Docket No. 8880 NEC Reply to: Joint Petitioners’ First Set of Discovery Requests to the New England Coalition Relating to Testimony of Arnold Gundersen September 7, 2017

REQUESTS FOR NEC

Q.JP:NEC. 1-1: With respect to the witnesses for whom prefiled testimony was submitted on behalf of the NEC and who were identified as experts in this proceeding, to the extent not already produced:

a. Produce a curriculum vitae or resume;

b. Identify and produce all publications prepared, written, authored, co-authored, peer-reviewed, and/or contributed to by the witness within the preceding ten years, whether or not included in his or her respective curriculum vitae; and

c. Identify all matters in the last five years in which the witness has been designated and/or has testified as an expert at hearing or trial, or by deposition, and identify and produce any transcripts, affidavits, testimony or other written statements by the witness in connection with the matters.

Objection by counsel. VRCP 26(b)(1) states: (1) Scope in General. -- Parties may obtain discovery regarding any nonprivileged matter that is relevant to any party's claim or defense and proportional to the needs of the case, considering the importance of the issues at stake in the action, the amount in controversy, the parties' relative access to relevant information, the parties' resources, the importance of the discovery in resolving the issues, and whether the burden or expense of the proposed discovery outweighs its likely benefit.

Mr. Gundersen’s CV is attached to the original filing. Mr. Gundersen has already identified all publications written, authored, co-authored, peer-reviewed, and/or contributed to by the witness within the preceding 10-years in his CV. Documents older than 10 years old would require an effort disproportionate to the value of the importance of the documents to identify or to locate. All items requested for production exist in the public domain. If there are specific articles in his CV which Joint Petitioners lack that have not been provided, however, please inform counsel and we will attempt to provide those. Depending on the burden, Mr. Gundersen may seek compensation for his time under V.R.C.P. 26(c). See also the documents produced in response to JP:NEC.1-3.

Docket No. 8880 NEC Reply to: Joint Petitioners’ First Set of Discovery Requests to the New England Coalition Relating to Testimony of Arnold Gundersen October 6, 2017

Requests For Arnold Gundersen

Q.JP:NEC.1-2: Identify, list and produce all exhibits to be introduced or used at hearing in support of the prefiled testimony of Mr. Gundersen in this proceeding.

Answer: NEC has provided this information in Mr. Gundersen’s pre-filed testimony, which may also be introduced at hearing. As these proceedings continue, new and additional information may supplement Mr. Gundersen’s pre-filed testimony.

2 Docket No. 8880 NEC Reply to: Joint Petitioners’ First Set of Discovery Requests to the New England Coalition Relating to Testimony of Arnold Gundersen October 6, 2017

Q.JP:NEC.1-3: Identify, list and produce all documents, data compilations, electronically stored information, photographs, workpapers or other tangible things provided to, exchanged with, prepared by, reviewed by, relied upon or used by Mr. Gundersen in developing his prefiled testimony and the opinion(s) underlying his prefiled testimony, including, but not limited to, all exhibits to his prefiled testimony.

Answer: Mr. Gundersen has relied on the following document:

Decommissioning Cost Analysis for the Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Station, Document E11-1643-001, Rev. 1. Prepared for Entergy by TLG Services, Inc, (Feb. 2012).

It is believed that Joint Petitioners have this document in their possession. Otherwise, documents responsive to this request and relied upon in developing Mr. Gundersen’s pre-filed testimony are identified within said testimony. If there are specific articles in the testimony which Joint Petitioners lack, however, please inform counsel and we will provide those.

3 Docket No. 8880 NEC Reply to: Joint Petitioners’ First Set of Discovery Requests to the New England Coalition Relating to Testimony of Arnold Gundersen October 6, 2017

Q.JP:NEC.1-4: Identify all assumptions, materials, inputs, data or information provided to Mr. Gundersen in connection with his preparation of prefiled testimony.

Answer: Assumptions, materials, inputs, data and information relied upon in developing Mr. Gundersen’s pre-filed testimony is identified within said testimony. As such, Mr. Gundersen relies on those identifications contained within the testimony for this Answer.

4 Docket No. 8880 NEC Reply to: Joint Petitioners’ First Set of Discovery Requests to the New England Coalition Relating to Testimony of Arnold Gundersen October 6, 2017

Q.JP:NEC.1-5: Identify and describe all previous work (include cost estimation and funding analysis) Mr. Gundersen has undertaken with regard to nuclear decommissioning, spent nuclear fuel management, or site restoration, and produce all documents relating to all previous work Mr. Gundersen has undertaken with regard to nuclear decommissioning, spent nuclear fuel management, and/or site restoration projects.

a. Identify all regulatory proceedings by jurisdiction, date, docket number and name in which Mr. Gundersen has testified or provided consulting or expert support for witnesses testifying on nuclear decommissioning, spent nuclear fuel management and/or site restoration projects.

Objection by counsel. VRCP 26(b)(1) states: (1) Scope in General. -- Parties may obtain discovery regarding any nonprivileged matter that is relevant to any party's claim or defense and proportional to the needs of the case, considering the importance of the issues at stake in the action, the amount in controversy, the parties' relative access to relevant information, the parties' resources, the importance of the discovery in resolving the issues, and whether the burden or expense of the proposed discovery outweighs its likely benefit.

Given that Joint Petitioners already possess Mr. Gundersen’s very detailed CV, the request to identify all work and provide all documents violates this standard. Responding to this would be a huge, very time-consuming task and expensive undertaking, not proportional to the needs of the case. Therefore, counsel objects and has limited the response as follows.

Answer: See the 1096 pages of decommissioning documents provided in response to JP:NEC.1-32. In addition:

 As identified in his CV, Mr. Gundersen is a chapter author of the first Department of Energy (DOE) Decommissioning Handbook in 1980 while employed at Nuclear Energy Services (NES) in Danbury, CT as the Director of General Engineering.  During his employment with NES, Mr. Gundersen progressed from the Director of General Engineering, to the Vice President of Engineering, to Senior Vice President of Engineering, and then promoted to Senior Vice President of In-Service Inspection Services at Nuclear Energy Services (NES). Mr. Gundersen had more than 400 employees reporting to him in his role as the only Senior Vice President with Nuclear Energy Services, at that time a division of PCC (Penn Central Corporation) a fortune 500 Corporation.

5 Docket No. 8880 NEC Reply to: Joint Petitioners’ First Set of Discovery Requests to the New England Coalition Relating to Testimony of Arnold Gundersen October 6, 2017

 NES was licensed by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) to perform decommissioning services on radiologically contaminated facilities throughout the United States.  As part of its NRC license, NES was required to create a Radiation Safety Committee. Mr. Gundersen was a founding member of that Radiation Safety Committee.  In all of his capacities within NES, Mr. Gundersen and NES personnel performed numerous decommissioning cost analyses, testimony in regulatory proceedings, actual decommissionings of contaminated facilities, and site restorations.  Additionally, the organizations reporting to Mr. Gundersen were responsible for designing, manufacturing and installing numerous spent fuel racks nationwide, including those provided to Vermont Yankee.  Detailing the extensive nature of Mr. Gundersen’s expertise in each of these projects would be very time-consuming; Mr. Gundersen is no longer in possession of any of these specific records.

6 Docket No. 8880 NEC Reply to: Joint Petitioners’ First Set of Discovery Requests to the New England Coalition Relating to Testimony of Arnold Gundersen October 6, 2017

Q.JP:NEC. 1-6: Identify any instance in which a tribunal determined that Mr. Gundersen did not possess the necessary expertise to render an expert opinion. As part of Mr. Gundersen’s answer, identify and produce any decision rendered by such a tribunal.

Answer: The only responsive incident was in Finestone, et al. v. Florida Power & Light, 2:03-cv-14040-JIC, (S.D. Fla Jan 1. 2006). The relevant document is enclosed.

7 Docket No. 8880 NEC Reply to: Joint Petitioners’ First Set of Discovery Requests to the New England Coalition Relating to Testimony of Arnold Gundersen October 6, 2017

Q.JP:NEC.1-7: Identify and describe all previous work Mr. Gundersen has undertaken relating to any of the Joint Petitioner parties, or affiliated entities.

Answer:  Beginning in 2003, Mr. Gundersen was retained by NEC as an expert in the Entergy Vermont Yankee (ENVY) Power Uprate proceeding. o Mr. Gundersen submitted all of his testimony in the case before the Vermont Public Service Board (VT PSB) now the Vermont Public Utilities Commission (VT PUC). o In his capacity as the nuclear engineering expert for New England Coalition, the attorneys representing ENVY (Gary Franklin and Victoria Brown of Eggleston and Cramer) attempted to impeach Mr. Gundersen while he was testifying before the VT PSB by presenting him with material Entergy did not provide during discovery. o When that incident occurred, the VT PSB shut down the hearings until the issue could be resolved. o The VT PSB then levied a $51,000 fine against ENVY and its attorneys for this nefarious act.

 Later in the same proceedings, Mr. Gundersen identified that Entergy and its attorneys had misrepresented the need for a temporary building to be constructed on the ENVY site. This misrepresentation resulted in an $82,000 fine against Entergy in 2004.

 In 2009 and 2010, Mr. Gundersen was retained by the State of Vermont to be a member and First Chair of the Public Oversight Panel.

 Also in 2009, Mr. Gundersen (Fairewinds Associates, Inc) was retained by the State of Vermont Joint Fiscal Office to monitor ENVY’s progress in its implementation of 80 corrective action items and programs in order to enable the VY atomic reactor to operate for an additional 20-years.

 In this oversight capacity with the Joint Fiscal Office, Mr. Gundersen discovered that Entergy had not been truthful to the State of Vermont about the existence of buried and underground pipes at ENVY. These untruthful statements by Entergy resulted in the Vermont Senate President Peter Shumlin making the following statement in February 2010 after Entergy had attempted to malign both Mr. Gundersen and Fairewinds Associates, Inc:

SENATOR SHUMLIN: While I'm on the subject of Arnie Gundersen I also want to thank him for his courage and his service to the State of Vermont. You know when I appointed him to the Oversight

8 Docket No. 8880 NEC Reply to: Joint Petitioners’ First Set of Discovery Requests to the New England Coalition Relating to Testimony of Arnold Gundersen October 6, 2017

Panel. I had an appointee, the Speaker at that time was Speaker Symington, had an appointee, and the Governor, Governor Douglas, had an appointee, and I took a lot of heat for appointing Arnie Gundersen to the Oversight Panel. I got to tell you he took more heat than I did. My judgment is that his character was maligned publicly because he has been an ardent watchdog of the industry, who happens also to be the person that knows more about nuclear power plants than anyone else that I've met in the State of Vermont, who also happens to have been right. [He is] the only person in the State of Vermont who's been right on every single prediction of what might happen at Vermont Yankee, but he took a lot of heat and I appreciate his service.

9 Docket No. 8880 NEC Reply to: Joint Petitioners’ First Set of Discovery Requests to the New England Coalition Relating to Testimony of Arnold Gundersen October 6, 2017

Q.JP:NEC.1-8: Identify each communication Mr. Gundersen has had with any party to this proceeding concerning Joint Petitioners’ petition for a Certificate of Public Good, including (1) the method of communication, (2) the date of the communication, (3) the parties to the communication, and (4) any other parties who witnessed or heard the communication and (5) identify and produce all documents concerning such communications.

Answer: Mr. Gundersen assumes this request does not seek communications with the attorneys for NEC, which would be work-product or privileged communications (since in some instances the client was involved). As to other parties, there have been none.

10 Docket No. 8880 NEC Reply to: Joint Petitioners’ First Set of Discovery Requests to the New England Coalition Relating to Testimony of Arnold Gundersen October 6, 2017

Q.JP:NEC.1-9: Identify each communication Mr. Gundersen has had with any non-party (including, without limitation, any federal or state agency, organization or entity), concerning Joint Petitioners’ petition for a Certificate of Public Good, including (1) the method of communication, (2) the date of the communication, (3) the parties to the communication, (4) any other parties who witnessed or heard the communication and (5) identify and produce all documents concerning such communications.

Answer: Mr. Gundersen has stated his opinions numerous times in public on Vermont Yankee’s potential sale to NorthStar and his position on rubblization. He does not maintain records of these comments.

11 Docket No. 8880 NEC Reply to: Joint Petitioners’ First Set of Discovery Requests to the New England Coalition Relating to Testimony of Arnold Gundersen October 6, 2017

Q.JP:NEC.1-10: Provide Mr. Gundersen’s hourly rate of compensation for the work and testimony Mr. Gundersen is providing in this proceeding.

Answer: Mr. Gundersen has not charged an hourly rate of compensation for this testimony.

12 Docket No. 8880 NEC Reply to: Joint Petitioners’ First Set of Discovery Requests to the New England Coalition Relating to Testimony of Arnold Gundersen October 6, 2017

Q.JP:NEC. 1-11: Provide an estimate of the number of hours Mr. Gundersen spent preparing his testimony.

Answer: Mr. Gundersen has not kept specific hourly records for this matter, but makes a reasonable estimate of his time involved in this matter as no less than fifty hours.

13 Docket No. 8880 NEC Reply to: Joint Petitioners’ First Set of Discovery Requests to the New England Coalition Relating to Testimony of Arnold Gundersen October 6, 2017

Q.JP:NEC. 1-12: Identify the personnel in the United States with experience in decommissioning boiling water reactors, as referenced in A.6.

Answer: It is not possible to answer this question because no large commercial Boiling Water Reactors have been decommissioned in the United States. Therefore, no individuals have the management experience of completely decommissioning a commercial BWR with the extensive radiological contamination that exists at ENVY site. There is extensive information available in the public domain about what occurred at the Pressurized Water Reactor site Connecticut Yankee regarding significant unanticipated cost overruns due to extensive radiological contamination. Boiling Water Reactors and their sites are recognized to be more radiologically contaminated as discussed later in these questions.

14 Docket No. 8880 NEC Reply to: Joint Petitioners’ First Set of Discovery Requests to the New England Coalition Relating to Testimony of Arnold Gundersen October 6, 2017

Q.JP:NEC.1-13: Explain why Mr. [Gunderson sic – Gundersen is correct] did not find the proprietary material in this proceeding useful, as referenced in A.7.

Answer: The alleged proprietary information reviewed by Mr. Gundersen contained hundreds of line items with costs that appeared to be forced to achieve the desired outcome. On repeated occasions throughout the list, several sequential line items contained financial costs that were identical to those items listed before and after it, that when added together produced a round number. This indicated to Mr. Gundersen that the round number answer was preordained and then divided evenly between subtasks and spread over several years. Furthermore, there were no detailed engineering cost justifications provided for the values Mr. Gundersen reviewed, therefore without the appropriate engineering details on which the costs were assessed, there was no accurate engineering or cost submittals to review.

15 Docket No. 8880 NEC Reply to: Joint Petitioners’ First Set of Discovery Requests to the New England Coalition Relating to Testimony of Arnold Gundersen October 6, 2017

Q.JP:NEC.1-14:Produce the press release cited on page 4 of Mr. Gundersen’s testimony.

Answer:

The Press Release quoted was issued by Entergy and appeared on September 7, 2000 in PRNewswire. Therefore, Entergy has the original Press Release is in its possession; the original press release is not in Mr. Gundersen’s possession.

16 Docket No. 8880 NEC Reply to: Joint Petitioners’ First Set of Discovery Requests to the New England Coalition Relating to Testimony of Arnold Gundersen October 6, 2017

Q.JP:NEC.1-15: Admit that the press release cited on page 4 of Mr. Gundersen’s testimony is from the year 2000. If denied, explain in detail the basis for your denial. If neither admitted nor denied, explain in detail the basis for your response.

Answer:

Mr. Gundersen admits that in 2000, Entergy Nuclear issued a press release that it had acquired TLG and stated that the acquisition of TLG “will make Entergy one of the most experienced companies in decommissioning in the U.S. nuclear industry” and also states “TLG Services is a globally recognized expert in decommissioning engineering, related cost estimation, and field services”.

17 Docket No. 8880 NEC Reply to: Joint Petitioners’ First Set of Discovery Requests to the New England Coalition Relating to Testimony of Arnold Gundersen October 6, 2017

Q.JP:NEC.1-16:Admit that TLG Services Inc. has not managed the decommissioning of any commercial nuclear power plants. If denied, explain in detail the basis for your denial. If neither admitted nor denied, explain in detail the basis for your response.

Answer: Neither admitted nor denied.  No company in the United States, including TLG Services, has ever managed the decommissioning of a Boiling Water Reactor (BWR) commercial power plant like Vermont Yankee.  However, TLG is certainly capable of dismantling VY according to Entergy’s own 2017 webpage (http://entergy.com/ewc/tlg/)

“TLG Services provides a total resource for accomplishing any decommissioning task, from initial planning through field implementation to final survey and regulatory acceptance.”

18 Docket No. 8880 NEC Reply to: Joint Petitioners’ First Set of Discovery Requests to the New England Coalition Relating to Testimony of Arnold Gundersen October 6, 2017

Q.JP:NEC.1-17: Identify any support for Mr. Gundersen’s statements in A.8 regarding TLG beyond the cited press release.

a. Explain why TLG’s capabilities and experience make it more qualified than NorthStar to decommission the VY Station.

Answer:

According to Entergy’s 2017 webpage http://entergy.com/ewc/tlg/, the nuclear decommissioning experience Entergy claims that TLG has far surpasses the limited atomic power and radiological credentials listed by NorthStar.

TLG Services Inc.1

Entergy acquired TLG Services Inc. in 2000 and this decommissioning team has participated actively in the cost estimating, program planning, mechanical and structural engineering, waste management, radiological engineering, health physics and quality assurance support for commercial nuclear power plant decommissioning projects.

TLG Services provides a total resource for accomplishing any decommissioning task, from initial planning through field implementation to final survey and regulatory acceptance.

With their combined experience, the team has performed work for roughly 85 percent of the commercial nuclear plants in the United States, all nuclear plants in Canada and some facilities overseas. TLG also has provided consulting services to the Nuclear Energy Institute, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, U.S. Department of Energy, government contractors and the non-utility commercial nuclear market, including the medical and health care industry -- not to mention preparation of decommissioning engineering and cost studies for 128 nuclear power units.

1 Entergy Website 2017 http://entergy.com/ewc/tlg/

19 Docket No. 8880 NEC Reply to: Joint Petitioners’ First Set of Discovery Requests to the New England Coalition Relating to Testimony of Arnold Gundersen October 6, 2017

Q.JP:NEC.1-18: Identify all of the “many newly formed decommissioning competitors [that] all are capable of hiring a team of subcontractors to completely dismantle VY by the early 2030’s within the funds available in the Decommissioning trust,” as referenced on page 4.

Answer: Mr. Gundersen responds as follows. The competitors and documents that I know of without performing any further research are:

1. Energy Solutions (http://www.energysolutions.com/decommissioning- decontamination/) 2. Bechtel/Westinghouse Alliance (http://www.bechtel.com/newsroom/releases/2015/01/bechtel-westinghouse- alliance-nuclear-decommission/) 3. AECOM (http://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-san-onofre-decommission- 20161220-story.html) 4. TLG Services (http://entergy.com/ewc/tlg/) 5. Westinghouse (https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2017-03- 29/westinghouse-shifts-from-building-to-dismantling-as-nuclear-dies) 6. GE Hitachi Bechtel Decommissioning Alliance (http://www.genewsroom.com/press-releases/ge-hitachi-nuclear-energy- and-bechtel-form-decommissioning-alliance-283635)

Furthermore, this past week Nuclear Energy Insider held the 4th Annual Nuclear Decommissioning and Used Fuel Strategy Summit in Charlotte North Carolina, October 2-3, 2017. According to program host Nuclear Energy Insider, Entergy was scheduled to have several of its executives attending the conference. Its conference brochure noted:

With a record 400 attendees, over 50 of the industry's leading speakers and a brand-new Yucca Mountain Panel session, the Nuclear Decommissioning and Used Fuel Strategy Summit returns as North America's premier meeting point for decommissioning and used fuel industry professionals.

While Mr. Gundersen did participate in the last two conferences, he did not attend this year due to conflicts in his schedule.

20 Docket No. 8880 NEC Reply to: Joint Petitioners’ First Set of Discovery Requests to the New England Coalition Relating to Testimony of Arnold Gundersen October 6, 2017

Q.JP:NEC.1-19:Produce all correspondence with the State of Vermont or any of its employees, including but not limited to the January 19, 2011 email quoted on page 8, relating to spent fuel management at the VY Station.

Objection by counsel. VRCP 26(b)(1) states: (1) Scope in General. -- Parties may obtain discovery regarding any nonprivileged matter that is relevant to any party's claim or defense and proportional to the needs of the case, considering the importance of the issues at stake in the action, the amount in controversy, the parties' relative access to relevant information, the parties' resources, the importance of the discovery in resolving the issues, and whether the burden or expense of the proposed discovery outweighs its likely benefit.

This request is confusing, burdensome, seeks proprietary business records and communications, and duplicative. First, this request covers at least a few hundred communications among ten-thousand plus communications between Mr. Gundersen and various individuals at the State of Vermont over many years, many of which are no longer in Mr. Gundersen’s possession and some of which are subject to work-product confidentiality related to Mr. Gundersen’s work with the State of Vermont Joint Fiscal Office.

Furthermore, non-privileged communications with the State of Vermont are public record and may be obtained by Joint Petitioners. To address each individual email in this context, would require work that is disproportionate to the potential relevance of the information, under the standards of VRCP 26(a)(1). Nonetheless, if Joint Petitioners believe this information is important, pursuant to V.R.C.P. 26(b) and (c), at Joint Petitioners’ expense, Mr. Gundersen will undertake to review the thousands of communications for relevant communications.

Nonetheless, without waiver, Mr. Gundersen responds as follows:

Answer: The email from Sarah Hoffman, then attorney for the Vermont Public Service Board, (with a cc to former Public Service Board Commissioner Liz Miller), to Mr. Gundersen is quoted in its entirety on page 8 of his submitted testimony. The email from Hoffman to Mr. Gundersen was in response to an earlier email that same day from Mr. Gundersen quoted in its entirety below:

21 Docket No. 8880 NEC Reply to: Joint Petitioners’ First Set of Discovery Requests to the New England Coalition Relating to Testimony of Arnold Gundersen October 6, 2017

I checked numerous NRC licensees and could find no waivers ever granted (nor asked for!) ... perhaps they are there, but my research found no waivers ever being granted ... nor is there a discussion in TLG 2007 about the need for a waiver if their financing approach were to be accepted. I just reread Jacobs and he never discusses the need for a waiver given the novel 2007 TLG approach. Nor was the ISFSI funding approach proposed by TLG in 1991, 1996 or 2001. I checked other TLG reports nationwide and could not find ISFSI funding included in Decom. costs on any other docket... perhaps TLG did them, but the ones I looked at proposed no ISFSI funding from funds.

Given that Sherman stated that DOE was the appropriate source of ISFSI $ in 2001, given that Winston-Strawn says NRC forbids the use of Decom. funds for ISFSI in 2007, given that 50% of any excess funds are returned to Vermonters, given that funding the ISFSI delays decommissioning for decades, why would the State support funding the ISFSI from the Decom. fund??? It seems that a waiver gives away our money and delays decommissioning for decades. Was a waiver discussed in the 7440 docket?

Mr. Gundersen’s email chain with Hoffman on this topic is now complete.

22 Docket No. 8880 NEC Reply to: Joint Petitioners’ First Set of Discovery Requests to the New England Coalition Relating to Testimony of Arnold Gundersen October 6, 2017

Q.JP:NEC.1-20: Explain whether Mr. Gundersen’s testimony takes into account the December 2014 Post-Shutdown Decommissioning Activities Report (“PSDAR”) for the VY Station.

a. If yes, explain how.

Answer:

The key element in Mr. Gundersen’s pre-filed report is that, in both the 2012 TLG report and in the 2014 PSDAR, Entergy used its funding analysis to justify removing funds from the Decommissioning Trust Fund in order to pay for the ISFSI (Interim Spent Fuel Storage Installation). Entergy never clearly identified that DOE was in fact responsible for these costs. The net effect of this misleading assumption was that it appeared that ENVY’s decommissioning would be delayed until after 2050 because of the alleged unavailability of adequate funds.

Mr. Gundersen’s pre-filed testimony shows that when ISFSI funding is removed from the 2012 or 2014 reports, completion of the decommissioning of ENVY is indeed possible within the early 2030s with both adequate funds without using rubblization, a thus-far untried technique for such a site. The alleged ‘new’ approach claimed by NorthStar is simply quite similar in cost and schedule to what Entergy could accomplish when the funding for ISFSI is removed from either the 2012 or 2014 reports.

23 Docket No. 8880 NEC Reply to: Joint Petitioners’ First Set of Discovery Requests to the New England Coalition Relating to Testimony of Arnold Gundersen October 6, 2017

Q.JP:NEC.1-21: Identify each of the “many experienced and financially stable decommissioning contractors” referenced on page 9 of Mr. Gundersen’s testimony. a. For each contractor, please identify:

i. the factors leading Mr. Gundersen to conclude the contractor is experienced;

ii. the factors leading Mr. Gundersen to conclude the contractor is financially stable; and

iii. every document and all information Mr. Gundersen reviewed to reach this conclusion. Produce each such document

Answer: Mr. Gundersen responds as follows. The competitors and documents that I know of without performing any further research are: : 1. Energy Solutions (http://www.energysolutions.com/decommissioning- decontamination/) 2. Bechtel/Westinghouse Alliance (http://www.bechtel.com/newsroom/releases/2015/01/bechtel-westinghouse- alliance-nuclear-decommission/) 3. AECOM (http://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-san-onofre-decommission- 20161220-story.html) 4. TLG Services (http://entergy.com/ewc/tlg/) 5. Westinghouse (https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2017-03- 29/westinghouse-shifts-from-building-to-dismantling-as-nuclear-dies) 6. GE Hitachi Bechtel Decommissioning Alliance (http://www.genewsroom.com/press-releases/ge-hitachi-nuclear-energy- and-bechtel-form-decommissioning-alliance-283635)

Furthermore, this past week Nuclear Energy Insider held the 4th Annual Nuclear Decommissioning and Used Fuel Strategy Summit in Charlotte North Carolina, October 2-3, 2017. According to program host NEI, Entergy was scheduled to have several of its executives attending the conference. In its conference brochure NEI noted: With a record 400 attendees, over 50 of the industry's leading speakers and a brand-new Yucca Mountain Panel session, the Nuclear Decommissioning and Used Fuel Strategy Summit returns as North America's premier meeting point for decommissioning and used fuel industry professionals.

24 Docket No. 8880 NEC Reply to: Joint Petitioners’ First Set of Discovery Requests to the New England Coalition Relating to Testimony of Arnold Gundersen October 6, 2017

Mr. Gundersen previously attended the 2015 and the 2016 Nuclear Decommissioning and Used Fuel Summits and bases his comments in the pre-filed testimony on meetings and presentations made at those conferences.

Conference presentations are saved and available to Entergy, as they were conference attendees along with Mr. Gundersen.

As Entergy is well aware, Mr. Gundersen did not attend the 2017 conference due to existing business conflicts.

25 Docket No. 8880 NEC Reply to: Joint Petitioners’ First Set of Discovery Requests to the New England Coalition Relating to Testimony of Arnold Gundersen October 6, 2017

Q.JP:NEC.1-22: Produce the Excel application spreadsheet referenced on page 9 in native format.

Answer: This is being produced. Note that this is copyrighted. The data input into the spreadsheet is presented in Mr. Gundersen’s pre-filed expert testimony. All data used in the analysis came from the Entergy/TLG 2012 Decommissioning report. No assumptions were used.

26 Docket No. 8880 NEC Reply to: Joint Petitioners’ First Set of Discovery Requests to the New England Coalition Relating to Testimony of Arnold Gundersen October 6, 2017

Q.JP:NEC.1-23: Identify each assumption built into the Excel application spreadsheet referenced on page 9.

Answer: See prior answer.

27 Docket No. 8880 NEC Reply to: Joint Petitioners’ First Set of Discovery Requests to the New England Coalition Relating to Testimony of Arnold Gundersen October 6, 2017

Q.JP:NEC.1-24: Provide all data used to build the Excel application spreadsheet referenced on page 9.

Answer: See Answer 1-22.

28 Docket No. 8880 NEC Reply to: Joint Petitioners’ First Set of Discovery Requests to the New England Coalition Relating to Testimony of Arnold Gundersen October 6, 2017

Q.JP:NEC.1-25: Identify each person who prepared Excel application spreadsheet referenced on page 9.

Answer:

Mr. Gundersen and Dr. Leslie Kanat, Science Advisor for Fairewinds Energy Education, developed the Excel spreadsheet.

29 Docket No. 8880 NEC Reply to: Joint Petitioners’ First Set of Discovery Requests to the New England Coalition Relating to Testimony of Arnold Gundersen October 6, 2017

Q.JP:NEC.1-26: Identify each and every fact supporting the use of a 5% rate of growth and 3% inflation rate, as referenced on page 10 of Mr. Gundersen’s testimony.

Answer:

In the Code of Federal Regulations, 10CFR50.75 entitled: “Reporting and recordkeeping for decommissioning planning” it states that a “2 percent annual real rate of return” must be applied for assessing the ability of a Decommissioning Trust Fund to support final decommissioning of its facility, in this Entergy Vermont Yankee. The difference between 5% fund growth and 3% inflation represents a 2 % annual real rate of return. If the fund grows faster than 5%, it is possible to dismantle ENVY more quickly assuming inflation related decommissioning costs do not rise at the same time.

30 Docket No. 8880 NEC Reply to: Joint Petitioners’ First Set of Discovery Requests to the New England Coalition Relating to Testimony of Arnold Gundersen October 6, 2017

Q.JP:NEC.1-27: Identify every fact supporting Mr. Gundersen’s conclusion that “sufficient funds would be available for Entergy to completely decommission the Vermont Yankee nuclear power plant by approximately 2032,” as stated on page 10. a. Identify and produce all documents that support or refute this conclusion.

Answer:

All of Mr. Gundersen’s analysis, graphs and supporting data are provided in his pre- filed expert testimony.

31 Docket No. 8880 NEC Reply to: Joint Petitioners’ First Set of Discovery Requests to the New England Coalition Relating to Testimony of Arnold Gundersen October 6, 2017

Q.JP:NEC.1-28: Explain how much Mr. Gundersen anticipates a contractor will be paid to decommission the VY Station site. Provide the basis for this estimate.

Answer:

Mr. Gundersen anticipates that contractors will be paid by check or direct deposit for the services they provide after said contractor invoices NorthStar or one of its subcontractors. The amount of each check will vary depending upon the work that each contractor performs and the number of individual employees or contractors employed. The total amount of all checks issued is presently unknown, but may easily exceed the total amount of the funds available in the Entergy Vermont Yankee Decommissioning Trust Fund depending upon the extent of presently unknown radioactive isotopes contaminating the ENVY site. The NRC has publicly stated that it will insist that the corporate parent accept its responsibilities for cleanup and its liabilities for any costs that exceed the assets of the Entergy Vermont Yankee Decommissioning Trust Fund.

32 Docket No. 8880 NEC Reply to: Joint Petitioners’ First Set of Discovery Requests to the New England Coalition Relating to Testimony of Arnold Gundersen October 6, 2017

Q.JP:NEC.1-29: Describe any and all unexpected costs that Mr. Gundersen understands might arise during the decommissioning, site restoration, and management of spent nuclear fuel of the VY Station site.

Answer: Mr. Gundersen notes that this question calls for speculation, as unexpected costs are by their nature, unexpected, and must be considered as possible but may or cannot be evaluated as probable or likely. As such, however, unexpected costs could reasonably include the following:

 In Mr. Gundersen’s experience as a member of the Radiation Safety Committee for an NRC licensee, he is aware of numerous incidents in which radioactive contamination was uncovered where it was not anticipated.  For instance, at least twice, he was personally aware of radiation leaks into the ground outside the facilities themselves. These extensive radiological leaks were completely unknown to the facility management. The radioactive isotopes had migrated via groundwater and other pathways to unexpected locations outside controlled areas.  Additionally, quite frequently in nuclear facilities thick coats of paint are applied over radioactive contamination to allow the atomic power plant to operate without radiological restrictions.  Decommissioning a facility, especially if rubblization is used, will cause the contractor to discover, after the fact, that an area of a building previously labeled as clean will harbor unforeseen contamination. The process of rubblization would lease that radioactive contamination into the environment.

Otherwise, Mr. Gundersen is unwilling to speculate on further kinds of unforeseen risks to be faced by ENVY’s cleanup upon further request.

33 Docket No. 8880 NEC Reply to: Joint Petitioners’ First Set of Discovery Requests to the New England Coalition Relating to Testimony of Arnold Gundersen October 6, 2017

Q.JP:NEC.1-30: Describe Mr. Gundersen’s understanding of “rubblization,” as used in his testimony.

Answer: Rubblization is a mechanical process whereby large pieces of radioactively contaminated concrete are pulverized into smaller pieces of concrete to allegedly lessen the concentration of radioactivity; the process also creates copious quantities of dust.

One of the reasons corporations hope to pursue this process is that it allows highly contaminated concrete to be mixed with less contaminated concrete avoiding the regulatory scrutiny required if the more highly contaminated concrete and/or other materials are shipped offsite. Unfortunately, rubblization does not decrease the total amount of radiation in the material, and instead dramatically increases the surface area available to interact with the surrounding groundwater. The groundwater will absorb or leach2 out radioactive isotopes from the rubblized material. Leaching of radioactive isotopes that had been trapped in the large blocks of concrete is increased when the surface area is dramatically expanded.

Furthermore, alpha and beta particles in radioactive isotopes that normally would be trapped inside each large block of concrete can now enter the environmental dose pathway because the average range that they would travel now exceeds the size of the smaller particle they are attached to after rubblization.

Spreading radiation from rubblization increases the exposure to the population afterward. In an article in the Rutland Herald on September 30, Mr. State, CEO of NorthStar was quoted as acknowledging this fact when he said:

As for another key issue dealing with site restoration standards, State said the company wanted to adopt a standard for background radiation at the site of 15 millirems, significantly below the federal standard of 25 milirems. But several people questioned why it couldn’t be 10 millirems, the standard used at other decommissioned New England nuclear plants, such as Maine Yankee, Yankee Rowe and Connecticut Yankee. State also said his company planned on restoring the site to a “light industrial standard,” and not one that would be used for residential use. There has been some talk in Vernon about using

2 definition of leach: dissolve out soluble constituents from (ashes, soil, etc.) by percolation; http://www.dictionary.com/browse/leach

34 Docket No. 8880 NEC Reply to: Joint Petitioners’ First Set of Discovery Requests to the New England Coalition Relating to Testimony of Arnold Gundersen October 6, 2017

the Yankee site, once cleaned up, for residential development3.

If it is applied, the process of rubblization would make it extraordinarily difficult for the Vermont Yankee site to meet residential greenfield standards. According to the Rutland Herald article, Mr. State said that his company does not plan to meet residential greenfield standards but rather “light industrial standards” which have shortened occupancy and use factors for individuals. Changing the greenfield standard from residential to “light industrial” would allow NorthStar to leave more radioactivity in the contaminating the Vermont Yankee site. The “light industrial” dose calculations imply that individuals spend less time on the site and that no farming or gardening would be conducted on the site. This is a very different standard than the one that Entergy committed to in its MOU. The cleanup of the ENVY site to residential standards is a much stricter standard more adaptable to different uses as long as the leaching and migrating radioactive isotopes are thoroughly eradicated or somehow permanently contained.

3 Vt. Yankee rubble plan raises questions, challenge, Rutland Herald, 2017/9/30, http://www.rutlandherald.com/articles/vt-yankee-rubble-plan-raises-questions- challenge/)

35 Docket No. 8880 NEC Reply to: Joint Petitioners’ First Set of Discovery Requests to the New England Coalition Relating to Testimony of Arnold Gundersen October 6, 2017

Q.JP:NEC.1-31: Identify all facts and produce all documents related to Mr. Gundersen’s assertion that “rubblization increases the unforeseen risk for Vermonters of additional costs associated with the likelihood of groundwater contamination,” as stated on page 12 of his testimony.

Answer:

Mr. Gundersen’s statement on page 12 of his testimony is based upon his professional experience as is delineated in his CV. See Q.JP:NEC.1-30 for a more detailed answer.

36 Docket No. 8880 NEC Reply to: Joint Petitioners’ First Set of Discovery Requests to the New England Coalition Relating to Testimony of Arnold Gundersen October 6, 2017

Q.JP:NEC.1-32: Produce all documents in your custody, possession, or control concerning decommissioning of the VY Station site.

Objection by counsel. VRCP 26(b)(1) states: (1) Scope in General. -- Parties may obtain discovery regarding any nonprivileged matter that is relevant to any party's claim or defense and proportional to the needs of the case, considering the importance of the issues at stake in the action, the amount in controversy, the parties' relative access to relevant information, the parties' resources, the importance of the discovery in resolving the issues, and whether the burden or expense of the proposed discovery outweighs its likely benefit.

This request is burdensome, and duplicative and unlikely to result in discovery not already in Joint Petitioners’ possession.

 First, the scope is unduly broad; a computer search of Mr. Gundersen’s computer files alone indicates a minimum of 5,700 items potentially responsive, including unresponsive documents containing those terms in different contexts, work drafts, and confidential communications to third parties such as FAI legal counsel.

 Without waiver, Mr. Gundersen is producing several hundred documents responsive to this request. These are attached in the PDF labelled “Decommissioning.”

 Further production would be extremely burdensome relative to the reasonable relevance of these documents, however, Mr. Gundersen will endeavor to look for further documentation, including documents in storage files from several years ago, at Joint Petitioners’ expense pursuant to VRCP 26(c).

37 Docket No. 8880 NEC Reply to: Joint Petitioners’ First Set of Discovery Requests to the New England Coalition Relating to Testimony of Arnold Gundersen October 6, 2017

Q.JP:NEC.1-33: Produce all documents in your custody, possession or control concerning the 2012 TLG analysis cited in Mr. Gundersen’s testimony.

Answer: The only document is the 2012 TLG report.

38 Docket No. 8880 NEC Reply to: Joint Petitioners’ First Set of Discovery Requests to the New England Coalition Relating to Testimony of Arnold Gundersen October 6, 2017

Q.JP:NEC.1-34: Produce all correspondence or communications that Mr. Gundersen or NEC has had with the NRC related to decommissioning cost estimates for the VY Station.

Answer: Mr. Gundersen’s communications with the NRC regarding decommissioning cost estimates for the Entergy Vermont Yankee atomic reactor site can be found on the Fairewinds Energy Education website at these links: http://www.fairewinds.org/nuclear-energy- education//03tj9289ut746v9sb3cbkrhfzqgtdz?rq=decommissioning http://www.fairewinds.org/nuclear-energy-education/remove-vy-carcass-veto- safstor?rq=decommissioning

39 Docket No. 8880 NEC Reply to: Joint Petitioners’ First Set of Discovery Requests to the New England Coalition Relating to Testimony of Arnold Gundersen October 6, 2017

Q.JP:NEC.1-35: Produce all other correspondence or communications that Mr. Gundersen or NEC has had with the NRC related to the VY Station.

Answer: See the attached PDF titled NRC Communications and also the PDF that has been created as a table of contents for the PDF.

40 Docket No. 8880 NEC Reply to: Joint Petitioners’ First Set of Discovery Requests to the New England Coalition Relating to Testimony of Arnold Gundersen October 6, 2017

Q.JP:NEC.1-36: Identify every entity to which Mr. Gundersen refers on page 13 that has dismantled a boiling water reactor.

Answer:

In the United States, no commercial Boiling Water Reactor (BWR), especially one with contaminated groundwater and structures like those at ENVY, has ever been successfully decommissioned and completely dismantled. Therefore, as Mr. Gundersen stated in his expert testimony, no entity has ever dismantled a US commercial boiling water reactor.

41 Docket No. 8880 NEC Reply to: Joint Petitioners’ First Set of Discovery Requests to the New England Coalition Relating to Testimony of Arnold Gundersen October 6, 2017

Q.JP:NEC.1-37: Identify and describe the source of Mr. Gundersen’s information that BWRs release more radioactivity than PWRs, and explain the relevance of this assertion to whether NorthStar lacks the necessary experience to complete the decommissioning project.

Answer:

The wording of this question is a misstatement of Mr. Gundersen’s analysis and expert testimony.

First, Mr. Gundersen never said “that BWRs release more radioactivity than PWRs”. Rather he stated “BWRs release more radioactivity during operations”. Vermont Yankee is no longer operating.

However, due to the intrinsic design of any BWR, Vermont Yankee remains more contaminated than comparable PWRs. Mr. Gundersen has stated that decommissioning a BWR like Entergy Vermont Yankee will be more costly because the BWR system allows radioactive contamination to freely flow throughout the entire facility. Widespread contamination in a BWR results in significantly higher decommissioning costs.

42 Docket No. 8880 NEC Reply to: Joint Petitioners’ First Set of Discovery Requests to the New England Coalition Relating to Testimony of Arnold Gundersen October 6, 2017

Q.JP:NEC.1-38: Identify and explain the basis of Mr. Gundersen’s conclusion that “decommissioning a Boiling Water Reactor (BWR) like VY is more difficult than it is to decommission a PWR like CY,” as stated on page 19.

Answer: In 10 CFR 50.75(4)(c), the NRC acknowledges that BRWs are approximately 30% more expensive to dismantle than PWRs. The appropriate section is reprinted below. (c) Table of minimum amounts (January 1986 dollars) required to demonstrate reasonable assurance of funds for decommissioning by reactor type and power level, P (in MWt); adjustment factor.1 Millions (1)(i) greater than or equal to $105 For a 3400 MWt PWR: between 1200 Mwt and 3400 Mwt (For a PWR of less than 1200 Mwt, use P=1200 Mwt) $(75+0.0088P)

(ii) For a greater than or equal to $135 BWR: 3400 MWt

between 1200 Mwt and $(104+0.009P) 3400 Mwt (For a BWR of less than 1200 Mwt, use P=1200 MWt)

Clearly, the table indicates that funding requirements for BWRs are significantly greater than for PWRs.

Furthermore, Mr. Gundersen attended the Nuclear Decommissioning and Used Fuel Summit in Charlotte NC October 3 and 4, 2016 that was hosted by Nuclear Energy Insider. Zion Solutions General Manager and Executive Vice President of Decommissioning Operations for Energy Solutions John Sauger was one of the presenters.

The decommissioning process at Zion PWR nuclear power plant in Illinois is almost complete, and Mr. Sauger has been responsible for overseeing the decommissioning of Zion.

During a question and answer forum following Mr. Sauger’s presentation about decommissioning lessons learned at Zion, Mr. Gundersen asked Mr.

43 Docket No. 8880 NEC Reply to: Joint Petitioners’ First Set of Discovery Requests to the New England Coalition Relating to Testimony of Arnold Gundersen October 6, 2017

Sauger if the decommissioning experience gained by Zion Solutions on PWRs was transferable to BWRs. Mr. Sauger responded that decommissioning any BWR would be much more difficult than decommissioning the Zion PWR, which was almost [radioactively] clean by comparison.

44 Docket No. 8880 NEC Reply to: Joint Petitioners’ First Set of Discovery Requests to the New England Coalition Relating to Testimony of Arnold Gundersen October 6, 2017

Q.JP:NEC.1-39: Explain Mr. Gundersen’s basis for concluding that NorthStar “will issue hundreds of fixed-price contracts to numerous different independent contractors,” as stated on page 13. a. Identify and produce every document Mr. Gundersen reviewed to reach this conclusion.

Answer:

Mr. Gundersen’s basis for reaching this conclusion are statements by NorthStar’s Mr. State as quoted in the December 2, 2016 Brattleboro Reformer.

Applicable portions of the article are quoted below:

Entergy: Vt. Yankee sale to decommission specialists would bring project in on budget

A “guaranteed fixed payment system” would obligate NorthStar to perform each component of cleanup and restoration using fixed payments for each of more than 900 discrete project elements, NorthStar CEO Scott E. State told the panel….

“We will never draw out of the trust account more money than has been assigned as a cost to do that piece of work,” he said. “We have a fixed payment for each piece of the work and as such it avoids what’s happened on some of the other decommissioning projects, where the owners of a facility would simply draw as much money out of a trust account as it cost any given scope of work, and at the end of the day, everybody looks around and says, ‘Hey, we’re out of money. We haven’t gotten rid of this plant yet.’ With our approach, that’s not going to happen.”

Furthermore, NorthStar has indicated the same in Attachment A.DPS.NS.1-57.2265:

This document is the detailed pay-item disbursement schedule, which the Commission provisionally ruled in the June 15 order is eligible for special treatment above and beyond even the protections afforded by the ordinary protective agreement. This schedule sets forth the approximately 900 sub- tasks into which NorthStar has organized the Vermont Yankee project. NorthStar expended substantial effort and resources to determine how to break down the Project into these smaller sub-tasks and how much funding is needed to accomplish each one.

45 Docket No. 8880 NEC Reply to: Joint Petitioners’ First Set of Discovery Requests to the New England Coalition Relating to Testimony of Arnold Gundersen October 6, 2017

Q.JP:NEC.1-40: Explain Mr. Gundersen’s understanding of each of the various contracts referenced on pages 13 to 14 of his testimony.

a. Identify and produce every document Mr. Gundersen reviewed to reach those understandings.

Answer:

See the above response to Q.JP:NEC.1-39 for the basis of Mr. Gundersen’s “understanding of each of the various contracts referenced on pages 13 to 14 of his testimony”.

46 Docket No. 8880 NEC Reply to: Joint Petitioners’ First Set of Discovery Requests to the New England Coalition Relating to Testimony of Arnold Gundersen October 6, 2017

Q.JP:NEC. 1-41: Identify by Attachment number and describe the contents of every document Mr. Gundersen reviewed to conclude that “[d]ocuments submitted by NorthStar in discovery thus far indicate it lacks an adequate understanding of the extent of radiological contamination on the Vermont Yankee site to be able to issue well defined requests for proposal (RFP),” as stated on page 14 of his testimony.

Answer:

Mr. Gundersen has reviewed, to his knowledge, all of the discovery produced by Petitioner thus far. He read all of the documents addressing the extent of radiological contamination. It was on this basis that Answer 15 was written. Answer 15 sets forth the shortage in NorthStar’s understanding.

47 Docket No. 8880 NEC Reply to: Joint Petitioners’ First Set of Discovery Requests to the New England Coalition Relating to Testimony of Arnold Gundersen October 6, 2017

Q.JP:NEC.1-42: Explain Mr. Gundersen’s basis for concluding that NorthStar possesses a “weak understanding of both the amount and spread of toxic radiation already released on site,” as stated on page 14

Answer:

Answer: See answer to 1-41, which is the same as this response.

48 Docket No. 8880 NEC Reply to: Joint Petitioners’ First Set of Discovery Requests to the New England Coalition Relating to Testimony of Arnold Gundersen October 6, 2017

Q.JP:NEC.1-43: Describe Mr. Gundersen’s understanding of “the amount and spread of toxic radiation already released on site,” as stated on page 14.

Answer:

In Mr. Gundersen’s prefiled expert testimony (see page 15, Question 15), Mr. Gundersen responds to the question “Does NorthStar have an understanding of the extent of radioactive contamination on the Vermont Yankee site?” Mr. Gundersen’s response to Q.JP:NEC.1-42 has already been provided.

Mr. Gundersen was the first Chair of the Vermont Yankee Public Oversight Panel and apparently was the first person in Vermont (other than Entergy employees) to identify that underground leakage of radioactive isotopes was indeed occurring at Entergy Vermont Yankee (ENVY). Under contract to the State of Vermont Legislative Joint Fiscal Committee, Mr. Gundersen fulfilled his legal obligation and notified the Joint Fiscal Committee in October 2009 of this discovery, noting that ENVY had misled and misinformed the Vermont Yankee Public Oversight Panel. After attempting to impugn his reputation and that of Fairewinds Associates, Inc, the firm founded by his wife Margaret Gundersen that had contracted with the State of Vermont, ENVY was faced with a cesium, strontium, cobalt and tritium leak onsite. Finally, in January 2010 Entergy admitted that it had mislead the VY POP and the State of Vermont. In his capacity as a member of the Vermont Yankee Public Oversight Panel, Mr. Gundersen was repeatedly briefed on weekly conference calls by ENVY and the State of Vermont about the ongoing spread of radiation at the ENVY site.

a. Identify and produce every document Mr. Gundersen reviewed to reach this conclusion.

ANSWER: See Answer to 1-41, which is the same as this one.

49 Docket No. 8880 NEC Reply to: Joint Petitioners’ First Set of Discovery Requests to the New England Coalition Relating to Testimony of Arnold Gundersen October 6, 2017

Q.JP:NEC.1-44: Explain Mr. Gundersen’s basis for concluding that “the process as currently proposed will inevitably create hundreds of contractual disputes, among NorthStar and its contractors,” as stated on page 14.

a. Identify and produce every document Mr. Gundersen reviewed to reach this conclusion.

Answer: Mr. Gundersen was a senior executive at Nuclear Energy Services (NES) when it participated in the decommissioning of the Shippingport Atomic Power Station in Pennsylvania. Shippingport was the first large commercial atomic power reactor ever decommissioned in the world. Because NES had significant decommissioning experience, Bechtel, the prime contractor, sought the expertise of NES on a fixed price basis. Numerous unforeseen problems were uncovered while Shippingport was being decommissioned that increased the contractual work scope for NES and its costs, thereby causing numerous contractual disputes between Bechtel and NES. Mr. Gundersen had personal professional knowledge of these events in his oversight role as a senior executive with NES.

As ENVY will be the first large commercial BWR to be decommissioned and dismantled, it is likely that similar unforeseen work scope problems may arise. For example, ENVY is known to have contaminated structures and groundwater that may dramatically increase the cost of decommissioning and dismantling the Entergy Vermont Yankee site. This would be similar to the experience that occurred at Connecticut Yankee and Shippingport in their PWR decommissioning projects. Such cost overages may result in hundreds of millions of dollars such as the cost overages at Connecticut Yankee and thereby would most likely result in significant financial disputes between NorthStar and its subcontractors.

Mr. Gundersen’s conclusion that “the process as currently proposed will inevitably create hundreds of contractual disputes, among NorthStar and its contractors,” is based upon his personal experience with the decommissioning of Shippingport as a subcontractor to Bechtel while he was an NES executive.

50 Docket No. 8880 NEC Reply to: Joint Petitioners’ First Set of Discovery Requests to the New England Coalition Relating to Testimony of Arnold Gundersen October 6, 2017

Q.JP:NEC. 1-45: Describe each of the “power plant mechanical problems created by Entergy after it acquired the facility,” as stated on page 15.

a. Identify and produce every document supporting this conclusion.

Answer:

The Vermont Yankee Public Oversight Panel, of which Mr. Gundersen was the first chair, created one report 2009 and a second report in 2010. Copies of these reports are already in Entergy’s possession as they were submitted directly to Entergy as part of the process. Below is an excerpt from the July 20, 2010 Vermont Yankee Public Oversight Panel Report that stated Entergy was not spending enough money on maintenance at ENVY4 .

NSA has determined one common cause of these longstanding AOG problems to be a lack of adequate resources being applied to solve each issue definitively. The Panel agrees with NSA that ENVY has not applied enough resources to assure that the AOG system continues to function reliably in the future.

In its 2009 report, the Panel noted that inadequacy of available resources for non-safety related systems probably contributed to the cooling tower collapse in 2007 and leakage in 2008. The Panel is concerned that, one year later, inadequate application of resources continues to plague some non-safety systems, this time the AOG system. In its 2009 report, the Panel said,

Management issues – ENVY management needs to do a more effective job of leading VY in improvement changes and in effectively applying procedures and processes. ENVY management attention and leadership for the changes recommended by the Report are extremely important as the ENVY workforce changes with retirement and replacements of long term employees. ENVY management needs to assure adequate resources are allocated to the reliability of nonsafety-related systems. (Oversight Panel Report for the Vermont Yankee Reliability Assessment, March 2009, page iii)

Other outside observers have also identified resource allocation problems within Entergy. Writing about the Indian Point nuclear plants in New York, Entergy’s own team of

4http://www.leg.state.vt.us/jfo/envy/POP%20VY%20Supplemental%20Report%20 07-2010.pdf

51 Docket No. 8880 NEC Reply to: Joint Petitioners’ First Set of Discovery Requests to the New England Coalition Relating to Testimony of Arnold Gundersen October 6, 2017

experts said,

The physical condition of the plant in non-safety areas is visibly deficient. While station personnel pay close attention to the care, maintenance and operation of plant safety systems, the care and maintenance of some other plant systems and structures do not meet the standards of high-performing plants.... While these have no direct bearing on safe operation of the plant, it is the Panel’s view that the maintenance and preservation of non-critical plant systems, equipment and structures is important, because it communicates to employees and the public alike the owner’s and operators’ commitment and professionalism. (Indian Point Independent Safety Evaluation Report July 31, 2008, page 11)

Limited resource allocation for non-safety systems might, therefore, be systemic within Entergy.

The issue of inadequate application of resources takes on heightened importance given Entergy’s status as an aging plant. Over the remainder of Entergy’s operating life, the possibility of shutdown within a few years can never be ruled out and will become a near certainty at some point.

If the events of the last few years are any guide, Entergy has a tendency to focus expenditures on safety systems and systems of obvious reliability importance while withholding resources from systems that it deems of secondary reliability importance.

52 Docket No. 8880 NEC Reply to: Joint Petitioners’ First Set of Discovery Requests to the New England Coalition Relating to Testimony of Arnold Gundersen October 6, 2017

Q.JP:NEC.1-46: Identify each person to whom the email quoted on page 16 was sent.

Answer:

The email quoted on page 16 is written by Entergy employee Laurence M. Smith and issued from an Entergy email address. Mr. Gundersen has no idea to whom Mr. Smith, as an Entergy employee, sent the email.

53 Docket No. 8880 NEC Reply to: Joint Petitioners’ First Set of Discovery Requests to the New England Coalition Relating to Testimony of Arnold Gundersen October 6, 2017

Q.JP:NEC.1-47: Produce the email quoted on page 16 of Mr. Gundersen’s testimony.

Answer:

The email quoted on page 16 is written by Entergy employee Laurence M. Smith and issued from an Entergy email address. Mr. Gundersen does not have the original email. That must either be in Entergy’s possession or the possession of Morgan, Lewis & Bockius, the special law firm retained by Entergy to conduct the internal review of the leaking cesium, strontium, cobalt and tritium at ENVY. Mr. Gundersen believes those documents were subsequently turned over to Vermont Attorney General William Sorrell for further investigation.

54 Docket No. 8880 NEC Reply to: Joint Petitioners’ First Set of Discovery Requests to the New England Coalition Relating to Testimony of Arnold Gundersen October 6, 2017

Q.JP:NEC.1-48: Admit that the email quoted on page 16 is from 2010. If denied, explain in detail the basis for your denial. If neither admitted nor denied, explain in detail the basis for your response.

Answer:

Admitted.

55 Docket No. 8880 NEC Reply to: Joint Petitioners’ First Set of Discovery Requests to the New England Coalition Relating to Testimony of Arnold Gundersen October 6, 2017

Q.JP:NEC. 1-49: Identify any further information Mr. Gundersen considered related to the content of the email quote on page 16.

Answer: Mr. Gundersen had previously informed state officials, including Senate President Pro Tem Peter Shumlin, the other serving members of the Public Oversight Panel, and indeed Entergy executives (VP John McCann) that he fully expected that Strontium, Cesium and Cobalt had leaked from the ENVY reactor and was contaminating the site. Therefore, Entergy’s email on May 21, 2010 came as no surprise to him. Since Strontium has a radioactive half-life* of slightly less than 29 years and is somewhat soluble in water, it was obvious to Mr. Gundersen with his extensive background in nuclear engineering and atomic power reactor operations that strontium would have migrated deep into the ground under the Entergy Vermont Yankee reactor. Mr. Gundersen had expressed grave concerns about the importance of finding the source of the leak and stopping it so that the site could be remediated and migration of such serious radioactive isotopes would not be carried in groundwater and thereby contaminate other parts of the site or migrate to the Connecticut River.

*Note: The half-life of Strontium of slightly less than 29-years, meaning that Strontium will remain in the soil and/or groundwater for at least 290-years before it decays away, putting the ENVY site, the surrounding water table, and the Connecticut River at risk of ongoing toxic radioactivity for generations.

56 Docket No. 8880 NEC Reply to: Joint Petitioners’ First Set of Discovery Requests to the New England Coalition Relating to Testimony of Arnold Gundersen October 6, 2017

Q.JP:NEC.1-50: Produce the news report cited on page 17 of Mr. Gundersen’s testimony.

Answer:

The full story “Officials debate isotope cleanup at Vermont Yankee” is available at this link: http://www.sentinelsource.com/officials-debate-isotope-cleanup-at-vermont- yankee/article_b83dd9c7-4484-5522-9afc-30619403d584.html

57 Docket No. 8880 NEC Reply to: Joint Petitioners’ First Set of Discovery Requests to the New England Coalition Relating to Testimony of Arnold Gundersen October 6, 2017

Q.JP:NEC. 1-51: Admit that NorthStar produced in discovery due diligence documents that provide additional information regarding groundwater impacts at the VY Station beyond the 2014 Historical Site Assessment. If denied, explain in detail the basis for your denial. If neither admitted nor denied, explain in detail the basis for your response.

Answer: Neither admitted nor denied.

The concept of “due diligence” calls for a legal conclusion, and Mr. Gundersen is not an attorney.

Mr. Gundersen’s engineering pre-filed expert testimony clearly indicates that with the contractual approach chosen by NorthStar to decommission ENVY, the firm’s lack of BWR decommissioning experience, its LLC structure, and the extensive radiological contamination already uncovered at the ENVY site, there is an increased financial risk to the State of Vermont, especially when compared to dismantlement by a major corporation as well-funded as Entergy and with the well-known skill of its experienced TLG Services division.

58 Docket No. 8880 NEC Reply to: Joint Petitioners’ First Set of Discovery Requests to the New England Coalition Relating to Testimony of Arnold Gundersen October 6, 2017

Q.JP:NEC. 1-52: State whether Mr. Gundersen considered any groundwater monitoring results from the VY Station in preparing his testimony. If your answer is in the affirmative, identify which results and explain how they affected Mr. Gundersen’s testimony.

Answer: As a member of the Public Oversight Panel in 2010, Mr. Gundersen is intimately aware of the groundwater problems associated with the Advanced Off Gas System leak. In fact, Mr. Gundersen was praised by Entergy Vice President John McCann for providing the analysis and proposing the test that identified the source of the AOG leak that impacted the accumulation of radioactive groundwater. Late in March 2010, Mr. McCann met with the Oversight Panel and was perplexed about the possible sources of Cesium and Strontium outside the AOG tunnel. Mr. Gundersen firmly suggested that Entergy look inside the tunnel for the source of the radioactive material. Mr. McCann responded that this was a good idea that Entergy would pursue. Vermont PUC Commissioner Sarah Hoffman was in the room for the meeting along with the other members of the VY POP.

Ironically, the very next day, Entergy announced that the source of the leak had been identified as coming from inside the tunnel, but ENVY did not publically acknowledge contribution Mr. Gundersen made to this discovery. However, Mr. McCann wrote the following email praising Mr. Gundersen for his contribution in unraveling the source of the significant radiation problem at ENVY.

From: "McCann, John" Subject: RE: thank you Date: April 1, 2010 at 3:56:45 PM EDT To: "Arnie Gundersen"

My hat's off Arnie. Like I said at our meeting, that was a good idea. That should certainly help us understand that it isn't something new anyway. The disconnect between the condensate sample and soil sample was perplexing. This helps clear it up.

59 Docket No. 8880 NEC Reply to: Joint Petitioners’ First Set of Discovery Requests to the New England Coalition Relating to Testimony of Arnold Gundersen October 6, 2017

Q.JP:NEC.1-53: Describe the groundwater monitoring that took place at Connecticut Yankee prior to Bechtel’s entry into the contract to decommission the facility on April 3, 1999.

Answer: Mr. Gundersen has no knowledge of this topic and cannot opine on the groundwater monitoring system which was in place under Bechtel except to state that a health physicist on that project informed Mr. Gundersen many years ago that a leaking pipe was uncovered that had caused extensive releases of tritium and other more significant radioactive isotopes. Otherwise, Mr. Gundersen has no knowledge of that prior monitoring regime.

60 Docket No. 8880 NEC Reply to: Joint Petitioners’ First Set of Discovery Requests to the New England Coalition Relating to Testimony of Arnold Gundersen October 6, 2017

Q.JP:NEC.1-54: Describe Mr. Gundersen’s understanding of the ability of the state and its agencies to participate in proceedings before the NRC.

Answer: Mr. Gundersen is not an attorney and does not professionally opine on the ability of the state and its agencies to participate before the NRC. Nevertheless, at some point in the future, the site will have no responsible nuclear licensee, at which point in time it is imperative that no residual radiation remains to migrate throughout the site and/or offsite.

61 Docket No. 8880 NEC Reply to: Joint Petitioners’ First Set of Discovery Requests to the New England Coalition Relating to Testimony of Arnold Gundersen October 6, 2017

Q.JP:NEC.1-55: Admit that the only assets available for decommissioning and restoring the VY Station site under the current ownership are the Nuclear Decommissioning Trust, the Site Restoration Trust, a $40 million parent guarantee for nuclear decommissioning, and a $20 million parent guarantee that will be eliminated if the Site Restoration Fund’s balance exceeds $60 million. If denied, explain in detail the basis for your denial. If neither admitted nor denied, explain in detail the basis for your response.

Answer:

Mr. Gundersen denies this statement. As he identifies in his pre-filed testimony, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission has clearly and unequivocally stated that if decommissioning funds are insufficient, the NRC will seek additional funds from the corporate parent Entergy.

62 Docket No. 8880 NEC Reply to: Joint Petitioners’ First Set of Discovery Requests to the New England Coalition Relating to Testimony of Arnold Gundersen October 6, 2017

Q.JP:NEC.1-56: Identify at which facility Mr. Gundersen was a Licensed Reactor Operator, and describe the facility, including its output, its quantity of nuclear fuel, its containment, its cooling systems, its safety systems, the number of licensed Reactor Operators, the number of employees or other workers needed to operate it, the quantity of nuclear waste that it generates, and whether individuals can directly touch the reactor core.

Answer:

Mr. Gundersen was a Reactor Operator (RO) at Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute’s Critical Facility (RPI). There are ROs and SROs (Senior Reactor Operators) in the licensing terminology.

The RPI Critical Facility (CF) and its operators are described, with reference to Entergy Nuclear Vermont Yankee (ENVY) for comparison, as follows:

1. Natural Uranium contains slightly more that 99% non-fissile U238, meaning it does not fission or cause a chain reaction by itself; natural uranium also contains slightly less than 1% fissile U235.

2. To operate Entergy Nuclear Vermont Yankee, the U235 is ‘enriched’ to approximately 5%, so that it can create a chain reaction that operates the nuclear power plant.

3. In contrast, when Mr. Gundersen earned his operating license at RPI, operated the RPI reactor, and taught reactor physics, the RPI reactor contained 93+% highly enriched U235 (HEU). Due to the nature of the RPI CF, the actual enrichment is classified, but Mr. Gundersen can attest that the enrichment was in excess of 93%.

4. Moreover, HEU is bomb grade material while the slightly enriched U235 at Vermont Yankee is not.

5. The RPI reactor, on which Mr. Gundersen was a licensed RO, contained 60-kilograms of HEU (highly enriched uranium), which is enough to produce several Hiroshima style atomic bombs.

6. Operators at Entergy Nuclear Vermont Yankee and the other ‘commercial’ nuclear reactors are required to have at least a high school degree.

63 Docket No. 8880 NEC Reply to: Joint Petitioners’ First Set of Discovery Requests to the New England Coalition Relating to Testimony of Arnold Gundersen October 6, 2017

7. RPI reactor operators were required to be candidates for Master Degree in Nuclear Engineering as well as be able to teach reactor physics.

8. Mr. Gundersen was one of only 20 Atomic Energy Commission5 Fellows in the U.S. when he received an AEC fellowship to attend the elite RPI MENE (Master in Engineering Nuclear Engineering) program.

9. Additionally, because Mr. Gundersen had access to bomb grade uranium, he was also required to submit to an FBI background check before obtaining his operator’s license.

To further explain the difference between these two atomic power reactors:

1. The design of Entergy Nuclear Vermont Yankee has ‘negative reactivity coefficients’, which means that its power is self-limiting, like applying the breaks on a car as its speed increases.

2. On the other hand, the RPI reactor had positive reactivity coefficients, so its power was not self-limiting, like the stepping on the gas pedal of a car as it continues to accelerate.

3. These coefficients include a positive void coefficient and a positive temperature coefficient.

4. Reactors with positive reactivity coefficients have killed their operators when they became uncontrollable, such as at SL-1 in 1961 and Chernobyl in 1986. Because the power level of the RPI reactor could rapidly increase, a Master Degree candidate was required to operate the controls.

5. Because it contained bomb grade uranium, the power generating capacity of the RPI Critical Facility was limited to 100 watts.

6. Yes, to answer the question, the core in the RPI Critical Facility was able to be touched, and the containment system as designed is very similar to ENVY’s reactor building. When the moderator was lost, the reactor was air cooled.

5 Atomic Energy Commission (AEC) was the original federal regulator created during the Atoms for Peace Program; it predated the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) that was not created until 1976.

64 Docket No. 8880 NEC Reply to: Joint Petitioners’ First Set of Discovery Requests to the New England Coalition Relating to Testimony of Arnold Gundersen October 6, 2017

7. On any shift when the reactor was operating, there was a requirement to have at least three people present: a reactor operator, a senior reactor operator, and the facility director. However, this is exclusive of necessary support staff, such as health physics personnel for monitoring, maintenance, security, instrumentation and control technicians, etc.

8. Mr. Gundersen does not know the quantity of nuclear waste produced by the RPI CF.

In his role as a reactor operator, Mr. Gundersen also trained undergraduate engineers at RPI in various reactor criticality techniques, including basic neutron kinetics, neutron flux mapping, “one-over-M” core loading experiments, and measuring reactivity coefficients.

Additionally, the Atomic Energy Commission (AEC), at that time the federal nuclear regulator, required that high school degreed utility personnel who trained to become operators at reactors like Vermont Yankee also take courses at reactors similar to RPI prior to obtaining their Reactor Operator (RO) license.

Mr. Gundersen personally trained utility high school graduate personnel from the Beaver Valley nuclear facility while at the RPI research and training reactor. Operators training to control ENVY’s sister plant, Millstone 1, also trained at the RPI facility prior to obtaining their operator licenses.

Furthermore, General Electric, the corporation that designed Vermont Yankee, also used the RPI Critical Facility to provide research data for void reactivity coefficients for BWRs such as Entergy Nuclear Vermont Yankee. Mr. Gundersen is steeped in this methodology.

65 Docket No. 8880 NEC Reply to: Joint Petitioners’ First Set of Discovery Requests to the New England Coalition Relating to Testimony of Arnold Gundersen October 6, 2017

Q.JP:NEC.1-57: Admit that on page 6, Mr. Gundersen analyzed a 2012 TLG report, not the updated December 2014 report appended to the PSDAR for the VY Station. If denied, explain in detail the basis for your denial. If neither admitted nor denied, explain in detail the basis for your response.

Answer:

Neither admitted nor denied.

Data from both the ENVY PSDAR and the 2012 Entergy/TLG report incorporate improper assumptions concerning funding of the Interim Spent Fuel Storage Installation (ISFSI) that attempted to lead the reader to the erroneous conclusion that funding shortfalls would delay decommissioning until some point past 2050. Both the PSDAR and the 2012 Entergy/TLG report use conventional decommissioning techniques, not rubblization.

Mr. Gundersen concluded that NorthStar’s claim that its ‘new’ technique shortens the schedule and reduces costs is erroneous, and would be the same no matter which report data was applied, since both baseline assumptions are inaccurate. In fact, the erroneous assumptions concerning ISFSI funding in both the PSDAR and the 2012 Entergy/TLG report appear to be the only cause for apparent differences between the schedule and cost estimates created by ENVY and NorthStar.

66 Docket No. 8880 NEC Reply to: Joint Petitioners’ First Set of Discovery Requests to the New England Coalition Relating to Testimony of Arnold Gundersen October 6, 2017

Q.JP:NEC.1-58: Admit that on June 17, 2015, the NRC issued an exemption to ENVY to authorize the reimbursement of operational spent fuel management expenses from the Nuclear Decommissioning Trust. If denied, explain in detail the basis for your denial. If neither admitted nor denied, explain in detail the basis for your response.

Answer: Neither Admitted nor Denied that an exemption was issued on June 17, 2015.

See answer for Q.JP:NEC.1-59 below for a broader, more complete discussion of the relevancy of this issue.

67 Docket No. 8880 NEC Reply to: Joint Petitioners’ First Set of Discovery Requests to the New England Coalition Relating to Testimony of Arnold Gundersen October 6, 2017

Q.JP:NEC.1-59: Admit that ENVY is not authorized pursuant to the exemption issued by the NRC on June 17, 2015 to withdraw any funds from the Nuclear Decommissioning Trust to construct an ISFSI at the VY Station. If denied, explain in detail the basis for your denial. If neither admitted nor denied, explain in detail the basis for your response.

Answer: Neither admitted nor denied.

The question is irrelevant to the expert testimony provided by Mr. Gundersen. As detailed in Mr. Gundersen’s pre-filed expert testimony, the 2012 TLG analysis makes the unsupported and misleading claim that Entergy would withdraw the necessary construction and oversight ISFSI funds from the decommissioning fund and would not be reimbursed by DOE. This same claim is repeated in the 2014 PSDAR.

This unsupported claim had the net effect of making ENVY’s decommissioning appear to cost approximately $1.2 billion and therefore supposedly required fund growth until at least 2050 before the decommissioning process could begin.

NorthStar now claims that its ‘new’ approach of using rubblization saves significant time and dramatically reduces the costs to decommission Entergy Nuclear Vermont Yankee compared to the 2012 TLG analysis.

As explained in Mr. Gundersen’s pre-filed expert testimony, NorthStar’s ‘new’ approach is almost identical to VY’s ‘old’ approach if ISFSI funding is properly accounted for. Without the ISFSI funds misappropriated by misleading assumptions to ENVY’s Decommissioning Trust Fund in the ENVY PSDAR and the 2012 Entergy/TLG analysis, it is clearly evident that Entergy could easily decommission VY without using rubbilization. Entergy’s decommissioning process, using the experience in decommissioning of TLG Services and without rubblization would cost approximately the same amount and move at the same speed as the schedule now proposed by NorthStar.

In his pre-filed expert testimony, Mr. Gundersen shows that there is little difference in schedule or costs between TLG/ Entergy and NorthStar once the correct assumptions are applied.

 NRC determinations from June of 2015 are irrelevant to Mr. Gundersen’s testimony.  Mr. Gundersen does admit that Entergy’s 2012 Decommissioning report and 2014 PSDAR contained misleading claims. o ENVY has never been allowed to withdraw funds for construction and oversight of the ISFSI under existing decommissioning law. o Entergy could expect reimbursement of those funds from the

68 Docket No. 8880 NEC Reply to: Joint Petitioners’ First Set of Discovery Requests to the New England Coalition Relating to Testimony of Arnold Gundersen October 6, 2017

Department of Energy (DOE) as is federally mandated.  Mr. Gundersen does admit that rubblization is not included in the 2012 or 2014 reports and is not necessary to achieve a prompt, cost effective dismantlement of Vermont Yankee.

69 Docket No. 8880 NEC Reply to: Joint Petitioners’ First Set of Discovery Requests to the New England Coalition Relating to Testimony of Arnold Gundersen October 6, 2017

Q.JP:NEC.1-60: Admit that the 2014 Radiological Historical Site Assessment identifies (on page 17) strontium 90 contamination.

Answer: Admit and Deny. While Strontium is mentioned on page 17 of the 2014 Radiological Historical Site Assessment, it is also true, as Mr. Gundersen stated in his pre-filed expert testimony, that section 7.2.2 of that same report claims that “Tritium is the only plant-generated radionuclide detected in groundwater at the site.”

It appears that Entergy, NorthStar and its contractors are carefully choosing their words, claiming that Cesium 137, Strontium 90, and Cobalt 60 that have already been detected on site may not be “plant-generated”.

The official data collected by Entergy Nuclear Vermont Yankee and the State of Vermont when the ‘tritium’ leak was discovered on site ultimately determined that Advanced Off-Gas System was found to be leaking additional isotopes: Cesium 137, Strontium 90, and Cobalt 60. Mr. Gundersen has also repeatedly stated his belief that additional and as yet unidentified radioactive isotopes were indeed “plant- generated” and not caused by above ground testing decades earlier as many nuclear power plant owners try to claim.

70 Docket No. 8880 NEC Reply to: Joint Petitioners’ First Set of Discovery Requests to the New England Coalition Relating to Testimony of Arnold Gundersen October 6, 2017

Q.JP:NEC.1-61: With regard to Mr. Gundersen’s role as a Senior Vice President of Engineering at Nuclear Energy Services (NES), state whether NES was a utility owner of a nuclear plant?

a. How many employees did NES have during that period?

b. How many employees did Mr. Gundersen manage? c. Did NES perform nuclear decommissioning projects under Mr. Gundersen’s direction? Please identify and describe any

Answer: a – b. Mr. Gundersen managed approximately 400 employees. While the Divisions he was responsible for as a Senior Vice President were the most profitable at Nuclear Energy Services for 8 consecutive years, he is unaware of the total number of employees at NES during that time period.

c. Nuclear Energy Services held an NRC licensee to remove radiologically contaminated material as described in Q.JP:NEC.1-5. Mr. Gundersen’s role in providing decommissioning services is described in that response.

71 Docket No. 8880 NEC Reply to: Joint Petitioners’ First Set of Discovery Requests to the New England Coalition Relating to Testimony of Arnold Gundersen October 6, 2017

As to legal objections: /s/ James A. Dumont, Esq.

72