ML063170051
| ML063170051 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Vermont Yankee File:NorthStar Vermont Yankee icon.png |
| Issue date: | 11/03/2006 |
| From: | Travieso-Diaz M Entergy Nuclear Operations, Entergy Nuclear Vermont Yankee, Pillsbury, Winthrop, Shaw, Pittman, LLP |
| To: | Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel |
| Byrdsong A T | |
| References | |
| 50-271-OLA, ASLBP 04-832-02-OLA, RAS 12499 | |
| Download: ML063170051 (11) | |
Text
November 3, 2006 DOCKETED UNITED STATES OF AMERICA USNRC NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION November 3, 2006 (11:30am)
Before the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board OFFICE OF SECRETARY RULEMAKINGS AND ADJUDICATIONS STAFF
)
In the Matter of )
) Docket No. 50-271 ENTERGY NUCLEAR VERMONT )
YANKEE, LLC and ENTERGY ) ASLBP No. 04-832-02-OLA NUCLEAR OPERATIONS, INC. ) (Operating License Amendment)
(Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Station) )
)
ENTERGY'S OBJECTIONS TO NEW ENGLAND COALITION'S PROPOSED HEARING TRANSCRIPT CORRECTIONS INTRODUCTION Entergy Nuclear Vermont Yankee, LLC and Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc.
(collectively "Entergy") object to some of the proposed corrections submitted by the New England Coalition ("NEC") to the transcript of the evidentiary hearing held by the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board ("Board") on September 13 and 14, 2006 in this proceeding. See New England Coalition's Proposed Corrections to the Transcript for Evidentiary Hearings of September 13, 14, 2006, dated October 30, 2006 ("NEC Corrections"). Attached hereto is the list of corrections requested by NEC, marked up to indicate those to which Entergy objects.
DISCUSSION At the end of the September 13-14, 2006 hearings, the Board indicated that the parties had twenty days to file proposed corrections to the transcript of the proceedings:
Where do we go from here? The court reporter will generate a transcript of this proceeding. And the parties are welcome to, and can order a copy of it. And, obviously, I think all parties should do SO.
We are going to give you 20 days from today's date to submit any transcript corrections, errata, this sort of thing, that may be appropriate, or necessary. At that same day, 20 days, the record in this matter, the evidentiary record in this matter will close.
Tr. 1609 (Karlin). The deadline for transcript corrections was subsequently extended by three weeks at NEC's request. Order (Granting Extension of Time to File Proposed Corrections to Transcript and Proposed Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law) (October 12, 2006).
The objective of allowing the parties to propose transcript corrections under 10 C.F.R.
§2.327(d) is, as Judge Karlin pointed out, to permit the identification and correction of transcription errors, i.e., "errata, this sort of thing."' Filing of proposed transcript corrections is not an opportunity for a party to delete statements it wishes its witness had not made, correct or improve on the statements the witness actually made, or add statements the witness did not make. NEC's proposed transcript corrections include several instances of each of these three 2
practices, which are in effect impermissible attempts to modify the witness' testimony.
The following examples illustrate NEC's objectionable practices.
NEC would delete the phrase "one has to be conservative" from line 25 of p. 1540 of the transcript. However, as far as Entergy's counsel recalls, NEC's witness Dr. Joram Hopenfeld did utter that sentence, just as he made the statements on line 5 of p. 1541, line 7 of p. 1545, line 11 of p. 1548, and several others which NEC likewise seeks to delete.
NEC would transform the words "to, so I" (Tr. 1545, line 4) into "to explain some of those terms, so I". The change materially alters what the witness said. NEC would also change A clear example of a valid correction is NEC's request to replace "spaces" on line I of p. 1534 of the transcript with "spacers."
In that regard, NEC's proposed "corrections" to the transcript are analogous to its efforts to have the record reopened to receive additional evidence from its witness. See NEC's October 24, 2006 Motion to Reopen the Record for the Purpose of Re-Examining Dr. Joram Hopenfeld.
2
"question" on line 23 of p. 1524 to "answer" - an obviously material change. Likewise, the proposed changes on p. 1520, line 17; p. 1533, line 24; p. 1535, line 1; p. 1547, line 7; p. 1549, line 17; and several others would materially alter the witness' testimony.
NEC would also add testimony that Dr. Hopenfeld did not give. For example, on line 1 of p. 1535 it would change "is what they said, we agree" to "We (NRC) agree to what they (Entergy) said." Likewise, on line 17 of p. 1549, NEC would change "question, abnormality" to "question by referring to the word 'abnormality"', and on line 9 of p. 1534 "taking every little" would be changed "talking about including every little." There are a number of other attempts to enlarge on Dr. Hopenfeld's remarks. They are all clearly impermissible.
CONCLUSION The official verbatim transcript is the exclusive record for decision in formal adjudication proceeding such as the instant one. 5 U.S.C. 556(e). It is therefore essential that the integrity of the record be maintained by not allowing material changes to be made to the testimony on the record under the guise of transcript "corrections". The proposed changes identified in the attachment to this filing would materially alter the record and should therefore not be accepted.
Respectfully submitted,
/)Jay E. Silberg Matias F. Travieso-Diaz Scott A. Vance PILLSBURY WINTHROP SHAW PITTMAN LLP 2300 N Street, N.W.
Washington, DC 20037-1128 Counsel for Entergy Nuclear Vermont Yankee, LLC and Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc.
November 3, 2006 3
ATTACHMENT OBJECTIONABLE HEARING TRANSCRIPT CHANGES PROPOSED BY NEC Page Line Delete Insert Entergy Objection?
1516 10 base basis for 11 The steady state-the the steady state-the transient transient concern that concern is that 14 the component's already The components have already YES weakened been weakened 18 problem or it problems that 19 SSSCs are - "SSCs" 1517 8 And EPU At EPU?
1520 8 but not in 11 happens happened, 13 option item 15 know it know that it 16 it doesn't experience any it would not experience any flow YES flowing use vibrations, induced vibrations, well well 17 then I don't think, you then, I don't think, that you still YES know, it's throughout it's know that throughout the plant's 20 Each If each 21 was put was when it was put in YES 1523 17 knowledges analogies YES 22 to for 1524 16 limited what limited to what 20 been somewhere been installed somewhere YES 4
Page Line Delete Insert Entergy Objection?
22 say to answer your say the answer to your question question, 23 question answer YES 24 is depends on YES 1525 11 would would be 14 the concern is there is a concern because YES 16 EPIJ EPU 19 answer is, to this answer to this is 20 we are YES 22 perform definitely Perform the tests definitely YES 1526 4 say keep YES 5 The- we We YES 9 hydraulics hydraulics is 13 reduces reduces it 14 reduce reduce it 1527 3 be- one be specific. One 18 we YES 19 rely YES 21 this ODYN 1528 12 everything other things 22 and that is, YES 23 that that that this 1529 1 confidence confidence in them YES 3 hard to operate how they operate 20 averaGe average 1530 4 what you, the trickle what. The Critical Power Ratio power ratio 9 that YES 14 that here with which 15 the YES 1531 13 bypass, bypass 14 too flow 1533 13 It YES 5
Page Line Delete Insert Entergy Objection?
15 density density at Brunswick YES 21 what you should take is you should use YES 22 something, something, and 24 5.2, I don't know the 5.2 power density, I don't know if YES the 25 average average power density. YES 1534 1 spaces spacers 2 there that there. That 6 dryer dryers 9 talking every little talking about including every YES little parameter 10 in that ODYN in the ODYN 11 that you benchmark and benchmarked YES 13 at, and you apply that And then you apply ODYN YES 14 there with at Brunswick YES 15 these transient YES 16 you make you can make 17 And you say, that And then you can say that the YES 18 bank. band.
21 All I- YES 22 says say 23 said, said:
1535 1 is what they said, we We (NRC) agree to what they YES agree (Entergy) said 15 NED 241 N ED241-54-A YES 20 item 01 Exhibit I YES 1536 13 H-OPENFELD HOPENFELD 1538 3 large transient testing Large Transient Testing-Exhibit 1 YES exhibit 3 22 EPIJ EPU 23 What they They 25 statement Statement means. YES 1539 7 into to 9 what what is 12 Because as it was- okay Okay, YES 16 it them 6
Page Line Delete Insert Entergy Objection?
1540 5 difference difference, 9 originally Originally 15 And they said, the And they (NRC) said the code YES 16 this is not conservative. is not conservative. These YES These differences are in differences represent 17 error errors 19 say this code is or say that this code is conservative, YES 20 say exactly they say this exactly. They 22 some few data data in 25 one has to be YES conservative, 1541 2 first of all, is to first 3 parameters we are parameters that we are interested interested in 5 the pressure, and you can YES see 6 the pressure, they and YES compared 7 pressure pressure, and 11 by with YES 12 they can put confidence you can put a confidence of x of on X number of sigmas on the signals on the 13 Confidence of the YES 14 it ODYN 23 because they Because they (NRC) YES 24 Amd YES 1542 1 the 2 One of for YES 3 that analysis that YES 5 o-riginal intent of the original intent of the code, to YES code, to predict that predict 6 parameter, is YES 7 Critical power ratio for The Critical Power Ratio, for YES those that those that this 8 its is 9 of the in the fuel YES 15 like like away YES 17 potential for a melt a potential for a fuel melt YES 7
Page Line Delete Insert Entergy Objection?
18 a safety, a safety issue, YES 19 to that into YES 1543 1 that this 3 comparison comparison of the data, YES 5 frequency frequency 1544 1 for for the 1545 3 Because the heart to your Because the heart of the answer YES question sits to your question is 5 to, so I to explain some of those terms, so YES that I 6 what what are 7 explain some of those YES terms 9 C and one is the Co and the other one 11 uncertainty. uncertainties.
12 One One, Co, 14 vJ V; 16 at by 17 is change is YES 21 C Co 22 that subzero vi 1546 10 kind of information boiling YES 11 would affect, YES 12 mechanism void Mechanism of void formation YES 20 they've they've (GE) YES 1547 1 that so 5 in different plants, the from different plants. The only only way I know to make way I know how the 6 thing, to formalize this to formalize this experience, is to YES experience, is to take a use a 7 computer and these Computer code. These plants YES 8 sitting YES 9 here YES 10 fuel level go fuel level in a tank goes YES 12 has differences. is different.
8
Page Line Delete Insert Entergy Objection?
13 to do, analyze the to analyze each YES 19 not abnormalities no abnormalities in YES between 23 what abnormality is what is an abnormality YES 1548 1 be if an enormous be: if at YES 2 in into 4 into. transition into transition 8 statement to say, statements as YES 9 anything here, therefor therefore YES 11 would look at, YES 12 put an uncertainty study perform an uncertainty study in YES on 13 one. Case.
1549 17 question, abnormality question by referring to the word YES "abnormality".
18 they haven't seen any They have not seen any problem, problem. That that 20 You see abnormality Do you see abnormality?
21 fuel YES 1550 1 what what was 2 was YES 4 just-the-energy the YES 12 goneto evaluated YES 15 it here Them somewhere else. YES 17 Brunswick, of Brunswick, or 20 different different, 24 because this has a dryer, both plants have dryers. Plus, YES plus 25 modified modified it 1551 3 in,in into 9
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION Before the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board
)
In the Matter of )
) Docket No. 50-271
))
ENTERGY NUCLEAR VERMONT YANKEE, LLC and ENTERGY ASLBP No. 04-832-02-OLA NUCLEAR OPERATIONS, INC. ) (Operating License Amendment)
(Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Station) )
)
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that copies of"Entergy's Objections to New England Coalition's Proposed Hearing Transcript Corrections" were served on the persons listed below by deposit in the U.S. mail, first class, postage prepaid, and where indicated by an asterisk by electronic mail, this Pd 3 day of November, 2006.
- Administrative Judge *Administrative Judge Alex S. Karlin, Chair Lester S. Rubenstein Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel 4760 East Country Villa Drive Mail Stop T-3 F23 Tucson, AZ 85718 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission lesrrr(dcomcast.net Washington, D.C. 20555-0001 ask2a&nrc.sgov
- Administrative Judge Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Dr. Anthony J. Baratta Mail Stop T-3 F23 Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Mail Stop T-3 F23 Washington, D.C. 20555-0001 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C. 20555-0001 aJb5 (qnrc.gov
- Secretary Office of Commission Appellate Att'n: Rulemakings and Adjudications Staff Adjudication Mail Stop 0-16 Cl Mail Stop 0-16 C I U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C. 20555-0001 Washington, D.C. 20555-0001 secy(&,nrc.gov hearingdocket(anrc.gov
- Raymond Shadis *Sherwin E. Turk, Esq.
New England Coalition *Steven C. Hamrick, Esq.
P.O. Box 98 Office of the General Counsel Shadis Road Mail Stop 0-15 D21 Edgecomb, ME 04556 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission shadis(ýprexar.com Washington, D.C. 20555-0001 seta-nrc.gov. schl (nrc.gov
- Marcia Carpentier, Esq. *Jonathan M. Rund, Esq.
Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel Mail Stop T-3 F23 Mail Stop T-3 F23 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C. 20555-0001 Washington, D.C. 20555-0001 MXC7(@nrc.-gov imr3wnrc.gov M45F, -
Matias F. Traviesoi-Diaz 2