ML062220042
| ML062220042 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Vermont Yankee  |
| Issue date: | 08/02/2006 |
| From: | Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel |
| To: | |
| Byrdsong A T | |
| References | |
| 50-271-LR, ASLBP 06-849-03-LR, NRC-1167, RAS 12090 | |
| Download: ML062220042 (131) | |
Text
Rf4S laoqc Official Transcript of Proceedings NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
Title:
Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Station DOCKETED USNRC August 9, 2006 (10:53am)
OFFICE OF SECRETARY Docket Number: 50-271 -LR RULEMAKINGS AND ADJUDICATIONS STAFF Location: Brattleboro, Vermont Date: Wednesday, August 2, 2006 Work Order No.: NRC-1 167 Pages 324-452 NEAL R. GROSS AND CO., INC.
Court Reporters and Transcribers 1323 Rhode Island Avenue, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20005
-TL #AfLA-F*e "ec-y- 0o3.)\c SELC-ft-(202) 234-4433
324 1 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 2 NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 3 * * * *
- 4 ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD PANEL 5 ORAL ARGUMENTS 6 * * * *
- 7 I 8 IN THE MATTER OF: Docket No. 50-271-LR 9 ENTERGY NUCLEAR VERMONT 10 YANKEE, LLC, and ENTERGY ii 11 NUCLEAR OPERATIONS, INC.
12 (Vermont Yankee Nuclear 13 Power Station) II 14 U 15 Wednesday, 16 17 August 2, 2006 18 Brattleboro, Vermont 19 The above-entitled matter came on for oral 20 argument, pursuant to notice, at 8:00 a.m., Alex S.
21 Karlin, Chair, presiding.
22 BEFORE:
23 ALEX S. KARLIN, Chair 24 THOMAS S. ELLEMAN, Administrative Judge 25 RICHARD E. WARDWELL, Administrative Judge NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com
325 1 APPEARANCES:
2 On Behalf of Entergy:
3 DAVID R. LEWIS, ESQ.
4 MATIAS F. TRAVIESO-DIAZ, ESQ.
5 of: Pillsbury Winthrop Shaw Pittman, LLP 6 2300 N Street, N.W.
7 Washington, D.C. 20037-1128 8 (202) 663-8000 9 (202) 663-8007 fax 10 11 On Behalf of the New England Coalition:
12 RONALD A. SHEMS, ESQ.
13 KAREN TYLER, ESQ.
14 of: Shems Dunkiel Kassel & Sounders, PLLC 15 91 College Street 16 Burlington, Vermont 05401 17 18 On Behalf of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission:
19 MITZI A. YOUNG, ESQ.
20 STEVEN C. HAMRICK, ESQ.
21 of: Office of the General Counsel 22 Mail Stop 15 D21 23 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 24 Washington, D.C. 20555-0001 25 (301) 415-1582 (301) 415-3725 fax NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202)r 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.neaIrgross.com v
326 1 On Behalf of the State of Vermont:
2 SARAH HOFMANN, ESQ.
3 Director for Public Advocacy 4 of: Department of Public Service 5 112 State Street, Drawer 20 6 Montpelier, Vermont 05620-2601 7
8 Also Present From the NRC:
9 Marcia Carpentier, Law Clerk 10 Jonathan Rund, Law Clerk 11 Karen Valloch, Administrative Assistant 12 Cynthia Harbaugh, Security 13 Diane Screnci, Public Affairs 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) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 2005-3701 wwvv.neaIrgross.com
327 1 INDX 2 Contention No. 3 ............................. 329 3 Contention No. 4 ............................. 367 4 Contention No. 5 ............................. 406 5 Contention No. ............................... 433 6
7 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) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com
328 1 P-R-O-C-E-E-D-I-N-G-S 2 8:32 a.m.
3 CHAIR KARLIN: Good morning. I want to go 4 on the record. This is the Atomic Safety and 5 Licensing Board hearing in the Vermont Yankee license 6 renewal proceeding. We're reconvening here on August 7 2nd in the Brattleboro Union High School multipurpose 8 room, and I welcome everyone for the continuation of 9 this matter. We won't go through the full 10 introductions of yesterday. I think everyone--well, 11 just for the record, we may want to introduce 12 ourselves.
13 To my right is Dr. Wardwell. To my left 14 is Dr. Elleman. And could the parties, for the 15 record, please introduce themselves, starting with Mr.
16 Lewis, or Entergy, please.
17 MR. TRAVIESO-DIAZ: Yes. My name is 18 Matias Travieso-Diaz. I'm a partner at Pillsbury 19 Winston Shaw Pittman. We're counsel. With me is my 20 partner, David Lewis. We are counsel to Entergy.
21 MR. HAMRICK: Good morning. My name is 22 Steven Hamrick, counsel for the NRC staff. With me is 23 Mitzi Young, also counsel for the NRC staff.
24 MR. SHEMS: Good morning, Your Honors. My 25 name is Ron Shems with the law firm of Shems, Dunkiel NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202)
- o 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgmss.com v
329 1 Kassel & Sounders up in Burlington. I'm with Karen 2 Tyler, who I work with, and we represent the New 3 England Coalition.
4 CHAIR KARLIN: Okay. Thanks.
5 MS. HOFFMAN: Sara Hoffman for the 6 Department of Public Service. I'm the director for 7 Public Advocacy. With me today is the state nuclear 8 engineer, William Sherman.
9 CHAIR KARLIN: Great; good morning. I'm 10 going to ask everyone to try to stay very close to the 11 mikes when we're talking, and I'll try to do the same.
12 Emily Peyton is our sound engineer over here, and 13 she's I think upgraded some of the mikes, and we may 14 be in a little bit better shape here today.
15 Okay. On the agenda today are the 16 remaining contentions presented by New England 17 Coalition, and so I think we would start with 18 Contention Number 3, their Contention Number Three, 19 dealing with I guess steam dryer issues, if I 20 understand it. You will have 20 minutes I guess for 21 your timeframe. How do you want to allocate that 22 time?
23 MS. TYLER: I'd like to reserve half for 24 rebuttal. Ten minutes.
25 CHAIR KARLIN: Half. All right. Fine.
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON. D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com
330 1 Great. All right. Please proceed.
2 MS. TYLER: Okay. Contention three 3 concerns the adequacy of Entergy's proposed plan to 4 monitor and manage aging of the steam dryer during the 5 renewed license term. This is particularly an issue 6 because of the added stress on the steam dryer due to 7 the extended power upgrade that's been approved with 8 the plan.
9 NEC's technical expert on this issue has 10 particularly taken issue with Entergy's reliance on 11 two computer models, the computational fluid dynamic 12 model and the acoustic circuit model.
13 It's his opinion that an adequate program 14 involving the use of these models would also need to 15 involve a visual inspection and measurement program.
16 This issue was considered during the EPU, 17 Extended Power Upgrade proceedings, and during those 18 proceedings, NRC staff appears to have agreed that 19 predictions based on these models were uncertain, and 20 that it was necessary to confirm them with a visual 21 inspection and measurement program.
22 Entergy's response to this contention--
23 CHAIR KARLIN: Do you have a site for 24 that, that the staff agreed?
25 MS. TYLER: Actually, 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
331 1 CHAIR KARLIN: Are you referring to the 2 ACRS with the word?
3 MS. TYLER: Yes. Entergy's answer to our 4 contention actually included citations and quotes from 5 the relevant materials in which the ACRS--
6 CHAIR KARLIN: Okay. You're referring to 7 the ACRS report--
8 MS. TYLER: Yes.
9 CHAIR KARLIN: -- as agreeing, you're 10 saying?
11 MS. TYLER: Yes. Essentially, yes. That 12 these models were significantly uncertain, it was 13 necessary to confirm with a visual inspection.
14 Entergy's response to this concern appears 15 to be that due to that concern raised in the EPA 16 proceedings, Entergy committed to an enhanced and 17 additional program of inspection during the remaining 18 years of its license term, that does involve a program 19 of visual inspection and monitoring.
20 I'm frankly not entirely clear as to why 21 this is considered relevant to the period of extended 22 operations, and that this program, on its face, is 23 finite, and will terminate, as it appears, within the 24 next few years. It appears that Entergy's current 25 position is that if it establishes the integrity of NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com
332 1 the steam dryer over the next few years, based on this 2 EPU inspection program, that that should be adequate 3 to ensure us of its integrity over the next 20 years.
4 And it's the position of NEC and its technical expert 5 on this issue, that that is not the case, that's not 6 a reasonable position.
7 JUDGE WARDWELL: All you're asking for is 8 the same types of surveillance and inspections that 9 are being done for the power uprate period to continue 10 during the next 20 years of operation?
11 MS. TYLER: We haven't actually made a 12 specific proposal as to what would be sufficient.
13 However, it's clearly the case that a visual 14 inspection and measurement program was considered 15 necessary in the power upgrade proceedings. We think 16 it's necessary. At what interval or to what extent, 17 we haven't gotten to that level of detail.
18 JUDGE WARDWELL: Let me rephrase it. If 19 I understand it, then, that you feel that at least for 20 some period of time, and in some frequency, very 21 similar or analogous surveillance and visual 22 inspections, and actual measurements should be made--
23 MS. TYLER: Yes.
24 JUDGE WARDWELL: -- as part of the license 25 renewal?
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross-com
333 1 MS. TYLER: Yes. I think that's 2 accurate.
3 JUDGE WARDWELL: Do you agree that the 4 program itself was in accordance with NUREG 1801, and 5 the GESIL 644, and the guidance for BWRRLPl39? They 6 alluded that you didn't disagree that it wasn't done 7 in that manner but that you just want to see these 8 inspections carried forward.
9 MS. TYLER: We actually weren't able to 10 review all of those documents, they're proprietary, 11 and many of them weren't available over the public 12 document system. I think that our expert relied 13 substantially on his review of the documents produced 14 in the EPU proceedings and in the representation of 15 Entergy's program that was put forth in that 16 proceeding.
17 JUDGE WARDWELL: Thank you.
18 CHAIR KARLIN: Question. On Dr.
19 Hopenfeld's declaration, paragraph 19, I think it's 20 the staff who points out, at page 13, footnote seven, 21 they allege that--this is the statement.
22 "Entergy's proposed monitoring techniques 23 are not adequate to detect crack propagation and 24 growth because they are not based on actual 25 measurements. Entergy relies on unproven computer NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202)o 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com
334 1 models and moisture."
2 And then there's a citation by Dr.
3 Hopenfeld and some pages on the, I believe ACRS 4 report, and it's stated by the staff that none of 5 those pages that are cited there support the 6 proposition that is stated by Dr. Hopenfeld.
7 I'm going to ask them that. Or they had 8 pointed that out. What's your response to that?
9 MS. TYLER: Actually, unfortunately I 10 don't have the ACRS report with me, so I can't look at 11 that and confirm--
12 CHAIR KARLIN: Well, I mean, this was 13 something they put into their answer, so I was hoping 14 you'd be prepared to respond to it. I didn't just 15 make this up.
16 MS. TYLER: Well, I think what I would do 17 is point you to the section of the ACRS report, that 18 Entergy itself quoted in its answer, which I think 19 clearly stated the opinion of whomever wrote that 20 report, that these models were sufficiently uncertain, 21 that a visual inspection and measurement program was 22 necessary, and confirmation.
23 CHAIR KARLIN: Well, but I thought what 24 the upshot was that the ACRS approved the monitoring 25 plan. They originally had some questions about it and NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com
335 1 then they later approved it.
2 MS. TYLER: They did approve it, with this 3 visual inspection and monitoring supplement. And 4 that's our position, that that's necessary, it was 5 found to be necessary during the EPU proceeding and 6 it's necessary during the extended term, and I would 7 ask Entergy's attorneys whether Entergy has committed 8 to some continuation of that program during the 9 extended term because we have not been able to confirm 10 that they have.
11 CHAIR KARLIN: Well, are you referring to 12 the statement by the ACRS, that the state of 13 validation of these methods is poor?
14 MS. TYLER: I think it's actually the 15 quote on page 29 of Entergy's answer. They say, 16 "Although significant uncertainty exists regarding the 17 licensee's method for calculating specific stress 18 values on the VYNTS steam dryer, from its CFD and ACM 19 analyses, the licensee's current MSL instrument 20 suggests minimal excitation of the pressure frequency 21 spectra in the MSLs at CLTP conditions. As a result, 22 the staff finds that the licensee has demonstrated 23 that the flow-induced stress imposed in the VYNTS 24 steam dryer, CLTP conditions, is within the fatigue 25 stress limits provided in the ANSE code."
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com
336 1 Okay. So that's all well and good.
2 But then the next sentence says, "However, 3 the available margin to those stress limits is not 4 readily verifiable. Therefore, the NRC staff 5 considers the licensee's planned action specified in 6 supplement 33 of its EPU request, and included in the 7 proposed license condition in supplement 36 to be an 8 important part of the licensee's effort to provide 9 confidence that the structural integrity of the steam 10 dryer will be maintained during EPU operation."
11 CHAIR KARLIN: Okay. Does that 12 demonstrate that the current licensing basis is 13 adequate to handle this, because this would be part of 14 the current licensing basis if it's upheld.
15 MS. TYLER: It is part of the current 16 licensing basis but the conditions that they're 17 referring to are finite. Basically, they committed to 18 operational surveillance and visual inspection during 19 three scheduled refueling outages, and then continuing 20 until completion of a wonderful operating cycle, EPU, 21 and for additional cycles until no new flaws or flaw 22 growth is identified in visual inspections.
23 So that implies to me that at some point 24 everything looks good and they stopped doing this, 25 which may have been fine over the next six years, but NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 23-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com
337 1 there's no indication that this visual inspection 2 program continues nighty the new term.
3 CHAIR KARLIN: All right. Okay.
4 JUDGE WARDWELL: But you still have that 5 phrase, no new flaws or flaw growth. So that's a 6 modifier on this, and that criteria has to be reached 7 before the termination of this program.
8 Why isn't that sufficient? If there's no 9 growth and no flaws through the couple cycles, what 10 says it should be more than that?
11 MS. TYLER: Well, I think that appears to 12 be their position, that if during the next couple 13 years it's determined during one of these inspections 14 that there are no new cracks, cracks don't appear to 15 have grown, that we should then be confident that for 16 the next 20 years the steam dryer will be fine.
17 And our technical expert thinks that's not 18 reasonable.
19 JUDGE ELLEMAN: On a point similar to 20 Judge Karlin's, you express concern that the models to 21 be employed do not measure crack initiation and 22 propagation, and my understanding of doing this is 23 that that's a fairly sophisticated thing to do.
24 Do you know that there are industry-25 accepted techniques for making measurements that are NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com w
338 1 based on these two parameters to measure?
2 MR. RUND: Time.
3 MS. TYLER: I personally don't know but 4 our technical expert has said yes.
5 JUDGE ELLEMAN: That they are available--
6 MS. TYLER: He believes that there are.
7 JUDGE ELLEMAN: -- and there are things 8 that can be employed?
9 MS. TYLER: He's just indicated that yes, 10 he does think so. He says they're not necessarily 11 commercially available but he thinks there are methods 12 of doing this.
13 CHAIR KARLIN: All right. Thank you. Any 14 more questions at this time? No.
15 Mr. Travieso-Diaz, 15 minutes.
16 MR. TRAVIESO-DIAZ: Yes. Good morning 17 again.
18 CHAIR KARLIN: Good morning.
19 MR. TRAVIESO-DIAZ: I feel compelled, 20 before I go into my presentation, to correct a 21 misstatement by counsel for NEC.
22 They admit that their expert, Mr.
23 Hopenfeld, did not look at General Electric service in 24 information letter 644 HAl, because it was 25 proprietary. Not only is it not proprietary but it is NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com
339 1 readily available in ALUMS. The ALUMS number is 2 ML050120032. And I'm not going to refer to the well-3 worn phrase of iron clad obligation, but in this case 4 it so happens that the aging management plan for the 5 steam dryer refers and adopts and incorporates this 6 document.
7 Without reviewing the document, they 8 couldn't know what Entergy proposes to do. You will 9 see in a moment how important that is.
10 JUDGE WARDWELL: Is BWRRVLP139 also 11 readily available?
12 MR. TRAVIESO-DIAZ: I'm not sure but that 13 is not accepted yet. So you see, the commitment is 14 the rule of examining it, once it's available, and 15 determine whether program should be modified in 16 accordance with what it says. So this is even more 17 significant here, because not only is a commitment in 18 the age management plan, but when they modified the 19 license, the operating license for Vermont Yankee 20 during the uprate, there is an express condition in 21 the license which I will read to you.
22 It is M.2.3. Section M.2.e. That says--I 23 am going to read. "Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc.
24 shall revise their steam dryer monitoring plan to 25 reflect long-term monitoring or plant parameters NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com
340 1 potentially indicative of steam dryer failure; to 2 reflect consistency with the facilities steam dryer 3 inspection program with General Electric service 4 information letter 644, Reg 1, and to identify the NRC 5 program manager for the facility as the point of 6 contact for providing SDMP information during power 7 ascension."
8 CHAIR KARLIN: Is that a condition of the 9 current license? Is that what you're saying?
10 MR. TRAVIESO-DIAZ: Yes, is a condition 11 for the license, and unless it gets removed when the 12 license gets extended, if it does, it's there for all 13 time. So not only is there a commitment to confirm to 14 SIL-644 in the aging management program, but it's a 15 requirement of the license that he do so.
16 CHAIR KARLIN: Is it a demonstration that 17 it will be achieved? Isn't that what the reg 18 requires, not just a promise or even a license 19 condition, but a demonstration that aging will be 20 managed? We have the problem of how much specificity 21 is needed in order to be a demonstration versus a 22 promise.
23 MR. TRAVIESO-DIAZ: Absolutely. this is 24 not a promise. Because SIL-644, it tells you what you 25 have to do, and Entergy is committed to doing this.
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com
341 1 CHAIR KARLIN: Okay.
2 MR. TRAVIESO-DIAZ: Now why is this 3 relevant to the answer that we gave? Because it's 4 exactly a continuation for the rest of the licensed 5 life of the plant to the program that it was 6 incorporated and instituted during power ascension and 7 monitoring, which has two prongs. And I'm going to 8 read you what 644 requires, so that the record is 9 clear.
10 But you have to do two things. Have 11 inspections during very refueling outage for a period 12 of time in a manner that is directed by and controlled 13 and specified by 644, and you have to continuously 14 monitor parameters that could indicate to you that 15 have you a steam dryer problem.
16 The main parameter is the moisture 17 contains all the steam that leaves the--
18 CHAIR KARLIN: Let me ask this. As I 19 understand, part of the dispute here is that they 20 start off alleging that it's--excuse me--these two 21 models were not properly benchmarked. Isn't that part 22 of this contention? And you respond and say, well, we 23 don't think that's true, and, oh, by the way, in 24 addition to the models, we're doing some monitoring 25 and we're doing some inspection, and that's not 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
342 1 only thing we're doing to address this issue.
2 Is that the gist of the--
3 MR. TRAVIESO-DIAZ: No; it's far more than 4 that.
5 CHAIR KARLIN: No. Okay.
6 MR. TRAVIESO-DIAZ: Those two models were 7 important during the process of EPU because they 8 wanted to establish what the stress levels on the 9 dryer were.
10 The aging management program does not 11 depend, does not cite, does not refer, and does not 12 use those programs. So all that Mr. Hopenfeld is 13 bringing up may be of historical interest to you, 14 after all he has tried to have a steam dryer 15 contention now four times, but it is not relevant 16 whatsoever, has no relevance whatsoever to the aging 17 management plan.
18 SIL does not depend on computation. SIL 19 depends on two things--inspection and measurement. So 20 whatever they may want to say--and I can address those 21 programs if you want but I think it's totally 22 irrelevant because that's not what the aging 23 management program is all about.
24 JUDGE WARDWELL: Beyond the first two 25 operating cycles, if in fact you don't observe any NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com v
343 1 flaws or flaw growth, will you not in fact terminate 2 the visual inspections?
3 MR. TRAVIESO-DIAZ: No, and let me just--
4 5 JUDGE WARDWELL: Explain why.
6 MR. TRAVIESO-DIAZ: Let me tell you what 7 SIL-644 requires you to do. First, with respect to 8 inspection, it has a five-prong approach. The first 9 prong was something that's already been done.
10 Perform a baseline visual inspection prior 11 to initiation of the--
12 JUDGE WARDWELL: And in this outlined in 13 644?
14 MR. TRAVIESO-DIAZ: Yes; it is on page 15 seven. Okay? So first you do a baseline visual, 16 which has already been done. Then repeat the visual 17 inspection of all susceptible locations of the steam 18 dryer during each subsequent refueling outage.
19 Continue inspections at each refueling 20 outage until at least two full operating cycles and 21 the final operated power level has been achieved.
22 After two full operating cycles at the final power 23 level, repeat the visual inspection of all susceptible 24 locations of the steam dryer for at least once every 25 two refueling outages.
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202)
- o 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.oom v
344 1 Then the fifth prong is once structural 2 integrity of any repairs and modifications has been 3 demonstrated and the flaws left at this have been 4 shown to have stabilized at the final operated power 5 level, longer inspection for these locations may be 6 justified.
7 So, potentially, you could have more space 8 inspections but you never stop having inspections.
9 JUDGE WARDWELL: And how will you achieve 10 that permission to extend the period of time between 11 the inspections?
12 MR. TRAVIESO-DIAZ: Well, you recall the 13 license conditions requires Entergy to consult and 14 notify the NRC, a designated person at the NRC on what 15 they're proposing to do. Entergy's not going to do 16 any of these things willy-nilly. It will be in 17 accordance with, you know, engineering analysis, and 18 with the permission of NRC.
19 JUDGE ELLEMAN: The word "inspection" is 20 kind of an umbrella word that can include a lot of 21 different things. Do you use dye penetrating tests to 22 look for cracks? Do you use ultrasound? Or is it 23 strictly just a visual inspection for cracking?
24 MR. TRAVIESO-DIAZ: Let me tell you, how 25 you do the inspection is specified in Appendix C to NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com
345 1 SIL-644, Reg 1. The main method that I understand is 2 used is visual inspection with a dryer, which is what 3 was done during the power ascension phase. I'm sure 4 that there are other methods that could be implemented 5 if there is an appearance that your dryer's having a 6 problem. But it's all specified here.
7 And to finish with 644, Appendix D to 644 8 gives you guidelines on what you have to monitor while 9 the plan is in operation, to make sure you detect any 10 potential steam dryer failure.
11 For example, the amount of moisture 12 exhibits in your steam, exhibits a big increase, what 13 you're going to be required to do is to measure 14 quickly, repeatedly, and if there is no explanation 15 for the trend, you have to shut down. So this is all 16 specified here.
17 JUDGE WARDWELL: I have a question. Turn 18 to your answer to the contention on page 25, and I'm 19 concerned, a little bit, whether this is, whether 20 you're really dealing with a motion for summary 21 disposition here. Isn't that what you're arguing, 22 almost, that, well, their expert is wrong, we are 23 right? I mean, let me just continue, if I might.
24 I note that on page 25, you start your 25 answer on Contention 3, and finally, on page 29, NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com
346 1 which is the last page you really address this, you 2 give me a citation to the reg--you know how I like the 3 citations to the reg--and you tell me that your 4 concern boils down to (f) 1 (vi), which is, there's no 5 genuine dispute to the material fact, which is very 6 much akin to the motion for summary disposition type 7 of issue.
8 And wouldn't this pass a motion for 9 summary disposition, much less admissible contention, 10 in terms of at least some support that they've 11 provided?
12 MR. TRAVIESO-DIAZ: I would say that this 13 would fail even a motion to dismiss for failure to 14 state a claim, because they have not challenged, they 15 have not raised an issue, a fact of law dispute with 16 respect to the application. The claims they are 17 making are totally irrelevant to the aging management 18 plan.
19 CHAIR KARLIN: But I thought they're 20 saying, again--maybe I've misunderstood--there's the 21 benchmark, these two models are part of the plan, they 22 would appear to be part of the plan, and that they're 23 not adequately benchmarked. That may be totally wrong 24 but that's what I hear them saying, and they need to 25 be benchmarked, and if they're not, then they're not NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com
347 1 going to be a useful tool.
2 MR. TRAVIESO-DIAZ: Well, why we go under 3 subsection 6 is precisely because the underlining 4 assumption that these programs, whatever their merits, 5- or their merits may be, are part of the aging 6 management program, is not a true assumption and you 7 can demonstrate that just by looking to what we have 8 committed to doing.
9 CHAIR KARLIN: Did you say that in your 10 answer? And let me just finish. Can you cite me to 11 page 25, somewhere, where it says the failure to 12 benchmark these two models is irrelevant because we're 13 not using them in any way, shape or form for our aging 14 management program?
15 MR. TRAVIESO-DIAZ: Well--
16 CHAIR KARLIN: It didn't seem to say that.
17 I'm not sure. I didn't get that, anyway; but maybe 18 it's there.
19 MR. TRAVIESO-DIAZ: Well, what we meant to 20 say, since we had to respond to their contention, we 21 put it in the context of what was done at the time of 22 the EPU. There were two parallel efforts, one that 23 Entergy did, that was trying to determine, 24 analytically, what the stress levels on the condenser 25 would be, and the condenser and the steam dryer under NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.oom
348 1 uprate conditions, and that's what the programs were 2 used for.
3 And in fact another licensing condition is 4 that that part of the process be terminated. Entergy 5 has submitted a final report to the NRC, showing that 6 the uncertainty that was alleged to exist has been 7 reduced to a very small amount, the dryer has like a 8 90 percent marking against the stress that's required.
9 So we refer to the analytical programs, A, 10 because they were raised by NEC, and B, because were 11 part of the historical development that led you to 12 doing also monitoring at the time.
13 CHAIR KARLIN: Well, one thing I would 14 like to address is on page 26, and having been part of 15 the board that's doing the uprate, you say in that 16 first full paragraph, you reference again the ironclad 17 obligation, and then you talk about the EPU. Surely 18 you don't suggest that the petitioner in this case has 19 an ironclad obligation to read every other proceeding 20 that occurs.
21 The ironclad obligation, to the extent it 22 exists, applies to things that are filed in this 23 license renewal application and not other 24 applications, doesn't it?
25 MR. TRAVIESO-DIAZ: Well, the first short NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE-, N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com
349 1 answer is how it started. They haven't read what 2 applies to this proceedings, which is SIL-644. So 3 they haven't met that ironclad obligation.
4 CHAIR KARLIN: Right, but let me just 5 posit, as you referred to ironclad obligation, an then 6 you start referring to the EPU, the very next sentence 7 you talk about the EPU, and then you further say in 8 the EPU that this measure was an attempt to litigate 9 a contention that was rejected as late, in the EPU 10 proceeding--that's accurate--it was rejected only 11 because it was late, not because it wasn't valid.
12 MR. TRAVIESO-DIAZ: Well, but the reason 13 why what happened in the EPU proceeding is relevant is 14 to understand the monitoring measurement program that 15 has been in effect already, will be in effect for six 16 years, and will be continued for twenty more. It is 17 the same program. You heard NEC counsel say, well, 18 Entergy should commit to doing this. We don't only 19 have a commitment. We have a licensed condition. We 20 are going to be doing this for the duration.
21 So the contention has absolutely no basis 22 in fact and doesn't meet the requirement of (f) 1 (vi) 23 because it doesn't challenge what Entergy's actually 24 proposing to do. It's as simple as that.
25 CHAIR KARLIN: Okay. Any other NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com
350 1 questions?
2 JUDGE ELLEMAN: If a vein should break off 3 a steam dryer and get circulated somewhere, is that a 1 serious event?
5 MR. TRAVIESO-DIAZ: Well, it depends on 6 how it breaks down and what it does. Potentially 7 could be serious.
8 JUDGE ELLEMAN: I'm sorry. Potentially 9 what?
10 MR. TRAVIESO-DIAZ: Well, it could 11 potentially be serious but without knowing more about 12 the scenario, I don't think anybody can predict what 13 would happen.
JUDGE WARDWELL: Can you explain a 15 condition where breaking of the vein wouldn't be a 16 serious condition at the time it broke?
17 MR. RUND: One minute.
18 MR. TRAVIESO-DIAZ: Well, I would say it 19 would depend where it went. Okay? A steam dryer sits 20 on top of the reactor, and if it drops a piece, that 21 piece could go into the reaction or anywhere else.
22 But this entire program is intended to detect 23 potential flaws before they became cracks and before 24 there is a failure.
25 So the idea is that that's not going to NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com
351 I happen.
2 JUDGE ELLEMAN: So it could be serious or 3 it could be inconsequential, depending on subsequent 4 events?
5 MR. TRAVIESO-DIAZ: Well, it depends on 6 what you drop or what you break and how you break it 7 and where it goes. In the incident that was the root 8 cause of all this, the Quad Cities event, there were 9 flaws and breakers in the steam dryer and there were 10 no safety, direct safety consequences. The plant had 11 to be shut down because it was behaving erratically, 12 the moisture level was high. But there was no actual 13 physical consequence to that event.
14 MR. RUND: Time.
15 CHAIR KARLIN: Any other questions?
16 Okay. Thank you. Thank you, Mr.
17 Travieso-Diaz.
18 Staff. Ms. Young.
MS. YOUNG: Thank you, Judge Karlin.
20 The staff had objected to this contention 21 because the petitioners had failed to provide a 22 sufficient basis for their contention, particularly 23 their claim that the computer models were not properly 24 benchmarked.
25 And noting Ms. Tyler's remarks this NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com
352 1 morning, it seems petitioners would like to rely in 2 information cited by applicants in their response to 3 the SC on the uprate proceeding.
4 Those documents were publicly available 5 and the ironclad obligation to examine publicly-6 available documents pertains to the facility in 7 question, not just the application pending before the 8 NRC, and in this case it should be a particularly 9 higher burden, given that NEC is also a party in that 10 proceeding and was aware of those documents. NEC's 11 contention, in particular, is concerned about the 120 12 percent uprate--
13 CHAIR KARLIN: Do you have a cite for 14 that?
15 MS. YOUNG: Well, the words from the 16 Catawba case itself says the facility in question. It 17 does not say the application pending.
18 CHAIR KARLIN: Okay. I'm just not sure.
19 It seems to me that there is a difference, and I just 20 would like a cite, if there was one. We'll try to 21 research that issue.
22 MS. YOUNG: Certainly. But we're talking 23 about an SC on Vermont Yankee and the power uprate, 24 the particular issue that they are concerned about in 25 terms of performance of the steam dryer during the NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.corn
353 1 renewal period.
2 If there's any document that's relevant, 3 that was it. They were aware of it, they chose not to 4 cite it, and only, you know, mentioned in response to 5 a question from you this morning, they were relying on 6 information provided by the applicant in their reply.
7 To me, that's obvious, that there was a failure, on 8 their part, to provide sufficient detail, foundation, 9 for their contention.
10 CHAIR KARLIN: Well, let's turn to Dr.
11 Hopenfeld. The staff is the one who raised the issue 12 about the particular pages, I think, in Dr.
13 Hopenfeld's citations, that they're not properly 14 benchmarked.
15 You indicated that the pages did not 16 support his proposition.
17 MS. YOUNG: Yes; correct.
18 CHAIR KARLIN: You raise that.
19 MS. YOUNG: Yes. Ms. Tyler suggested that 20 that was an ACRS report, that's an ACRS transcript, is 21 a meeting with exchanges between, you know, Entergy, 22 who was doing a presentation on an uprate, and 23 questions that the ACRS members had.
24 The staff, in examining those pages, was 25 not able to find information that said they were NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgrosscom
354 1 properly benchmarked, and in petitioners' response, 2 they didn't provide any information that rebutted that 3 concern of staff.
4 CHAIR KARLIN: Well, wasn't there a 5 passage that we were reading earlier from the ACRS 6 report, talking about poorly, poorly--
7 MS. YOUNG: I believe that was from the 8 SC, if I understood the page that Ms. Tyler was 9 reading from. But maybe she can correct me.
10 CHAIR KARLIN: I think we can find it.
11 [Pause]
12 CHAIR KARLIN: Oh. This was the state of 13 validation of these methods as poor. I guess that was 14 a statement that--I'm reading from page 27 of 15 Entergy's answer, and it's the ACRS letter, from the 16 chairman to Chairman Diaz, and it indicates the state-17 of validation of these methods were poor, and it goes 18 on to say, as we discussed, that there are other 19 monitoring measures going to be taken, that would 20 ultimately satisfy the ACRS, I guess.
21 MS. YOUNG: Okay. But a letter from 22 Chairman Diaz was not in the transcript pages that 23 they cited.
24 CHAIR KARLIN: Okay.
25 MS. YOUNG: In other words, that's NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com
- o
355 1 information that's publicly available. That's 2 information they were aware of as a party to the 3 uprate proceeding. They didn't provide it in support 4 of their contention.
5 CHAIR KARLIN: Well, they did provide a 6 declaration by Dr. Hopenfeld, I think it was, and it 7 went on for several, four or five paragraphs, and do 8 you think they need to do more than that? I mean, 9 this is an expert. You're not challenging his 10 qualifications.
11 He's addressing the benchmarking of these 12 two models. As I hear Entergy saying, that's not 13 relevant or important, but assuming it were, how much 14 more does he need to say in order to achieve, meet the 15 supporting evidence requirements?
16 MS. YOUNG: Well, if you look at that 17 affidavit, it has four paragraphs but only one of them 18 is about whether the models are properly benchmarked, 19 and the only citation is to the ACRS transcript.
20 So, in other words, you know, consistent 21 with the precedents in the USEC decision yesterday, 22 which says that even an expert can't merely state a 23 conclusion without providing support, the staff looked 24 at that support to see if it raised a genuine dispute 25 regarding information in the application, and those NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealgross.com
356 1 pages did not indicate that the computer models were 2 not properly benchmarked.
3 CHAIR KARLIN: Well, the USEC decision, 4 which you cited yesterday, I think involved a case 5 where I don't even think they had any expert. I don't 6 think it was a holding, that was a very recent 7 decision, and a very unsupported I would say 8 contention--
9 MS. YOUNG: Yes, but it's guidance from 10 the Commission, and that's what the staff relies on in 11 taking its positions in NRC proceedings. You know, 12 the staff doesn't slice it, whether it's dicta or the 13 holding. It is guidance on how the staff and board 14 should--
15 CHAIR KARLIN: Well, no, I rely--we rule 16 on if it's a holding. If it's just a statement, if 17 it's dicta, then we don't necessarily feel bound by 18 that. We'll make a ruling as we see right, and if the 19 Commission wants to make a holding, they can, but 20 until that comes down, we're not bound. You can argue 21 it but we're not bound.
22 MS. YOUNG: Well, we're disputing whether 23 it's dicta or holding, but to the extent that the 24 Commission gives a pronouncement on how its rules of 25 procedures should be interpreted in its decisions, 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
357 1 staff relies on that and I believe the Commission 2 expects its boards to also.
3 CHAIR KARLIN: Well, let's go back to the 4 declaration, the first--if I've got it right here.
5 MS. YOUNG: I'm looking at paragraph 19 of 6 the declaration.
7 JUDGE WARDWELL: I'm sorry. Where are you 8 at?
9 MS. YOUNG: Paragraph 19 of Mr. Hopenfeld, 10 Dr. Hopenfeld's declaration.
11 CHAIR KARLIN: Well, it starts on 12 paragraph 15. First, they recite a number of 13 documents that they say support their position. Then 14 16, they say there's going to be a flow increase 15 attributable to the EPU. The flow-induced vibrations 16 will increase. This could cause a problem. It 17 happened at Quad Cities already. I don't know whether 18 that's true or not; but he's saying that.
19 Seventeen, if the flow-induced vibration 20 loads, together with, etcetera, etcetera, it could 21 prevent an MSIV from isolating the steam loss during 22 a loss of coolant accident. Eighteen, they refer to 23 paragraphs. No matter what guidance they follow, the 24 status of the dry cracks must be continuously--I mean, 25 it's not just 19, and even for 19, he's saying that NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com
358 1 the proposed techniques--and he's just referred to the 2 techniques and gone into some discussion of that, not 3 based on actual measurements, and they're not proven, 4 and he has a problem with them. I don't think that's 5 an entirely bald assertion; has some hair to it.
6 MS. YOUNG: Well, the staff didn't 7 disagree in terms of the characterization of the 8 issue. Intervenors have identified a safety issue.
9 People have concerns about safety issues. That does 10 not mean that they have pled a litigable contention.
11 An Intervenor, in challenging the basis for inadequacy 12 of visual measurements, talked about inadequacy of 13 computer models, and then to support their claim that 14 the inspection program is inadequate, when you rely on 15 computer models that aren't properly benchmarked, you 16 should provide information that supports your 17 contention that the computer models are improperly 18 benchmarked.
19 The only information in the affidavit that 20 the computer models--
21 CHAIR KARLIN: By an expert.
22 MS. YOUNG: By an expert that only cited 23 pages to an ACRS transcript, and this morning you're 24 hearing that there's actually information in the 25 uprate SC. So again, they did not provide sufficient NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON. D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.corn
359 1 information.
2 CHAIR KARLIN: Well, they didn't provide 3 all the information. They're not obliged to provide 4 all the information, are they, if they provide 5 sufficient information? But what's the purpose of -
6 this contention requirement? It is to make sure they 7 can't just allege some bald statement, there is a 8 dispute, we don't like nuclear power.
9 They have to give us something specific 10 that can be litigated in some concrete way. This 11 seems like something specific that could be litigated 12 in a concrete way. They may win, they may lose. I 13 don't know what kind of exclusionary threshold we have 14 to create here--
15 MS. YOUNG: But when you say that a model 16 is not properly benchmarked, you have an obligation, 17 even as an expert, to provide a basis for your 18 opinions. Any expert can give an opinion on anything 19 but they'd have to provide a basis, and the staff 20 can't discern whether there is a dispute right respect 21 to this applicant if the expert doesn't provide a 22 basis, and the basis provided in the petition was only 23 a citation to an ACRS transcript which generally 24 discussed issues with the dryer, and even indicated, 25 as you recognize in the footnote cited in the staff's NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com
360 1 answer, that there was even a good agreement between 2 the predictions of crack growth, which these models 3 are for, and what Entergy actually found.
4 You know, to the extent that the staff had 5 safety concerns that caused to add additional 6 constraints or conditions with respect to the steam 7 dryer is not the issue right here. The issue is 8 whether petitioners have sufficiently pled their 9 contention, and the staff's position is that they have 10 not.
11 CHAIR KARLIN: Okay. Any questions?
12 Anything further? Okay. Ten minutes I guess on 13 rebuttal.
14 Ms. Tyler. And hopefully you can address 15 this issue, now that we have focused on it a little 16 better, the citations in Dr. Hopenfeld's declaration 17 and the provisions that the staff has challenged. Can 18 you help us with that any more?
19 MS. TYLER: I'm sorry?
20 CHAIR KARLIN: Can you help us with the 21 issue that we've talked about. The staff raised, in 22 their answer, that Dr. Hopenfeld's citations in 23 paragraph 19 did not support the proposition he was 24 presenting to us. Have you had a chance to look at 25 that?
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com
361 1 MS. TYLER: Unfortunately, I really can't 2 elucidate that for you because I don't have a copy of 3 that report, so I can't look at it right now and 4 confirm that in fact he did cite to the right pages.
5 It's possible that he didn't cite to the right pages, 6 although when we put this together I believe we 7 confirmed in fact that he had.
8 I think that you pretty accurately 9 summarized the facts and opinions that Dr. Hopenfeld 10 provided. This issue came up in yesterday's 11 discussion as well. He is an expert; no one's 12 challenged his credentials. It's his expert opinion 13 that these models are uncertain and need confirmation 14 through additional methods. He did indicate that 15 others share this opinion, that this came up in the 16 EPU proceeding.
17 Entergy, again, has cited documents in its 18 answer to the same effect. Regarding the issue of our 19 obligation to review every document on the record, I'd 20 like to read a cite from an NRC case, which is 37 NRC 21 5, Pacific Gas & Electric Company.
22 It says the ironclad obligation of a 23 petitioner to examine publicly-available documentary 24 evidence in support of its contention applies only to 25 information in support of the contention. A NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE.. N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com
362 1 requirement also to examine contrary publicly-2 available documentary evidence would unduly exacerbate 3 the considerable threshold that a petitioner must 4 already meet under the current revised contention 5 rules.
6 So it's not our burden to look at every 7 single thing that relates to our contention. We only 8 have 60 days to put together these contentions, to 9 review a great deal of information, you know, an 800-10 page application, all the supporting documentation.
11 CHAIR KARLIN: And is that a Commission 12 decision?
13 MS. TYLER: This is--the cite is 37 NRC 5.
14 It is a Commission decision, Pacific Gas & Electric 15 Company, Diablo Canyon Nuclear Plant Units 1 and 2.
16 I'm not sure that our expert did review the GE-SIL-17 00042 document. The application refers to two 18 documents, the BWR vessels internals program document, 19 and the second one, the BWR vessels internals program 20 was definitely proprietary. We couldn't find it.
21 We weren't able to find the second one on 22 Adams, and I would add that the Department of Public 23 Service has indicated that they weren't either, 24 although they have now found it, once we've gotten 25 this, the ML number.
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com
363 1 Entergy appears to be stating now that it 2 has a current license condition to comply with this 3 GE-SIL-0042 inspection program, but that's not what 4 they said in the answer. In the answer, the only 5 license condition that they referred to was the 6 condition imposed in the context of the EPU 7 proceeding, involving an inspection program that would 8 terminate. That's what they said in their answer.
9 That's what we responded to.
10 We would like to see a license condition, 11 a similar license condition for the renewed license, 12 and I'm not clear on whether they're claiming that 13 their current license requires compliance with the 14 inspection program that Mr. Travieso-Diaz described.
15 I would add, as we mentioned in our reply, 16 that there is currently an investigation underway 17 before the Vermont Public Service Board, regarding the 18 reliability of the steam dryer under uprate, and the 19 stems from the state nuclear engineer's conclusion 20 that the protocols in place during the EPU didn't 21 accurately predict whether additional cracking would 22 occur.
23 So there are a lot of questions out there 24 about whether we can be sure that the dryers in good 25 shape, that it's being adequately monitored, that it NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., NW.
(202) 23-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.oom
364 1 will last for the next 20 years.
2 Even if they are following the GE-SIL-0042 3 protocol, I think questions remain about whether 4 that's adequate, given the uprate, given the problems 5 that have been observed at Quad Cities, that Dr.
6 Hopenfeld mentioned in his declaration.
7 I think if we had a hearing on this issue, 8 it would be worth everyone's time to explore that 9 issue in more detail. How accurate is that? You 10 know, how much confidence can we have in what's been 11 done so far? What really needs to be done, over the 12 next 20 years, to make sure that the situation is a 13 good one?
14 CHAIR KARLIN: Okay.
15 JUDGE ELLEMAN: The Entergy program 16 appears to involve a series of defined inspections, 17 followed by a later possible modification of that 18 inspection schedule, if no problems are detected.
19 Well, why isn't this a reasonable way to 20 proceed?
21 MS. TYLER: I can't really say. I think 22 that's a question that we need to ask Dr. Hopenfeld 23 who is the mechanical engineer. I think it's going to 24 depend, again, on an evaluation of the specific uprate 25 conditions, of our confidence in the evaluation that's NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.oom
365 1 already been done, of our confidence in, you know, how 2 we determine what stresses the dryer is currently 3 subject to and how it might respond to those stresses.
4 I mean, I'm assuming that this GE, that 5 this guidance doesn't specifically address uprate 6 operation, so I think there'd need to be a 7 consideration of how the guidance would need to be 8 tailored to the uprate operation condition, and those 9 are all issues that we could productively explore in 10 a hearing.
11 JUDGE WARDWELL: To extend on that a bit, 12 what I heard NEC reply to this was in fact that this 13 inspection program won't even stop if no flaws, or 14 flaw growth is detected. That, in fact, as required 15 by 644 and the license condition, those will continue 16 during--I forgot what he said in regard to some fuel 17 outages, the frequency of them--but, in fact, is even 18 going to extend beyond what I had originally thought 19 was the situation.
20 Is that your understanding and how would 21 you comment on that? It seems to me it's even less 22 finite than originally anticipated, based on the 23 response of NEC.
24 MS. TYLER: I think my first point--i 25 still am unclear about whether this program is a NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHOOE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202)
. o 234-4433 WASHINGTON. D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com
366 1 license condition or whether it's just a guidance that 2 they purport to comply with. The only actual license 3 condition that they mentioned in their answer to our 4 contention was the condition imposed as part of the 5 uprate proceeding, that required a monitoring program 6 specifically in the context of the ascension power 7 testing and the few operating cycles subsequent to 8 that.
9 So I'm not sure if they have a license 10 condition that actually requires this ongoing program 11 of visual inspection.
12 If they do, I think there are still issues 13 that we could productively explore in a hearing about 14 whether that program is sufficient under the uprate 15 condition, to what extent it needs to be tailored, 16 whether the interval is adequate.
17 I think, you know, the other issues are--
18 Dr. Hopenfeld has just mentioned the issue of safety 19 in between operational inspections.
20 JUDGE WARDWELL: Yes. That is always 21 going to be an issue, is how much is enough. Thank 22 you.
23 CHAIR KARLIN: Anything else? Nope. All 24 right. Then I think we're finished a little bit 25 early.
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgoss.com
367 1 MS. TYLER: I'd just like to ask our 2 client if he has anything he'd like me to add. I'm 3 sorry.
4 CHAIR KARLIN: Sure.
5 [Pause]
6 MR. RUND: One minute.
7 MS. TYLER: I think we've said what we 8 need to say. Thank you.
9 CHAIR KARLIN: Okay. Thank you. Good.
10 Let us now turn to NEC Contention 4. The same 11 approach. how do you want to handle the rebuttal time 12 on this one, Ms. Tyler?
13 MS. TYLER: Ten minutes for rebuttal, 14 please.
15 CHAIR KARLIN: Very good. Please proceed.
16 MS. TYLER: So Contention 4 concerns 17 Entergy's plan to manage aging of the plant piping due 18 to flow accelerated corrosion. The program, as 19 described in the application, does rely, to some 20 extent, on the CHECWORKS model, which is a computer 21 model used to determine which site locations to 22 inspect and the inspection frequency, as I understand 23 it.
24 It's the opinion of our technical expert 25 on the subject, Dr. Hopenfeld, that this model won't NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202)
. ° 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com
368 1 be reliable over the next ten years because it's an 2 empirical model that has to be benchmarked to the 3 specific conditions in the plant, and that the uprate, 4 because the power uprate has markedly changed the 5 plant conditions, many years of inspection data are 6 necessary to benchmark the CHECWORKS model so that it 7 could be reliably used.
8 It's Dr. Hopenfeld's opinion that the 9 application does not adequately explain how Entergy 10 proposes to overcome this problem and establish valid 11 trends for the model under the uprate operation 12 condition.
13 Entergy addresses this question, to some 14 extent, in its answer, that is, how it would establish 15 valid trends, why it can still use the CHECWORKS 16 model. It basically suggests, I think, that it 17 doesn't need to use the CHECWORKS model because it can 18 predict wear rates, because the increase in proportion 19 to flow velocity. That was their first point I think.
20 They also suggest that they'll focus on inspecting the 21 longest sections of pipe. Dr. Hopenfeld disagrees 22 that these are valid approaches in his rebuttal, and 23 I think we have a dispute, clearly, of material fact.
24 JUDGE WARDWELL: How do you respond to 25 Entergy's statement that CHECWORKS is only used as a NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE. N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 wwwnealrgross.com
369 1 device to identify highly susceptible areas and isn't 2 used beyond that in regards to their evaluations of 3 FAC?
4 MS. TYLER: Well, I think even if it's 5 used only for that limited purpose, it's an important 6 component of the program, and if it doesn't accurately 7 identify which areas should be inspected, that's a 8 major flaw in the overall approach.
9 JUDGE WARDWELL: Well, certainly, wouldn't 10 you agree that it's less critical than i fit was some 11 type of model that was used to predict and project 12 overall performance of an area, rather than one that 13 says, okay, let's apply this model just to target 14 those areas that we really want to focus on in our 15 future maintenance monitoring and other types of 16 modeling plans?
17 MS. TYLER: I think it's Dr. Hopenfeld's 18 opinion that the model is a very important part of the 19 overall FAC program, and that I think he explains in 20 his declaration that it's been very difficult for 21 plants, in the past, to use the model correctly. But 22 there have been a number of serious accidents related 23 to pipe failures due to FAC.
24 CHAIR KARLIN: The staff raises a point 25 on, I think page 14. You're confronting 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
370 1 allegation that it's conclusary. Dr. Hopenfeld's, 2 again, is too conclusary, it isn't supported.
3 And they point out one thing, in 4 particular, the ten to fifteen years, that it has to 5 take ten to fifteen years to benchmark this. That 6 seems to come sort of "out of the blue" there. Is the 7 ten to fifteen years a critical component of the 8 issue? Or could it be five years it requires to be 9 benchmarked? Does it make a difference, whether it's 10 ten to fifteen?
11 MS. TYLER: I think we've addressed this 12 issue several times, yesterday and today. You know, 13 Dr. Hopenfeld is an expert. He has a specific 14 emphasis in FAC issues. No one's challenged his 15 credentials. It's his judgment that this amount of 16 time would be necessary to benchmark the model for 17 appropriate use under the new conditions.
18 CHAIR KARLIN: His affidavit, his 19 declaration, goes on for three pages, it seems like, 20 or so, and only kind of at the end do we see this ten 21 to fifteen years. If you eliminated the ten to 22 fifteen years, and just said it needed to be 23 benchmarked, wouldn't you still have a contention?
24 Is ten to fifteen years some critical 25 element of your contention?
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com
371 1 MS. TYLER: Well, I think to some extent 2 it is.
3 CHAIR KARLIN: The staff says it comes out 4 of nowhere and it does sort of come out of nowhere, 5 ten to fifteen years. The rest of it, there is some 6 rationale and explanation, it seems to me.
7 MS. TYLER: I think it's his judgment that 8 it would take that amount of time.
9 CHAIR KARLIN: Well, I understand it's his 10 judgment but is there anything other than just "out of 11 the blue," it's my judgment, that's in the affidavit, 12 that's in the--
13 MS. TYLER: There's nothing in the 14 affidavit, anything, his judgment to that effect.
15 CHAIR KARLIN: Can you support me to 16 something that supports the 10 to 15 year timeframe in 17 the declaration?
18 MS. TYLER: We haven't included anything 19 in Dr. Hopenfeld's affidavit but he will provide it, 20 should we have a hearing on the issue.
21 CHAIR KARLIN: But let me go back to the 22 original question. Is that important to your 23 contention, that is, 10 to 15 years?
24 MS. TYLER: Well, yes, I think it clearly 25 is important to our contention in that I think it's NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.oom
372 1 obvious that if it could be benchmarked more quickly, 2 then it would be valid potentially during the extended 3 term.
4 CHAIR KARLIN: So if we conclude that the 5 10 to 15 years component of his four pages of 6 declaration is bald and conclusary, then the 7 contention falls? You have no contention left? What 8 if it was eight years?
9 MS. TYLER: Well, if it was eight years, 10 then we would have two years of the new license term 11 when it wasn't used.
12 CHAIR KARLIN: Right.
13 MS. TYLER: Reliably.
14 CHAIR KARLIN: So if the 10 to 15 years is 15 truly a bald and conclusary statement, would your 16 contention fall?
17 MS. TYLER: I think one of the issues that 18 we have to look at is how long it would take to 19 benchmark it. I think we also have to look at how we 20 would benchmark it and whether it could be 21 benchmarked.
22 CHAIR KARLIN: All right. So think it's 23 going to take some time.
24 MS. TYLER: I see where you're getting at; 25 you know.
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.alrgross.com
373 1 CHAIR KARLIN: Okay. I just didn't 2 understand the significance of that 10 to 15 years, 3 and staff points it out and I think they may have some 4 point there.
5 I mean, another thing that's raised by 6 Entergy is this is vague and not supported by, you 7 know, adequate information. They're wanting you to 8 point to specific areas of piping.
9 I guess the allegation is this corrosion 10 will affect piping. Well don't nuclear facilities 11 have a huge amount of piping, so couldn't it be a 12 little more specific and just say somewhere in the 13 system there may be a pipe that'll have a problem?
14 MS. TYLER: I think the piping, in 15 general, is--
16 CHAIR KARLIN: I mean, maybe you did but 17 I missed it.
18 MS. TYLER: No; we didn't.
19 CHAIR KARLIN: All right.
20 MS. TYLER: We said the plant piping is 21 subject to flow accelerated corrosion. The plant 22 piping is a component of the plant that is subject to 23 an aging management review under the rules.
24 CHAIR KARLIN: And it is, is it not?
25 You're just saying it's not adequate.
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.noalrgross.com
374 1 MS. TYLER: Yes. It's the aging 2 management program for the plant piping that we're 3 concerned with. It's the plant piping that's subject 4 to the aging management program.
5 CHAIR KARLIN: And their management 6 program is inadequate because the CHECWORKS program is 7 not adequately benchmarked?
8 MS. TYLER: Yes.
9 CHAIR KARLIN: Okay.
10 JUDGE WARDWELL: How do you respond to 11 Entergy's statement that if in fact everyone accepted 12 your hypothesis of this 10 to 15 years as a 13 benchmarking timeframe, that in fact that opinion is 14 disputed by the fact that this particular model wasn't 15 used until 1993, and I guess no one has disputed that.
16 It hasn't been used successfully form '93 till now at 17 existing plants. How do you respond to that 18 statement, that if in fact your timeframe is correct, 19 then all the analysis conducted today would have been 20 in error?
21 MS. TYLER: I think it's Dr. Hopenfeld's 22 opinion that the model has never been used terribly 23 successfully, that it has been very difficult to 24 benchmark the model reliably.
25 JUDGE WARDWELL: Where is that stated? I NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.corn
375 1 didn't pick up that inference in anything that--
2 MS. TYLER: He includes a number of 3 references to accidents that have occurred at other 4 plants due to pipe failures, and flow accelerated 5 corrosion related pipe failures and I think that it is 6 basically his position that it's been very difficult 7 to use his model correctly.
8 MR. RUND: One minute.
9 MS. TYLER: It hasn't been used correctly 10 in a number of instances, and that because the uprate 11 has changed a lot of the plant parameters, it will be 12 particularly difficult to use it reliably at Vermont 13 Yankee over the next decade.
14 JUDGE WARDWELL: So, in essence, you're 15 saying, in fact, maybe it hasn't worked so fine. In 16 fact it hasn't been benchmarked correctly.
17 MS. TYLER: Dr. Hopenfeld thinks that it's 18 never worked very well and that it will work even less 19 well at Vermont Yankee.
20 JUDGE WARDWELL: Thank you.
21 JUDGE ELLEMAN: If the frequency of 22 inspection is controlled, not by CHECWORKS, but, 23 rather, by more standard methods, ultrasonic 24 measurements of pipe thinning and surveying, the past 25 database. If those are the factors controlling the NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202)
. r 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com w
376 1 inspection frequency, does your contention go away?
2 MR. RUND: Time.
3 MS. TYLER: I don't think it's been 4 demonstrated that those are the only elements of the 5 program. I think Dr. Hopenfeld's contention is that 6 CHECWORKS is an important element of the program and 7 if the model isn't working reliably, that's a problem.
8 JUDGE ELLEMAN: Yes, but we've been told 9 the use of it is to locate the regions of highest 10 sensitivity, not to establish the frequency.
11 MS. TYLER: I can't personally speak to 12 that. As Dr. Hopenfeld has explained it to us, the 13 model indicates what areas should be inspected and how 14 often. So as he's explained it, it is used to 15 determine the necessary frequency of an inspection.
16 CHAIR KARLIN: All right. Thank you. Any 17 other questions? No.
18 Entergy. Mr. Travieso-Diaz.
19 MR. TRAVIESO-DIAZ: Yes. I am going to 20 start somewhat out of sequence because I think the 21 concept of bald and conclusary is never better 22 illustrated than in this particular case.
23 The whole crux of this contention is as 24 follows. You cannot predict flow accelerated 25 corrosion at Vermont Yankee after they operate because NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com
377 1 the flows and velocities have changed. Now the 2 plant's operating at a higher power level, and as a 3 result, you really don't have any proper way to use 4 this empirical program, CHECWORKS, because the 5 information has changed.
6 And the reason you cannot use CHECWORKS 7 today is because it takes 10 to 15 years of 8 benchmarking to make a user.
9 Well, both Entergy and the staff challenge 10 that premise as being, or conclusion as being totally 11 unsupported.
12 Dr. Hopenfeld filed a second affidavit, 13 which, by the way, we moved to strike, in which he 14 responded to our claims. He did not respond to our 15 claim that there is no basis for his 10 to 15 years.
16 He had two bites at the apple and he never could come 17 up with any support for what he said was 10 to 15 18 years.
19 In fact neither in the user manual, the 20 EPU documentation, the NRC documents there, is any 21 limitation as to how you use CHECWORKS. So the 10 to 22 15 years is totally bald, conclusary and unsupported.
23 CHAIR KARLIN: Well, I mean, part of the 24 issue is how important is this particular timeframe, 25 if they have supported--let's say there's some support NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON. D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com
378 1 for the proposition that it's not properly 2 benchmarked, and that it would take a goodly amount of 3 time for it to be benchmarked, and therefore it can't 4 be used or shouldn't be used, or it's not reliable or 5 adequate in some way. Is it critical to that 6 contention that it--let's say we threw out the 10 to 7 15 years. So that is bald and conclusary. But the 8 rest of it has so some support.
9 So do they have a contention it's valid?
10 MR. TRAVIESO-DIAZ: No, because in fact 11 CHECWORKS is being benchmarked, even as we speak.
12 CHAIR KARLIN: Is being benchmarked?
13 MR. TRAVIESO-DIAZ: Right, even as we 14 speak, because what you do with CHECWORKS, this is a 15 bounding program that gives you general data from many 16 plants. You immediately start putting in your plant-17 specific data to it, which has been done already.
18 Every time that you have an outage and do inspections, 19 you measure the thinning of the pipe and you use that 20 as an input for the next.
21 JUDGE WARDWELL: How much data is 22 available at the power rates that they're talking 23 about with the uprate license?
24 MR. TRAVIESO-DIAZ: Well, first you have 25 all the data going into what the conditions of 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
379 1 pipes are today, because that has been established.
2 You don't have data going forward until you start 3 measuring the pipe.
4 JUDGE WARDWELL: Right but wasn't that 5 data available on normal power rates that were used 6 historically in the development of CHECWORKS, that was 7 finally promulgated and started to be used in 1993?
8 I mean, the GALL Report used historical information 9 prior to 1993, prior to the issuance of, or the 10 acceptability of this model and its use in that 11 timeframe. But those were all for conditions 20 12 percent less than what is at Vermont Yankee; isn't 13 that correct?
14 MR. TRAVIESO-DIAZ: Yes, and, in fact, not 15 only has it been put into CHECWORKS generally, but now 16 the data as to what the condition of the pipe is today 17 at Vermont Yankee is already in CHECWORKS because we 18 already have data, historical information.
19 But even more--
20 JUDGE WARDWELL: We can't linearly 21 extrapolate that data for the power uprate, 22 necessarily, I think is their contention, and it could 23 be an exponential function or--
24 MR. TRAVIESO-DIAZ: Okay. But it gives 25 you starting conditions. Okay? The starting point.
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com
380 1 You know what the starting point is.
2 For the next years of uprate levels, 3 there's going to be three outages in which there are 4 going to be inspections made.
5 In fact they are going to have 50 percent 6 more inspections of the piping. So essentially you 7 have nine years equivalent of benchmarking that is 8 going to be available for CHECWORKS at the beginning 9 of the license renewal period.
10 So if you need benchmarking, you have it, 11 you have probably nine years worth. So--
12 JUDGE WARDWELL: I'm sorry. Where do you 13 get the nine years from?
14 MR. TRAVIESO-DIAZ: Because they're going 15 to increase by 50 percent the number of inspections in 16 those three outages. So in each of the outages they 17 are going to do the equivalent of a year and a half 18 worth of inspections.
19 JUDGE WARDWELL: I'm sorry, I still don't 20 follow that. Are you saying because they're doing 21 more frequent inspections, that that equilibrates to 22 some additional equivalent time period of--
23 MR. TRAVIESO-DIAZ: Exactly.
24 JUDGE WARDWELL: Well, no, I mean--go 25 ahead. I won't argue.
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 23-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com
381 1 MR. TRAVIESO-DIAZ: But at any rate, there 2 is going to be benchmarking just by the fact that this 3 model is going to be used for the entire operating 4 period and there is going to be more inspections done.
5 Moreover, and I think it's important to 6 emphasis something that NEC has not responded to.
7 Entergy doesn't depend only on CHECWORKS to decide 8 where to do the inspections or how frequently to do 9 them.
10 We gave you in the answer the citation as 11 to where this is explained. We are going to be doing 12 the following things. We do use CHECWORKS. What we 13 use, pipe wall thickness measurements from prior 14 inspections, industry events that are relevant, 15 results from other inspection programs, engineering 16 judgment as to why the locations are more susceptible.
17 So you don't go blindly, using your 18 CHECWORKS predictions. You go look at the CHECWORKS 19 predictions and you moderate or use those together 20 with all the other information that you have, and 21 that's how you decide where you're going to do your 22 inspections.
23 So it's not just using CHECWORKS. Dr.
24 Hopenfeld admitted in his affidavit that he doesn't 25 know how CHECWORKS is used. I'm telling you how it's NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com
382 1 used, and he hasn't responded to that either.
2 It is a tool. Entergy depends on it, but 3 it doesn't rely exclusively on it, and I think is 4 entitled to rely on it also because it is--
5 benchmarking doesn't go alone. I want to make -a brief 6 mention of one thing, which is that Dr. Hopenfeld 7 said, well, the industry experience shows that you 8 really can't rely on CHECWORKS.
9 It is a very inconsistent position to 10 take, to say on the one hand, it is a very important 11 thing that we want to make sure is right, and on the 12 other hand say it hasn't worked well. In fact it has 13 worked very well.
14 The accidents that he's talking about--and 15 let me tell you two things about that.
16 First, none of them was in the BWR, but 17 more importantly they are as follows. The Surrey 18 accident was what led to the creation of CHECWORKS, 19 was six years before there was a CHECWORKS.
20 The Japanese plant accident. In Japan, 21 they don't use CHECWORKS. The San Onofre accident.
22 It was piping internal to a steam generator that does 23 not use CHECWORKS.
24 The Forkahone incident was one, and there 25 was an error inputting data into CHECWORKS, and NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com
383 1 therefore "garbage in, garbage out," you don't put the 2 right situation with respect to the time that you have 3 been using the pipe, you cannot expect very good 4 results.
5 Indeed, the industry experience with 6 CHECWORKS has been good. All the accidents that Dr.
7 Hopenfeld refers to are either irrelevant or just 8 don't prove that CHECWORKS doesn't work.
9 JUDGE ELLEMAN: In the nine years or so 10 that you would have to benchmark CHECWORKS, you would 11 like to have a lot of data points to give you an 12 established trend as to how things are behaving.
13 Roughly, how many measurements of pipe 14 thickness at a given point are you going to have over 15 that nine years?
16 Are we talking several dozens? Are we 17 talking a half dozen?
18 MR. TRAVIESO-DIAZ: I'm told by people who 19 know, that they do it at 50 different locations, and 20 at 200 points at each location.
21 JUDGE ELLEMAN: Two hundred points?
22 MR. TRAVIESO-DIAZ: Right.
23 JUDGE ELLEMAN: Over the nine years at 50 24 different locations?
25 MR. TRAVIESO-DIAZ: Right.
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com v
384 1 JUDGE ELLEMAN: Okay; thank you.
2 MR. TRAVIESO-DIAZ: Each time; yes.
3 Unless the board has any questions, I 4 think that's all we need to say about it. This is a 5 fairly -straightforward contention, we believe.
6 CHAIR KARLIN: All right. Thank you. Any 7 other questions?
8 JUDGE WARDWELL: Yes. I have just one 9 more clarification question. Say again what this nine 10 years of inspection--those are nine equivalent years.
11 Those aren't nine calendar years. Is that correct, in 12 my understanding?
13 MR. TRAVIESO-DIAZ: Yes; yes.
14 JUDGE WARDWELL: Okay. Thank you.
15 MR. TRAVIESO-DIAZ: I didn't make it 16 clear. Nine equivalent years. Because when you've 17 been benchmarking for 10 years, you take whatever 18 inspections you do in that period of time.
19 CHAIR KARLIN: I'm not sure whether I'm 20 missing something here, but perhaps you can help me, 21 if you have a minute. Contention 4. Dr. Hopenfeld's 22 declaration. I'm looking at it. I don't know. Where 23 does it say 10 to 15 years? Does it say that? Yes.
24 I guess it does. At the end of paragraph 24, just 25 before paragraph 25. It seems a relatively minor part NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com
385 1 of, you know, of a otherwise reasonably well-explained 2 concern.
3 JUDGE WARDWELL: And even if it isn't--let 4 me just add on because that really wasn't a question.
5 Did you have that in the form of a question?
6 CHAIR KARLIN: Yes. Is there a question?
7 Is there a question there? I guess it's back to the 8 question I started with. Is the 10 to 15 years 9 particularly relevant or important?
10 MR. TRAVIESO-DIAZ: Yes, because his 11 contention is that you cannot use CHECWORKS during the 12 license renewal period because you haven't been 13 marched long enough. That's his entire contention.
14 CHAIR KARLIN: Right.
15 MR. TRAVIESO-DIAZ: He doesn't claim--
16 CHAIR KARLIN: But the wording of the 17 contention itself doesn't have the word, 10 to 15 18 years in it, I don't think, and, you know, I don't 19 know how long it takes--it's going to take a while, 20 and it's not adequate now.
21 MR. TRAVIESO-DIAZ: Well, Mr. Chairman, I 22 have to tell you, I cannot redraft any such 23 contentions for that but the basic underpinning of the 24 contention is that you need to benchmark 10 to 15 25 years. That's what Dr. Hopenfeld said.
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com
386 1 JUDGE WARDWELL: Isn't there a difference 2 in the weight that you would give a particular 3 petitioner, if a group came forward and said, oh, it's 4 going to take 10 to 15 years to benchmark this model, 5 as opposed to an expert who hasn't been refuted in 6 regards to his experience, makes a similar statement?
7 And isn't in fact that done commonly in the 8 engineering field where different experts will have 9 different opinions but they still have credible 10 validity to those, that you have to weigh because of 11 the fact of their experience base, knowledge, 12 etcetera, without any more elaboration than just--and 13 none can be given because of the abstractness of what 14 you're trying to define, still doesn't discredit those 15 particular numbers based on how they're given and the 16 context they're given.
17 MR. TRAVIESO-DIAZ: Well, I'll give you 18 first a glib answer and then a more reasoned one.
19 Glib answer. An expert can put his name behind a 20 contention that says the moon is made out of blue 21 cheese. The fact that he says that, it is not 22 necessarily validated just because--
23 JUDGE WARDWELL: Well, unless he happened 24 to be someone who was there and came back with some 25 blue cheese or had experience in that--you base it on NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.oom
387 1 their experience base.
2 MR. TRAVIESO-DIAZ: Exactly, but--
3 JUDGE WARDWELL: And it is.
4 MR. TRAVIESO-DIAZ: Now the more reasoned 5 answer is this. It depends on the opinion--I think 6 you're correct. If you make a very abstract judgment 7 as to when you have a material, how long it's going to 8 take for certain phenomena to take place--
9 JUDGE WARDWELL: And isn't that done often 10 in our field?
11 MR. TRAVIESO-DIAZ: Indeed.
12 JUDGE WARDWELL: In a bunch of fields?
13 MR. TRAVIESO-DIAZ: Indeed but--
14 JUDGE WARDWELL: In engineering fields.
15 MR. TRAVIESO-DIAZ: Yes, but this is a 16 very specific claim. It takes ten years of 17 benchmarking. He must have gotten that number of ten 18 years out of some place.
19 JUDGE WARDWELL: No, it says it'll take 10 20 to 15 years. It's kind of a general--I've heard that-21 -haven't you heard that statement similar to this 22 during your career and exposure to engineering fields, 23 where experts will say, oh, it'll take--and they'll 24 provide a general framework from the general timeframe 25 that things will place. Bounding parameters of what NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) i .
234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com
388 1 a certain value should be.
2 MR. TRAVIESO-DIAZ: That same thing is 3 almost universally followed by a foot note that gives 4 a citation to something. I think that there are 5 different qualities to expert testimony. Some of them 6 state conclusions, conclusions based on what is 7 preceded by analysis, and then "I conclude X." Here, 8 this comes out of the air, is contrary to all the 9 experience that there is in the industry, both using 10 CHECWORKS, the NRC recommendations that are used as a 11 reliable tool, the fact that it would be used from day 12 one by everybody, and nobody complained about it.
13 The 10 to 15 benchmark, it is an opinion 14 of our expert, in these circumstances has to be 15 supported by something. It cannot just come out of 16 the air.
17 JUDGE WARDWELL: Thank you.
18 CHAIR KARLIN: Thank you. Staff.
19 Ms. Young, are you taking this one?
20 MS. YOUNG: Thank you, Judge Karlin.
21 The issue raised by this contention is 22 whether use of CHECWORKS is appropriate to determine 23 the scope and frequency of inspections to manage aging 24 effect caused by flow-accelerated corrosion.
25 Participants, however, have failed to NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202)
. o 234-4433 WASHINGTON. D.C. 20005-3701 www.neaIrgross.com
389 1 provide sufficient foundation for their contention.
2 They indicate that CHECWORKS is inadequate because it 3 is not properly benchmarked by 10 to 15 years of 4 inspection data.
5 However, the GALL Report indicates that 6 CHECWORKS was developed and benchmarked using data 7 from many plants, and that DMAL is used to identify 8 the most susceptible locations in a piping system.
9 To the extent that Dr. Hopenfeld may have 10 favorite models, and CHECWORKS apparently is not one 11 of them, if he does not provide sufficient information 12 to challenge the adequacy of CHECWORKS in terms of 13 supporting the foundation for this contention, the 14 contention must fail.
15 CHAIR KARLIN: Let's ask the same 16 question. I mean, you have pointed out the 10 to 15 17 years. If you take that out of the contention or the 18 discussion, it's not even in the words of the 19 contention, does it make a difference? Is there 20 support? There's more general concerns. Does he 21 provide some support for the concerns that it's not 22 benchmarked? I mean, I guess I have to go back to his 23 declaration and read it, and think about that, but 10 24 to 15 years seems to sort of jump out at you. Maybe 25 it's normal, and I've certainly heard people say that.
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgrss.com
390 1 But even if we threw that out, is there some basis 2 there--not basis--wrong word.
3 Is there some supporting evidence, I 4 guess, you know?
5 MS. YOUNG: Well, again; when the staff 6 reads the contention and a pleading, particularly one 7 like NEC's, that was not particularly artfully 8 drafted, even though NEC is an experienced intervenor 9 in NRC proceedings, it looks again to see the 10 statement of the issue and the information provided in 11 support of the issue, because that information very 12 often is very revealing as to what the crux of the 13 issue is being raised by petitioners, and here, it was 14 clear that the concern is with respect to the adequacy 15 of the use of CHECWORKS for the license renewal 16 period, and that the only concern with respect to the 17 use of CHECWORKS was whether it was properly 18 benchmarked.
19 CHAIR KARLIN: Right; right. So far we're 20 in agreement. But what's the "big deal" about the 10 21 to 15--
22 MS. YOUNG: Okay. Having a general 23 concern about a computer model being benchmarked is 24 not sufficient to get an issue in a proceeding.
25 People have generalized concerns about all NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.noairgross.com
391 1 sorts of things with respect to--they are valid safety 2 concerns. The staff is not contesting that. The 3 staff is contesting the sufficiency of the information 4 provided in support of the contention, and to the 5 extent that Dr. Hopenfeld relies on a depiction of the 6 number of years of data you need, when there's 7 information in the GALL Report that indicates that the 8 data was provided from many plants to benchmark this 9 computer model--
10 JUDGE WARDWELL: How many at the rates, 11 the power rates that Vermont Yankee is performing 12 under, was used in the GALL Report?
13 MS. YOUNG: Well, there have been several 14 extended power uprates before Vermont Yankee, so 15 again--
16 JUDGE WARDWELL: Before '93 when--wasn't 17 that the approximate time--
18 MS. YOUNG: Well, again, any computer 19 model used is continually benchmarked. You heard that 20 from Mr. Travieso-Diazo.
21 JUDGE WARDWELL: Right. I'm just asking 22 in regards to the GALL Report. You were saying that 23 it was calibrated over a number of years prior to its 24 issuance--
25 MS. YOUNG: Well, I didn't say number of NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com
392 1 years. I said data from many plants. I am not 2 familiar with the exact number of years. I'm just 3 saying, you know, CHECWORKS use for Vermont Yankee as 4 proposed in the application, you know, on its face is 5 - not insufficient just because an expert has a favorite 6 model and CHECWORKS is not it.
7 You know, to the extent that he's saying 8 that a certain amount of data is needed to probably 9 benchmark the model, experts can disagree, reasonable 10 minds can differ. He has to provide information to 11 support his contention that, you know, the computer 12 model is insufficient, and he hasn't done that.
13 JUDGE WARDWELL: Well, you know, the 14 drawing line of that is subject of course, depending 15 upon the weight you place upon a particular expert, 16 and if an expert feels they don't have enough 17 experience base, then in fact they may provide more 18 information or less, depending upon their experience 19 base.
20 For instance, if NEC had hired the person 21 who wrote this model, and that person said, oh, it 22 would take 10 to 15 years to calibrate it, that 23 certainly has a different weight than if you happened 24 to say it or I happened to say it.
25 And so we're in this continuum where we NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.corn
393 1 have to draw the line of when in fact a statement like 2 that, from an expert, is sufficient enough, or whether 3 it needs more amplification.
4 In some cases it does; in some cases it 5 doesn't. Isn't that a fair assessment?
6 MS. YOUNG: I would disagree with you to 7 the extent any statement that's provided in support of 8 petitioner intervening, the staff is going to examine 9 whether there's been a basis for the statement 10 made.
11 JUDGE WARDWELL: And you would say that if 12 the person who wrote and calibrated and--
13 MS. YOUNG: Even if Albert Einstein were 14 to walk in this room and give an opinion on an issue, 15 the staff would want to know what is the basis for the 16 opinion. It has to be a reasoned basis. Otherwise, 17 there's no ability--
18 JUDGE WARDWELL: I don't think that's 19 supportive in regards to admissibility of contentions, 20 in my opinion.
21 CHAIR KARLIN: You don't mean basis. You 22 don't mean basis.
23 MS. YOUNG: Well, you do need basis to the 24 extent that there's years of Commission case law 25 talking about basis and specificity for a concern and NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com
394 1 if the concern is that the computer model is not 2 adequately benchmarked, and the information supporting 3 that concern is a general allegation of a period of 4 time that's needed to benchmark the model, without 5 information as to why those years are sufficient, or, 6 you know, what the problems are with the model, that 7 information is not in the petition.
8 Petitioners have that obligation. The 9 staff cannot use a divining rod and decide what the 10 foundation is for a concern when it's not stated.
11 JUDGE WARDWELL: Doesn't that position, 12 though, just--I don't know what the right word is--
13 belittle or deemphasize the need for experts because 14 you're saying that, in fact, regardless of what an 15 expert is going to say in regards to a professional 16 opinion, if they don't go then and back it up with 17 something, references, etcetera, or whatever they want 18 to say, they're pretty limited in providing subjective 19 statements in regards to a particular situation that's 20 based on all their years of experience, education, 21 training, etcetera.
22 And I would like to hear what people say 23 on that and you seem to belittle that.
24 MS. YOUNG: I don't belittle Dr.
25 Hopenfeld's experience. He used to work for the NRC, NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com
395 1 I understand.
2 JUDGE WARDWELL: Albert might take 3 offense.
4 MS. YOUNG: Well, Albert can roll over in 5 his grave. But there are things that--you know, 6 statements are made in support of contentions and 7 there are NRC's pleading requirements, which have 8 gotten stricter over the years, and to the extent that 9 the Commission is asserting those pleading 10 requirements, the requirement to defer to expert 11 opinion in fact for documents, those expert opinions 12 even have to have a foundation for the statements 13 made.
14 Reasonable minds should be able to read a 15 document and be able to discern what is the basis for 16 the opinion given, not just looking at the credentials 17 of the person who gave the opinion.
18 CHAIR KARLIN: Well, if I may jump in.
19 The contention pleading requirements require to 20 provide a brief explanation of the basis for the 21 contention. As I understand that, that means you 22 provide a brief explanation of the logic, the 23 thinking, the rationale for the contention. So basis 24 means logic, rationale, that sort of thing. And they 25 have done that, certainly--their logic.
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com
396 1 The question, it seems to me, is whether 2 they have provided, in five, a concise statement of 3 the alleged facts or expert's opinion which support, 4 or six, provide sufficient information to show there's 5 a genuine dispute. They provided an expert opinion.
6 The question is whether the expert opinion is good 7 enough. There is this, you know, issue as to whether 8 it's good enough.
9 I would just go to the concrete--what he 10 says in paragraph 24.
11 The theoretical basis of a fact is not 12 completely understood. However, it is well-13 established that turbulence, intensity, steam quality, 14 material composition, oxygen content, ph, etcetera, 15 are main variables. CHECWORKS computer code is not a 16 mechanistic code. It's an empirical code, must be 17 updated continuously, plant-specific data.
18 I don't know whether that's true but he's 19 saying this. He's an expert.
20 Inspection results are routinely used as 21 inputs to the codes. The codes can be used to predict 22 wall thinning, plant parameters. As long as plant 23 parameters do not change drastically.
24 However, you know, it is important to 25 realize that wall thinning rate from FAC is not NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com
397 1 necessarily constant with time and therefore a 2 variable, considerable number of cycles are needed, 3 blah to blah.
4 Since Vermont Yankee has recently 5 increased flow uprate by 20 percent, you know/ this 6 thing needs to be benchmarked.
7 I mean, he seems to have given some 8 factual support to get him to the proposition it needs 9 to be benchmarked.
10 And it will take 10 to 15 years. Well, 11 maybe we throw that out and still got some rationale 12 there. It's not bald, it's not just--whoop--this 13 needs to be benchmarked. He's giving his reasons, why 14 it needs to be benchmarked, and he's an expert.
15 MS. YOUNG: But where is the information 16 the petitioner suggests that the CHECWORKS model will 17 not be benchmarked? They haven't provided that 18 information. You heard it from the licensee, that 19 even through the remaining period for the current 20 licensing term, they'll be continually collecting data 21 that they will use to benchmark CHECWORKS.
22 CHAIR KARLIN: Well, that may be a factual 23 contention then that says, well, we are benchmarking 24 it, but he's saying it needs to, and I'm saying that 25 seems like it gives a concise statement of his opinion NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com
398 1 and his reasons for his opinion. It's not a big long 2 one. You know, it's not detailed.
3 MS. YOUNG: So you're having a hearing on 4 whether CHECWORKS needs to be benchmarked? The 5 concern is that CHECWORKS--
6 CHAIR KARLIN: I guess so.
7 MS. YOUNG: -- the data available for use 8 for CHECWORKS isn't sufficient because he claims that 9 10 to 15 years are needed to do it, and he knows that 10 in terms of the remaining renewal period, there aren't 11 10 to 15 years of inspection data.
12 CHAIR KARLIN: Is it adequate? Maybe 13 there's a summary judgment disposition available later 14 when somebody says clearly, it's been benchmarked, it 15 is benchmarked, it's being benchmarked.
16 MR. RUND: Time.
17 CHAIR KARLIN: I hear that. I don't know 18 whether it's in the answer; maybe it is. Is there a 19 dispute here that it's adequately benchmarked?
20 MS. YOUNG: Staff suggests that there's 21 not a dispute with respect to whether it's adequately 22 benchmarked. To the extent that GALL mentioned that 23 it was benchmarked based on data compliance, you've 24 heard from licensee again, and people know about 25 computer models, that they are continually--to 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
399 1 extent that this is an empirical model, it is always 2 updated and they haven't provided any information in 3 support of their contentions that challenges the use 4 of CHECWORKS.
5 CHAIR KARLIN: Okay; thanks.
6 Ms. Tyler. Ten minutes.
7 MS. TYLER: Though I think much of the 8 discussion over the last few minutes has focused on 9 whether Dr. Hopenfeld's expert opinion is good enough, 10 and what weight should be given to it, and I think 11 that fundamentally, that is the question that we would 12 address at a hearing.
13 He is an expert in the field. He's 14 offered his opinion that it would take 10 to 15 years 15 to benchmark the model and that the model has to be 16 benchmarked to conditions at this plant, and the 17 exploration of the validity of his opinion, of his 18 credentials, of his basis for offering his opinion, is 19 what we would do at the hearing.
20 I think that much of the rest of what was 21 discussed over the last few minutes also essentially 22 concerns other issues that we would explore at the 23 hearing.
24 I think that much of what Mr. Travieso-25 Diaz discussed was essentially expert testimony of his NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealgross.com
400 1 own. He talked about whether the examples that Dr.
2 Hopenfeld had offered are valid. Dr. Hopenfeld tells 3 me he doesn't agree with what Mr. Travieso-Diaz has 4 had to say, and this is certainly an issue that we 5 would explore at the hearing.
6 I'd also like to--oh, Mr. Travieso-Diaz 7 also suggested that Entergy could get nine years of 8 inspection data out of six years, and Dr. Hopenfeld 9 has just told me that he doesn't think that that's 10 true because the FAC phenomenon isn't linear, it's not 11 constantly timed, they can't squeeze nine years out of 12 six, so again--
13 CHAIR KARLIN: Well, if you start with six 14 years and you say you're going to inspect once a year, 15 and then you decide to inspect twice a year, don't you 16 get 12 years, then?
17 MS. TYLER: Dr. Hopenfeld--
18 CHAIR KARLIN: And if you inspect three 19 times, you get 18 years?
20 MS. TYLER: Dr. Hopenfeld has told me that 21 that is not the way it works.
22 CHAIR KARLIN: Okay.
23 MS. TYLER: That you have to inspect--
24 JUDGE WARDWELL: In fact, if you inspected 25 every day, would that give you 365 times six, 1800 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com
401 1 years of data?
2 MS. TYLER: He has told me that, in fact, 3 no. If you inspected every day, it would not be the 4 same as inspecting for 300 years.
5 So again, I think Mr. Travieso-Diaz is 6 essentially testifying to a technical issue that we 7 really should explore at a hearing on the subject.
8 I also would like to address the question 9 of to what extent does the benchmarking of this model 10 really matter, given that they have a program that 11 also involves other approaches. And I think again 12 it's Dr. Hopenfeld's position that even if they do 13 have other approaches, the use of this model is an 14 important part of the program, and if the model isn't 15 valid, it's a significant issue that we need to 16 consider.
17 Dr. Hopenfeld also noted in his reply, in 18 our reply to Entergy's answer, the use of this model 19 requires expertise in the area, and, in his opinion, 20 the comments that Entergy made in its answer regarding 21 the technical issues don't reflect that expertise.
22 He doesn't agree that corrosion increases 23 in proportion to velocity or that looking at the 24 longest sections of the pipe is a valid way to 25 approach the problem, and these again are other issues NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., NW.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com
402 1 that we need to explore at a hearing.
2 JUDGE WARDWELL: Now NEC mentioned several 3 items--I'm going to look at the transcript of what 4 those are specifically--that they're using to monitor 5 FAC. Why aren't those comforting enough in regards to 6 this issue? Isn't that a demonstration, to a certain 7 degree, that CHECWORKS is only used as a tool that 8 isn't the only tool but one that is used just to look 9 at the regions of sensitivity, and then that helped 10 them define how to zero in on it and use all these 11 other techniques he talked about to get to the heart 12 of monitoring the actual problem areas? Why isn't 13 that sufficient?
14 MS. TYLER: I think it is a tool but it's 15 part of the program, they do rely on it, and Dr.
16 Hopenfeld thinks it's a major part of the program, and 17 if it doesn't work, that's a problem, even if they 18 have, you know, other aspects of the program as 19 well.
20 JUDGE WARDWELL: Yes, but a reasonable 21 person could take the position that, well, we've got 22 the six years of uprate to observe this, to help us 23 finer-tune CHECWORKS, but we don't really have to 24 fine-tune it because, again, it's a bounding model, 25 and we'll also have those years of the inspection NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com
403 1 programs, and the items that he talked about. So we, 2 from a safety standpoint, pretty well have FAC under 3 control and properly managed. How would you refute 4 that?
5 MS. TYLER: I think that Entergy would say 6 that it's a bounding model and probably that it's, 7 quote, unquote, conservative. I think what we would 8 say is that if it's not working, if it's not properly 9 benchmarked, we don't know if it's conservative, and 10 we don't know if the bounding is where it should be, 11 and that's a problem.
12 JUDGE WARDWELL: Thank you.
13 CHAIR KARLIN: Is the problem with the 14 benchmarking the fact that there's a 20 percent 15 uprate, I mean, that this CHECWORKS model is fine and 16 dandy, but then, when you increase it by 20 percent, 17 this is what I hear being said, is now there's a 18 change, now we need to rebenchmark it or recalibrate 19 it in some way?
20 MS. TYLER: Yes. I think that's--
21 CHAIR KARLIN: Okay. All right.
22 MS. TYLER: Yes.
23 CHAIR KARLIN: I mean, I'm just wondering 24 whether that's a dramatic enough change. I mean, 25 aren't there changes that occur in the power at a NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE.. N.W.
(202)
- ° 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com
404 1 facility, or other operational changes that occur, you 2 don't rebenchhmark everything every time there's a 3 change.
4 MS. TYLER: It's Dr. Hopenfeld's position 5 that the 20 percent power uprate is a major change, 6 major enough to require rebenchmarking of the model, 7 and this, again, is a technical issue that we could 8 explore at a hearing, along with a number of other 9 technical issues that we have talked about today.
10 JUDGE ELLEMAN: I have an impression of 11 where a period of 12 to 15 years might come from, to 12 calibrate or benchmark a model, and let me share my 13 comment and see if you think I'm on the right track.
14 Pipes do not thin quickly. It takes a 15 long time for a pipe to start corroding, and so, if 16 you're going to benchmark a model, you've got to 17 measure it over a period of time in which you detect 18 a finite change. So to do a 100 measurements in a 100 19 days doesn't really buy you anything at all. I see 20 your associate nodding, behind you.
21 And so the reason this long time 22 originates, in your judgment, is that the period you 23 need to see an effect?
24 MS. TYLER: Is that accurate? That's an 25 accurate--
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com
405 1 JUDGE ELLEMAN: Okay; thank you.
2 CHAIR KARLIN: Anything else? I don't 3 think we have any other questions. Anything more?
4 MS. TYLER: Dr. Hopenfeld would like me to 5 emphasize, again, with respect to Entergy's plan to 6 concentrate on the longest pipe sections. In his 7 opinion is more of an issue at bent parts of the 8 pipes. Yes. That's where turbulence occurs. That 9 looking at the long, straight parts is not--why would 10 they do that? That's not really the most problematic area.
12 CHAIR KARLIN: Okay. Thank you.
13 MS. TYLER: Thank you.
14 CHAIR KARLIN: All right. I think what 15 we'll do is take a break right now, and then attack 16 the remaining two contentions.
17 Let's call it about a ten minute break, 18 and we'll be back. Thank you.
19 [A recess was taken from 10:06 a.m. to 20 10:21 a.m.]
21 CHAIR KARLIN: Good morning, again.
22 I think we can now continue. We have the 23 two last contentions presented by New England 24 Coalition. Who's going to argue these? Ms. Tyler, 25 are you going to continue? Okay; great. And how much NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com
406 1 time do you want to rebuttal?
2 MS. TYLER: I'd like to do half rebuttal 3 again. Ten.
4 CHAIR KARLIN: Very good. Okay; proceed.
5 MS. TYLER: So Contention 5 concerns the 6 fact that Entergy's application does not include a 7 plan to manage aging of the plant's condenser, and NEC 8 submits that it should. Entergy essentially says that 9 it's not necessary to monitor the condenser because as 10 long as it's functioning well enough to support the 11 normal operation of the plant, it's pretty much 12 fairly leak tight, and it would perform it's post-13 accident function.
14 NEC's expert on the subject, technical 15 expert, Mr. Arnold Gundersen, disagrees with this 16 basic premise, and it's his opinion that it's possible 17 that the condenser could sustain significant damage at 18 the same time that due to an incident that also 19 triggered a design basis event in which the condenser 20 was necessary to perform its post-accident function, 21 and that this same event could damage the condenser 22 substantially enough, that it wouldn't perform its 23 post-accident function.
24 It's Mr. Gundersen's opinion that this is 25 particularly the case because the condenser at Vermont NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com
407 1 Yankee is in extremely poor condition. He's reviewed 2 a number of documents that were produced in the EPU 3 proceeding.
4 I think one of them said that the 5 -condenser at this point--and I think this is almost a 6 direct quote--is lucky to withstand gravity.
7 Entergy's consultant said that this condenser that's 8 lucky to withstand gravity would only last through 9 2012 if nothing unusual happened to it.
10 It's Mr. Gundersen's opinion that that 11 very unusual thing that would cause significant damage 12 to the condenser, cause it to collapse, essentially, 13 would also potentially trigger a design basis event.
14 That there could be a situation in which the condenser 15 was no longer able to perform its post-accident 16 function, and that function was necessary.
17 Entergy has said in its answer that their 18 opinion is all that NEC has shown, and this contention 19 is that it might eventually be necessary to replace 20 the condenser.
21 It's Mr. Gundersen's opinion that it might 22 be necessary to replace it very soon, based on the 23 documents that he's reviewed. NEC would like to know 24 how Entergy proposes to monitor and manage that 25 situation, so that the condenser is replaced before it NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.neargross.com v
408 1 falls apart and is unable to perform its post-accident 2 function.
3 JUDGE WARDWELL: Why wouldn't the 4 performance of the condenser be indicated by its 5 ability to hold a vacuum during normal operations, 6 such that it would be a telltale, if there were any 7 impending problems as alleged by NEC?
8 MS. TYLER: That's Entergy's position, 9 that as long as it holds a vacuum it's pretty much 10 leak tight, and it's going to perform its post-11 accident function.
12 Mr. Gundersen has explained basically 13 several scenarios in which a condenser that is in as 14 poor shape as this one is, which is, quote, unquote, 15 lucky to withstand gravity, could collapse while the 16 plant is operating, due to a transient that both 17 collapses the condenser--
18 JUDGE WARDWELL: What is this gravity 19 image? I mean, is this thing flying?
20 MS. TYLER: Based on the documents that 21 he's reviewed, he thinks it's in such poor shape that 22 it's about to fall apart. I think that's 23 fundamentally his opinion. He has suggested that 24 there are a number of circumstances that could create 25 this problem. He's offered the example of a full load NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com v
409 1 rejection at the plant, where the plant shuts down 2 suddenly. According to Mr. Gundersen, it shakes 3 violently when that happens.
4 That violent shaking could cause the 5 barely-able-to-withstand gravity condenser to collapse 6 at the same time that it triggered the design basis 7 event. You could then have a situation where there's 8 a release of radioactive gas and the condenser isn't 9 functioning, isn't able to perform its post-accident 10 function.
11 JUDGE WARDWELL: Was it your contention 12 that referenced the Grand Gulf implosion? I couldn't 13 remember, exactly, if it was yours.
14 MS. TYLER: He did mention an incident at 15 Grand Gulf. He's told me that that condenser 16 basically just imploded spontaneously while--
17 JUDGE WARDWELL: Was it during a transient 18 or--
19 MS. TYLER: Was it during a transient? It 20 wasn't, he says it wasn't during a transient, it just 21 collapsed, spontaneously, for no apparent reason, and 22 caused a design basis event.
23 JUDGE WARDWELL: Well, certainly it would-24 25 MS. TYLER: So this is another NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com
410 1 circumstance he's posited.
2 JUDGE WARDWELL: So that's a poor example, 3 isn't it, because that could happen at any 4 operational--that's just status quo. Any given plant, 5 in fact, has that potential for the condenser to fail.
6 MS. TYLER: Possible. Mr. Gundersen's 7 opinion is that we should be particularly concerned 8 about the condenser at Vermont Yankee because it's on 9 its last legs, and we need to be particularly careful 10 about monitoring its condition.
11 The third scenario Mr. Gundersen put 12 forward is a turbine disk breaking and falling on the 13 condenser, causing it to collapse, causing the 14 spontaneous shut-down of the plant, the shaking, the 15 design basis event and the release of gas.
16 So it's his opinion that just because this 17 old decrepit condenser is maintaining vacuum at the 18 moment, its his position that that really doesn't 19 assure us that it would perform its post-accident 20 function, that because it's so old and decrepit, it 21 needs to be monitored, it needs an aging management 22 plan, and NEC's members and other members of the 23 public would like some assurance that Entergy is 24 concerned with this problem, and we'd like to know how 25 the decision would be made as far as when to replace NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., NW.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.comn
411 1 the condenser, I think fundamentally.
2 JUDGE ELLEMAN: You stated that the 3 condenser is in bad shape in the contention, but we 4 don't really have any evidence of that.
5 What evidence do you have related to the 6 condition of the condenser?
7 MS. TYLER: There were a number of 8 documents produced as part of the extended power 9 uprate proceeding concerning the condition of the 10 condenser and its maintenance history. Mr. Gundersen 11 reviewed those documents and discusses them in his 12 declaration. I can't remember, at the moment, all the 13 details of it, but I think the overall picture is that 14 it was in pretty poor condition, that quite a bit of 15 maintenance had been recommended, that didn't appear 16 to have been performed. That Entergy's consultant 17 said that it was lucky to withstand gravity and that 18 it would only last until the end of the current term, 19 if nothing unusual happened to it.
20 CHAIR KARLIN: Well, I mean, all well and 21 good, but isn't Entergy's position that the condenser 22 is not a safety-related piece of equipment, and 23 they're saying if it fails, it is not relevant. It is 24 not going to be a safety issue.
25 I guess there's no plausible explanation NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.noalrgross.com
412 1 of how a condenser integrity would be suddenly lost in 2 an accident.
3 MS. TYLER: I don't think they've taken 4 the position that it doesn't have a safety function.
5 It does have--
6 CHAIR KARLIN: Well, they say it's not a 7 safety-related, I believe.
8 MS. TYLER: It has, as I understand it, a 9 safety function, in that if the main steam isolation 10 valves don't close completely, or even if they do 11 close, there's some percentage of leakage from them, 12 and under any circumstance the condenser is necessary 13 to I guess trap that radioactive gas that's released 14 from those valves. They call it--it's "Hold up and 15 Played out" function.
16 CHAIR KARLIN: "Hold up and Played out" 17 function. Isn't that something that you need to do in 18 a normal operation, not just in a major transient or 19 accident?
20 MS. TYLER: I think it does need to do it 21 during the plant's normal operation, but it 22 particularly needs to do it during a design basis 23 event, in which a larger quantity of radioactive gas 24 is released, in which the content of radioactivity is 25 higher.
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., NW.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com
413 1 CHAIR KARLIN: Right, but if it's not 2 doing it during normal operations, you're going to 3 find out pretty quick and you're going to do whatever 4 normal operational maintenance needs to be done.
5 MS. TYLER: I- think you're stating 6 Entergy's position, that as long as its functioning at 7 the moment, as long as it holds vacuum, we should be 8 assured--
9 CHAIR KARLIN: Well, if it starts leaking, 10 you'll know it and you'll fix it.
11 MS. TYLER: Right. I think that's their 12 position. If it starts leaking, doesn't support the 13 normal operation of the plant, that's obvious, we fix 14 it, it it's no problem. But as I discussed earlier, 15 Mr. Gundersen has suggested a number of scenarios in 16 which it could be chugging along, no problem, and an 17 unusual event could cause it, particularly because 18 it's in such poor condition, to sustain substantial 19 damage, so that it couldn't perform the post-accident 20 function, and that the same incident could also 21 trigger a design basis event that released more 22 radioactive gas, or gas with a higher radioactive 23 content.
24 CHAIR KARLIN: Can you point me--
25 MR. RUND: One minute.
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE.. N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON. D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com
414 1 CHAIR KARLIN: Can you point me somewhere 2 in your pleadings that give me that. It says that but 3 can you give me a specific example of that.
4 MS. TYLER: Sure. Mr. Gundersen stated it 5 in general terms in his first declaration, and he 6 relied principally on the statements of Entergy's 7 consultant, that the condenser would last through 8 2012, if nothing unusual happened to it, suggesting 9 that if something unusual did happen to it, it would 10 be a problem.
11 CHAIR KARLIN: Well, we know that it's a 12 crummy condenser, let's posit that it's a crummy 13 condenser. The question is does it have anything to 14 do with the issue?
15 MS. TYLER: He suggested in his reply 16 declaration, he offered specific examples of the 17 circumstances that could create this problem, and I 18 ran through them a minute ago.
19 CHAIR KARLIN: In where? You're talking 20 about the reply?
21 MS. TYLER: In his reply declaration.
22 CHAIR KARLIN: I don't want to look at 23 that. Thank you.
24 MS. TYLER: Okay.
25 CHAIR KARLIN: Is anywhere in his direct NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202)
- ° 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com v
415 1 declaration?
2 MS. TYLER: In his direct declaration, he 3 explained the problem in general terms. In his reply 4 declaration--
5 MR. RUND: Time.
6 MS. TYLER: -- he offered specific 7 examples.
8 CHAIR KARLIN: All right. Thank you.
9 Entergy. Mr. Travieso-Diaz.
10 MR. TRAVIESO-DIAZ: Yes. I believe that 11 this is a very simple contention and simple to dispose 12 of. The condenser at Vermont Yankee is not a safety-13 related component. It doesn't fulfill any safety 14 function. It fulfills an accident-mitigating function 15 under one condition. If you have a loss of coolant 16 accident in which your mainstay isolation valves 17 close, and they have some leakage, there is going to 18 be some gas that drifts down to the condenser. In 19 that situation, the condenser acts--and think of it as 20 a big box--has a lot of volume to haul this gas in, 21 and has a lot of surface in which this gas can 22 actually become solid, is iodine gas.
23 As long as it has a big volume and a big 24 surface, unless you crush it to destroy it, it is 25 going to do exactly that.
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE.. N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com T
416 1 JUDGE WARDWELL: Help me wit this a little 2 bit because I do get confused a bit on safety-related 3 versus stuff that's really important in order to be 4 able to operate a plant safely. Somehow, that seems 5 to be a difference.
6 Let me give you some examples or 7 suggestions to help fix this in my mind.
8 It makes sense to me, in regards to what 9 NEC is saying, that any measurements of holding a 10 vacuum may indicate that the condenser's working, but 11 as soon as we stress it with an excessive load, that 12 might be enough, the "straw that breaks the camel's 13 back,m that the condenser fails.
14 Wouldn't that have a chance of happening 15 during many, I'll call them "transients,' and maybe 16 I'm using the wrong word, being a geotech groundwater 17 engineer, not a nuclear physicist--but like a steam 18 dump or a turbine trip, or any a those types of 19 conditions where, in fact, the plant would *be in a 20 pickle" if, in fact, their condenser didn't work, 21 cause it's the only heat sink available at that point?
22 MR. TRAVIESO-DIAZ: Well, let me just try 23 to clarify what the conditions are. One second.
24 One function that is critical for the 25 condenser to perform is in the situation--and this is NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com
417 1 only for the computation of the doses to the public at 2 the boundary following a LOCA. That some of the 3 radiation that would escape from the leaking MSRV 4 valves--
5 JUDGE WARDWELL: I'm aware of that.
6 MR. TRAVIESO-DIAZ: -- wouldn't stay but 7 will go out to the boundary, and that some of that 8 will be trapped by the condenser. That's the whole 9 function that we have. Now if you have any situation, 10 either during normal operation or during one of the 11 anticipated transients, that your condenser, for some 12 reason, loses it's leak tighteness, the plant will 13 shut down because it won't be able to maintain the 14 pressure. So that's what has happened.
15 In fact, in Grand Gulf, the examples that 16 are cited by NEC, there have been several situations 17 in one of the seals failed, a valve failed opening.
18 In any of those situations, you don't maintain the 19 pressure, and therefore you depressurize, you shut the 20 plant down, you deal with the condenser and you fix 21 it. that is the intended way in which the condenser 22 is used during the normal pressure--
23 JUDGE WARDWELL: And that particular 24 scenario does not need to be protected against in an 25 age management plan; is that correct?
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.cocn
418 1 MR. TRAVIESO-DIAZ: Correct, because you 2 will not have leakage or radiation because your MSRV 3 valve will close.
4 JUDGE WARDWELL: Thank you.
5 MR. TRAVIESO-DIAZ: Now, going forward, 6 the condenser is either going to work during normal 7 operation or it's not. If it doesn't maintain the 8 vacuum, you shut it down. I'm not going to argue the 9 condition of the condenser, obviously, because I will 10 get into the merits. I assure you that the condenser 11 is in much better shape than what Mr. Gundersen 12 claims.
13 But even if it were not, assume the 14 condenser is crummy, as you postulated, Judge Karlin.
15 As long as it's holding the vacuum, it means that it's 16 doing the function that it's intended to do during 17 normal operations, and if it doesn't do it, you shut 18 it down and you do whatever repairs you need. You may 19 be replacing it.
20 The only thing that happens with respect 21 to what the plant requires from the viewpoint of 22 potential age management is if there is a postulated 23 accident sequencing, would you need to relay to it for 24 some safety purpose. That sequence is defined. You 25 have a LOCA. Your MSRV may leak a little bit and you NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.comn
419 1 want to have surface area on which to condense the 2 radioactive iodine that is coming out. Period; end of 3 sentence.
4 Now the accident sequences that Mr.
5 Gundersen postulated in his second affidavit, which by 6 the way we have moved to strike and I'm not going to 7 get into that--our accident sequences, he doesn't say 8 that if you have a brand new, spanking clean, perfect 9 condenser, and you hit it with a turbine blade, it is 10 not going to get destroyed all the same as an old 11 condenser is. My first point is that it doesn't seem 12 to make any difference for age management, whether you 13 have a condenser that is new or old, if you are going 14 to hit it with a moving turbine blade.
15 The second point is that those accidents 16 are not the design basis accident for which the 17 condenser is taking credit for doing its mitigation 18 function. Those accidents are not even within the 19 design basis of the plan.
20 It's a fanciful construct to claim your 21 turbine is going to throw this, one-third of it is 22 going to knock out a condenser and the rest of it is 23 going to create LOCA. That is not part of the design 24 basis of the plan.
25 But even if it were, is a condenser that NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com
420 1 has been subjected to age management going to be able 2 to withstand a flying blade than the other? There is 3 not evidence by Mr. Gundersen as to that. Yes; go 4 ahead.
5 JUDGE ELLEMAN: If you had an event in 6 which fuel was damaged and fission products were being 7 released, and the condenser should actually fracture, 8 doesn't that then become a release path for 9 radioactivity out of the primary? And also, doesn't 10 that create a new flow path, so that the surface area 11 you're counting on to condense the fission products 12 isn't there and isn't available to you?
13 MR. TRAVIESO-DIAZ: Well, I don't know 14 what the flow paths for release of radioactivity will 15 be if you have a fuel accident. I really have no 16 answer to give you now because I don't know.
17 But, in fact, if you have that accident in 18 a situation which your condenser is in operation, and 19 radioactive iodine goes to the condenser, it will do 20 exactly what it is supposed to do in the case of a 21 LOCA. But you don't assume that you have a fuel 22 accident that destroys the condenser. There is no 23 basis for that.
24 So it's either going to lose function 25 because it has been working as it was intended to up NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com
421 1 to that point, or is not working as it's intended to, 2 it has been shut down. You cannot have both.
3 CHAIR KARLIN: So is that kind of what the 4 staff seems to say is, you know, either this is a 5 safety issue that addresses current licensing basis 6 problems, and therefore is that outside of the scope 7 of license renewal? Or they haven't specified a 8 particular problem that is within the scope? It's not 9 specific enough.
10 MR. TRAVIESO-DIAZ: Oh, I agree with that 11 and I put it just slightly different way, in addition 12 to what you said. If the accident scenarios that Mr.
13 Gundersen postulates are given any credibility, it 14 could happen today. It has nothing to do with license 15 renewal. It doesn't have anything to do with you.
16 You assume that there is going to be an accident 17 scenario which destroys the condenser, will destroy it 18 today, destroy it tomorrow, destroy it at any time.
19 CHAIR KARLIN: So are you saying that a 20 condenser is not something that needs to be subject to 21 aging management review?
22 MR. TRAVIESO-DIAZ: No, because contrary 23 to pipes, for example, that corrode, or suffer 24 fatigue, the condenser just sits there, and as long as 25 it's there, you can have the confidence that it is NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 wwwxwalrgross.oom
422 1 going to perform the function of hauling the volume 2 and the surface. You don't need to manage its aging.
3 CHAIR KARLIN: Well, isn't that, the aging 4 management focuses on passive pieces of equipment like 5 the reactor vessel that just sits there, and--
6 MR. TRAVIESO-DIAZ: Yes.
7 CHAIR KARLIN: -- could get old, could get 8 embrittled, could become weak?
9 MR. TRAVIESO-DIAZ: Yes, but those perform 10 a specific safety function that will be defeated.
11 CHAIR KARLIN: Okay. Any other questions.
12 Anything else?
13 MR. TRAVIESO-DIAZ: I don't think I have 14 anything else, unless you have questions.
15 CHAIR KARLIN: Okay; great. Thank you.
16 Staff, please.
17 MS. YOUNG: Thank you. The staff's 18 position, again, is that this contention fails to 19 raise an issue within the scope of the proceeding, or 20 if the concern is it can be construed as an issue 21 within the scope of the proceeding, it lacks an 22 adequately specific basis.
23 Petitioners have not provided information 24 to show that the condenser cannot perform it's post-25 accident played out function. The condenser is just NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 2005-3701 www.nealr*ross.com
423 1 a large metal volume. They haven't provide 2 information to say that the walls of the condenser, 3 for example, would be degraded.
4 Most of the information that they have 5 relied on, using statements by Mr. Gundersen, seems to 6 have a genuine safety concern about the state of the 7 condenser with respect to the current licensing basis, 8 and to that extent, it's outside the scope of a 9 license renewal proceeding.
10 JUDGE WARDWELL: I'm curious on why it 11 wouldn't be a safety issue at BWR in regards to 12 release of radioactivity, if it failed under these 13 other transients, such as a steam dump or turbine trip 14 or the ones postulated by NEC, cause the steam would 15 get out at that point, if, in fact, it's lost its 16 integrity, wouldn't it?
17 MS. YOUNG: Well, I think the concern--
18 JUDGE WARDWELL: You wouldn't be able 19 create the vacuum. Sorry.
20 MS. YOUNG: The concern is with respect to 21 the post-accident played out function. I mean, there 22 are aging management programs which the staff 23 references in its response with respect to controlling 24 the condenser, but in terms of the post-accident 25 played out function it's just basically a piece of NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.neairgross.com
424 1 metal in which radioactive gas would sit and the 2 radionuclides would place out. The metal would not 3 have to be totally--
4 JUDGE WARDWELL: Sure. I understand that.
5 MS. YOUNG: -- corrosion free or defect 6 free for it to perform that function.
7 JUDGE WARDWELL: But you say there are 8 other age management--
9 MS. YOUNG: Yes.
10 JUDGE WARDWELL: -- associated with a 11 condenser besides--
12 MS. YOUNG: But not the post-accident 13 cleanup function. There are age management programs 14 that affect the main condenser but in terms of this 15 particular function that petitioners are challenging, 16 there's not a specific program for that. But there 17 are other programs that are checking the integrity of 18 the condenser. Or to control.
19 JUDGE ELLEMAN: Does--
20 MS. YOUNG: Excuse me.
21 [Pause]
22 MS. YOUNG: The staff has nothing further 23 to add on this.
24 JUDGE ELLEMAN: Okay. Does the staff 25 concur with Entergy's contention, that a functioning NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.neargross.com
425 1 condenser is not necessary in the event of a fuel 2 accident that's releasing fission products into the 3 primary?
4 MS. YOUNG: I believe the only function 5 the condenser has to perform in that instance is to be 6 a large volume through which the radioactive gas could 7 plate out.
8 JUDGE ELLEMAN: And so you're saying no 9 heat removal capability of the condenser is required 10 in that event? It's only a surface for which fission 11 products are to deposit?
12 MS. YOUNG: Yes, I believe that that is 13 the only concern Petitioners have raised here with 14 respect to controlling radioactive gas release.
15 JUDGE ELLEMAN: Except with the leakage 16 from the main steam isolation valves; correct?
17 MS. YOUNG: Correct.
18 JUDGE ELLEMAN: Right. Because those I 19 assume would--I guess they assume those would close 20 during such a fuel problem.
21 MS. YOUNG: Yes. If there's a major 22 accident, this whole system would be isolated.
23 CHAIR KARLIN: Anything else from the 24 staff? Thank you.
25 Ms. Tyler, ten minutes for rebuttal.
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE.. N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com
426 1 MS. TYLER: I'd like to just quickly look 2 at the rules regarding scope because there's been some 3 discussion whether I guess the condenser is within the 4 scope of the proceeding and whether it should have an 5 aging management plan.
6 Rule 54.4 defines the scope and it 7 encompasses plant system structures and components, 8 going down to Part (a) (1) subpart (3), that have the 9 capability to prevent or mitigate the consequences of 10 accidents which could result in potential off-site 11 exposures. Okay.
12 So I think this pretty much encompasses 13 the condenser.
14 Then we skip over to Section 54.21, which 15 defines which structures and components are subject to 16 an aging management review, or requires that the 17 application identify them, and those have to include 18 structures that perform an intended function as 19 described in 54.4, which did include the condenser, 20 without moving parts, or without a change in 21 configuration or properties.
22 And then it lists a number of things that 23 are within that definition but it's not limited to 24 those things.
25 So I think it's clear, based on the rules, NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealmrgross.com
427 1 that the condenser is within the scope of the 2 proceeding and should have an aging management plan.
3 I'd also like to mention with respect to 4 the specific accident scenarios that Mr. Gundersen 5 mentioned in his reply, that at least the Grand Gulf 6 incident during which the condenser apparently 7 spontaneously imploded during plant operation, causing 8 a design basis incident, happened--this is a plant 9 that Entergy owns. This was public knowledge, and we 10 would submit that it wasn't necessarily necessary that 11 we mention this in our initial declaration because it 12 was Entergy's plant and they were fully aware of this 13 incident and of this possibility.
14 I would also note, finally, that even 15 under normal operation the condenser is credited with 16 this "Hold up and played out" function.
17 The condenser, even when the plant is 18 normally operating, is necessary to prevent illegal 19 levels of off-site release.
20 JUDGE ELLEMAN: Do you know what happened 21 when that condenser imploded at Grand Gulf? Didn't 22 the system shut down? Didn't the main steam isolation 23 vales close and reactor tripped, Oscrammed," BWR.
24 Yes. See, I'm learning something about this stuff.
25 Use "scramm for BWRs and "trip" for BWRs. Well, NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE. N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com
428 1 Westinghouse, anyhow.
2 MS. TYLER: So there was a minor off-site 3 release. The condenser walls collapsed. The system 4 was isolated. There was a minor off-site release.
5 JUDGE ELLEMAN: The pressure loss 6 triggered the closure of the isolation valves, I 7 assume.
8 MS. TYLER: Apparently; yes.
9 JUDGE ELLEMAN: Thank you.
10 JUDGE WARDWELL: Do you know if the Grand 11 Gulf implosion removed the available surface area for 12 condensing fission products in any way, in any future 13 events?
14 MS. TYLER: I guess on that subject, we'd 15 only note that the application itself says that the 16 condenser has to maintain its integrity in order to 17 perform its post-accident function. So I don't know 18 that Entergy itself has argued that if the condenser 19 collapses, it can still perform its post-accident 20 function. The application actually says that it has 21 to maintain integrity to perform its post-accident 22 function and that we can be assured of that if it's 23 holding vacuum during the normal plant operation, and 24 it's Mr. Gundersen's opinion that we're not assured of 25 that just because it's functioning normally at any NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.neairgross.om
429 1 given moment.
2 CHAIR KARLIN: Any other questions? I 3 think we're done, unless you want to say something 4 further, Ms. Tyler.
5 ..MS. TYLER: No. I think we're ready for 6 Contention 6.
7 CHAIR KARLIN: Okay. Let's just hold on 8 a second. We'll move to Contention 6.
9 Okay. You can proceed. Do you want ten 10 minutes for rebuttal? Same approach?
11 MS. TYLER: Yes.
12 CHAIR KARLIN: Okay. And when you start, 13 I mean on Contention 6, it seems to me there's a typo 14 on page 20 of your petition, and it's not a complete 15 thought in the statement of Contention 6.
16 "Primary containment corrosion including 17 but not limited to the dry well.'
18 MS. TYLER: Yes. I think we didn't fully 19 state the subject of the contention in the topic line.
20 If you look at the next sentence, we say, "The 21 application doesn't include an adequate plan to 22 monitor and manage aging of the primary containment 23 boundary," and we're specifically concerned with 24 inaccessible portions of the dry well shell.
25 CHAIR KARLIN: Okay.
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com
430 1 MS. TYLER: So that's the subject. We're 2 concerned with whether there's an adequate plan to 3 monitor aging of the dry well shell.
4 We're particularly concerned with areas
- 5 that are not and really cannot be visually inspected 6 because they're inaccessible, either below the sand 7 bed or in between the shell and the concrete 8 encasement.
9 I think the initial application as well as 10 the supplement to the application essentially contends 11 that there's no moisture problem, that moisture 12 doesn't ever come in contact with the dry well shell, 13 and we submit that the in-service inspection reports 14 indicate that this is not entirely the case.
15 We included in our original contention 16 several instances in which moisture and corrosion 17 problems were detected, and I would note that these 18 are examples but they're not the only examples.
19 We found other examples in I believe 2002 20 and 03 when paint blistering was discovered, which 21 also indicates, potentially, a moisture and corrosion 22 problem.
23 So I think fundamentally, we feel that the 24 application isn't credible in suggesting that there's 25 no moisture problem whatsoever, that, in fact, there NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.comn
431 1 has been at least a moisture problem, to some degree, 2 and that there needs to be a more rigorous monitoring 3 program of the shell to address this situation.
4 JUDGE WARDWELL: Do you know if the space 5 between the drywell and the concrete is pressurized, 6 vaccumized, or open to the atmosphere?
7 MS. TYLER: Atmospheric, we believe.
8 JUDGE WARDWELL: That being the case, how 9 would any moisture remain there? It seems to me it'd 10 be driven off by the temperature.
11 MS. TYLER: We believe that as any 12 moisture that got into that area evaporated, the salts 13 in it would cause corrosion, and, you know, I think 14 Entergy's application indicates that--I don't think 15 they've contended that it's not a problem if moisture 16 comes in contact with the shell.
17 They've contended essentially that it 18 never does, and these inspection reports are 19 inconsistent with that assertion.
20 JUDGE WARDWELL: Thank you. Is your 21 contention based on the 5-15 submittal, or have you 22 full incorporated that into your original petition, 23 when you wrote--
24 MS. TYLER: We hadn't reviewed it at the 25 time that we wrote the initial petition. We have NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202)
. ° 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.noalrgross.com v
432 1 reviewed it subsequently, and we don't feel that it 2 adds a great deal of information. Essentially, it 3 describes some of the plant operating experience and 4 actions taken to prevent corrosion. It also indicates 5 that they've performed UT examinations at the sand 6 cushioned region, purportedly found not detectible 7 loss of thickness, and on that basis projected that 8 there would be no problem during the extended period 9 of operation, and NEC would like to see more, we would 10 like a more substantive, comprehensive monitoring 11 program such as has been implemented at the Oyster 12 Creek plant, for instance.
13 CHAIR KARLIN: Well, on that point, I was 14 a bit surprised, Entergy answer came forth to 15 reference to the May 15th, 06 amendment to their 16 license renewal application, and your contention was 17 due on May 26th, I think. So it was pretty close, and 18 I didn't see where your--your original contention 19 never referred to the May 15th.
20 MS. TYLER: We acknowledged--
21 CHAIR KARLIN: I mean, if it came in too 22 late, I would have expected you to say, well, we want 23 to amend our contention, let's give you some--you 24 know--please ask for an amendment of the contention.
25 You didn't do that.
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.neafrgross.com
433 1 MS. TYLER: The amendment was posted prior 2 to the deadline for the filing of our contention, ten 3 days--
4 CHAIR KARLIN: Right. But it was pretty 5 close.
6 MS. TYLER: It was ten days before and we 7 weren't aware of it.
8 CHAIR KARLIN: You were not?
9 MS. TYLER: No.
10 CHAIR KARLIN: You were not aware of--
11 MS. TYLER: So no, we had not reviewed it 12 before we filed our petition.
13 CHAIR KARLIN: Okay.
14 MS. TYLER: But we have now.
15 CHAIR KARLIN: But you didn't ask for 16 amendment or late filed, what they call "late filed."
17 MS. TYLER: Our client has just told me 18 that he doesn't think that the amendment was posted to 19 Adams until after the deadline for our contention 20 filing.
21 CHAIR KARLIN: Well, that's perhaps a 22 verifiable fact we can determine but you would think 23 you would have said that in your answer, because they 24 try to, you know, kind of give you--it's a good 25 response, that they seem to have said we've taken care NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 200053701 www.nealrgross.com
434 1 of that in the amendment that we filed on May 15th.
2 Didn't they even bother to look at it?
3 And my reaction was, well, maybe it came 4 in too late and you didn't see it. But you didn't say 5 that. You just said, well, that's not a problem.
6 What about the guidance? We have the staff guidance 7 that came out on May 9th, I guess, in the Federal 8 Register.
9 I don't know whether we're going to hear 10 that but is this something that's being handled on a 11 generic basis and therefore cannot be the legitimate 12 subject of a contention?
13 MS. TYLER: I think the staff is 14 considering addressing this problem on a general basis 15 because the NRC staff has recognized that this is 16 potentially an important issue that should be 17 addressed at all plants with respect to license 18 renewal. That hasn't been done at this point. The 19 guidance is proposed but not final.
20 JUDGE WARDWELL: And would this be all 21 plants or just all BWR plants with Mark 1 containment?
22 MS. TYLER: I think it would just be BWR 23 plants. So pending the development of this generic 24 guidance, which I'm not sure what the timeline for 25 that is, but this relicensure shouldn't--this renewed NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202)
. o 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com
435 1 license shouldn't issue without consideration of this 2 issue, assuming that this generic guidance perhaps 3 won't be finalized until--I don't know how long it 4 will take. It could take years, I imagine.
5 CHAIR KARLIN: Okay. Any other questions?
6 All right. Thank you.
7 We can move along to Entergy. Mr.
8 Travieso-Diaz.
9 MR. TRAVIESO-DIAZ: This contention, 10 unlike others that NEC has put forward, is not 11 supported by the statement of one expert. This is all 12 NEC's concoction, if you will. It's based on two 13 things, two documents.
14 The first document is actually two ISI 15 inspection reports to which I'll speak for a second, 16 and the second is the draft guidance that the NRC 17 issued for comment. I'll address both of them, but 18 that is the sum total of the basis, if you will, for 19 this contention.
20 The contention, even though as you pointed 21 out, is somewhat inarticulately stated, it addresses, 22 and Ms. Tyler confirmed that, the area, the potential 23 existence of corrosion in the area--and maybe I should 24 explain what we're talking about here.
25 The dry well shell is made of stainless NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com
436 1 steel. On the one side--well, it's encased in 2 concrete, so it has an inner side and it has--I'm 3 sorry, carbon steel--and it has an outer side. The 4 concern that Ms. Tyler has expressed, and I'm going to 5 read what they said,. is "Entergy offers no evidence 6 that would exclude the presence of moisture at the 7 sand cushion or concrete encasement interface with the 8 dry well shell. That is outside, the outside surface 9 of the shell is encased as a ring of sand and she 10 claims that we have provided no evidence that moisture 11 won't get in there.
12 However, the two documents that they cite, 13 which are the same condition, are ISI inspections that 14 were performed at Vermont Yankee, looking at the 15 interior, interior of the shell, and they detect the 16 corrosion because one of the elements that would have 17 essentially blocked out he presence of moisture was 18 missing, and it took quite a number of years for some 19 corrosion to develop.
20 It was ascertained in the normal course of 21 inspections, it was fixed, and the amount of corrosion 22 was insignificant.
23 So that is the document they are referring 24 to, and I begin by telling you that they are 25 absolutely irrelevant because the concern is with NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com
437 1 potential corrosion and leakage on the outside. The 2 inside of the containment is pressurized. So it is 3 corrosion is going to be inhibited there, and it's 4 mostly available for inspection and it is inspected at 5 regular intervals.
6 CHAIR KARLIN: May I ask, do you point 7 that interior/exterior point out in your answer 8 somewhere?
9 MR. TRAVIESO-DIAZ: Yes; we do. Yes; we 10 do.
11 CHAIR KARLIN: What page can I find that?
12 MR. TRAVIESO-DIAZ: If you'll give me a 13 second. I'll get back to you in a second, just to 14 save time.
15 CHAIR KARLIN: All right. That would be 16 helpful.
17 MR. TRAVIESO-DIAZ: Yes; but we do point 18 that out.
19 Second is they say you don't have a 20 program. In fact, amendment two to the license 21 application does have a program. And they maybe 22 didn't see it when they filed the original contention 23 but they filed a reply, and in the reply they did not 24 contest the program that we have in place, which I 25 could describe for you. They said, well, we would NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com
438 1 like to see more, how your ultrasonic thickness tests 2 were conducted.
3 Well, a contention is not necessarily we 4 would like to see more. You have to point out to a 5 deficiency that you allege exists. There is no 6 allegation that there is a deficiency with the 7 ultrasonic testing, thickness testing that is being 8 done, or any of the other elements of the program.
9 You cannot create a contention out of thin 10 air. In fact, there is no basis for contesting our 11 program and there is no basis for claiming that it is 12 not sufficient to prevent corrosion.
13 I'll say more. The program that the NR--
14 the other leg of their argument is that the interim 15 guidance that is out for comment. That interim 16 guidance is again directed at concerns about potential 17 water accumulation and corrosion on the outside of the 18 dry well shell for containment.
19 It starts by saying you need to determine 20 what corrosion you have and predict a corrosion rate, 21 and see if it matches your expectation. Well, Vermont 22 Yankee has done that, and, in fact, in the amendment 23 to the application we explain what we have done. We 24 found no corrosion, so therefore there's nothing to 25 extrapolate. The program that the interim guidance NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealtgross.com
439 1 postulates does not apply to Vermont Yankee only 2 because there has been no detectible corrosion.
3 There have been inspections, the 4 inspections were done in '87 when the program was 5 first formulated. No corrosion was detected.
6 JUDGE WARDWELL: How do you handle or 7 address the inaccessible areas? Isn't that a 8 challenge, for any plant to deal with those areas?
9 Because certainly you're not inspecting, 10 you don't have clear visual observations of the entire 11 dry well metal shell.
12 MR. TRAVIESO-DIAZ: Well, the interim 13 staff guidance in fact doesn't require you to inspect 14 and don't require you to extrapolate from where you 15 have measured. Well, actually, they do plant--the 16 Entergy plan does plan to do inspections of those 17 inaccessible areas, not all the time, but every ten 18 years, they are going to remove the sand cushion and 19 look at it, and see if there is any evidence that 20 there is corrosion there.
21 Moreover, and I think this is important 22 for the board to understand, all the mechanisms 23 whereby water could leak into that area in between the 24 dry well shell and the concrete, all those areas from 25 where leakage would come in, they're all provided with NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 wwwneairgross.com
440 1 drains and the water goes some place else.
2 In fact, when the sand has been inspected, 3 it has been determined to be dry. The sand has eight, 4 eight elements of drains, that if water ultimately 5 goes down there, it goes out.
6 During refueling operations, the operators 7 walk the plant--this is all said in the amendment, I'm 8 not making it up. The operators walk the containment 9 just to make sure there is no leakage.
10 In fact there is no detected leakage or 11 corrosion that has been experienced at Vermont Yankee 12 in this area. This was reported in other plants that 13 have other mechanisms for controlling corrosion were 14 not enough, but it is not a problem for us. There is 15 no basis--no, I shouldn't say this, no basis. There 16 is no support for the allegation because the documents 17 they cite don't support it, are irrelevant, and the 18 guidance that the cite is neither final nor applicable 19 to Vermont Yankee because, simply, we just don't have 20 it.
21 CHAIR KARLIN: And those inspections, 22 those still take place at finite locations in the 23 sand. It's not around the whole perimeter; correct?
24 MR. TRAVIESO-DIAZ: Yes.
25 CHAIR KARLIN: You have access points that NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 wwwnealrgross.com
441 1 allow you to look at specific areas but not the entire 2 perimeter; correct?
3 MR. TRAVIESO-DIAZ: Is correct, and it is 4 explained, in great detail, in the amendment to the 5 application. I could go into it, if you want but--
6 CHAIR KARLIN: No. I just wanted to make 7 sure you didn't have a really thin guy that can walk 8 around inside that two-inch area.
9 MR. TRAVIESO-DIAZ: We have people of all 10 sizes to expect all kind of locations like inside 11 there.
12 JUDGE ELLEMAN: On some of the other 13 contentions, you gave an indication of your plan to 14 monitor or look at the possibility of corrosion but 15 you have not elected to do that here. But you're 16 telling us now, you do have some kind of a plan by 17 which you're going to monitor thickness and corrosion?
18 MR. TRAVIESO-DIAZ: Yes; exactly. That's 19 amendment to the application. It has a plan, well-20 defined plan of inspections and measurements.
21 JUDGE WARDWELL: That's your 5-15-06 22 amendment.
23 MR. TRAVIESO-DIAZ: Exactly; yes. And 24 quite frankly, NEC has not challenged that either 25 before, because they didn't know about it, or NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com
442 1 afterwards, when they did know about it. All they say 2 is that we'd like to see more. Well, that's not a 3 basis for a contention. They have to say what portion 4 of the plan is no good.
5 CHAIR KARLIN: Now in part of your answer 6 on page 43, you talk about--well, there's a discussion 7 on 42 about the 1999 inspection report, and that I 8 guess the upshot is that the thickness of the plate 9 was 2.5 inches, and the pit depth maximum was 1/16th 10 of an inch.
11 Could you talk about that a little bit.
12 That sounds like a very, very small amount of 13 corrosion, given the 2.5 inch thickness of this piece
- 14 of steel or something.
15 MR. TRAVIESO-DIAZ: Let me talk about that 16 for a second. First, remember, this is corrosion 17 inside, not outside.
18 The corrosion would develop--
19 CHAIR KARLIN: It's inside. It's inside.
20 MR. TRAVIESO-DIAZ: Inside; inside.
21 CHAIR KARLIN: Okay.
22 MR. TRAVIESO-DIAZ: So it's totally 23 irrelevant. In fact, if you take a look, we say that 24 in the quote on page 43, on top.
25 CHAIR KARLIN: Forty-three is where?
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.oom
443 1 Right where we're looking right now. That's where it 2 says it's inside versus outside?
3 MR. TRAVIESO-DIAZ: Yes; correct.
4 CHAIR KARLIN: All right. Where, on 5 forty-three? In that quote? -
6 MR. TRAVIESO-DIAZ: In that quote at the 7 beginning it says--
8 CHAIR KARLIN: "Dry well shell interior."
9 MR. TRAVIESO-DIAZ: Interior. Okay.
10 That's what we're talking about.
11 CHAIR KARLIN: "Concrete--okay. That's 12 the inspection, 1999 inspection.
13 MR. TRAVIESO-DIAZ: Yes. Now you need to 14 understand, the 1999 inspection and the 2001 15 inspection referred to the same problem at the same 16 location. They just didn't get around to fixing it 17 until 2001. And the reason--well, in the process of 18 doing it, they measured how much corrosion had taken 19 place, and it was an insignificant amount of 20 corrosion. It would have been years that the 21 condition had been in place.
22 CHAIR KARLIN: So this would have been for 23 the entire life span of the vessel or something?
24 MR. TRAVIESO-DIAZ: Well, we don't know--
25 CHAIR KARLIN: How many years are we NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON. D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com
444 1 talking about?
2 MR. TRAVIESO-DIAZ: We don't know when it 3 happened. But we do know when it was detected, and it 4 was detected first in 1991, and between '92 and--
5 supposedly happened just in 1991. Between 1992 and 6 2001, there have been only .16 inch corrosion. So 7 it's very slow process. The containment inside is 8 inerted. So corrosion is not going to progress fast.
9 CHAIR KARLIN: And it's 1/16th of an inch, 10 not point one six. One-sixteenth.
11 MR. TRAVIESO-DIAZ: What did I say?
12 CHAIR KARLIN: Yes. You said it more. So 13 it's less than what you--okay.
14 Any other questions?
15 All right. Thank you; thank you.
16 Oh, I guess I did have a question.
17 Why aren't we hearing you say that this is 18 being handled on a generic basis, and therefore, it's 19 not a permissible type of contention?
20 MR. TRAVIESO-DIAZ: Well, first, because 21 it's not been handled yet. This is interim guidance 22 that hasn't come out. The plan, what the NRC will 23 use, once and if they come out with guidance, they 24 will define to whom it applies.
25 Assuming it applies to everybody who has NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON. D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com
445 1 a Mark 1, it will be generic, and whatever NRC 2 recommends that Entergy do, we'll do.
3 CHAIR KARLIN: And this is just going to 4 be staff guidance, so I guess it's not perhaps the 5 same as the Commission handling something generically.
6 Maybe that's the distinction.
7 MR. TRAVIESO-DIAZ: Well, we take the 8 guidance seriously of course but in any event, in any 9 event, if and when guidance comes, and if it's 10 applicable to Entergy's plant, and if in fact it shows 11 that something more needs to be done, it will be done.
12 But it's impossible to speculate now what the NRC 13 staff is going to require and whether it's going to be 14 applicable.
15 CHAIR KARLIN: Okay. Thanks. Thank you.
16 Ms. Young. Staff.
17 MS. YOUNG: Thank you.
18 CHAIR KARLIN: We're almost done here.
19 MS. YOUNG: I'll try to make it short.
20 The staff had objected to the admission of 21 this contention because it did not raise a genuine 22 dispute with the application. That was in part 23 because Petitioners apparently were not aware of the 24 supplement to the application that provided additional 25 information concerning the lower dry well, and NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE.. N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON. D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com
446 1 indications that there was no discernible loss of 2 thickness.
3 My information is that that submittal did 4 not become public in Adams until around May 26th-ish.
5 CHAIR KARLIN: Oh, okay. So--
6 MS. YOUNG: Maybe the day before or the 7 day of. So it might have been difficult for them--
8 CHAIR KARLIN: So they may be right, in 9 that it might not have been published or--
10 MS. YOUNG: Certainly. But it is accurate 11 to state that they did not adequately and squarely 12 address the contents of that submittal in their reply.
13 So to that extent, they have not shown a genuine 14 dispute with the applicant, and merely that the staff 15 has this generic program for Mark 1 steel containment 16 dry well shells, the guidance that the staff published 17 in the Federal Register does not publish a basis, by 18 itself, for the Petitioners' contention.
19 CHAIR KARLIN: Right.
20 Any questions from my colleagues? I have 21 one but it doesn't need to be asked. So we'll move 22 on.
23 Ms. Tyler, I think we're ready for your 24 rebuttal, please.
25 MS. TYLER: Well I think I'll just keep NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com
447 1 this short. I think the crux of it from out point of 2 view is that the NRC has recognized this is a problem 3 with the boiling water reactors. It might be handled 4 on a generic basis and it might not.
5 The staff's concern validates our concern 6 that this is a problem that should be considered 7 specifically at Vermont Yankee. We're concerned, 8 again, that the application appears to exclude the 9 presence of moisture but the inspection history 10 indicates that it's not fully excluded, be it on the 11 inside or the outside, there is moisture, and that 12 that's in conflict with what the application appears 13 to contend.
14 This is an issue that should be considered 15 in this proceeding.
16 CHAIR KARLIN: Okay. Any questions? I 17 think we've covered it in your initial presentation.
18 I don't think that I have any further questions.
19 I think that concludes our review of ten 20 of the eleven contentions that have been presented.
21 I'm going to ask one last moment.
22 Is there anything else that any of the 23 parties think urgently need to be brought up at this 24 time? Otherwise, we're going to close the proceeding.
25 MS. YOUNG: I do have a short question, NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 wwwealrgross.com
448 1 Judge Karlin.
2 CHAIR KARLIN: Yes. Ms. Young.
3 MS. YOUNG: It's not really with respect 4 to the argument today. The Petitioners have engaged 5 in a practice of submitting their pleadings with cover 6 letters. Did judge have any guidance on that point, 7 because NRC practice, we normally don't do that. We 8 just submit the pleading itself.
9 CHAIR KARLIN: Right. Well, if there's a 10 brief one-page transmittal cover letter, I'm not 11 offended. But I think what we don't want to get into 12 is letters which send material to us for our 13 information. If it's a pleading and it has a cover 14 letter to it, I don't see that's a problem.
15 MS. YOUNG: Well, there have been cases in 16 NRC jurisprudence which talk about the obligations of 17 parties to alert the board of information when it 18 becomes available. I believe this is Maguire, and 19 offhand, I can't remember, at the time, and I know 20 that, you know, to the extent the rules have been 21 revised recently to talk about the mandatory 22 disclosures and the hearing files, that the 23 obligations of parties may be, you know, somewhat 24 muddled, so it's not clear necessarily to all the 25 participants, when and when they should not submit NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com
449 1 information to you, you know, given that there's no 2 mandatory disclosure or hearing file obligation until 3 the admission of a petition.
4 CHAIR KARLIN: Well, I understand there 5 could be some confusion. I would start with reference 6 to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15 (d) that talks 7 about supplemental pleadings.
8 I mean, I think what's "good for the goose 9 is good for the gander." If we're going to have 10 supplemental pleadings, then maybe the Petitioners 11 should get to supplement their contentions too, and 12 then we'd be in a big muddle, given the NRC 13 regulation. So at this stage, unless there's a major 14 decision that comes down while these contentions are 15 pending, like the San Luis Obispo Mothers For Peace, 16 we would like to know about that.
17 But other than that, if someone file an 18 amendment to the license renewal application, 19 amendment number 23, we don't want to just get that as 20 a FYI, you want to read this 300-page document. We 21 don't know what to do with that.
22 So if contentions are admitted, then we'll 23 be having the mandatory disclosures, as you say.
24 But I would say generally, try to avoid 25 that, and we don't look for letters to the board. We NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.oom
450 1 want pleadings.
2 MS. YOUNG: Certainly. I think also 3 parties sometimes feel obliged to make sure that the 4 participants in a proceeding are aware of developments 5 in the proceeding, and to make sure that the clock 6 starts running based on publication of certain 7 documents. You know, to the extent that there are 8 delays in processing things in Adams, for example, 9 which we had with respect to the May 15th submittal of 10 an applicant.
11 So I mean, there are a lot of reasons for 12 sending a letter to the judges. It may not just be so 13 the judge is aware; it could also be so the other 14 party is aware.
15 CHAIR KARLIN: Well, you can send it to 16 the other parties, if you want to make sure they have 17 a notice of something. But, you know, just as in 18 discovery, the parties may exchange a lot of 19 information that we never see or want to see, really.
20 Unless there's something important you think we need 21 to take some action on, don't send it to us. Thanks.
22 Mr. Shems, something from you?
23 MR. SHEMS: A follow-up question, Your 24 Honor, if I may. To pick up on what Ms. Young was 25 just asking about, the specific scenario I'm concerned NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.malrgross.com
451 1 about is that the permitting material, the NPDES 2 permitting material that Entergy filed on Friday, was 3 available the end of March, beginning of April at the 4 latest, and they amended the application on Friday, it 5 was struck from consideration in this proceeding, but 6 we now have a license amendment that formally says 7 that they're attaching this NPDES permit that's in 8 dispute as a 316 determination.
9 That was not the case when I filed our 10 initial contention, and so does that warrant a 11 supplement, or a new contention? If I could have some 12 guidance on the best way to proceed on that.
13 CHAIR KARLIN: In terms of filings with 14 us, we're going to rule based upon the pleadings that 15 are presented to us.
16 If you have some motion you want to make, 17 or anyone wants to make to supplement the pleadings, 18 they can move for leave to supplement the existing 19 pleadings, if some development occurs.
20 So you could make a motion, or Entergy 21 could make a motion, if they want some action from us, 22 that is, you want to move to supplement the pleadings 23 because some event has occurred and you will tell us 24 about that event. But it will be a motion.
25 Likewise, if you want to file a new or NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com
452 1 amended contention, you would follow the rules 2 applicable to new or amended contentions. We're not 3 going to tell you when or how to do that. You know, 4 I think generally, you need to move pretty promptly, 5 if-some event occurs, you have to move pretty quickly 6 within the time you, the public is made aware of it, 7 or you're aware of it.
8 Amended contentions, new contentions, 9 quote, late-filed contentions, whatever you want to 10 call them, they're, you know, 309 (f) (2), and 309 (c) 11 are the ones you'd look at for that.
12 MR. SHEMS: Thank you.
13 CHAIR KARLIN: Okay. Anything else?
14 Very good. I thank all of you for your 15 patience and your thoroughness. It's been helpful to 16 us. We're going to, you know, take this under 17 advisement, grapple with many of the issues, do some 18 further research and study, and try to come up, and 19 will come up with a decision as promptly as we can.
20 Thank you.; This proceeding is adjourned.
21 [Whereupon, at 11:20 a.m., the proceeding 22 was adjourned]
23 24 25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON. D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com v
CERTIFICATE This is to certify that the attached proceedings before the United* States Nuclear Regulatory Commission in the matter of:
Name of Proceeding: Entergy Nuclear Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Station Oral Arguments Docket Number: 50-271-LR and Location:,' Brattleboro, VT 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.
it k-Peter Hfloland Official Reporter NealR. RGross & Co., Inc.
. NEAL R. GROSS
-COURTREPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS
'1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 ,VWASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com