ML042020578

Transcript of Hearing (Evening Session) Held in Rockville, MD on 07/15/04; Pp. 2619 - 2708

ML042020578
Person / Time
Site:	Catawba
Issue date:	07/15/2004
From:	Silberman R Neal R. Gross & Co.
To:	Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
Byrdsong A T
References
50-413-OLA, 50-414-OLA, ASLBP 03-815-03-OLA, NRC-1588, RAS 8174
Download: ML042020578 (92)

Text

RAS s 17P Official Transcript of Proceedings V -NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

Title:

Duke Energy Corporation Evening Session Docket Number: 50-413/414-OLA; ASLBP No.: 03-815-03-OLA DOCKETED USNRC Location: Rockville, Maryland July 20, 2004 (10:39AM)

OFFICE OF SECRETARY RULEMAKINGS AND ADJUDICATIONS SUAPF Date: Thursday, July 15, 2004 Work Order No.: NRC-1 588 Pages 2619-2708 NEAL R. GROSS AND CO., INC.

Court Reporters and Transcribers 1323 Rhode Island Avenue, N.W.

Washington, D.C. 20005 (202) 234-4433

~TI-1 p1ztLomV-0A Sie.C V O-L

2619 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD (ASLB)

.. + + + +

HEARING

+ ++ + +

Ii In the Matter of: 11 11 Docket Nos. 50-413-OLA DUKE ENERGY CORPORATION 11 50-414-OLA Catawba Nuclear Station, ll ASLBP No. 03-815-03-OLA Units 1 and 2 II

- II Thursday, July 15, 2004 The above-entitled matter came on for hearing, pursuant to notice, at 8:00 a.m.

BEFORE:

ANN MARSHALL YOUNG, Chairperson ANTHONY J. BARATTA, Administrative Law Judge THOMAS S. ELLEMAN, Administrative Law Judge NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE.. N.W.

(202)2344433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross .corn

2620 APPEARANCES: -

On Behalf of the Licensee:

DAVID A. REPKA, ESQ.

ANNE W. COTTINGRAM, ESQ.

of: Winston & Strawn, L.L.P.

1400 L Street, N.W.

Washington, D.C. 20005 (202) 371-5726 (202) 371-5950 fax On Behalf of the Petitioner Blue Ridge Environmental Defense LeaQue:

DIANE CURRAN, ESQ.

of: Harmon, Curran, Spielberg & Eisenberg, LLP 1726 M Street, N.W., Suite 600 Washington, D.C. 20036 (202) 328-3500 On Behalf of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission:

SUSAN UTTAL, ESQ.

MARGARET BUPP, ESQ.

ANTONIO FERNANDEZ, ESQ.

MARVIN ITZKOWITZ, ESQ.

Office of General Counsel Mail Stop 0-15 D21 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C. 20555-0001 (301) 415-3725 SU NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.oam

2621 I-N-D-E-X Surrebuttal of NRC staff by Uttal . . . . . . . 2623 2671 Cross of NRC STAFF by Curran . . . . 2645 Recross of NRC Staff by Curran . . . 2678 cross of NRC STAFF by Repka . . . . . 2667 EXHIBIT NO. DESCRIPTION MARK RECD 56 2706 57 2706 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE..N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.neaIrgross.corn

2622 1 - E-V-E-N-I-N-G S-E-S-S-I-O-N 2 6:11 p.m.

3 JUDGE YOUNG: All right. If everyone's 4 ready.

5 Ms. Uttal, whichever one of you is going 6 to be conducting examination, do you have any 7 preliminary questions?

8 MS. UTTAL: Yes. I wanted to ask the 9 staff some questions regarding Dr. Lyman's rebuttal, 10 written rebuttal testimony that was filed before we go 11 to cross examination. I have about --

12 JUDGE YOUNG: Okay. Did I swear you in, 13 Ms. -- didn't I?

14 MS. SHOOP: Yes.

15 DR. MEYER: Yes.

16 DR. LANDRY: Yes.

17 JUDGE YOUNG: Okay. You remain sworn.

18 MS. UTTAL: I have about ten questions to 19 ask Dr. Meyer, if that would be okay.

20 JUDGE YOUNG: Okay. Keep us on the same 21 track.

22 Would you like some water, Ms. Shoop? Do 23 you have water?

24 MS. SHOOP: Actually, I have a bottle of 25 water.

NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE.. N.W.

(202) 2344433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 rww nealrgross.com

2623 1 SURREBUTTAL EXAMINATION 2 MS. UTTAL: Dr. Meyer, do you have a copy 3 of Dr. Lyman's July 8th rebuttal testimony in front of 4 you?

5 DR. MEYER: Yes, I do.

6 MS. UTTAL: Okay. Do you have responses 7 to the testimony? Do you have any responses to the 8 testimony?

9 DR. MEYER: Yes.

10 MS. UTTAL: All right. Let me ask you sO 11 me specific questions. In his answer to question R2, 12 Dr. Lyman states that neither the staff, Dr. Lyman 13 states that neither the staff nor Duke offered any 14 experimental evidence to support their claims 15 regarding the ability of the MOX LTAs to comply with 16 50.46. Do you agree with that?

17 DR. MEYER: No, I don't.

18 MS. UTTAL: Did the staff offer 19 experimental evidence to support its testimony?

20 DR. MEYER: Yes. We offered three 21 exhibits which are now Exhibit 40, 41 and 42. We have 22 enlarged pictures of them out here somewhere, but 23 everyone has these in their packages. These three 24 exhibits, in fact, provide real data on subjects that 25 are at the heart of this hearing.

NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

2624 1 The first exhibit, Exhibit 40, shows on 2 the top a photograph of a specimen after testing at 3 Argonne National Laboratory, this is a --

4 MS. UTTAL: Dr. Meyer, is this the one 5 that's labeled Exhibit 3 on the --

6 DR. MEYER: It's labeled Exhibit 3, that's 7 correct. Exhibit 3 has the new number 40.

8 MS. UTTAL: Thank you.

9 DR. MEYER: Okay. And at the one the top 10 which is labeled High-Burnup PWR Zircaloy-2 specimen 11 is the first of four real fuel rods that have been 12 tested under LOCA conditions. These are the four --

13 first four such high-burnup rods that were ever 14 tested. And they've been discussed in papers presented 15 recently which are entered into the record.

16 MS. UTTAL: Okay. Where the tests on the 17 four rods done?

18 DR. MEYER: Where they were run?

19 MS. UTTAL: Were they run, yes.

20 - DR. MEYER: They were run in hot cells up 21 at Argonne National Laboratory, which is near Chicago.

22 MS. UTTAL: Okay. Was Argonne doing work 23 for the NRC?

24 DR. MEYER: Argonne is working on this for 25 the NRC. This is an NRC program which has industry NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 2344433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 wwwmnealrgos.com

2625 1 cooperation and has other elements of the program 2 besides just these Zircaloy tests.

3 MS. UTTAL: And can you describe what the 4 experiments consisted of what they showed, and the 5 meaning of this picture?

6 DR. MEYER: Well, this -- this picture --

7 -in fact, it says it's a burst opening comparison, and 8 that was the purpose of the presentation from which 9 this photograph came. But there are two other aspects 10 of this picture which are relevant to this hearing.

11 One is that the size of the balloon is approximately 12 the same as the size of the balloon in the 13 unirradiated control specimen. The photograph below 14 in this exhibit is a unirradiated piece of matching 15 tubing. This is a piece of archive tubing, the same 16 tubing that irradiated rod was made of. I mean, you 17 can tell just by looking at them that the balloon size 18 is approximately the same. And, of course, we have 19 measured them carefully and they are the same. We have 20 done four tests like this. The result is the same in 21 each case. The balloon size in each case is the same 22 as the balloon in the high-burnup rod.

23 You can also see the burst opening and 24 some large fuel chunks inside of the burst opening.

25 And you can -- you can pretty much look in there and NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.oom

2626 1 see rather deeply into the opening and not see any 2 small fine particles in there. And I think those are 3 relevant to the discussions that we have had.

4 MS. UTTAL: And this indicates that the 5 tests were done on high-burnup PWR fuel?

6 DR. MEYER: Yes.

7 MS. UTTAL: Catawba uses PWR fuel. Does it 8 make a difference that the tests were performed on PWR 9 fuel?

10 DR. MEYER: Yes and no. In terms of 11 what's going on inside of the cladding, it really 12 doesn't make any difference. The BWR fuel pellets and 13 PWR fuel pellets are virtually identical. There are 14 some minor geometrical differences in the shapes of 15 the pellets, but the material itself, the uranium 16 dioxide is identical. And so there shouldn't be any 17 difference on the relocation inside the cladding.

18 The reason that we are also testing PWR 19 fuel rods is because LOCA behavior is largely 20 controlled by cladding properties. And the cladding 21 on the PWR fuel rods is, in fact, different to begin 22 with. It's Zircaloy-4 instead of Zircaloy-2, which is 23 not such a big deal. But during the burnup period the 24 PWR Zircaloy-4 oxidizes or corrodes; the terms are 25 synonymous,- much more than in the BWR. So when we get NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202)23-443 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005X3701 wwwIneatrgross.comn

2627 1 to the testing of the PWR rods which are in the 2 laboratory and also following along in the same test 3 program, we expect to see some difference in the 4 behavior of the cladding but certainly don't expect to 5 see any difference of the pellet relocation and its 6 implications.

7 MS. UTTAL: And this was LEU fuel not MOX?

8 DR. MEYER: Yes, this is LEU fuel. I 9 could point out one other conclusion from this figure 10 and then maybe we don't have to come back to this 11 figure again.

12 So I've pointed out, first of all, that we 13 can see in there and we don't see any fine particles.

14 I think they were blown out at the time of what I 15 refer to as the blowdown of the rod or the 16 depressurization of the rod. This is not the blowdown 17 of the reactor. But when the burst occurs the rod's 18 filled with a lot of gas and it rushes out this 19 opening. And I know it takes fine particles with it at 20 that time'because what we observed in all four tests 21 was a heavy black deposit on the quartz tube, part of 22 the apparatus, just opposite the opening, the burst 23 opening in all four cases.

24 So we know we're losing fine particles at 25 the time of rupture. And that leads me to the NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005.3701 wwwmeaIrgross.corn 11

2628 1 conclusion that we're probably -- along with this 2 view, that we're probably losing a lot of small 3 particles at that time.

4 The other thing that I think is 5 significant about the observation of the similarity

6. and the size of the balloon is that, we in fact, 7 didn't expect that. We expected that the bonding 8 between the pellet and the cladding would have a 9 rather substantial effect on the size of the balloon, 10 would keep it from deforming so much. But that 11 obviously has not happened. And the same observation 12 in all four cases. And the conclusion that I reach 13 from that is that the bonding between the pellet and 14 the cladding has broken, probably early in the 15 deformation process when the outward deformation or 16 strain starts taking place in the cladding.

17 MS. UTTAL: Do you want to move on to 18 Exhibit 4 now?

19 DR. MEYER: Sure. Sure.

20 JUDGE YOUNG: Which is number 41.

21 MS. UTTAL: Yes. This is Exhibit 4 and 22 they go --

23 THE WITNESS: It's been marked Exhibit 41.

24 It what we labeled Exhibit 4.

25 BY MS. UTTAL:

NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 2344433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

2629 1 MS. UTTAL: Okay. What does this 2 represent?

3 DR. MEYER: Okay. This is a figure from 4 that recent conference up at Argonne National 5 Laboratory. A presentation made by Nicholas Waekel 6 from Electricity De France, EDF in France, on the 7 ballooning size for ramp tests with MS cladding. Ramp 8 tests as opposed to creep tests. There was -- there 9 had been in the IRSN presentation a claim that the M5 10 would grow bigger balloon during LOCA -- under LOCA 11 conditions than Zircaloy because M5 has -- shows 12 larger deformation under creep conditions.

13 Now creep conditions -- creep tests are 14 run with pressurized tubes that are held at a constant 15 temperature. So you fill them up with pressure, you 16 hold them at a constant temperature and you watch the 17 tube expand over periods of many hours. The tests 18 that are normally done to look at the size of balloons 19 under LOCA conditions are what we call ramp tests.

20 These are tests which are -- where the tube is 21 pressurized, but instead of holding it for many hours, 22 the temperature is simply increased usually on a 23 linear -- at a linear rate.

24 And you see here four different rates in 25 the range of interest for a loss of cooling accident NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE.. N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 wwwmnealrgross.com

2630 1 from 5 degrees per second up to 25 degrees per second.

2 And what you see here are the measured 3 strain values. 1 4 Now, you -- you see that the maximum up on 5 the peak of this red serpentine curve is about a 100 6 percent. I had used the 100 percent number in my 7 testimony as an approximately maximum value for 8 measured strains based on a large amount of data that 9 we accumulated back in the '70s and the '80s.

10 MS. UTTAL: When you say "measured 11 strains," do you mean the size of the balloon or --

12 DR. MEYER: Yes. A strain is just the 13 term for the amount of deformation. It is the percent 14 increase in the diameter or in the circumference; it 15 would be the same.

16 MS. UTTAL: Okay. And the data that's 17 shown on this chart, the dots, what do they tell us 18 about this--

19 DR. MEYER: Well, they tell us two things.

20 First of all, the -- for M5 cladding the ballooning 21 size for a LOCA type ramp test is a lot lower than the 22 deformation in the creep tests. And it also shows you 23 that this double hump curve has a maximum value at 100 24 percent, which is virtually the same as we find for 25 Zircaloy.

NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 2344433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 2000653701 www.nealrgross.com

2631 1 MS. UTTAL: Anything else relevant to this 2 case in that exhibit?

3 DR. MEYER: Well, there is. Let me see if 4 I can get my act together here and point it out.

5 The double hump shape of this with the 6 valley has been discussed briefly before. And this 7 structure is a consequence of the fact that the 8 Zircaloy is -- or the M5. They're both Zircaloy 9 alloys and they both behave in approximately the same 10 way. Undergoing a phase change. A low temperature 11 the phase, we call the alpha phase, changes over to 12 another crystal structure at high temperature. And it 13 is going through this change in the temperature range 14 from about 750 to 950 degrees centigrade. And during 15 that transition where you have a mixture of alpha and 16 beta phase material, the ductility is reduced and sO 17 you can't -- you can't -- get very large ballooning 18 deformation before it lets go and bursts.

19 Now, interestingly, and I have the number 20 here somewhere but if you look at one of the Duke 21 figures--

22 MS. UTTAL: Do you do know what figures?

23 DR. MEYER: Okay. Here it is. In Duke's 24 testimony, in their original testimony on page 14 25 figure 1 --

NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 2344433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005.3701 wwwnealrgross.com

2632 1 MS. UTTAL: Okay. There is an exhibit 2 number on that.

3 DR. MEYER: Well --

4 MS. UTTAL: Exhibit 6.

15 DR. MEYER: Six.

6 MS. UTTAL: It's Exhibit 6.

7 DR. MEYER: Okay. You'll see the rupture 8 temperature at around 1575 degree fahrenheit. And if 9 you convert that to centigrade, it's about 850 10 centigrade. It's right in the valley, which is what 11 Duke had testified before.

12 Now, I have seen this before and it's 13 apparently relatively easy to design fuel rods so that 14 under LOCA conditions the rupture will almost always 15 occur in the valley. And it's a convenient -- it's 16 one of several things that are taken into account in 17 the design. But it's not -- it's not unusual, it's 18 not a coincidence, and it's not just speculation. It -1 19 really -- it's really in there. So while one can find 20 balloons as big -- with strains as big as a 100 21 percent, that is diameters as much as twice the 22 original, for the Catawba fuel and for many of other 23 fuel rods that we find in operating plants they're 24 engineered so that the ballooning strain would be only 25 on the order of 40 or 50 percent.

NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 wwwneaIrgrass.com

2633 1 MS. UTTAL: Anything else about this?

2 DR. MEYER: That's enough for that one.

3 MS. UTTAL: Okay. Move on to Exhibit S.

4 DR. MEYER: And I'll be briefer, even 5 briefer on this last one.

6 This is what we called Exhibit 5, which is 7 Exhibit -- the new number is 42. This is simply a 8 plot of predicted temperature versus measured 9 temperatures. The predictions are made with our 10 FRAPCON-3 computer code, which has been modified for 11 application to MOX fuel and it's been validated out 12 to, oh, 60 to 65 gigawatt base per ton.

13 And here you see center line temperature, 14 which is probably the most sensitive and revealing 15 parameter to look at in terms of the effect of thermal 16 conductivity MOX, for example, which is predicted by 17 the FRAPCON code and compared directly with measured 18 center line temperature in Halden tests. You see at 19 the bottom the identification of the various symbols, 20 all preceded by the letters IFA. That's just the 21 instrumented fuel assembly number in the Halden 22 reactor. These are seven instrumented fuel assemblies 23 or rigs, test rigs, that have operated over a period 24 of years with MOX fuel. These are all MOX fuel. And 25 each of these has produced hundreds of data points.

NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE.. N.W.

(202) 2344433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 wwwnealrgrss.cor

2634 1 And you see here that their predicted quite well by 2 the code.

3 And the point of this slide is simply to 4 show that in fact there are a lot of data on MOX fuel 5 which are available to us and others in the community 6 to use in our codes, and we have used them.

7 So these -- in totality these three charts 8 are simply to show that we have MOX data and that we 9 have other specific data related to the interests of 10 this here.

11 MS. UTTAL: Thank you.

12 I was going to ask you about Dr. Lyman's 13 comparison between Duke's figures 10 and 11, but since 14 he agrees that you can't compare them, I'm not going 15 to ask those questions.

16 DR. MEYER: Okay.

17 MS. UTTAL: But Dr. Lyman did say that his 18 conclusion regarding cladding temperature is 19 consistent with BREDL's Exhibit C, that is the June 20 20th, 2002 Thadani memo.

21 DR. MEYER: Yes.

22 MS. UTTAL: Do you agree with that?

23 DR. MEYER: Well, almost. In the Thadani 24 memo we in fact had quoted the number of 313 degree 25 fahrenheit as -- as an upper limit value for the NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 2344433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005.3701 www.nealrgross.com

2635 1 effect of relocation, and-that was based on then IPS 2 and study with the CATHARE2 code. And as we all know 3 now, IRSN, which is the new incarnation of IPSN has 4 updated those calculations and presented those results 5 at the recent conference at Argonne National 6 Laboratory. And these numbers have been discussed 7 already today, but the maximum relocation effect that 8 was found in the updated studies from IRSN is 150 9 degrees centigrade, which is 270 degrees fahrenheit.

10 So I would say that for our purposes it would be 11 better to use 270 degrees as the outside value on the 12 effect on cladding temperature of relocation.

13 MS. UTTAL: In paragraph 3 of his answer 14 to question R3, Dr. Lyman adds up several numbers and 15 reaches the conclusion that with a 70 percent filling 16 ratio due to relocation, the P-clad temperature could 17 rise as high as 2174 degrees Fahrenheit. Do you agree 18 with that number?

19 DR. MEYER: I think it's -- I think it's 20 an excessive number. It's more than is reasonable for 21 an estimate of the upper bound. I believe that for 22 Catawba that if we're going to use the 18 -- well, 23 whether you use the 1840 degree number of the 1750 24 degree number it doesn't matter. I think you 25 shouldn't add anymore than 270 fahrenheit degrees to NEAL R. GROSS N COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 2005-3701 wwwnealrgross.on

2636 1 that, which at most comes up to 2111. And 2111 is 2 very close to the calculated P-cladding temperature 3 away from the ruptured node.

4 And I think that this is entirely 5 consistent with the picture from the R2 data that were 6 discussed earlier. And that is that the beneficial 7 effects of the extra surface area and the disturbances 8 in the coolant flow have more or less compensated for 9 the negative effects. And it's all -- it -- the net 10 result is that you're essentially right back up where 11 you were without relocation.

12 MS. UTTAL: Dr. Lyman also stated that 13 there is a potential to exceed the 17 percent clad 14 oxidation limit of 50.46?

15 DR. MEYER: Yes.

16 MS. UTTAL: If there is a significant 17 increase in P-clad temp, do you agree that there is a 18 potential to exceed the 17 percent?

19 DR. MEYER: Well, I don't think it would 20 exceed 17 percent. But this is a valid point that the 21 maximum oxidation is probably going to be in the 22 ruptured node. And so the increased temperature in 23 the ruptured node would increase that value. Now, 24 that was also estimated in the IRSN study to be 10 25 percent addition to the 4H percent that was in the NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 2344433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

2637 1 Catawba submittal. And I could say that we -- we 2 recently just did an independent check on that with 3 our own and got a number slightly less than 9, 9 4 percent.

5 So I think that 8 or 10 percent is a very 6 reasonable number for the additional oxidation by the 7 elevated temperatures in the ruptured node.

8 MS. CURRAN: Excuse me. Did we get this 9 calculation?

10 DR. MEYER: No. I don't -- I don't even 11 have any documentation of it. All I'm telling you is 12 that -- is that I think that is a reasonable number 13 based on things that we have done in the office.

14 MS. CURRAN: You just said the staff 15 recently did a calculation.

16 DR. MEYER: Yes.

17 MS. CURRAN: So there's no calculation on 18 a piece of paper?

19 DR. MEYER: No. It was done on a 20 computer.

21 MS. CURRAN: When was it done?

22 DR. MEYER: It was done -- I don't know, 23 over the weekend. One night at home. Harold did it.

24 I didn't plan -- we hadn't written up. I'm just 25 telling you that based on our experience of things NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON. D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgra6s.com

2638 1 that we normally do, you know, we're always checking 2 numbers. This is a very reasonable number that IRSN 3 has given, the 10 percent. And I'm just willing to 4 say I believe that's a reasonable number and I have 5 some experience on which to base that.

6 MS. UTTAL: All you're saying is that the 7 IRSN number is reasonable?

8 DR. MEYER: Yes. It's a good number.

9 MS. CURRAN: Well, to the extent the staff 10 is saying there was a calculation, I am going to 11 object to the inclusion of that testimony in the 12 record because it is not supported.

13 MS. UTTAL: We'll withdraw that piece of 14 testimony.

15 JUDGE YOUNG: Is there any way you could 16 provide a printout or any record of the calculation?

17 MS. UTTAL: We'll just withdraw that 18 particular piece about the staff verifying it.

19 JUDGE YOUNG: But not the part about the 20 IRSN calculation reasonable?

21 MS. UTTAL: No. The IRSN calculation 22 reasonable we will stand on.

23 In his response to question R4 Dr. Lyman 24 disagrees with Duke's statement that the impact of 25 fuel relocation on the increase of the heat source in NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 2344433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 ww.wneargross.com

2639 1 the ballooned area is mitigated by the lower density 2 of the LOCA stated fuel as compared to the original 3 density. So that very high filling ratios are the 4 only cause of concern. In support for his opinion he 5 cited the staff's testimony that the diameter increase 6 due to ballooning can be as big as 100 percent. Do 7 you agree with that conclusion?

8 DR. MEYER: Well, no. And I alluded to 9 this when we talked about these three exhibits up 10 here, the one that shows this double humped curve in 11 the strain data. While it's true that under certain 12 conditions you can get strains as high a 100 percent, 13 those would not be appropriate for Catawba. And the 14 Catawba strains are only about 40 percent. And so, 15 you know, it's not a factor of two on the radius and 16 a factor of four on the area. It's a factor of 1.4 o 17 the radius and a factor of 2 on the area. And so, you 18 know, we're right back to where were with this 50 or 19 60 percent filling ratio.

20 There is obviously an effect of 21 relocation, but it's not -- it's not as severe as 22 indicated by taking that 100 percent number and 23 matching that with some maximum filling fraction.

24 JUDGE YOUNG: This may be simple, but the 25 bases on which you say that Catawba would not be as NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 wwwMealrgrass.cam

2640 1 great as the 100 percent was based on their limiting 2 -- of operation or what?

3 DR. MEYER: There are two places in the 4 record where you can find this. One you can find it in 5 their -- somewhere in their tables, and I've lost 6 track of that. But the other is this figure 1 in 7 their testimony on page 14. If you just go from that 8 temperature at the occurrence of rupture, which is 9 approximately 1574 degrees fahrenheit and take that 10 temperature onto this double humped curved, you find 11 yourselves right down in the valley. And that's about 12 40 percent. I think they've quoted 50 percent or 52 13 percent in their table.

14 This is just a -- more or less, an 15 independent or another way to get to those numbers.

16 JUDGE YOUNG: Okay.

17 MS. UTTAL: Dr. Meyer, does the use of MOX 18 have any effect on relocation?

19 DR. MEYER: Do I think that MOX had any 20 effect on --

21 MS. UTTAL: Does the use of MOX have any 22 effect on relocation?

23 DR. MEYER: I really don't think so. You 24 want me to explain that? I'd like to explain that.

25 There are two -- you can only think of two NEAL R.GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 wwwmealrgross.com

2641 1 possibilities here that MOX fuel might have on 2 relocation. They've been discussed.

3 One is -- is the effect of bonding and the 4 other is the effect of the filling ratios. So let's 5 take them one at a time.

6 The effect of bonding. When we did the 7 PIRT panel a few years ago, and this has been brought 8 into the record by BREDL, I and members of the PIRT 9 panel thought that bonding between the pellet and the 10 cladding was going to have a significant effect on the 11 balloon size, because bonding is quite severe. Even 12 in these BWR rods that we've tested at Argonne, for 13 example, we're testing short segments about 15 inches 14 long. So we have to cut those out of the 12 foot long 15 fuel rod and weld endplugs on them in order to fill it 16 with gas and conduct the experience. In order to weld 17 the end plug, we have to remove some pellet material 18 on either end of the specimen. We found that was very 19 difficult. We started out trying to drill it out. We 20 had to get a drill with a impactor on it, s0 it's like 21 a jackhammer. The stuff is really stuck tight, and 22 you would think that it would hold the cladding in 23 when it goes through ballooning -- a LOCA transient.

24 But it doesn't. And it must simply snap that layer 25 when you start developing this uniform outward NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005.3701 www.neahrgrmss.con

2642 1 deformation as the temperature rises with the large 2 pressure differential.

3 And so my first conclusion is that there's 4 no effect of bonding on the size of the balloon, and 5 therefore it doesn't matter whether you have LEU or 6 MOX. The balloon doesn't care. It's going to take 7 whatever size it's going to take regardless of the 8 pellet that's inside.

9 So based on four tests, which is all we 10 have so far, we have a good indication that that's not 11 going to be a factor at all.

12 So that leaves you with this filling ratio 13 question. And this is an interesting situation, 14 because it's really hard to pack in particles to get 15 a high density in that kind of geometry. Now why I 16 say that is because there's a lot of experience in 17 trying to manufacture fuel that way.

18 Back in the '60s and '70s while I was at 19 the laboratory we were experimenting with what we call 20 sphere pack fuel, which was fuel that was made with 21 particles of several sizes that you put in a cladding 22 tube and vibrate it. And you would have to vibrate at 23 like 62nd vibration with 8G forces for 24 hours2.777778e-4 days <br />0.00667 hours <br />3.968254e-5 weeks <br />9.132e-6 months <br /> in 24 order to get densities up into the 80 percent range.

25 So you're really up against a limit there, a practical NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005.3701 wwwnealrgross.com

2643 1 limit. And it's hard to imagine densities much above 2 70 percent, which are already included in the studies.

3 So even if the particle size is not 4 identical between MOX and LEU fuel, and even if the 5 small particles aren't blown out as the evidence 6 suggests that they are, there is not much room to 7 increase that packing fraction above what's already 8 assumed in the parametric study done by IRSN.

9 So I just have a hard time imagining that 10 that's going to have much of an effect.

11 MS. UTTAL: Thank, you Dr. Meyer.

12 I'll tender the panel for cross 13 examination.

14 JUDGE YOUNG: Ms. Curran?

15 MS. CURRAN: I need two minutes, please.

16 JUDGE YOUNG: Let me ask you something --

17 if it's going to distract, that may not do much good.

18 MS. CURRAN: Yes.

19 JUDGE YOUNG: Well, I'll say what the 20 question is and then you can -- there was testimony 21 about the agglomerates and the rimming around those.

22 Did you take that into account in your answers?

23 DR. MEYER: Shall I answer it now?

24 JUDGE YOUNG: Do you mind if he answers it 25 now?

NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 2344433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 wwwnealrgross.com

2644 1 MS. CURRAN: All right.

2 DR. MEYER: I can wait.

3 MS. CURRAN: Well, I'll need two minutes 4 at some point. Why don't you go ahead and answer it.

5 JUDGE YOUNG: Go ahead and answer and 6 we'll let you have your --

7 DR. MEYER: Okay. The agglomerates are 8 these little clusters of high concentrations of plutonium, The fuel is fabricated by mixing powders 10 of a mixed U0 2 /PUO2 in powers of U0 2 ; you mix them 11 together and then center the pellets. And it doesn't 12 come out creamy smooth. So as Dr. Lyman has pointed, 13 you develop what we have referred to as rim material 14 around these agglomerates in the mixed oxide fuel.

15 This is that fine grain material which has a lot of 16 fission gas in little bubbles on the grain boundaries.

17 You get the same rim material in LEU fuel, 18 but it's all located around the outside diameter of 19 the pellet.

20 You can make a rough estimate of the 21 amount of this rim material that's in the MOX fuel and 22 in the LEU fuel based on the ability of or the release 23 of fission gases from the matrix material to the grain 24 boundaries during operation. And it's somewhat higher 25 in the MOX fuel. Maybe 20 percent higher.

NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgroas.com

2645 1 So I think you can convert this directly 2 to the amount of rim material and say that perhaps 3 there's 20 percent more rim material in MOX fuel than 4 in LEU fuel, but it's already just a small fraction, 5 a very small fraction of the total amount of fuel.

6 And the fact that it is distributed throughout the 7 pellet rather than on the surface under these accident 8 conditions I don't think has any effect.

9 JUDGE YOUNG: Go ahead and take your two 10 minutes.

11 CROSS EXAMINATION 12 MS. CURRAN: Mr. Landry, in response to --

13 MS. UTTAL: Dr. Landry.

14 MS. CURRAN: Dr. Landry. Excuse me.

15 MS. CURRAN: In response to question 16 in 16 your direct testimony you cite table 3-5 of the LAR to 17 support your conclusion that Duke's application 18 complies with 10 CFR 50.46. Do you still consider that 19 the case 1 calculation for the MOX LTA in table 3-5 is 20 legitimate given that Duke does not present table 3-5 21 as a case for establishing the LOCA limits for the MOX 22 LTA?

23 DR. LANDRY: Table 3-5 in the LAR quotes 24 the P-cladding temperature as being 2018 degrees 25 fahrenheit. Subsequent analysis which Duke has NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgro6s.com

2646 1 provided in response to an RAI from the staff raised 2 that temperature to 2019.5 degrees. That was because 3 they did additional studies at additional burnups.

4 Raising that temperature by 1.5 degrees is 5 insignificant.

6 MS. CURRAN: Well, why does the safety 7 evaluation refer to the other number?

8 DR. LANDRY: They're in the safety 9 evaluation? Whether we quote 2018 or 2019 is pretty 10 small. We are planning to the supplement to the SER 11 at some point, and we're correct it to 2019.5 degrees.

12 MS. CURRAN: So it's a mistake?

13 DR. LANDRY: Yes.

14 MS. CURRAN: Dr. Meyer, at page seven of 15 its, I think it's rebuttal testimony -- it must be the 16 direct testimony. Well anyway, in your testimony I 17 believe you said that the limiting case P-clad 18 temperature was found to be -- oh, I'm sorry, that's 19 because it's the SE, the safety evaluation.

20 At page 7 of the safety -evaluation the 21 staff says that the limiting case PCT was fond to be 22 2056 degrees fahrenheit at the 95th percentile. At the 23 same page the staff says that in comparing the LTA 24 calculation to that, the staff says the lower PCT 25 results are due to placement of the assemblies in NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 2344433 WASHINGTON. D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.con

2647 1 nonlimiting core locations yielding a local peaking 2 factor and linear heat generation below those of 3 resident fuel. But couldn't it also be because 4 relocation was taken into account in the LEU case?

5 MS. SHOOP: I'll say again, Dr. Landry was 6 not part of the team. I'm trying to find exactly 7 where you are in the SER.

8 MS. CURRAN: I'm on page 7.

9 MS. SHOOP: Which paragraph?

10 MS. CURRAN: In the first paragraph 11 towards the bottom of the paragraph. The staff says 12 the limiting case PCT was found to be 2056 degrees 13 fahrenheit at the 95th percentile and the maximum 14 local oxidation was found to be 10 percent.

15 DR. MEYER: And your question is?

16 MS. CURRAN: Then further down in the 17 third paragraph this starts with evaluation of the LTA 18 performance under large break LOCA conditions found 19 that the LTAs could experience a PCT of 2018 degree 20 fahrenheit and a maximum local oxidation of 4.5 21 percent. The low results are due to placement of the 22 assemblies in non-limiting core locations yielding a 23 local peaking factor in linear heat generation rate 24 below those of those the resident fuel.

25 So it looks like that the staff attributes NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 2344433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005.3701 www.nealrgross.comn

2648 1 the low results to placement of the assemblies in non-2 limiting core locations, and my question is couldn't 3 the lower temperatures result from taking into account 4 the LEU case? Because relocation was taken into 5 account in the LEU case.

6 MS. SHOOP: Could we have Dr. Landry 7 respond to some --

8 DR. MEYER: Dr. Landry was not involved in 9 that review.

10 MS. CURRAN: All right. Go ahead.

11 DR. LANDRY: The values that are reported 12 in the SER are based on a valid analyses that were 13 submitted by the licensee. The value that is quotes as 14 the LEU resident fuel P-cladding temperature 2056 15 degrees is from the analysis of record for Catawba 16 that has already been discussed numerous times today.

17 The value of 2018 or 2019.5 is the value 18 of the P-cladding temperature obtained from analysis 19 of the response of the MOX LTA under the condition it 20 will see in operation in Catawba. That is that the 21 linear heat generation rate, the peaking factors, 22 etcetera. When that calculation is reviewed, we found 23 that the P-cladding temperature was approximately 2020 24 degrees, which just for comparisons we say is below 25 the resident fuel P-cladding temperature. But you NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 2344433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005.3701 www.nealrgross.com

2649 1 cannot really compare those against one another.

2 Today there have been a lot of comments about apples 3 and oranges; that's not really a good analogy. This --

4 you cannot make a one-to-one comparison here because 5 they are two totally different analytical 16 methodologies, both of which have been reviewed by the 7 staff and found to be in compliance with the staff's 8 regulations.

9 MS. CURRAN: So that last sentence in the 10 third paragraph that says the lower results are due to 11 placement of the assemblies in not non-limiting core 12 locations yielding a local peaking factor and linear 13 heat generation rate below those of the resident fuel, 14 is that incorrect? Is that -- is that an irrelevant--

15 DR. LANDRY: No. No. It's still a correct 16 statement.

17 MS. CURRAN: So then you are making a 18 comparison then of the apple and the orange in this 19 sentence, aren't you?

20 DR. LANDRY: But we were not intending the 21 comparison to be one that would lead one to compare 22 one analysis with another. We were simply making a 23 statement that the MOX LTAs are predicted to have a 24 lower P-cladding temperature than is predicted by the 25 analysis of record for Catawba.

NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE.. N.W.

(202) 2344433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 2000"53701 www.nealrgross.coom

2650 1 MS. CURRAN: Well, it looks to me like 2 you're drawing a conclusion from the comparison here.

3 DR. LANDRY: No. We're stating -- we're 4 stating facts. The fact is --

5 MS. CURRAN: Well, when you use the word 6 "lower," okay in that sentence, the second word in the 7 sentence, what is lower than what?

8 DR. LANDRY: The temperature predicted is 9 lower. It is predicted to be --

10 MS. CURRAN: The temperature predicted for 11 MOX?

12 DR. LANDRY: It is predicted to be lower.

13 MS. CURRAN: Than the temperature of the 14 resident fuel?

15 DR. LANDRY: That is correct.

16 MS. CURRAN: Okay. And that's a 17 comparison, wouldn't you say?

18 DR. LANDRY: It was simply making a 19 statement that one temperature is predicted to be 20 lower than another temperature.

21 MS. CURRAN: And then the rest of the 22 sentence is the reason that it's lower, you're still 23 standing by the reason that it's lower due the 24 placement of the assemblies in non-limiting core 25 locations; you're still standing by that?

NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE.. N.W.

(202) 2344433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 2000!53701 www.nealrgross.corn

2651 1 DR. LANDRY: The assembly is placed in a 2 less limiting location in the cote.

3 MS. CURRAN: Is that related to the lower 4 temperature for the MOX fuel?

5 DR. LANDRY: By placing the assembly in a 6 lower -- in a less limiting location in the core you 7 will obtain a lower temperature. Had the --

8 MS. CURRAN: In relation to what?

9 DR. LANDRY: Had the assembly been placed 10 in a limiting location and the Appendix K calculation 11 performed, the temperature would have been higher. How 12 much higher we don't know. But the temperature would 13 have been higher had this assembly been subjected to 14 the limiting P-cladding -- limiting peaking factors, 15 linear heat generation rate that was used in the other 16 -- the other analyses.

17 MS. CURRAN: If fuel relocation were taken 18 into account, would your answer be the same?

19 DR. LANDRY: Fuel relocation is not taken 20 into account in an Appendix K model.

21 MS. CURRAN: No, but that wasn't my 22 question. If fuel --

23 DR. LANDRY: I cannot answer that question 24 because fuel relocation is not taken into account in 25 an Appendix K model.

NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.neafrgross.com

2652 1 MS. CURRAN: You can address a 2 hypothetical? Are you not able to do it? Or should 3 I ask one of the other witnesses?

4 DR. LANDRY: I have no -- we cannot impose 5 on an Appendix K model an effect that has not been put 6 into the models. If we looked at, as was brought out 7 earlier today, the analyses of record looking at the 8 95th percentile temperature, 2056, and looked at the 9 mean value temperature which would be the temperature 10 more representative of a non-limiting location, you 11 get a temperature on the order of 1500 degrees 12 fahrenheit.

13 MS. CURRAN: If you were to turn off or if 14 one were to turn off the relocation factor in the 15 model for the analyses of record, how much lower do 16 you think the P-clad temperature would be?

17 DR. LANDRY: The exact number I don't know 18 because that calculation has not been performed for 19 this reactor.

20 The generic calculations, if memory serves 21 me correctly and this is dangerous relying on my 22 memory, the effect is less than 100 degrees 23 fahrenheit. '

24 MS. CURRAN: And what is your recollection 25 based one?

NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 2344433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

2653 1 DR. LANDRY: Reaching long back into the 2 information on the review of the code itself, the 3 methodology of Westinghouse. And my recollection is 4 that that effect was less than 100 degrees.

5 MS. CURRAN: More than 50 presumably or --

6 DR. LANDRY: I don't recall the exact 7 number. Whether it's 50 or between 50 and 100 really 8 isn't relevant. It's less than 100 degrees.

9 DR. LYMAN: I'd like to ask Dr. Meyer a 10 few questions, if I might?

11 JUDGE YOUNG: Go ahead.

12 DR. LYMAN: Dr. Meyer, in my statement 13 this afternoon I discussed the description of the ICL 14 #2 test sample, which is the integral of the test that 15 followed the ICL #1 sample. And I pointed out that it 16 was remarked that during the post-test handling some 17 fuel particles less than .3 millimeters in size fell 18 out through the first opening. And I concluded from 19 that statement that it was reasonable that meant 20 during the test at least some small fuel particles 21 remained within the fuel rod, and therefore were 22 available for relocation after they ruptured and 23 during the continued increase in cladding temperature.

24 Is that -- how would you address that statement in the 25 context of your assertion that most or all of the fine NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON. D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.cxo

2654 1 fuel particles would be blown out based on this 2 photograph you're shown?

3 DR. MEYER: Well, I think the truth is 4 somewhere -- is somewhere in between. There is loose 5 material that extends axially within the balloon or if 6 it didn't, there wouldn't be a possibility for 7 relocation. And it is clear from the deposit on the 8 tube that some of the fine material was blown out at 9 the time of depressurization.

10 It is also true that additional fuel fell 11 out when the specimen was handled. So, you know, there 12 was -- there was some material missing and there was 13 probably some extra material in the ballooned region.

14 DR. LYMAN: So you would say that some 15 fine particles blew out but some fine particles 16 remained?

17 DR. MEYER: I really -- I really expect 18 that the smallest ones, the kind that would come from 19 rim type material are probably all gone because those 20 are the ones that would -- they're almost aerosol size 21 and they would be easily entrained in the exiting gas.

22 And so, you know, you quoted a .3 millimeters and 23 below, and I frankly don't remember what the 24 distribution was. But that's a pretty big particle 25 compared to the rim size material which would be down NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 2344433 WASHINGTON. D.C. 200053701 www.nealrgrss.com

2655 1 in the 10 micron range, and it's probably all gone.

2 But as I said earlier, I really -- I don't 3 think we have a handle on whether the particles would 4 be smaller or bigger because in my file testimony I 5 pointed out that the MOX material was somewhat more 6 plastic than the U02 . And you could make an argument 7 that it would -- it would form fewer particles. And 8 I think we're dealing in speculation here as to 9 whether there are more fine particles or fewer fine 10 particles, whether they're present or not present.

11 Well, we know that some of them are gone. That's not 12 speculation. What we also know is that there -- you 13 don't have much head room in terms of trying to 14 increase the packing fraction or the density in the 15 relocated debris.

16 DR. LYMAN: Yes, but let's go one step at 17 a time. In your written rebuttal or your written 18 testimony.

19 DR. MEYER: Okay.

20 DR. LYMAN: You did say something like --

21 okay.

22 You did say, and this on page 15 in answer 23 4 to your testimony, it thus appears -- and this is 24 based on this photograph, "It thus appears that the 25 small particles or fines are blown out of the burst NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 wwwneaIrgross.com

2656 1 opening with the rod depressurizes, thus there would 2 be few or no small particles in the ballooned region."

3 So that--

4 JUDGE YOUNG: Where are you? I'm sorry.

5 DR. LYMAN: Sorry. That's the answer to 6 question 4 there on page 15.

7 So it's a pretty definitive statement --

8 JUDGE YOUNG: Oh, of the direct testimony.

9 Wait a minute. I'm sorry.

10 DR. LYMAN: Yes, of the staff's direct 11 testimony.

12 But as you've discussed and as the 13 statement about ICL #2 indicates there are some small 14 particles, some particles remain. So I would think 15 that that statement was a little strong what you had 16 written in your direct testimony compared to --

17 DR. MEYER: Well, I think we're quibbling 18 here about what small means. These are all small 19 particles. I mean the pellet's only 3/8th of an inch 20 in diameter. That's about the size of your little 21 finger. And my guess is from looking at those 22 photographs and from looking at the deposit on the 23 tube that the particles that are in the aerosol size 24 range, tens of microns are probably all gone. And at 25 some point as we go to bigger particles, there are NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 2344433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.neaIrgross.com

2657-1 some of them there. I don't -- you know, I've given 2 you an opinion based on information that's 3 transparent, and take it for what you want.

4 DR. LYMAN: And in your judgment in the 5 case of MOX fuel where you had agglomerates that were 6 distributed throughout the.entire -- across the entire 7 pellet and therefore the -- if you accept the 8 proposition that the high burnup structure material 9 around the agglomerates may contribute to the 10 generation of fine fragments, that that could -- that 11 that would be a different picture than the high burnup 12 rim around uranium fuel and that might effect the 13 ejection of these fine particles from MOX fuel as 14 opposed to uranium.

15 DR. MEYER: I really doubt that for the 16 following reason: When we started these experiments 17 we not only expected the bonding to have so me 18 restraining effect on the cladding deformation, but we 19 also expected base on steady state tests at Halden 20 that the gas flow axially through the fuel rod would 21 be impeded because you have -- you have a fuel rod 22 where the cladding has essentially crept down onto the 23 fuel pellet and has bonded to it. So it's all stuck 24 together and there is not much open space for gas to 25 flow. And this is what you find in the Halden gas NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 wwwmnealrgross.com

2658 1 flow experiments, that it is very difficult to get gas 2 to flow through there.

3 We put pressure transducers on both ends 4 of the specimen and put the gas plenum on only one 5 end. And so we could look specifically at the flow 6 resistance. And. what we found was that as the --

7 apparently as the cladding begins to deform under this 8 pressure, it opens up distributed cracks throughout, 9 not just an annual or rim around, but throughout. I 10 mean, that's why you get these rubblized pellets, is 11 they are cracked all the way through the volume. And 12 so you have a distributed gap through which gas is 13 flowing with almost no impediment at all in these 14 experiments.

15 And so there is no reason to believe that 16 this wouldn't just entrain particles from throughout 17 the volume of the fuel. But again, I come back to the 18 fact that we were merely speculating as to whether 19 such a small change in the distribution of particle 20 sizes between LEU and MOX is going to have any effect 21 at all on the packing fraction.

22 DR. LYMAN: Well, I mean I agree that 23 there is a level of speculation involved. This is why 24 I've maintained that more experimental work on MOX 25 fuel is warranted.

NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 wwwneairgross.com

2659 1 I'd like to ask you a couple of questions 2 about the revised IRSN calculations at relocation that 3 you referred to that were actually in BREDL, was 4 Exhibit F, which is --

5 JUDGE YOUNG: What exhibit is that?

6 DR. MEYER: Do I need to look at that or 7 can I do it from --

8 DR. LYMAN: No, if you wouldn't mind 9 taking a look at that.

10 DR. MEYER: Okay.

11 JUDGE YOUNG: 30? Is that right?

12 MS. CURRAN: Yes.

13 DR. LYMAN: And I think the discussion 14 starts on page 6.

15 DR. MEYER: Page 6?

16 DR. LYMAN: Page 6 of the overhead part.

17 DR. MEYER: Yes.

18 DR. LYMAN: You said that these were 19 revised calculations relative to the ones they 20 performed in 2001.

21 DR. MEYER: Yes.

22 DR. LYMAN: Could you discuss the 23 substance or the revisions? I'm sorry, were you 24 present at this meeting?

25 DR. MEYER: I was present at the meeting.

NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234.4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 wwwinealrgross.ccm

2660 1 DR. LYMAN: All right. And did you hear 2 this talk?

3 DR. MEYER: And I cannot tell you what the 4 difference was between the previous calculations and 5 the present one. But I do know that they have been 6 working on this with their CATHARE code. And I have 7 no reason to challenge their calculations.

8 DR. LYMAN: No, I'm not asking you to 9 challenge them, I'm just trying to understand the 10 reason for any differences in the result compared to 13 2001.

12 DR. MEYER: You know, I can't tell.

13 DR. LYMAN: Now the graph on this 14 viewgraph, is your understanding that graph 15 corresponds to the results, the numerical results that 16 they present on the right hand side?

17 JUDGE YOUNG: You're still look at page 6?

18 DR. LYMAN: Yes.

19 JUDGE YOUNG: Okay.

20 DR. MEYER: Well, I thought so but I think 21 I see where you're going with this.

22 DR. LYMAN: Right.

23 DR. MEYER: I never concentrated on that 24 graph before. I latched onto the numbers.

25 DR. LYMAN: Right. Well, I was puzzled NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

2661 1 about this as well, and I even emailed IRSN, but they 2 never responded. Could you explain what you think I 3 see here?

4 DR. MEYER: What we're talking about is 5 that from the graph it looks like the temperature 6 difference without relocation compared with either of 7 the filling ratios is bigger than the numbers that 8 they've quoted over here on the right hand side. And 9 I never paid attention to that.

10 DR. LYMAN: Could you give me a rough 11 estimate of the difference you see from the graph as 12 opposed to the numerical figures?

13 DR. MEYER: It's over -- over 200.

14 DR. LYMAN: Degree celsius?

15 DR. MEYER: Yes.

16 DR. LYMAN: Right. That was my impression 17 as well, which is about 300 degree -- 360 degrees 18 fahrenheit.

19 DR. MEYER: Well, it depends if you go out 20 beyond where the peak is, then it's even bigger.

21 DR. LYMAN: Right. So I think there's 22 some -- since I wasn't at this presentation I wasn't 23 able to ask these questions. I don't know if there's 24 any further details about these calculations. But I 25 think that there's an issue here on -- at least NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 2344433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.coim

2662 1 there's some uncertainty about the presentation, the 2 values in this presentation.

3 What you agree that there is some apparent 4 contradiction here?

5 DR. MEYER: I agree that you and I can't 6 figure out --

7 DR. LYMAN: Right.

8 DR. MEYER: -- the difference between 9 those curves and those numbers.

10 DR. LYMAN: Thank you.

11 Now, could you turn to page 7? It looks 12 to me like there is a similar problem here. This is 13 like the first graph on page 7, the calculation of the 14 equivalent clad reacting.

15 So would you say it's fair to say that 16 based on just this document, which is all we have 17 before us, that we don't know which is right? Could 18 you describe the issue here?

19 DR. MEYER: It looks like these numbers 20 aren't -- you -know, down below it says plus 5 to 7 21 percent and here it looks like we're talking about 7 22 to -- 7 to 10 percent.

23 DR. LYMAN: Seven to 10. And this is the 24 calculated equivalent clad reacting, which is 25 essentially a surrogate for the peak clad oxidation, NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com I

2663 1 is that correct?

2 DR. MEYER: But the number that we were 3 banting about was 10 percent.

4 DR. LYMAN: Yes, but just from --

5 DR. MEYER: And that's consistent with 6 the--

7 DR. LYMAN: Right. Yes. Well, I'll get to 8 that point in a minute. But as far as the graphs 9 here, this does have the same problem, the figures 10 below the graph don't seem to correspond to the graph-11 12 DR. MEYER: Well, you see --

13 DR. LYMAN: Is that correct?

14 DR. MEYER: Yes. Well, it's correct as 15 long as the numbers at the bottom were intended to be 16 maximum or these filling ratios.

17 DR. LYMAN: Right.

18 DR. MEYER: Because there are -- you know, 19 there are times --

20 DR. LYMAN: Now, as long as we're --

21 DR. MEYER: That's an interesting point 22 here because the time scale is clearly long. And, of 23 course, if you cook this for long periods of time at 24 the 2 unequal temperatures, you're going to get more 25 and more oxidation and you're going to get outside of NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 2344433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

2664 1 the range of interest for the time.

2 DR. LYMAN: What would you say a 3 reasonable time scale for the active P-clad 4 temperature would be?

5 DR. MEYER: Well, in the Catawba plant the 6 burst occurred later than this. It occurred at -- and 7 I've forgotten the precise numbers. But it was about 8 -- about 60 or 70 seconds and the peak temperature 9 occurred at about 130 seconds. So --

10 DR. LYMAN: But it was also a shallower 11 decrease, wasn't it? If you look back on page 6, this 12 has a very rapid quench.

13 DR. MEYER: It has a very rapid what?

14 DR. LYMAN: The temperature drops very 15 rapidly at 160 seconds.

16 DR. MEYER: Well, yes. I presume they 17 just terminated their calculation there.

18 DR. LYMAN: Right. But the actual, the 19 Catawba if you look at figure one on Duke's testimony, 20 the time temperature code is considerably different 21 for their LOCA calculation.

22 DR. MEYER: Was that a question?

23 DR. LYMAN: Well, the question is then is 24 it appropriate to directly compare the peak equivalent 25 clad reactive from these calculations to those in the NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 2343 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nearross.com

2665 1 Catawba analysis or wouldn't it be necessary to start 2 with the Catawba analysis from scratch if you really 3 want to evaluate the maximum -- peak oxidation?

4 DR. MEYER: Actually I don't think you 5 have to start from scratch because time and 6 temperature is time and temperature. And if there is 7 some differences in the wiggles in the curve or --

8 it's -- it's not going to make all that much 9 difference.

10 The ECR equivalent cladding reacted is an 11 integral quantity and it's going to be less sensitive 12 to those deviations. I think you can make a 13 legitimate estimate of the additional amount of 14 oxidation by simply looking at the higher temperature 15 and knowing what the oxidation rates are, which are 16 well represented in the codes. Excessively calculated 17 in an Appendix K code with the Baker-Just correlation.

18 And you can get estimates and bounds of those.

19 DR. LYMAN: Okay. Now just to conclude 20 here you said based on your statement before that the 21 150 degree celsius figure from this document should 22 supplant -- or the 270 degree fahrenheit exhibit, that 23 should supplant the 313 degree fahrenheit impact on 24 PCT that had been previously the IRSN assessment.

25 Given the fact that there's some further inquiry that NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 2344433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgros.com

2666 1 needs to be made about these results, are you still so 2 confident that the 150 degree celsius figure is 3 definitive and should replace previous analysis?

4 DR. MEYER: Well, these are calculations.

5 I really think the FR-2 experiment that we looked at--

6 DR. LYMAN: Well, now just answer the 7 question.

8 DR. MEYER: Well, my answer to the 9 question is based on everything I know. And I know 10 about the FR-2 experiment. And the FR-2 experiment 11 only produced a -- was at a 200 degree increase, 12 fahrenheit degree increase from relocation.

13 DR. LYMAN: And with a filling ratio of 14 what value?

15 DR. MEYER: Well, we were looking for 16 that. And I think it's -- I think it's in this same 17 range of 60 to 65 percent.

18 DR. LYMAN: But you're not sure?

19 DR. MEYER: I am not sure, but I'm pretty 20 confident that's right. We were -- Harold and I were 21 talking about the density that's reported in that 22 report which you have, and I believe you can go 23 straight from that to this filling ratio. And it's 24 about 60.

25 DR. LYMAN: Okay.

NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 2344433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 wwwnealrgross.con

2667 1 MS. CURRAN: We don't have any more 2 questions.

3 JUDGE YOUNG: Mr. Repka?

4 MR. REPKA: One moment please.

5 Okay. Just a couple of questions.

6 CROSS EXAMINATION 7 MR. REPKA: We've talked a lot about some 8 calculations and IRSN has presented some calculations, 9 and obviously they're not here to talk about them.

10 But those calculations all relate to LEU fuel, do they 11 not? And I'll let whomever answer who wants to 12 answer?

13 DR. MEYER: Yes.

14 MR. REPKA: Okay. And Appendix K doesn't 15 require modeling of relocation to LEU fuel, does it?

16 DR. MEYER: No.

17 MR. REPKA: And I believe it was your 18 testimony, Dr. Meyer, that you don't think there's any 19 delta PCT related to MOX fuel related to relocation, 20 do you?

21 DR. MEYER: That's correct.

22 MR. REPKA: Okay. And you've not seen any 23 definitive number from IRSN or anybody else that 24 changes that view?

25 DR. MEYER: No. I could address the 10 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 wwwnealgross.corn

2668 1 degree C. And I think I did in the testimony. They 2 show a 10 degree C additional increase in P-cladding 3 temperature for a MOX case. But as I understand it, 4 that was a consequences of the higher stored energy in 5 the -- in the MOX fuel in the case that they ran and 6 -- which had a larger effect on the *P-cladding 7 temperature in their calculation than it would have 8 had in Catawba because they used an early rupture 9 which would weight the stored energy higher and the 10 decay heat lower in terms of the heat source. And I 11 think in Catawba with the rupture occurring at a later 12 time, that the stored energy would have been -- would 13 have had less an effect.

14 MR. REPKA: So what you're saying, and 15 correct me if I'm wrong, is that for the issue of 16 reference here, the differences between LEU fuel and 17 MOX fuel, you know of no difference?

18 DR. MEYER: With regard to relocation I 19 think that is correct.

20 MR. REPKA: One of the sort of mind 21 experiments that we've been playing, and I think Dr.

22 Lyman started in his rebuttal testimony, was this take 23 the rupture node temperature and add the 313 degree 24 calculated relocation effect for LEU fuel and the 25 ruptured node temperature is calculated by the NEAL R.GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

2669 1 Appendix K model. Is that really a legitimate measure 2 of the effect of relocation for LEU fuel? To be taken 3 in isolation?

4 DR. MEYER: I actually'don't think it's a 5 bad way of getting some estimate on the outside 6 effect. Because remember; the 313 was an upper bound 7 number. It was not an average number. But the fact 8 remains that for a licensing calculation Appendix K, 9 you should not go in and take one model that you know 10 to be not as good as we could do together 30 years 11 later and change it and leave all of the others the 12 same. In fact, we at NRC have decided, turning that 13 coin over, not to do that with regard to some requests 14 that have been made to alter the decay heat code. And 15 the phrase "cherry picking" has been used. And if 16 you're not going to pick red cherries, you shouldn't 17 pick black cherries.

18 MR. REPKA: So if I can interpret what 19 you're saying is to pick just the relocation effect 20 you're cherry picking in one direction?

21 DR. MEYER: Yes.

22 MR. REPKA: Perhaps that's the black 23 cherries and not the red cherries.

24 And so from the regulatory perspective the 25 Appendix K model doesn't model relocation and it NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

A_ _,234-4433 (202) __ __ WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 wwwmnealrgross.xom

2670 1 doesn't model other things as well so that the 2 Appendix K number is, in our case we've been talking 3 about the 1750 degree number, correct?

4 DR. MEYER: Yes.

5 MR. REPKA: And couldn't I just as easily 6 instead of just adding the 313, just hypothetically 7 speaking couldn't I just say the relevant number for 8 this proceeding where we're focused on MOX is to 9 accept that Appendix K doesn't model relocation and it 10 doesn't model a lot of other LEU factors; that the 11 real delta PCT of interest is the delta PCT for MOX, 12 just the delta PCT related to MOX versus LEU?

13 DR. MEYER: Well, yes. And I think 14 that's--

15 MR. REPKA: Zero?

16 DR. MEYER: Yes, correct.

17 MR. REPKA: Right. So we could just as 18 easily look at this relocation issue as being 1750 19 plus zero as to get a measure of the effect with 20 relocation of MOX fuel relative to LEU fuel?

21 DR. MEYER: Well, I don't know if I'd go 22 quite that far because your -- you know, on one hand 23 you're taking a licensing tool and now you're talking 24 about making a comparison with it. And you know if 25 you're going to make a licensing calculation, you NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 2344433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005.3701 www.nealrgoss.corn

2671 1 definitely don't need to add anything to it because it 2 has compensating conservatisms. But if you're trying 3 to use it as a tool to help you estimate the effect of 4 relocation in combination with some other calculations 5 that have been done, I think you can do that. But you 6 end up getting the same relocation effect for LEU and 7 MOX, and I don't see any reason to take a different 8 number.

9 MR. REPKA: Well, one point is we've 10 talked about the conservatisms related to decay heat.

11 Now, there is conservatisms in Appendix K related to 12 decay heat for LEU fuel, correct?

13 DR. MEYER: Yes.

14 MR. REPKA: And there's also conservatisms 15 in the MOX analysis related to decay heat because Duke 16 in its MOX analysis considered LEU decay heat instead 17 of MOX where it's clearly conservative to do that. So 18 we have two different conservatisms related to decay 19 heat?

20 DR. MEYER: Yes, that's correct. I 21 MR. REPKA: So I could take the 1750 22 number and if I wanted to just look at one 23 conservatism in isolation, I could take the decay heat 24 conservatism for LEU fuel, add that to the 1750 and 25 then add the additional decay heat conservatism that's NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234.4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 wwwznealrgross.com

2672 1 been characterized as up to 75 degree F for decay heat 2 related to MOX fuel and add that together, too. And 3 that would be analogous to what Dr. Lyman is doing 4 with the relocation factor?

5 DR. MEYER: If I understood you correctly, 6 I think you could do that.

7 MR. REPKA: And I'm not suggesting that's 8 a legitimate thing to do. I'm just saying I could do 9 that and that would be an accurate analogy.

10 One of the issues that we've talked about 11 at length that has been speculated to increase the MOX 12 fuel effect related to relocation is the fill ratio or 13 the filling factor. One of the documents that was 14 just presented today was an exhibit related to -- from 15 CABRI tests. And that was Exhibit 51. Have you 16 looked at that?

17 DR. MEYER: You know, I haven't looked at 18 the document, but I'm familiar with the CABRI tests.

19 MR. REPKA: This was a rod insertion 20 accident test, was it not?

21 DR. MEYER: Yes.

22 MR. REPKA: Reactivity insertion?

23 DR. MEYER: Yes.

24 MR. REPKA: Okay. And do you think that 25 that's a fair comparison to a LOCA test?

NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 2344433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

2673 1 DR. MEYER: Well, I think the point that 2 was being made had to do with fuel dispersal, and the 3 tests that was referred to was a test called REP-Na7, 4 which was a MOX fuel test that dispersed fuel.

5 The RIA conditions or reactivity insertion 6 conditions are, in a sense, just opposite the 7 conditions for a loss of coolant accident. In the 8 reactivity accident you're inserting a lot of power 9 into the fuel pellet. In that test in about 30 10 milliseconds driving the power up literally a thousand 11 times full power for that extremely short period of 12 time. And this has the effect, because the heat is 13 deposited more or less instantaneously, of allowing 14 these gas bubbles which are lining the grain 15 boundaries to expand and to drive these particles 16 apart and to expel them through a breach in the 17 cladding if there is a way out. And that setup just 18 does not exist in the loss of coolant where you 19 essentially have lost power in the pellet and because 20 of the concurrent loss of heat removal, the cladding 21 temperature begins to rise.

22 So you have in fact the central part of 23 the fuel element just cools down in a loss of coolant 24 accident, whereas in the RIA test it gets heated way 25 up and real fast.

NEAL R.GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 wwwnealrgross.com

2674 1 But, I -- you know, there would be no 2 reason to expect that you would have expanding gas 3 bubbles that would mechanically blast particles out in 4 a LOCA as you have in an RIA.

5 MR. REPKA: The argument being made is 6 that under these conditions in the CABRI tests it 7 created more -- there is some evidence of more fine 8 particles or smaller fragmentations. And can you make 9 that same assumption that in the LOCA tests you would 10 see the same results related to the material, the 11 pellet material?

12 DR. MEYER: Well, you'd have to be very 13 careful about making such an assumption because in the 14 one case you had this very rapid expansion that's able 15 to do mechanical work on the pellet. And all you have 16 during the LOCA is some thermal stresses that can 17 further crack this already cracked pellet and gas 18 that's moving through t'hese cracked areas.

19 I -- I don't think that you can get too 20 much information from the -- most test behavior of RIA 21 tests and a LOCA test. You know, if you're looking at 22 fuel microstructures before the test and trying to 23 make some conclusion, maybe that would be fair because 24 it's just fuel microstructures. But I don't think the 25 test results are -- even -- the conditions are just sO NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005S3701 www.nealrgross.com I

2675 1 different that you'd have to be very careful to try 2 and use those results to make some implication about 3 LOCA.

4 MR. REPKA: And has anything in this test 5 made you rethink your testimony in this case about the 6 presence of fine particles and the impact on filling 7 fractions in the LOCA situation for MOX fuel?

8 DR. MEYER: What was the question?

9 MR. REPKA: Is there anything in this test 10 from CABRI, Exhibit 51, that makes you change your 11 testimony, that would make you rethink your testimony 12 that you've already filed regarding the presence or 13 absence of finding material and the impacts of filling 14 fractions under LOCA conditions?

15 DR. MEYER: No. No, there isn't.

16 MR. REPKA: One last couple of questions.

17 In your rebuttal testimony of July 8th answer 8, you 18 may want to look at that. This was a discussion of 19 some PBF tests that related to balloon size in 20 irradiated rods compared with unirradiated rods?

21 DR. MEYER: Yes.

22 MR. REPKA: And I think some reference was 23 made earlier to -- and this being evidence of -- that 24 your answer to this being evidence of a disagreement 25 with Duke regarding the nature of that test. I guess NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 VA.neairgrss.com

2676 1 my first question is do you conclude that -- is there 2 any disagreement with Duke regarding the fact that the 3 maximum ductility would be at the unirradiated state, 4 that's Duke's overall conclusion. Do you have any 5 disagreement with?

6 DR. MEYER: No, I agree with that.

7 MR. REPKA: And the PBF tests discussed in 8 this answer don't change that conclusion?

9 DR. MEYER: I'm sorry, what was the 10 question?

11 MR. REPKA: The PBF tests that you discuss 12 in answer A don't change your conclusion; that you 13 agree that --

14 DR. MEYER: No.

15 MR. REPKA: -- maximum ductility is at the 16 unirradiated state.

17 To the extent there is a disagreement, am 18 I correct that that disagreement may be regarding the 19 explanation for why the PBF test appeared to present 20 a contrary result?

21 DR. MEYER: Again, I'm -- I know what the 22 subject is here but I'm not sure I know what the 23 question was.

24 MR. REPKA: Okay. I guess what I'm saying 25 is, you know is there a disagreement with Duke Energy NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON. D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.corn

2677 1 that' s significant?

2 DR. MEYER: I didn't -- I'm sorry, but I 3 didn't follow what the point was of the disagreement 4 in the first place. So you're going to have to 5 explain to me what the disagreement was and then I'll 6 tell you whether I agree with it or not.

7 MR. REPKA: I'm probably not the best one 8 to do that. But, I think there may have been 9 disagreement as to the explanation for why this 10 particular test showed what it showed.

11 DR. MEYER: Yes.

12 MR. REPKA: But my point is there is no 13 disagreement regarding the overall conclusion that 14 maximum ductibility, maximum ballooning is expected 15 with unirradiated cladding?

16 DR. MEYER: I agree with that.

17 MR. REPKA: Okay. That's all I need.

18 That's all.

19 MS. UTTAL: Judge, I have one or two more 20 questions.

21 JUDGE YOUNG: Go ahead.

22 SURREBUTTAL EXAMINATION 23 MS. UTTAL: Dr. Landry, Mr. Curran asked 24 you several questions regarding the staff's 25 conclusions as reflected in the SER that lead test NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE.. N.W.

(202) 2344433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 wwwjneakgrges.corn

1 2678 1 assemblies because of their location within the core 2 will have a peak cladding temperature of about 2019 3 fahrenheit. Is the method used by Duke which should 4 determine that consistent with the 46 in Appendix K.

5 DR. LYMAN: Yes, it is.

6 MS. UTTAL: And does Appendix K require 7 licensees using the Appendix K methodology to account 8 for fuel relocation?

9 DR. LYMAN: No, it does not.

10 MS. UTTAL: And in your professional 11 opinion did Duke appropriately use the Appendix K 12 methodology to establish the P-cladding temperature 13 for the LTAs?

14 DR. LYMAN: Yes, they did.

15 MS. UTTAL: Nothing else.

16 MS. CURRAN: We have some follow up.

17 JUDGE YOUNG: Go ahead.

18 RECROSS EXAMINATION 19 MS. CURRAN: Just a minute, please.

20 DR. LYMAN: Dr. Meyer, in the discussion 21 regarding the CATHARE calculations that considered MOX 22 and fuel relocation you were just discussing, you said 23 that one reason why -- you said that the fact that the 24 IRSN calculation of the P-cladding temperature of the 25 MOX fuel rod when relocation was considered would NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.neairgross.com

2679 1 provide a more severe effect because the burst 2 occurred earlier than it would a fuel assembly in the 3 Catawba reactor, is that what you said?

4 DR. MEYER: Yes.

5 DR. LYMAN: And would the fact that the 6 Catawba, the burst occurs later for a fuel assembly in 7 the Catawba reactor mean the balloon size could be 8 bigger than the balloon size that was calculated for 9 the CATHARE calculation?

10 DR. MEYER: No.

11 DR. LYMAN: Okay.

12 MS. CURRAN: We don't have anymore 13 questions.

14 JUDGE YOUNG: I'd like to clarify a couple 15 of things but either of you have any more questions, 16 I'll wait.

17 MR. REPKA: I do not.

18 MS. UTTAL: I have no more questions.

19 JUDGE YOUNG: There are two things that I 20 would like to clarify your views on, and you may have 21 already spoken to this but I want to make sure I 22 understand. I'm talking about Dr. Lyman's references 23 to the Meyer memorandum and the Thadani memorandum, 24 Exhibit H attachment 4 -- actually, I'm looking on 25 page 5 of attachment 4 to Exhibit 27.

NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 wwwnealrgross.com

2680 1 MS. CURRAN: Exhibit 27?

2 JUDGE YOUNG: Exhibit 27.

3 MS. CURRAN: What page are you on?

4 JUDGE YOUNG: Page 5 of attachment 4 of 5 Exhibit 27. Are we all there?

6 He makes a reference to in the attachment 7 -- this, let's see -- Appendix K nonconservatisms. I 8 guess it's written by the Office of Nuclear -- NRR, 9 Nuclear Regulatory Research -- I'm sorry. RES. And 10 there's a statement about two-thirds of the way down 11 the third paragraph on page 5, "More recent 12 information suggests that the fuel relocation effect 13 on PCT may be significantly larger assumed in generic 14 issue 92."

15 And then the other one, just I think these 16 are the two. The other one was -- the first reference 17 was in his direct testimony, the answer to question 6 18 on page 4. Well, 3 and 4. It starts on 3 and goes on 19 4. And then the next part is on page 6 of his direct 20 prefiled.

21 DR. MEYER: I'm sorry. Where was the first 22 part?

23 JUDGE YOUNG: The first part was on page 24 starts on page 3 and goes onto page 4 of his direct 25 prefiled. And that's where he refers to --

NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 2344433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

2681 1 DR. MEYER: Of Dr. Lyman's prefiled?

2 JUDGE YOUNG: Right.

3 DR. MEYER: Oh, I'm sorry. Is this answer 4 9?

5 JUDGE YOUNG: Answer 6.

6 DR. MEYER: Six? Okay.

7 JUDGE YOUNG: Starting on page 3.

8 DR. MEYER: Yes.

9 JUDGE YOUNG: And then going onto page 4.

10 DR. MEYER: Okay.

11 JUDGE YOUNG: He makes a reference to the 12 document I just mentioned. And then on page 6 of his 13 testimony, which is continuing his answer to question 14 11, the last paragraph on page 6 that's where he makes 15 reference to the PIRT panel and the different 16 opinions. There has been some discussion of it here, 17 but I don't recall whether it's been by you, and I 18 wanted to give you all -- I wanted to get your views.

19 That one refers to Exhibit H which is Exhibit 32.

20 DR. MEYER: We're at A-11? Is that where 21 you are?

22 JUDGE YOUNG: Okay. I'm sorry. Go back.

23 The second place in his direct testimony is on page 6, 24 answer 11, the bottom of page 6.

25 DR. MEYER: Yes.

NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

2682 1 JUDGE YOUNG: The last paragraph.

2 DR. MEYER: Okay.

3 JUDGE YOUNG: When he's talking about the 4 PIRT panel and the different opinions on the fuel 5 composition and relocation. And he refs to what has 6 been entered as Exhibit 32- Appendix D-67 is the 7 notation. It's I like the third or fourth page of the 8 document, fourth page of the document. And there 9 looks to be some -- anyway. But you said earlier, I 10 thought I heard you to say that you didn't think that 11 fuel location would have any effect that would be 12 significant. And as I'm understanding his testimony 13 and the references that he makes he's pointing out 14 places where NRC people have recognized or -- I'm 15 going to summarize and may not be totally precise in 16 the characterization. But make references to the 17 possibility of relocation and the amount of fine grain 18 material and so forth that may have an effect. And I 19 wondered how that played with your testimony.

20 DR. MEYER: Okay. Let me clarify that.

21 I agree with all of these statements of 22 the PIRT panel and in the Thadani memorandum. The 23 relocation effect, per se, in my opinion is an 24 important effect.

25 JUDGE YOUNG: Is?

NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE.. N.W.

(202) 234.4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.neaIrgrass.com

2683 1 DR. MEYER: Is. Now, I don't think that 2 there is a difference between MOX and LEU. But I 3 think the effect itself is important.

4 Now when you look at what its two impacts 5 are with regard to meeting acceptance criteria in

-6 50.46 --

7 JUDGE YOUNG: The two impacts being?

8 DR. MEYER: Okay. One of them -- one of 9 them is the effect on peak cladding temperature and 10 one of them is the effect on the maximum oxidation.

11 JUDGE YOUNG: Right. Okay.

12 DR. MEYER: Now on peak cladding 13 temperature what we saw were estimates made both from 14 calculations and experimental observations on the 15 magnitude of the effect of relocation on the 16 temperature in the ballooned region of the core. And 17 when you add that estimate onto the temperature in the 18 ballooned region of the core which is depressed 19 because of the extra cooling it gets, it just takes 20 you back up in the Catawba case to where you would 21 have been without relocation.

22 So the effect is important. The net result 23 on P-cladding temperature in the Catawba case seems to 24 be essentially nil. That's not -- the effect on the 25 oxidation calculation is different because the maximum NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 2344433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

2684 1 oxidation occurs in the ballooned region. Because in 2 the ballooned region you are now experiencing 3 oxidation not only on the outside but on the inside.

4 So it's going twice as fast as anywhere else.

5 And here the estimates of the effect or 6 impact of relocation on the oxidation was an increment 7 of about 10 percent. And you can add this to what 8 they have already predicted.

9 JUDGE YOUNG: Okay. Okay.

10 DR. MEYER: And it's a significant impact, 11 but it's still less than the licensing limits. But 12 now when you -- I mean, that's an estimate of what the 13 effect is, but when you add this altogether and 14 realize that you're using an Appendix -K approach to 15 this, you really shouldn't add that impact in for the 16 licensing evaluation. But it's real.

17 JUDGE YOUNG: Okay. You're saying it's 18 real but it doesn't rise to a level that it would be 19 significant such that it would make any difference?

20 I know I'm restating sort of, but just for my own 21 understanding. It's real but it's not significant 22 enough that it would effect the analysis under 23 Appendix K?

24 DR. MEYER: That's true. It occurs to me, 25 though --

NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

2685 1 JUDGE YOUNG: I'm trying to understand 2 what you're saying.

3 DR. MEYER: -- if you look at the 4 Westinghouse calculation which included relocation, 5 they got a higher oxidation level than Framatome got 6 with their calculation. And so if you --

7 JUDGE YOUNG: You mean on the LEU than 8 Framatome got --

9 DR. MEYER: Yes. On the LEU. I don't 10 think there's any difference between the LEU and the 11 MOX.

12 So this is all kind of consistent. The 13 methods are all predicting about the same thing and 14 telling you that the relocation would increase the 15 amount of oxidation, not take it about 17 percent 16 limit. And that the effect on the P-cladding 17 temperature would be more or less a wash with the 18 benefits of the extra cooling on the ballooned 19 section.

20 JUDGE YOUNG: Okay. Just so I'm 21 understanding. Exhibit 27, the Thadani memo.

22 DR. MEYER: Yes.

23 JUDGE YOUNG: Where it says -- where it 24 talks about fuel relocation during LOCA should be 25 considered in Appendix K nonconservatism. Here's NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 2344433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005.3701 www.nealrgross.com I.

2686 1 where I was wanting to go. It talks about the impact 2 on peak clad temperature. Now you pointed out that --

3 you mentioned the cooling effect of peak clad 4 temperature or the cooling effect at the burst zone 5 keeping the temperature down enough. And maybe this 6 needs to go back to Dr. Lyman, but does it flow from 7 this statement that the impact on peak clad 8 temperature which might not be significant enough to 9 take it up high enough would flow through to the 10 maximum cladding oxidation?

11 I may have misunderstood, but I thought 12 Dr. Lyman was tying the effects together to some 13 extent. I just --

14 DR. MEYER: No, they are tied together 15 because the maximum oxidation is routinely found in 16 the ballooned section which without relocation, would 17 be at a lower temperature and therefore oxidizing 18 slower than if it were at a higher temperature. And 19 so this effect pushes the temperature up, pushes the 20 oxidation rate up. So you get a real increment in 21 oxidation in the ballooned region of the fuel rod.

22 JUDGE YOUNG: So you don't disagree. But 23 again you're saying that it would not bring it up 24 close enough to the limit that it would be 25 significant?

NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

2687 1 DR. MEYER: That's correct.

2 JUDGE YOUNG: Okay. I just wanted make 3 sure I understood.

4 Those were my only questions. Any more 5 for--

6 JUDGE BARATTA: Yes. I wanted -- from the 7 earlier responses that Dr. Lyman gave when I tried to 8 get what is it that's on SER, I believe it eventually 9 got down to what the actual filling value is. Is it 10 .5, .6, .7. And if one could determine that, then one 11 could put a dual calculation to estimate the change in 12 PCT associated with the relocation. And I'm just 13 looking for a way of coming up with a way of 14 estimating that.

15 Now, you gave one a little while ago which 16 said that based upon earlier experiments you've done 17 back in the dark ages of the nuclear era and such, a 18 while ago in other words, you had values that came up 19 to maybe a maximum of .8, something like that. And 20 I'm looking at different ways of getting at this 21 value.

22 DR. MEYER: A maximum of what?

23 JUDGE BARATTA: The maximum that you could 24 conceive it might be packing -- not packing fraction, 25 that's what it's called in the case you're talking NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234.4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.oam

2688 1 about. But a filling fraction might be -- had to be 2 less than .8.

3 DR. MEYER: Yes.

4 JUDGE BARATTA: That that was kind of an 5 upper limit that experimentally you observed.

6 In your --

7 DR. MEYER: I don't think they observed 8 that much in the test of the --

9 JUDGE BARATTA: No, no, no. This is what 10 you had observed in fuel --

11 DR. MEYER: Yes. Right.

12 JUDGE BARATTA: And you are extrapolating 13 that, which is what I understood.

14 DR. MEYER: Right.

15 JUDGE BARATTA: Another way of getting 16 that that might be independent that would be if you in 17 your prefiled direct testimony you make mention that 18 the rim material in MOX might be on the order of 25 19 percent greater, and I think even in your oral 20 testimony today said 20 percent. So it's on the same 21 order?

22 DR. MEYER: Yes.

23 JUDGE BARATTA: If, just out of curiosity, 24 if we set that -- there appears to be some basis to 25 use a number of somewheres between .5 and .6 for a NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.neaIrgrass.con

2689 1 typical LEU value based on some of the discussions we 2 had with respect to the Westinghouse, COBRA/TRAC code 3 as well some of the experiments.

4 Would it be possible to get an upper bound 5 by saying okay, well let's say all that 25 percent 6 extra rim material winds up in this packing or this 7 filling ratio. So in other words, if I took the .5 and 8 increased it by 20 or 25 percent, like .6 something or 9 the .6 and increased it by, again, 20 or 25 percent to 10 something like .7 or .75, is that a way of getting at 11 what would be a reasonable number to use in doing a 12 sensitivity study?

13 DR. MEYER: Well, I don't think so.

14 Because the mere fact that you have a different 15 particle size distribution isn't automatically going 16 to give you a higher filling ratio or filling 17 fraction.

18 JUDGE BARATTA: Would it set kind of an 19 absolute upper bound? In other words, I'm talking 20 about doing a super bounding calculation which I think 21 if you know the term, tends to take and set things at 22 what could possibly be the most conservative value.

23 DR. MEYER: You know, I think you've got 24 enough different particle sizes in order to pack this 25 stuff up pretty well if you have enough time and NEAL R.GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 2344433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

2690 1 enough vibrations to overcome the friction between the 2 particles in order to do it. And I don't see that 3 altering the distribution of these particle sizes by 4 a small amount is going to have any effect on result.

5 JUDGE BARATTA: So in your estimation then 6 the .5 or .6, that that's probably a best guess for 7 LEU and for MOX, is that what I hear you saying?

8 DR. MEYER: That was my estimate of the 9 additional amount of rim type material you might have 10 in there. But I don't think that changing the -- you 11 know, increasing the number of those very fine 12 particles and decreasing the number of the bigger 13 particles by -- by any reasonable amount is going to 14 have much of an effect on the filling ration. Because 15 I think you haven't -- you know, it's like putting 16 rocks in a jar. If you've got a lot of different 17 sizes, what really matters is how long you shake the 18 jar and how violently you shake it. And if you change 19 - - you know, take a few big ones and put in a few 20 little ones, and you shake it the same, you're not 21 going to get that much of a difference.

22 JUDGE BARATTA: That's all I had.

23 JUDGE ELLEMAN: Dr. Meyer, I believe you 24 said the rim effect results from inhomogeneities in 25 the distribution of the plutonium oxides in the NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 2344433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 wwwInealrgrss.oom

2691 1 matrix?

2 DR. MEYER: The rim effect results from --

3 no. The answer is no to the question as you asked it, 4 but we'll go through that.

5 JMuGEELLEMAN: Okay.

6 DR. MEYER: The rim effect itself is the 7 result of the accumulation of a large amount of 8 fission gas on the grain boundaries. Fission gas is 9 not soluble in the U02 Pu02 matrix. It precipitates.

10 It's like a second phase particle. And it precipitates 11 into bubbles, little bubbles. And these bubbles 12 attach themselves to grain boundaries where they can 13 reduce -- they can share surface area with the grain 14 boundary and reduce the free energy. And so they --

15 and as you get more and more gas accumulating from the 16 fission process and generating more and more little 17 bubbles, they cause the material to generate more 18 surface, more grain surface area to accommodate them.

19 This happens in LEU or MOX fuel. It's just how much 20 -- how many fissions have taken place and how many 21 gaseous fission products do you accumulate and how are 22 you going to accommodate this. The difference is that 23 in the LEU fuel, all of this stuff is on the outside 24 circumference of the pellet, which is where the --

25 because of flux depression where the burnup gets the NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-433 WASHINGTON. D.C. 20005-3701 wwwnealrgross.com

2692 1 highest, whereas in the MOX fuel with these 2 inhomogeneities, these little halo like rim regions 3 are surrounding these MOX particles where you have 4 exceptional high burnup.

5 So there is no fundamental difference 6 between the two, they're just arranged a little 7 differently and one may have 20, 25 percent more for 8 the stuff than the other.

9 JUDGE ELLEMAN: When gas bubbles move 10 along grain boundaries do they tend to move up thermal 11 gradients or down thermal gradients?

12 DR. MEYER: Gas bubbles tend to move down 13 thermal gradients. Wait a minute. I actually studied 14 this experimentally when I was at Argonne National 15 Laboratories so many years ago, 30 some years ago.

16 The bubbles go in the other direction.

17 JUDGE ELLEMAN: If they're moving down, 18 they're expanding as they go, wouldn't they? Because 19 it's getting cooler which means material has to be 20 displaced. It would seem that's almost an endothermic 21 process, whereas if you go the other way it's not.

22 Well, I don't want to put you on the spot.

23 I was just trying to get a feel for it.

24 DR. MEYER: I guess I just don't 25 understand the question or the context, either one.

NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 2344433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 2000-3701 www.neaIrgross.com

2693 1 JUDGE ELLEMAN: Well, I was trying to 2 figure out why the gas bubbles are moving to the 3 surface. I would have expected them to move in toward 4 the center.

5 DR. MEYER: Oh, of the grains, not the --

6 not the solid pellet.

7 JUDGE ELLEMAN: Along the grain 8 boundaries?

9 DR. MEYER: Yes. They -- they -- each --

10 each grain is a little single crystal.

11 JUDGE ELLEMAN: Right.

12 DR. MEYER: And its adjacent grain is 13 another little single crystal with a different 14 orientation and with a boundary in between.

15 JUDGE ELLEMAN: Right.

16 DR. MEYER: And that's where the -- that's 17 where the bubbles go. They start in -- they start in 18 the grains, the gas is -- fission gas is created 19 within the grains.

20 JUDGE ELLEMAN: Right.

21 DR. MEYER: They -- the stuff is not 22 soluble so it jams itself in some --

23 JUDGE ELLEMAN: Into the grain, right.

24 DR. MEYER: -- intersticial position 25 originally.

NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE.. N.W.

(202) 2344433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

2694 1 JUDGE ELLEMAN: Yes.

2 DR. MEYER: And it moves around by random 3 walking process. It bumps into other gas atoms and 4 coalesce, and then they get a bigger bubble. And these 5 move around until they hit a grain boundary.

6 JUDGE ELLEMAN: Right.

7 DR. MEYER: Once they hit a grain 8 boundary, they're real happy because they can share 9 the surface area and lower the energy of the state.

10 And that's where they stick.

11 JUDGE ELLEMAN: But they don't move along 12 the grain boundary to get to the lower energy surface?

13 DR. MEYER: They move -- they move along 14 the grain boundaries to get released to the open 15 spaces, and this happens at a very low level, low 16 percentage level during normal operation. But by in 17 large, they just stick on the grain boundaries.

18 JUDGE ELLEMAN: Okay.

19 MS. CURRAN: Dr. Lyman might be able to 20 help answer that question.

21 JUDGE ELLEMAN: Oh, sure. All right.

22 Please.

23 DR. LYMAN: Is your question why is the 24 rim, why in LEU fuel does the rim range in a curve at 25 the -- pellet, was that your question?

NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON. D.C. 20005-3701 wwwmnealrgross.cam

2695 1 JUDGE ELLEMAN: Yes. I was trying to 2 understand a little bit --

3 DR. LYMAN: Right.

4 JUDGE ELLEMAN: -- how the rim effect and 5 the inner action with gases promotes this relocation 6 effect that has been an issue of concern.

7 DR. LYMAN: Okay. Sorry. I thought you 8 were asking something else.

9 JUDGE YOUNG: I have a question. Are you 10 still --

11 DR. MEYER: The rim effect is producing 12 fine grain material.

13 JUDGE ELLEMAN: Yes.

14 DR. MEYER: And so the hypothesis is that 15 this fine grain material then moves around and like 16 sand and in between rocks fills up the spaces. And 17 there's a difference in where this fine grain material 18 is located in MOX fuel and LEU fuel.

19 In the LEU fuel it's all on the outer edge 20 because that's where the burnup is highest. That's 21 where all the gas is created. A large amount of gas 22 is created out there.

23 JUDGE ELLEMAN: So it's not a consequence 24 of the -- process, it's a process occurring after the 25 pellet is there?

NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.neakgross.conm

2696 1 DR. MEYER: Oh, yes. That's correct.

2 JUDGE ELLEMAN: Okay.

3 DR. MEYER: That's right.

4 JUDGE ELLEMAN: Well, the hour is late.

5 I think I will not pursue this any further.

6 JUDGE YOUNG: I had one question that I 7 had asked earlier, and I just remembered it and I 8 wanted to go back to it. And let me ask you in this 9 context.

10 It has to do with the -- if there any 11 standards or generally accepted views on what goes to 12 a test reactor and what goes through the LTA process, 13 if any, and the context for that is my understanding 14 of Dr. Lyman's testimony is that -- and actually, I'm 15 going to put it this way. That -- I'm going to stick 16 my neck and say that I think probably you agree that 17 although there be some experimental data, there are a 18 lot of unanswered questions. And you -- based on the 19 things you've talked about in your experience, have 20 made certain judgments about whether the effects of 21 fuel relocation could be significant enough to effect 22 the maximum clad oxidation factor.

23 And he feels that there are enough 24 questions that there needs to be more experimental 25 data before going to the lead test assembly stage.

NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 2344433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.neaIrgross.con

2697 1 And so I wanted to get from you whether you knew of 2 any standards or generally accepted views or practices 3 on what goes to research or a test reactor and what 4 goes to a lead test assembly process?

5 DR. MEYER: Well, in general for the 6 period of normal operation you can only get a limited 7 amount of information out of, say, lead test 8 assemblies in the reactor because you don't have them 9 instrumented?

10 JUDGE YOUNG: You don't have?

11 DR. MEYER: You don't have instruments on 12 them?

13 JUDGE YOUNG: Okay.

14 DR. MEYER: Thermal couples, pressure 15 transducers, other things. So by in large, and 16 particularly for accident conditions, which we have to 17 create in the laboratory because we don't create 18 accident conditions in power reactors to test fuel.

19 So those -- for LOCA behavior it's fairly clear that 20 you're going to have to do -- do all of the testing in 21 the laboratory or in a test reactor. But you do need 22 fuel specimens. And you can get fuel specimens from 23 a lead test assembly program.

24 Now we've talked about the relocation 25 issue, and I think there are uncertainties with the NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 wwwmnealrgross.com

2698 1 relocation issue. I don't think they're unbounded or 2 particularly threatening, but we are interested in 3 them and we are investigating them. But I -- even 4 after all this discussion I cannot see how MOX fuel 5 would make the situation any -- significantly 6 different from LEU fuel.

7 And so, you know, we make licensing 8 judgments about the adequacy of safety analyses, and 9 there are always some uncertainties. And NRC has a 10 practice of identifying uncertainties and 11 investigating them. And we don't shutdown the plants 12 when we do this unless we have some reason to suspect 13 that they're not meeting regulatory requirements or 14 they're unsafe in some way. And we don't have that 15 kind of evidence now.

16 But in particular on this one effect of 17 relocation, I just don't see a compelling reason to 18 think that MOX is going to have a significant effect, 19 either compelling enough to make some analytic 20 accommodation or even to engage in expensive research 21 programs on that.

22 JUDGE YOUNG: Okay. So what I think I 23 understand you to be saying is that it's not 24 necessarily a step issue of one step versus another 25 step, but that you can go in parallel more or less, NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE.. N.W.

(202) 234.4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

2699 1 and the issue for whether to approve a lead test 2 assembly program gets down to safety issues. And the 3 same questions may be considered in the context of a 4 research or a test reactor. The additional question 5 there would be the likelihood of getting significant 6 results. Am I understanding more or less correctly?

7 DR. MEYER: Yes. In fact, from the very 8 beginning when Congress created the Office of Research 9 in the Atomic Energy Act of whenever it was, or the 10 Reorganization Act of '75, the Office of Research was 11 established to do confirmatory research. And it's 12 always been called confirmatory because we allow 13 ourselves to go and investigation situations which may 14 or may not have some impact on a licensing situation 15 in a confirmatory manner.

16 JUDGE YOUNG: Thank you.

17 MS. SHOOP: Judge, I'd also like to add 18 that in the standard review plan, which'is NUREG 800, 19 which is a staff guidance for when we approve new fuel 20 designs, which is section 4.2, it does actually 21 indicate that we prefer the in-reactor testing of new 22 components if at all possible anytime you want to 23 make--

24 JUDGE YOUNG: In a commercial reactor?

25 MS. SHOOP: Yes. Because we want NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005.3701 wwwJmeaIrgross.can

2700 1 prototypical irradiations. Typically test reactors 2 are great, but they don't always have the irradiation 3 spectrum that a real reactor will have. We wanted to 4 see the thermalhydraulic conditions and the 5 irradiation conditions of a real reactor as part of 6 our approval for a new fuel design before it goes to 7 batch loading. We require that whether it is a change 8 in fuel material or whether it's a change to a 9 component in the fuel assembly.

10 JUDGE YOUNG: Thanks. NUREG 800 section 11 4.2.

12 MS. SHOOP: Yes. NUREG 800 is the 13 standard review plan.

14 JUDGE YOUNG: Right.

15 MS. SHOOP: And Section 4.2 is the fuel 16 design section.

17 JUDGE YOUNG: 4.2. Okay. Thank you.

18 Any further questions for the staff, 19 panel?

20 Thank you all.

21 You want to call your panel back?

22 MR. REPKA: We would like to take about 23 five minutes and come back and we'll answer that 24 question whether we feel there's any need to. And if 25 we do, I'm sure it won't be too long.

NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE, N.W.

11 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealgos.corm

!. - ~ ~~.7, .. . -

2701 1 JUDGE YOUNG: The last question I asked, 2 is that what you're talking about?

3 MR. REPKA: Do we want to recall our 4 panel, that was the last question you asked.

5 JUDGE YOUNG: Okay. That's the question 6 you're referring to.

7 MR. REPKA: Yes.

8 JUDGE YOUNG: That's what I was trying to 9 understand.

10 MR. REPKA: Did you have a different 11 question?

12 JUDGE YOUNG: I thought when you said my 13 last question, I thought you were talking about the 14 test reactor question.

15 MR. REPKA: No, no. I have nothing to say 16 about that. That was just fine.

17 JUDGE YOUNG: I mean, actually I did want 18 answers from whoever wanted to give me an answer on 19 that. But let's take --

20 MR. REPKA: No, we would just take 5 21 minutes.

22 JUDGE YOUNG: Well, is there anything else 23 that we need to do besides -- Duke, are you --

24 MS. CURRAN: I think we're finished.

25 JUDGE YOUNG: Do you want to add anything?

NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234.4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

2702 1 Okay. You're finished, so that's all. Five minutes 2 and then come back.

3 (Whereupon, at 8:24 p.m. a recess until 4 8:37 p.m.)

5 MR. REPKA: Okay. The answer to the 6 question was would Duke recall its witness panel, that-'

7 was the question. The answer is unless the Board has 8 further questions for the panel, we do not see the 9 need to recall the panel.

10 JUDGE YOUNG: Okay. Not unless anything 11 that they heard since they left the stand would effect 12 any of their earlier testimony.

13 MR. REPKA: Nothing they've heard would 14 effect their earlier testimony or their conclusions.

15 JUDGE YOUNG: Okay. Anybody else have 16 anything else we need to discuss or take up in this --

17 thank you. Yes.

18 The four exhibits, A through D, we did say 19 that Duke and the staff can respond to A through C and 20 BREDL and the staff can respond to D.

21 MR. REPKA: And we offer D for 22 identification, but we are not going to offer D into 23 evidence.

24 JUDGE YOUNG: Oh, okay.

25 MR. REPKA: So we withdraw D.

NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 2344433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

2703 1 JUDGE YOUNG: Okay. I had the date -- the 2 deadline for proposed findings of fact and conclusions 3 of law was early August, I believe.

4 MR. REPKA: It was early August. I'm 5 thinking --

6 MS. UTTAL: August 6thd 7 JUDGE YOUNG: Okay. How soon can you all 8 get your responses to -- not your arguments but any 9 evidentiary responses to Exhibits A through C? And 10 then you would include your arguments on them in your 11 proposed findings of law and conclusions of law in a 12 separate section called arguments on admissability of 13 A through C.

14 MS. UTTAL: Judged, if Ms. Curran will 15 limit the two exhibits solely to the tables --

16 JUDGE YOUNG: There were 3, I think.

17 Three exhibits.

18 MS. UTTAL: Well, the two --

19 JUDGE YOUNG: The first two?

20 MS. UTTAL: The first two exhibits, A and 21 B. They were admitted for the purpose or they were 22 offered from the purpose of showing data on oxidation.

23 And if they'll limit the submission to just the two or 24 three tables that Dr. Lyman testified from, them the 25 staff will withdraw its objection.

NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 2344433 WASHINGTON. D.C. 20005-3701 www.neatrgross.com

2704 1 MS. CURRAN: We would agree to that.

2 JUDGE YOUNG: Okay. Before you leave 3 then, come up and let's --

4 JUDGE BARATTA: They had an objection as 5 well.

6 MR. REPKA:- I'm sorry. If the exhibit is 7 limited as Mr. Uttal proposes, then what happens?

8 JUDGE YOUNG: They would withdraw --

9 MS. UTTAL: I would withdraw my objection.

10 MR. REPKA: We agree with that, and we 11 wouldn't feel the need to file additional testimony 12 either.

13 JUDGE YOUNG: Okay.

14 MS. CURRAN: Could we just stipulate to 15 that, that we will only discuss the exhibits and our 16 proposed findings, and then we don't have to mark up 17 the --

18 MS. UTTAL: They're all on a page.

19 JUDGE YOUNG: We just need to take it 20 apart and take -- what you're saying the exhibit would 21 consist only of the tables.

22 MS. UTTAL: The tables.

23 JUDGE YOUNG: And then about Exhibit C, 24 what about it?

25 MS. UTTAL: I have to review that. I NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgros.comx

2705 1 haven't had time to review it.

2 JUDGE YOUNG: Okay. So when do you want 3 to--

4 MS. UTTAL: How about Tuesday?

5 JUDGE YOUNG: Tuesday? Okay. That's July 6 20th?

7 MS. UTTAL: Yes.

8 JUDGE YOUNG: Okay. So before you leave, 9 let's make sure we make the --

10 JUDGE BARATTA: With respect to Duke, 11 didn't you have an objection to C as well?

12 MR. REPKA: We did, I guess. I don't even 13 remember at this point. If we have anything to say 14 about C, we'll say it by the same date that the NRC.

15 JUDGE YOUNG: The 20th.

16 MR. REPKA: The 20th.

17 JUDGE BARATTA: If you don't, would you 18 let us know, too.--

19 MR. REPKA: That's fine.

20 MS. UTTAL: Judge, I wanted to traise or 21 just close down an issue that I raised yesterday 22 regarding Exhibit 5 from the staff's original 23 testimony. And I had raised the issue of part of it 24 being perhaps proprietary --

25 JUDGE YOUNG: Oh, you didn't already take NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 2344433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

2706 1 that out of the new version you gave us?

2 MS. UTTAL: No. Oh, no, I did take it 3 out. But you still have the copies. But I just 4 wanted to put on the record that we have determined 5 from the owner of the document that it is not 6 -proprietary any longer.

7 JUDGE YOUNG: So do you want to put it 8 back in the --

9 MS. UTTAL: No, we didn't rely on it. I 10 just am putting it on the record.

11 JUDGE YOUNG: Okay. So that the copies 12 that are in ADAMS in the initial filing --

13 MS. UTTAL: They can stay there.

14 JUDGE YOUNG: -- will still be there, but 15 there's no problem with that. Okay.

16 So the 20th. Any evidentiary responses to 17 Exhibit C. And we're going to go ahead and admit the 18 portions of A and B that were specified and come up 19 together. So we'll make sure you're all on the same 20 page. Those will be admitted as Exhibits 56 and 57.

21 (Whereupon, the previously 22 identified documents will be 23 marked and received as Exhibit 24 56 and 57.)

25 JUDGE YOUNG: And so then only NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 2344433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 vim.neaIrgross.com

2707 1 outstanding one is C.

2 You know, one other thing. In my 3 experience with evidentiary hearings people don't 4 usually do opening and closing in NRC proceedings, but 5 if anyone wants to.

6 MS. UTTAL: No.

7 MR. REPKA: We'll do that in our findings.

8 JUDGE YOUNG: Okay. Is there anything 9 else I've overlooked? Is that pretty much it. All 10 right.

11 MR. REPKA: But perhaps one thing that may 12 be helpful in this when you have your composite list 13 of renumbered exhibits, it may be helpful if you just 14 issue that.

15 JUDGE YOUNG: Send you a copy?

16 MR. REPKA: Yes.

17 JUDGE YOUNG: Sure. Okay.

18 Well, that reminds me of one last thing.

19 I think when I asking Dr. Lyman questions, I mentioned 20 sort of how I was thinking about the conservatisms and 21 the benefits versus the negative impacts. And so to 22 whatever degree all of you can sort of address that in 23 a way that would make it easier to keep track of all 24 the various factors that all of you have discussed, 25 that would be helpful for me personally --

NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 2344433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.can

2708 1 MR. REPKA: In our findings?

2 JUDGE YOUNG: In your proposed findings, 3 yes. That would of assistance.

4 Thank you all good night. And we'll see 5 you at 10:00 tomorrow morning here.

6 (Whereupon, at 8:44 p.m. the hearing was 7 adjourned, to reconvene at 10:00 a.m., July 16, 2004.)

8 9

10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 2344433 WASHINGTON. D.C. 20005-3701 www nealrgross.corn

CERTIFICATE This is to certify that the attached proceedings before the United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission in the matter of:

Name of Proceeding: Duke Energy Corporation Evening Session Docket Number: 50-413/414-OLA; ASLBP No. 03-815-03-OLA Location: Rockville, MD were held as herein appears, and that this is the original transcript thereof for the file of the United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission taken by me and, thereafter reduced to typewriting by me or under the direction of the court reporting company, and that the transcript is a true and accurate record of the foregoing proceedings.

RebeccA Silberman Official Reporter Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 ww.nalgros.omm