borb threats involving the Diablo Canyon project of which the NRC is aware. i

Response

See Response to Interrogatory No, 6 above. i Interrogatory No. 8 List and identify all NRC/ERDA/AEC documents relating to criticality studies of nuclear reactor. fuel.

Response

The NRC has identified over 2,000 criticalit, studies since the advent of the nuclear program. Enclosed as Attachment N, is a partial listing of studies in addition to the ones already furnished as part of informal discovery. Interrogatory No. 9 Identify those portions, if any, of the Hosgri Fault Zone which have been dated radiometrically.

o - 5.

Response

To the Staff's knowledge, no portions of the Hosgri fault zone have been dated radioiretrically. In_terroaatory No.10 J With respect to the NRC licensing effort' for Diablo Units 1 and 2, provide the current updated schedule as projected b'y the Staff and including all milestones such as ACRS meeti,ngs and letters, SER supplements, etc.

Response

1 1 The schedule currently projected by the Staff is provided below. It { snould be noted that: (1) The number, duration and dates of ACRS meetings and public hearings are determined by the ACRS and the ASLB, respectively. The dates given below are Staff estimates only, based on standard assump-tions; and (2) With regard to the safety review, the Staff considers the " schedule given below to be the earliest one that could be met, and thus, it may be subject to slippage, depending primarily on the degree of dif-ficulty encountered in completing and reviewing the seismic re-evaluation. Projected Schedule July 16, 1976 Submittal of proposed ground response spectra and justifications. July 26, 1976 Submittal of results cf seismic re-evaluation. August 13, 1976 SER Supplement concerning. seismic re-evaluation. August 1976 ACRS Subcontnittee rheeting concerning seismic re-evalua l. ion. e ._.__m_____. m _.a

o l I l ) August 1976 Environmental hearings. l September 10, 1976 ACRS full committee meeting concerning seismic re-evaluation. i September 24, 1976 ACRS lettar. l October 8, 1976 SER supplement concerning resolution of any items I which were not previously resolved, addressing ACRS comments and updating various topics as necessary. November 8,1976 Begin safety hearings l January 8,1977 Conclude safety hearings.. 3 March 8, 1977 Initial decision by.ASLB. l Interrogatory No.11 Regarding the two seismic design bases, DE/DDE and OBE/SSE, A. Provide the functional relationship between 1. DE and DDE l 2. OBE and SSE 3. DE and OBE 4. DDE and SSE B. Indicate the logical differences between the two systems.

Response

A.l. The Design Earthquake represented the maximum ground motion likely to be experienced at the Diablo Canyon site during the useful life of the fac ility. It represented 1/2 the DDE used for the Units at Diablo Canyon. ____________.__.________.__s

-1 1 1 l A.2. The Operating Basis Earthquake (0BE) is defined in Appendix A to -l l 10 CFR Part 100 " Seismic and Geologic Siting Criteria for Nuclear Power 1 Plants", Usually, the OBE is taken to be one half the value_ of the SSE. 1 A.3. The DE is an earlier terminology used for the OBE. A.4. The DDE is an earlier terminology used for the Safe Shutdown Earthquake (SSE). B. T'here are no logical differences between the SSE/OBE and the DDE/DE. 1 l Interrogatory No. 12 1 . Class I structures originally were required to be functional after a DDE, j which was twice the DE, which was the maximum anticipated earthqua'ke. Thus Class I structures were required to withstand twice the anticipated ground acceleration. Now, apparently Class I structures must withstand the SSE which, essentially, is the maximum expected earthquake. Thus it appears that the OBE/SSE system eliminates the safety factor of two required by the DE/DDE system. Comment on the correctness of the above and explain why the safety factor of two has been thrown out.

Response

The DDE is simply a different designation for the SSE. There are no logical differences between the two requirements.

8_. Interrogatory No.13 Does the i;RC have any memoranda or docu'.nents on the O!E and SSE which goes beyond the meager material of 10 CFR 100, Appendix A, which could provide assistance and guidance for Staff, applicants' and the public? If so, list all such documents.

Response

Additional information regarding the OBE and SSE may be found in Reg. Guides 1.60 and 1 ?.1 and in Section 2.5 and 3.7 of the llRC's Standard Review Plans, i Reg. Guide 1.60 is attached as Attachment R and 1.61 as Attachment S. a 4 ~ 9

I i -9~- l 4 ) Interrogatory No.14 Please cite any and all studies, completed or in progress, which address ) f the question of the relation between health defects (somatic and genetic) l and the operation of nuclear utilization, production, or storage facilities. l l l ? 4

Response

-i The Staff intends to present at the environmental hearing as its expert l 1 witness, Dr. Marvin Goldman, director of the Radiological Laboratory.at (l the University of California at Davis, who 'will testify as to the effect j ) of radioactive releases. Professor Goldman cites the following studies which show the relation between health effects (somatic and genetic) and the operation of nuclear facilities, e.g.: A. Biological and environmental effects of low-level radiation. IAEA, 1976. B. Biology of Radiation Carcenogensis 1976. NCRP (National Council'on Radiation Protection) Report #43 and #39. C. Symposium of Tumorigenic and Genetic Effects of Radiation. Stockhcim 1976. D. WASH-1400 Reactor Safety Study Appendix VI. E. National Academy of Science - National Research Council - the "DEIR" Report 1972. F. Ionized Radiation levels and Effects. United Nations 1972. G. International Cominission on Radiological Protection (ICRP), Publication 8, 1968. s a . r

i Interrogatory No. 15 Please cite all documents and studies upon which the NRC bases its position that nuclear facilities do not cause human health defects, if that 'is the NRC position.

Response

Dr. Goldman states that the doses expected from the Diablo Canyon Plant will be sufficiently below're,gulatory limits as imposed by the NRC, that any health impact will be minimal or may not exist at a.11. This is so because of the conservatism built into the NRC's regulatory limits and guides. Dr. Goldman cites the fol' ing regulations for that proposition in addition to the citations listed above in Interrogatory No.14. A. 10 C.F.R. Part 20,10 C.F.R. Part 50, Appendix I. J B. International Committee on Radiation Protection. 4 e \\ 4 0 4 4 6 4 __m eP

J Interrogatory No. 16 Relative to the Diablo 17 x 17 fuel core, indicate which of the following topics have been the subjects of completed required verification programs and NRC Staff reviews: A. DNB tests for non-uniform heat flux B. Fuel assembly flow tests C. Effect of fuel rod bowing on DNB after first fuel cycle D. Anticipated Transients Without Scram

Response

A. The results of the DNB tests' for non-uniform heat flux have been submitted to the NRC Staff. The NRC Staff review is not completed. (Please refer to Supplement Mo. 4 to the SER, Section 4.4). B. The fuel assembly flow test results have been submitted to the NRC Staff and the NRC Staff review is completed. (Please refer to Supplement No. 3 to the SER, Section 4.2.1). C. The information about the effect of fuel rod bowing on DNB after first fuel cycle has been submitted to the NRC Staff and the NRC Staff review is completed. (Please refer to Supplement No. 4 to the SER, Section 4.4). D. Some ATWS information has been submitted to the NRC Staff and this informa-tion has been reviewed. However, the NRC Staff review of this subject is } not complete and additional information has been requested. (Please refer 1 I to Supplement No. 4 to the SER, Section 7.2.5). 9

i -12

• I Interrogatory No.17 Please indicate what Class I systems and equipment have been found by the NRC Staff, without loss of function, capable of withstanding ground i

acceleration of f A. 0.59 B. 0.75g ] ~ 1 l

Response

A. For an acceleration of 0.59 (defined by the "Hosgri" ground response 1 spectrum as proposed by the Applicant), the Staff did not formally complete its review by issuing an SER supplement describing the Staff's conclusions and the bases for the conclusions. However, for practical purposes, the Staff's review of this matter was completed and, based on a review of inferra-tion submitted by the Applicant, a seismic audit conducted last Spring ar.d later discussions with the Applicant, it considers the Diablo Canyon design to be acceptable for an acceleration of 0.59, subject to the completion of the Staff's review of class IE electrical equipment qualification. Accordingly, the Staff presently considers all Class I systems and equipment to be capable of withstanding a ground acceleration of 0.5g without loss of function, subject to review of Class IE electrical equipment qualification. B. The Staff has not yet reviewed the adequacy of any structures or systems to withstand an acceleration of 0.759

l ) Interrogatory No.18 If retrofitting is deemed necessary as a result of seismic re-evaluation, i which specific areas of the facility would, in the Staff's estimation, l require the most substantial work?

Response

The amount of retrofitting to be required in various areas of the Diablo Canyon Plant involves speculation coricorning the res;1ts of analyses which, to the Staff's knowledge, have not yet been done by the Applicant. According-1 I ly, the Staff does not know which specific area; of the facility would j require the most substantial work. l l tievertheless, in the Staff's present estimate, rededgn and/or requalifica-tion of various systems and components within the s-uctures is likely to j require the most substantial work. With regard to structures, the turbine building roof, certain parts of the intake structure and the fuel building i roof may exhibit significant amounts of yielding and thus may be considered as likely candidates for strengthening.

Interrogatory No. 19 Reference PG&E Response of 6-27-75 to John J. Forster Interrog tory No. 29 of set dated 4-13-75. Does the NRC hold that 10 CFR 100, Appendix A applies to Units A. 1 and 27 i P, lease identify the applicable portions of 10 CFR which set fortn B. l seismic and geologic siting criteria for nuclear power plants prior to November 13, 1973, and under.which the orig; il Diablo seismic design basis was established. l DISCOVERY: Please provide Interveners with.a copy of all documents l cited in response to this interrogatory, as well as corresponding regula- ' tory guides.

Response

4 A. Yes i Appendix A to 10 CFR Part 100 does not differentiate seismic and geo-B. logic siting criteria for nuclear power plants prior to November 13, 1973, and therefore it is the Staff's opinion that Part 100 applies to Diablo Canyon. Before the advent of Appendix A to 10 CFR Part 100, the only applicable criteria were general in nature and required that a plant be built taking into consideration earthquakes and other natural phenomena. 9

. 1 1 l t Interrogatory No. 20 The original siesmic design basis was, in part, established by letting the l .DDE be 0.4. Provide the specific basis for arriving at this value. 9 r

Response

The DDE value of.4g was established by doubling the DE of.2g which was based upon the one standard deviation above the mean of accelerations at the site for earthquakes expected from particular faults in the vicinity of the Diablo Canyon site. The faults and expected earthquakes are des-1 cribed in Section 2.5 of the Diablo Canyon FSAR already provided. The one standard deviation acceleration was developed by Dr. John A. Blume in his procedure, SAM-I, described in the 5th World Conference on Earthquake Engineering. Interrogatory No. 21 Reference Table 5.23 of May 1973 FES. Do these bioaccumulation factors make allowance for accumulation in specific cells, tissues, or organs, or, on the other hand, is the whole organism taken to be the volume of dis-tribution for the radionuclides?

Response

The Bioaccumulation Factors (BF) presented in Table 5.23 of the FES apply to edible portions of algae, crustacea, m011uscs and fish. The BF for waterfowl and shorebirds refer to the entire organism.

• m.

-_-____________-._____-____.___s

-16 ~ Interrogatory flo. 22 Reference FES, p. 5-51, par.1. Outline the basis for taking the average radioactivity concentration to be C /100. g

Response

Applicant presented results of a dye dist ersion study in Amendment 2 i (pages 233 and 233A) to the PSAR. This study indicated a centerline-dilution of C /100 at 1/2 mile beyond the outfall. The Staff used g this dilution value as being a conservative estimate of the average ] .I dilution in statistical block 615. l l l Interrogatory No. 23 1 Reference FES, Table 6.2 (Radiological Sampling program). Indicate which l of the sample collections are made entirely free ard independent of pGLE interests or influence. Interrogatory llo. 24 In view of the paucity of details on Radiological Monitoring (Section 6.4) in the FES and its Addendum please indicate how the parties can determine flRC Staff's position. Response to Interrogatories 23 and 24 The ilRC does not impose any restrictions on the Applicant with regard to who performs sample collections. Thus, either the Applicant's employees 9

---

____.________mmm

.i 1 J i 1 -l'7 - or its agents could legally collect radiological. sampling. However, the ) Commission will require that the Applicant's Radiological Environmental Monitoring Program confo,rm to the program rec. mmended in Regulatory Guide j o 4.8, " Environmental Technical Specifications for tiuclear Power Plants" (issued for contnent December 1975) as it relates to the Diablo Canyon site. A copy of Reg. Guide 4.8 is enclosed as Attachment 0 to this response. ) Interrogatory tio. 25 l Explain why the fuel cask drop (Class 7.3) of Table 7.2, FES, is "not I applicable" to a consideration of radiological consequences of postulated j accidents.

Response

l A fuel cask drop accident is not considered in the' realistic accident assessment appearing in environmental statements if it is concluded that upon crane failure a cask could not drop more than 30 feet (a cask is designed to withstand a drop from 30 feet onto,n unyielding surface). i Since the cask, when attached to the crane, does not have a vertical j clearance of more than 30 feet between it and objects below it, a drop 'of greater than 30 feet would not be possible for cask handling at Diablo Canyon, thus the accident was considered "not applicable". 9

i . l j interrogatory No. 26 Reference third line, p. 7-10 FES. Describe, with specificity, the 3000-i mile route referred to. i 1 l i Response _ 1 The calculation of population dose from transportation of irradiated fuel l may be estimated from a generic study " Environmental Survey of Transportation i of Radioactive Materials To and From Nuclear Power Plant + There is no specifically definable route which can be descrit, J for this Generic Study. $/ USAEC Directorate of Regulatory Standards, December 1972. O

. Interrogatory No. 27 In view of the limited amount of thermal plume modeling performed, indicate how the parties are expected to develop a position as to the proposed delta T of 22*F or 25 F. l Response _ The Addendum to the Final Environmental Statement contains the Staff's conci.sion regarding the expscted behavior and characteristics of the thermal plume. The evaluation was based on information~ obtained by the l Applicant using a physical model of the coastal region and reported in Supplements 7 and 8 to the Environmental Report. Since the model tests i were conducted primarily at delta T's of 19 F and 20 F, the conclusions described in the Addendum apply only to those conditions. At present, the Staff cannot predict plume characteristics for delta T's of 22 F or 25 F, and, therefore, we Jiave not developed a position with regard to these delta T's. If, however, the applicant provides us with information or analysis relevant to the higher delta T's, we will evaluate that material. We may then be able to predict plume behavior for the higher delta T's. Enclosed as Attachments P and Q, are the following documents: A. " Evaluation of the Use of Seismic Sc' ram Systems for Power Reactors

• F.J. Tokorz, et al., UCRL 51619, July 19,1974.

B. WASH-1311 USAEC, May 1971, "A Ccupilation of 0 occupational Radiati. Exposure from Light Water Cooled Nuclear Power Plants: 1969-1973".

"TACHMEllT B UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COM'41SSION BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICEt1SItiG $0ARD In the Matter of PACIFIC GAS AND ELECTRIC COMPAl4Y ) Docket flos. 50-275 0.L. ) 50-323 0.L. (Diablo Canyon fluclear Power Plant, ) UnitsNos.1and2) ) AFFIDAVITOFBYRbNSIEGEL ~ ? Byron Siegel deposes and says under oath as follows: ~ 1. I am a nuclear engineer attached to the Reactor Fuels Section of the Core Performance Branch of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. For l the past 3 years I have evaluated fuels for light water reactors. I have prepared the Staff responses to Intervener's questions 1 and 2. 2. I certify that these answers are true and accurate to the best of my knowledge. Un 'fd Byfon Siegel/ Subscribed and sworn to before me.this & day of July,1976.

O h E L % N n~.w)

Notary 4Public My Commission Expires _ _L,\\iCT9 \\ 3 O J

1 'TACHMENT C I UNITED STATES OF AMERICA I NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION ) BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BdARD l i In the Matter of ) PACIFIC GAS AND ELECTRIC COMPANY' Docket Nos. 50-275 0.L. ) 50-323 0.L. . (Diablo Canyon Nuclear Power Plant, ) j Units Nos. 1 and 2) ) AFFIDAVIT OF RENNER H0FliANN I Renner Hoffman deposes and says under oath as follows: i l l 1. I am a seismologist attached to the Geology and Seismology Branch, Division of Site Safety and Environmental Analysis of the Nuclear i Regulatory Commission. For the past 2 years I have been reviewing the seismological aspects of the Diablo Canyon Operating License I Application. ) 2. I have prepared the responses to questions 3 and 9. I certify that these answers are true and accurate to the best of my knowledge. ,) ./ 7 I' p :';.....+ / ,r ///1' Renner Hofmann, Subscribed and sworn to before me this s % day of July, 1976. ' OswS I L_3h d o M. Notaty Public My Ccnmission Expires 4 \\M% 9 8

OTTACHMENT D l UNITED STATES OF. AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND' LICENSING BOARD i In the Matter of PACIFIC GAS AND ELECTRIC COMPANY Doctet Nos. 50-275 0.L. 50-323 0 L. i (Diablo Canyon Nuclear Power Plant, ) Units Nos. 1 and 2) ) AFFIDAVIT OF JOHN SEARS John Sears deposes and says under oath as follows: l. I am a lead reactor safety engineer assignid to the Division of Project Management, and the Industrial Security and Plar.ning Branch of the j Nuclear Regulatorf Commission. For the past 4 years I have been j i engaged in the review and evaluation of emergen:y and industrial security plans of nuclear license applications. 2. The NRC Staff answers to Interrogatories 4, 5, E and 7 were prepared by me. I certify that the answers given are tr.;e and accurate to the-best of my knowledge. m n .,1,. e t a r.. e v,3,> John. Sears </ Subscribed, and sworn to before ,me this,!' day of July,1976. l ?'/hc ') ?? -t r O ~ T Notary Public / / n My Commission Expires '-d. ///7V f

~TACllMENT E-l \\ UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION i BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AtlD LICENSING EDARD__ i In the Matter of l PACIFIC GAS AND ELECTRIC COMPANY ) Docket Nos. 50-275 0.L. ) 50-323 0.L. i l (Diablo Canyon Nuclear Power Plant, ) ~ Units Nos. 1 and 2) ) AFFIDAVIT OF JOE DELANEY_ I r Joe Delaney deposes and says under oath as follows: ^ 1. I'am a chemist attached t'o'the Fuel Processing and Fabrication Branch, Division of Fuel Cycle and Material Safety of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. For the past 26. years, I have been engaged in the nuclear energy field, primarily related to fuels. 1 2. I have prepared 'the Staff response.to Interrogatory No. 8. I certify I that the answer given is true and accurate to the best of my knowledge.- @ h!( aJ, dod Delaney g Subscribed and sworn to before . me this 9% day of July, 1976. Qtme-lChqtheJ Hotaq Public My Commission Expires Arte g 8 i 9

l ATTACHMENT.F j UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD l i In the Matter of l PACIFIC GAS AND ELECTRIC COMPANY. ) Docket Nos. 50-275 0.L. ) 50-323 0.L. (Diablo Canyon Nuclear Power Plant, ) l Units Nos. I and 2) ) AFFIDAVIT OF DENNIS ALLIS0N Dennis Allison deposes and says under oath as follows:

l. 'I am the Licensing Project Manager' for the 'Diablo Canyon Plant and i

am attached to the Division of Project Management of the Nuclear l I Regulatory Commission. For the past 1-1/2 years I have been respon-sible for coordinating the NRC Staff's review of the Diablo Canyon l Operating License application. i 2. I have prepared the Staff responses to questions 10,16,17 and 18. I certify that the answers given are true and accurate to the best of my knowledge. ) :4 W\\ 9 ' ~ Dennis Alli, son ~ Subscribed and sworn to before me this @ day of July, 1976. Oemt %_Md Nota Public My Commission Expires n,A,_ t., R99 O

f l Q7TACHMENT G UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY C0iiMISSION BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSIN3 BOARD In the Matter of ) ) PACIFIC GAS AND ELECTRIC COMPANY Docket Nos. 50-275 0.L. 50-323 0.L. (Diablo Canyon Nuclear Power Plant, Units Nos.1 and 2) ) l 1 AFFIDAVIT OF DR. CARL STEPP q Dr. C'arl Stepp deposes and says under oath as fo11cus. j 1. I am a seismologist and b. ranch chief of the Geology and Seismology j Branch, Division of Site Safety and Environmental Analysis of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. For the past 3 years I have been involved in the review of the seismological aspects of nuclear power j t plants. f 2. I have prepared the responses to questions 11, 12, 13, 19 and 20. I certify that these answers are true and accurate to the best of 1 my knowledge. Carl Stepp f) Subscribed and sworn to before ,me this 8 day of July, 1976. ___bak. O.Dv:AM NotaigPublic My Commission Expires g gcp, O

l ~ 'TACHMENT H UNITED STATES OF AMERICA i l NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING 50ARD In the Matter of ) ) PACIFIC GAS AND ELECTRIC COMPANY Docket tos. 50-275 0.L. 50-323 0.L. .(Diablo Canyon Nuclear Power Plant,- Units Nos.1 and 2) ) i l AFFIDAVIT OF MICHAEL PARSONT l Michael Parsont deposes and says under oath as folleus: 1. I am an environmental scientist attached to the :. radiological Impact Section of the Radiological Assessment ' Branch, D' vision of Site Safety 1 and Environmental Analysis of the Nuclear ~ RegillE:Ory Commission. For' l the past 3 years I have been involved in the rev'ew of Applicant's environmental reports and responsible for the radiological assessment portions' of environmental assessments. 1 1 2. I have prepared the S'taff responses to questions 21, 22, 23, 24, and 26. I certify that the answers given are tr;e and accurate to the best of my knowledge. ~ bbh f '/ Michael' Pars:nt Subscribed and sworn to before me this d day of July,1976. /Y<. / )/. 2 :@ ( Notary Public /'* My Commission Expires l., /, / 9 M.' a i

N .CHMENT I l 4 UNITCD STATES OF' AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSIfG BOARD In the Matter of Docket Nos. 50-275 0.L. PACIFIC GAS AND ELECTRIC COMPANY ) ~ 50-323 0.L. ) .(Diablo Canyon Nuclear Power Plant, ) Units Nos.1 and 2) ) { AFFIDAVIT OF MYRON FLIEGEL Myron Fliegel deposes and says under oath as follows: l 1. I am a physical oceanographer attached 'to the Division of Site Safety and Environmental Analysis', Hydrology - Meteorciogy Branch and Hydro-logic Engineering Section of' the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. For i the past 2 years I have been engaged in the safety and environmental review of nuclear utilization facilities. 2. I have prepared the Staff response to Interrogatory No. 27. I certify that the answer given is true and accurate to the best of my knowledge. \\ ~' l / /' ./,*.'y n 'c'.s, // \\ MyrpyFlieger p '( s L me this @d and sworn to before Subscribe day of July,1976. I l i ' OpwLQdhhhw3 Notar% Public l My Commission Expires _ \\M9 I

'TTACHMENT J I UNITED STATES OF NiERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD l In the Matter of ) ) PACIFIC GAS AND ELECTRIC COMPA.NY ) Docket Nos. 50-275 0.L. ) 50-323 0.L. .(DiabloCanyonNuclearPowerPlant,) Units Nos. 1 and 2) ) l AFFIDAVIT OF KENNETH MURPHY Kenneth Murphy deposes and says under oath as follows: 1. I am a nuclear engineer attached to the Accident Analysis Branch of the Division of Site Safety and Environmental Analysis of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. For the past 5 years I have been engaged in i ~ accident dose analysis for light water reactors. i 2. I have prepared the Staff response to Interrogatory No. 25. I certify .that the answer given is true and accurate to the best of my knowledge. 4 Kenneth' Hurphy/ Subscribed and Sworn to before me this @h day of July,1976. __ bAub d 2wh b 3 NotgryPublic My Commission Expires AuL t, A%. k 6 4 4 e

t LNITED STATES OP' AEERICA- . NUCLEAR PIGlilATORY ComISSION. . s. - BEFORE T!E ATOMIC SAFETY! CD LICESING 20ARD 3 In the. Matter of ) ). PACIFIC: CAS; AND EIETRIC COMPANT. ): Docket Nos. 50-275 O.L. )'. 50-2320 l i 5 (Diab 1'o Canyon, Nuclear Power Plant',. )' Units. I' andi 2). )f u. 1 x-

i. -

} s . i. i.n : r . f.

3.e.

. /;.

• o. { '., -

'.,o.' t 3 t ,,e f... V g. 7 pp. x r AFFIDtWIT' 0F-Dh.HARVIN GOLCMAN. ,gi g,. .s *, ,g'- t< c s r L :

",w.

Dr.. Mirv 1w Goldmn. deposes and', scates: under: onth. as follows: ;',. 7.. w.: .u. 2

1.. I; an' c. radiation biologist; andi the Director of tha. Radic6ioloi;y.~.

?. -5 s

s..,.

." For'!ths .v,; 1.aboratorypUniversity of Californi's,. Davis, Cali'fornia..y. .c. ,1 n.; 's. past 24 ye:rsfI have. engaged'. in the. study of radiation biology [and in particalcr, with the biological: offects of radiatioi. such as might. i ..s.v, 1. 1. r be. nssocia.te.d wit.h nuclear facilities. 7 v. 8 r.t. .ji s 3, a

o. :..

). I. i ,} +,, 2-I have prepared tho responses to. question 14 a::d 15. Ifeertify s. s f ~ that these answers are true and' apeurste to. thi best of g knowledge.. >f' .f,' vi :b,'.' '!., ( F ',. ..g'.. ,r ". ej. \\ s :w:-- - - :.:a. M;ap:y.. nL u- ,o - 3.!pr.c

E

..S t Gd sd /)& i .L g. r.- - " @#j r,E {@/$ hEMI'. I . V.; -...w.- 6. J u l y 1 9. W..'.:a,.Q,. ,,4 ' i?n. 8 w 9;.'-: A.. 3..,., .,w..f.e s. j i a' ) ? f .. g b..,.. ?. y '**..f:n, 6 .-8 "I ** ,. ; y e, [ s *%;'. . 6/j, ', * * ', 4 f, {ne *i};*,.? $ [.' ' 94, ' '. <). % :. > ',,',\\. .,t. . yg,;. m.g ,gg

. e....,.,

+ g,s

• * ;i '. 'h.,[; f

' '.,[);.I,*d ; y,.'t.*:..,..,.,,.. $g l

• .. $, I

. '.. r,l, 'J , s,' *: ,.. :. t k ' +. *. -)y..i.,* s.,5 #..,*). P.,, ..' l'E t .. :,%. f

• . l f ;,

y,, . u..' t. i .J - ' e. 4 s 3 .i.'...,

• ?. A.: <.'. ', I s ;,,.

i.' C i e v 4.'. . :. 'z..-j s,"... - g D , ',,:J, - %;p ; 4.. .s.. r t 's. s p. a 3.,, t } i {' [. Ih f if *

., ; (,

f'., ..f*,* % f.,,.w,y;.w'[;h. , (.,'t

• i.

f.%..). j 'N.,.w. k ; o., 2.. ?. . p:*e.v.w[,'. ,, Y ....f., 5,(., ,,-{c:'.".,,..* ; +)l' t. .g. y,,s

_ -___ y ( ATTACHMENT L 'l. Physical Protection of SitM in the Commercial Fuel Cycle, Volume I, Executive Summary, Report, Sandia Laboratories, April 1976 (UNCLASSIFIED) 2. Physical Protection of SNM in the Commercial Fuel Cycle, Volume II, 1 Fixed-Site Physical Protection Systems, Report, Sandia Laboratories, i March 1976. (CONFIDENTIAL)1/ 3. Physical Protection of SNM in the Commercial Fuel Cycle, Volume III, Elements of Physical Protection for Fixed Site, Report, Sandia j Laboratories, March 1976. (SECRET) 1/ 4. Physical Protection of SNM in the Commercial Fuel Cycle, Volume IV, Transportation Mode Analysis, Report, Sandia Laboratories, March 1976. (CONFIDENTIAL) 5. Physical Protection of SNM in the Commercial Fuel Cycle, Volume V, Elements of Physical Protection for Transportation, Report, Sandia l Laboratories, March 1976. (SECRET) 6. Physical Protection of SNM 'in the Commercial Fuel Cycle, Volume VI, Relocation and Recovery, Report, Sandia Laboratories, March 1976. l (SECRET) 7. Improved Material Accounting for Plutonium Processing Facilities and a 2350 - HTGR Fuel Fabrication facility, Battelle-Pacific Northwest l Laboratory, October 20, 1975. (Unclassified but withheld from public distribution because of Sensitivity of contents.) 8. Limitations on Personnel Access to SNM Records, Battelle-Pacific North-west Laboratory, September 11, 1975. (CONFIDENTIAL)1/ 9. Spiking of Special Nuclear Material as a Safeguards Measure--Volume 1, Brookhaven National Laboratory, September 19, 1975. (CONFIDENTIAL) 1/ 10. Modification of Strategic Special Nuclear Materials to Deter Their Theft or Unauthorized Use, Brookhaven National Laboratory, November 6, l 1975. (CONFIDENTIAL) 1/ l 11. Limitations on Personnel Access to SNM Records, Brookhaven National . Laboratory, November 10, 1975. (CONFIDENTIAL)1/ 12. Utility of Strategic Special Nuclear Materials for Unauthorized Purposes, International Research and Technology Corporation, September 15, 1975. (PENDING CLASSIFICATION REVIEW) _____-__-___l

i ~2-p l 13. Consideration of the Threat and Potential Threat to the U.S. Nuclear Power Industry, Willard Shankle, October, 1975. (CONFIDENTIAL)1/ 14.. Section 4, " Evaluation of Prompt Theft Indicators" of the Scientific Applications, Inc. (for LLL) report, " Evaluation of Real-Time Material Control and Accountability in a Model M0. Plant," September 15, 1975, 2 pp. 127-147 (CONFIDENTIAL) i An Evaluation of Real-Time Material Control and Accountability in a Fuel Plant, Scientific Applications, Inc. (for LLL) report, 15. Model M02 September 15, 1975, excluding pages 127-147. (UNCLASSIFIED) 2/ l Draft Working Paper B, Summary and Findings, Analysis of the Terrorist 16. Threat to the Commercial Nuclear Industry, BDM Corporation, September 12, 1975. (UNCLASSIFIED) 2/ Draft Working Paper C, Supporting Appendices, Analysis of the Terrorist 17. Threat to the Commercial Nuclear Ir.dustry, BDM Corporation, September 30, 1975. (UNCLASSIFIED) 2_/ 18. Draft Working Paper D, A Selected Bibliography on the Terrorist Threat to the Commercial Nuclear Industry, BDM Corporation, September 30, 1975. (UNCLASSIFIED)2/ 19. The Threat to Licensed Nuclear Facilities, Mitre Corporation, September, 1975. (UNCLASSIFIED) 2/ 20. The Development of a Statement of Objectives for the Safeguards Program, Battelle Columbus Laboratories, June 30, 1975. (UNCLASSIFIED) 2/ 21. Draft Final Report on Confirming the NRC Safeguards Objective, Brook-haven National Laboratory, August 29, 1976. (UNCLASSIFIED) 2_/ 22. Draft Final Report on Evaluation of the Impact of Safeguards Measures, 'Brookhaven National Laboratory, August 20, 1975. (UNCLASSIFIED) 2/ 2 3.' Executive Summary of the Special Safeguards Study on Material Control and Accounting Systems, Lawrence Livermore Laboratory, September 15, 1975. (UNCLASSIFIED)2/ 24. Technical Appendix for the Special Safeguards Study on Material Control and Accounting Systems, Lawrence Livermore Laboratory, September 15, 1975. (UNCLASSIFIED)2_/ 25. Plutonium Isotopic Control, Mound Laho'ratory, September,1975. (UNCLASSIFIED)2/ p

. Summary for Chapter 8, Material Control and Accounting Systems, Extension 26, of Real-Time Material Control Safeguards Concepts to Highly Enriched Uranium fuel Cycles, Aerojet INEL, September 25, 1975. (UNCLASSIFIED)2/ Evaluation of the Real-Time Material Control Concept for Safeguards in 27. 25, 1975. Highly Enriched Uranium fuel Cycles, Aerojet INEL, September l (UNCLASSIFIED)2/ l 28. Fixed Site Physical Protection System Modeling. SAND 75-6061, December 1975. I Effectiveness Evaluation of Alternative Fixed Site Safeguards Security i 29. Systems. SAND 75-1659. SAND 75-0595, November 1975. 30. Graph Theoretic Models of The.f t Problem. 31. Security Force Adversary' Engagement Simulation. SAND 75-0658. An Evaluation of Real Time Material Control and Accountability in a 32. Model MO-2 Fuel Plant. SAI-75-648-LJ (CONFIDENTIAL) Integrated Safeguards Against Internal Threats in LWR Fuel Reprocessing l 33. and Mixed 0xide Fabrication Plants. SAI-76-536-LJ. 34. Safety and Security of Nuclear Power Reactors to Acts of Sabotage. SAND 75-0336. l 1/ Declassified version in NRC Public Document Room 2f Copies in NRC Public Document Room I 4 4 - - _ - - - _ ~ _

ATTACHMENT M TilREATS OF VIOLE :CE AND ACTS OF VIOLENCE i TO LICENSED. NUCLEAR TACILITIES D 3 Facility

• Incid g 1.

5/4/69 Illinois Institute of Technology Pipt bomb found near 2 9/11/70 i 3. 9/70 Kansas State University reactor building Wisconsin Michigan Power Co. Bomb threat (Point Beach) Dynamite found I i /.4. 10/27/70 Connonwealth Edison Co. (Dresd en)Bomb threat 'j 5. 11/10/70 i 6. 2/16/71 Idaho State University Yankee Atomic Electric Co. Bomb threat j i / (Yankee-Rowe) Bomb threat l 7. 6/23/71 i Purdue University l 8. 8/17/71 Duke Power Co. ~(Oconee) Bomb threat i 9. 9/18/71 VEPC0 (Surry) Bomb threat k 10. 10/18/71 VEPCO (North Anna) Bomb thrcat VEPCO (Surry) Bomb threat 11. 1/20/72 12 3/13/72 13. 4/72 General, Electric Co., San. Jose, CA Bomb threat i Florida Power Co. Bomb threat Duquesne Light Co. (Crystal River) 14, 4/72 Bomb threat VEPCO (North Anna) (Beaver Valley) . 15. 4/28/72 Bomb threat ' 16. 5/5/72 VEPCO (North Anna) Bomb threat ( 17. 5/11/72 I i VEPCO (North Anna) Bomb threat 18. 5/12/72 VEPCO (North Anna) Bomb threat 19. 5/12/72 Duquerne Light Co. (Beaver Valley) Bomb threat Bomh throne 20. 5/72 Florida Power Co. (Crystal River) Bomb threat 21. 6/2/72 22. 6/30/72 Iowa State University 3 i Babcock & Wilcox Co. (VA) Bomb threat 23, 7/4/72 , Colorado Public Service Co. Bomb threat i (Fort St. Vrain) Bomb threat 24, 8/1/72 Gulf-United Nuclear Fuels Ccrp, Elmsford, Irf Bomb threat. 25, 8 /72' Southern California Edison Co. (San Onofre), Bomb threat

26. 8/1/72 VEPCO (North Anna) 27.

8/10/72 VEPCO (North, Anna) Bomb threat 28, 8/10/72 VEPCO (North Anna) Bomb threat 29. 8/11/72 VEPC0 (North Anna) Bomb threat 30. 8/14/72 VEPCO (North Anna) Bomb threat 31. 8/15/72 VEPCO (North Anna) Bomb threat 32 9/25/72 Metropolitan Edison Co. (Three Mile Bomb threat Bomb threat Island) 33. 10/6/72 Nebraska Public Power District (Cooper Station) Bomb threat 34 10/20/72 Southern California Edison Co. (San Onofre) Bomb threat 35. 10/31/72 36, 12/72 Cencral Atomic Co., San Diego, CA Atomics International Bomb threat 37. 12/29/72 Consumers Power Co. (Palisades) Bomb threat Bomb threat

l l I i s .2 Date Facility Incident 38. 2/5/73 Gulf-United Nuclear' Fimls Corp. Bomb threat l Elmsford, NY 39. 3/15/73 Duke Power Co. (oconce) Break-in at fuci storage building l (No material taken)' ~40. 3/23/73 Metropolitan Edison Co. (Three Mile Bomb threat Island) i 41. 5/3/73 Babcock & Wilcox co., Bomb thrc.at. Lync.bburg, VA c Bomb threat l 4r. 5/8/73 Babcock & Wilcox Co. l 4'. 6/19/73 Southerr' California Edison Co. 2 ' Bomb threat (San Onofre) s ' 40 11/5/73 Metropolitan Edison Co. (Three Mile Bomb threat Island) 45. 11/16/73 Florida Power & Light Co. (Turkey Bomb threat Point) 46. 1/6/74 Florida

• Power Corp. (Crystal River) [1.~ Bomb threat 47.

1/17/?4 Rochester Gas & Elect.ric Corp. (G[no ;) Bomb threat i I 48, 1/22/74 Florida Power Corp. (Crystal River)! Bomb threat i 49. 3/11/74 Maine Yankee Atomic Power Co. Bomb threat 50, 3/13/74 Paciff c Gas, & Electric Co. (Diabic ( Bomb threat Canyon) s(',B:mb thr at 51. 4/17/74 Uc:tingh: :: E1:ctri: Corp., C,olumbia, SC

52. 5/3/74 N Cat.raldated Edison Co. (Indian Pobtj Bomb threat 53, 5/17/74 Conso'11 dated Edison Co. (Indian Point.1),Em.b threat

54. 5/29/74 iBaltimore Gas & Electric Co. (Calver t BombIthreat CU. ifs 1)

~

55. 5/30/74 s

Connecticut Yankee Athmic Power Co. Bomb threat (Haddain' Nec k) N.c 56. 7/15/74 4Alddma Power Co. (Faricy) Bomb threat 57. 7/24/74 South'brn California Edison Co. Bcub threat 1 [ 1 San OToire) .,s SS,. 8/11/74 Connorhteh!1t,h, Edison Co. (Zion) Bomb threat

59. 8/16/74 coraolidated Edison :Co. (Indian Point)

Bomb threat 1 60. 8/26/74 Boston Edison Co. 3(eilgrim) Incendiary device detonated in pub 1f: y s. .i. v: arca , U.,S. Nucicar Cor}h, ' ak Ridge, TN ~ O Attempted fence bre:- 61. 9/4/74 i 62. 9/7/74 ) CarClipa Power & Light Co. (Brunswick) Bomb threat i 63. 11/1/74 s connect.fcut Yankee 2temic Power Co. Bomb threat 'l(HadJnm Neck) 64. 11/4/74 Ecstm Edison Co. (Pilgrim) Bomb threat Pac'FfD Gas & Elcetric Co. (Diablo Bomb threat i 65. 2/20/75 Canyou) 66. 2/23/75 ".tuc1 car Fuel Services, Erwin, TN Fence breach N (' ~ (No the f t)' 67. 2/25/75 Alabama Power Co. (Tarle)) Bomb thrcat

68. 3/8/75 Core.onwealth Edison Co. C. ion)

Bomb ';.th rea t

69. '3/14/75 Malld.ekrcut Uhemi M Works, Bomb ' threat s

u , Qt. Louish MO' _ s .ouruuw .m om ma cm n oa om

4 -3 Date Facility Incident 71. 4/4/75-Wisconsin Michigan Power Co. Tclophone'line cut. (Point Beach) by rific or pistol fire 72. 4/10/75 Northeast Nocicar Energy Co. Bomb' threat (Millstone) 73. 4/14/75 Baltimore Gas & Electric Co. -(Calvert Bosb threat Cliffs)

74. 4/16/75 Consolidated Edison Co. (Unspecified Bomb threat.

plant) 75. 5/6/75 Jersey CentraljPower & Light Co. Bomb. threat-1 (Forked River) '.ortheast Nuclear Energy Co. Bomb threat' 76. 5/13/75 1 (Millstone 3) ' i 77. 5/27/75 Commonwealth Edison Co. '(Zion) Two shots apparently1 ) l fired at security-guard '78. 6/10/75 Georg'ia Power Co. (Hatch) Bomb threat-79. 7/2/75 Kerr-Mc'Gce Nuclear Corp., Attempted! forced-Oklahoma City, OK entry 80. 7/4/75 General Electric Co.., (Vallecitos) Bomb' threat 81. 7/14/75 Carolina Poacr & Light Co. (Brunswick) ~ Bomb threat 82. 7/23/75 Macicar Paci Scr,1cci, "6at valicy, "Y Pcasibic crsbn - equipment storage ' barn 83. 8/21/75 Consolidated Edison Co. (Unspe:1fied Bomb threat plant) 84. 8/22/75 Northeast Uucicar Energy'Co.. Bomb threat ] t (Millstone 1) 85. 9/1/75 Commonwealth Edison.Co. (Zion) Bomb threat 86. 9/23/75 Carolina Power & Light Co. (Brunswick). Bomb threat' 87. 9/25/75 Massachusetts Institute of Tech. Attempted forced. i entry j l-88. 9/26/75 Consolidated Edison Co. (Indi:n Point) Bosb threat W Bomb threat . westinghouse Electric Corp. . 10/14/75 .89. Columbia, SC ~ l 90. 10/17/75 Boston Edison Co. (Pilgrim) Bomb threat 91. 11/3/75 General Atomics, Inc., San Diego, CA Bomb' threat j 92. 11/4/75 General Atomics, Inc., San Diego, CA Bomb thrc'at 93. 11/8/75 Boston Edison Co. (Pilgrim)- Bomb threat i

94. '12/2/75 Consumers Power Co. (Palisades)

Bomb threat l

95. ~17/8/75 Arkansas Pcwcr & Light Co.

Bomb threat- ~ (Arkansas Nuclear One). 96. 12/11/75 Allied-General Nuc1 car: Services Bomb threat. (Barnwell) 97, 12/23/75 Duke Power Co. (Oconee) Bomb threat 98. 12/23/75 Long Island ' Lighting Co. (Shoreham) Bomb threat 99. 12/31/75. Jersey Central Power & Li.ght Co. Bomb threat 'l i .(Oyster Creek)

l l l 1 ~4* Facility. 1 Incident Date 100. 1/19/76 Babcock & Wilcox Co. Bomb threat Lynchburg, VA j 101. 1/22/76 MIT Research Reactor Bomb threat l

102, 1/23/76 MIT Reccarch neactor Bomb threat l

103. 1/30/76 MIT Research Reactor Bomb threat 104. '2/4/76 Pennsylvania Power 6 Light Co. Bomb threat (Susquehanna) 4 l 105. 2/3/76 Westinghouse Electric Corp. TcJephone threat l Columbia, SC l 106. 3/5/76 Pennsylvania Power & Light Co. Bomb threat l l (Susquehanna) l l 107. 3/5/76 Carolina Power & Light Co. (Brunswick) Bomb threat ) 108. 3/9/76 Florida Power & Light Co. (Turkey Threat of hidden Point) devices placed in key areas 1 109. 3/25/76 Purdue University Bomb threat 110. 3/25/76 Pacific Cas & Electric.Co. (Diablo Bomb threat Canyon) 111. 4/6/76 Northeast Nuclear Energy Co. Bomb threat I (Millstone) 112. 4/22/76 Florida Power & Light Co. (St. Lucic) Threat to penetrate j security R 113. 4/23/76 Florida Power & Light Co. (Turkey Threat of hidden Toint) devices placed in key areas 114. 5/4/76 VEPCO (North Anna) Bomb threat 115. 5/6/76 Pacific Gas & Electric Co. (Diablo Bomb threat l Canyon) 116. 6/2/76 Boston Edison Co. (Pilgrim) Bomb threat 117. 6/3/76 Pennsylvania Power & Light Co. Bomb threat (Susquehanna) 118. 6/15/76 Pacific Gas 6. Electric Co. (Diablo Bomb threat Canyon) 119. 6/23/76 Iowa Electric Light & Power Co. Bomb threat (Duane Arnold) 120. 7/1/76 Alabama Power Co. (Farley) Bomb threat s. ..q I e 4 l .g. s N \\ o 4

1 l 4 ATTACHMENT N j f a. \\ Paxton, II. C., et al., " Critical Dimensions of Systems Contain-ing U-235, Pu-239, and U-233," USAEC Report TID-7028, Los Alamos Scientific Laboratory and Oak Ridge Natitnal Laboratory, June 1964. I b. llenry,11. F., et al., " Criticality Data and Nuclear Saf ety Guide l Applicabic to the Oak Ridg;c Gascous Diffusion Plant," Revision 5, USAEC Report K-1019, Oak, Ridge Gascous Diffusion Plant, May 1959. Mills, C. B., " Critical Assemblics of Fissionabic lfaterials," I c. \\ USAEC Report LA-3219-llS, Los Alamos Scientific Laboratory, April 1965. d. Henry,11. F., et al., "Self-Consistent Criteria for Evaluation of Ucutron Interaction," USAEC Report K-1317, Oak Ridge Cascous i Diffusion Plant, December 1956. Paxton,'H. C., "Los Alamos. Critical-liass Data," USAEC Report c. LAlis-3067, Los A15mos Scientif'ic La'boratory, }!ay 1964. f. Stratton, W. R., " Critical Dimensions of Uraniun (93,5) - Graphite Water Spheres, Cylinders, and Slabs," USAIC Report LAliS-2955, Los Alamos Scientific Laboratory, October 1963. Wachter, J. W., et al., "Y-12 Plant Nucicar Safety Handbook," g. USAEC Report Y-1272, Oak Ridge Y-12. Plant, }! arch 1963. t h. Clark,11. K., " Critical and Safe }! asses and Dimensions of Lattices of U and U0 R ds in Water," USAEC Report DP-1014, 2 Savannah River Laboratory, February 1966. 1. Thomas, J. T., " Criticality of Large Systems of Subcritical U(93) Components," USAEC Report ORNL CDC-1, Oak Ridge National Laboratory, 1967. j. Webster, J. W., " Calculated Neutron }!altiplication Factors of Uniform Aqueous Solutions of U-233 and U-235, USAEC Report ORNL-CDC-2, Oak Ridge National Laboratory,1967. L. Roach, W.11., and ' Smith, D. R., " Estimates of flaximum Suberitical Dimensions of Singic Fissile lietal. Units," USAEC Report ORUL-CDC-3. Oak Ridge National Laboratory, 1967. 1. Thomas, J. T., "The Effect o,f Unit Shape on the Criticality of Arrays," USAEC Report ORNL-CDC-4,' Oak Ridge National Laboratory, 1967.

I l ~2-I m. Bierman, S. R., and lless, G. M., " Minimum Critical U-235 Enrich-ment of llomogeneous liydrogeneous Uranyl Hitrate," USAEC Report ORNL-CDC-5, Oak Ridge National Laboratory,1968. Thomas, J. T., "Some Effects of Interspersed Moderation on Array n. Criticality," USAEC Report Y-CDC-6, Oak Ridge Y-12 Plant, 1969. o. Thomas, J. T., " Uranium !!ctal Criticality, !!onte Carlo Calcula-j tions and Nucicar Criticality Safety," USAEC Report Y-CDC-7, Oak Ridge Y-12 Plant, 1970. p. Nichols, J. P., Schuske, C. L., and !bgnuson, D. W., "Use of Borosilicate Glass Raschig Rings as a Neutron Absorber in Solutions of Ff ssile 1bterial," USAEC Report Y-CDC-8, Oak Ridge Y-12 Plant, 1971. q. Caizergues, R., et al., " Criticality of Liquid 111xtures of liighly U-Enriched Uranium llexafluoride and !! hydrofluoric Acid," USAEC Report Y-CDC-9, Oak Ridge Y-12 Plant, 1971, r. Thomas, J. T., "The Criticality of Cubic Arrays of Fissile ~ Materials," USAEC Report Y-CDC-10, Oak Ridge Y-12 Plant, 1971. s. Lat hr op, K. D., "The.S Method" and E:itesides, G. E., "The Monte Carlo Method as Applied to Nuc1 car Criticality Safety Calculations," Y-CDC-11, Oak Ridge Y-12 Plant, 1972. t. Lc'corche', P. and Scale, R. L., "A Review of the Experiments Performed to Determine the Radiologicc1 Consequences of a Criticality Accident," Y-CDC-12, Oak Ridge Y-12 Plant, 1973. u. Thomas, J. T., " Generic Array Criticality," Y-CDC-13, Oak Ridge 'Y-12 Plant, 1973. v. Other documents in the Y-CDC series as they are issued. v. Paxton, 11. C., " Criticality Control in Operations with Fissile !!aterial," LA 3366 REV, Los Alamos Scientific Laboratory, November 1972. "llandbook of Criticality Data," Vol.1, AllSB (S) llandbook 1, x. Authority llealth and Safety Branch, United' Kingdom Atomic Energy Y Authority. y. Appropriate criticality safety standards generated by Subcommittee of the American Nucicar Society and approved as an American Nation: sma neln wa -

. " Nuclear Safety Guide," Revision 1, USAEC Report TID-7016, z. 1961 (Note this report is referenced for its general content; f limits derived must be verified by other means as several-l areas of n'onconservatism exist in TID-7016). l I aa. "AMPX: A Modular Code System for Generating Couples Multi-l I group Neutron-Gamma Libraries from ENDF/B", ORNL/TM-3706. i bb. " KENO IV - An Improved Monte Carlo Criticality Program",.ORNL-l 4938, November 1975. l cc. 123 Gam-Thermos set available from RSIC-Radiation Shielding Information Center, Oak Ridge National Laboratory, Oak Ridge, Tennessee 37830.

• In addition to the above, more recent data frequently pertinent to specific power reactors can be found in issues of the "Trans-actions of the American Nuclear Society," which are available in some libraries.
• Those marked with an asterisk are not directly applicable to the ordinary power reactor fuel.

l I 4 _ _ _ _ _ _ - - _ _ _ _ _ _ _. _ _ _}}