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 practices, which are in effect impermissible attempts to modify the witness' testimony.2 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 transient concern that 14 the component's already weakened 18 problem or it 19 SSSCs are -
1517 8
And EPU 1520 8
but 11 happens 13 option 15 know it 16 it doesn't experience any flowing use vibrations, well 17 then I don't think, you know, it's throughout it's 20 Each 21 was put 1523 17 knowledges 22 to the steady state-the transient concern is that The components have already been weakened problems that "SSCs" At EPU?
not in
- happened, item know that it it would not experience any flow induced vibrations, well then, I don't think, that you still know that throughout the plant's If each was when it was put in analogies YES YES YES YES YES for 1524 16 limited what 20 been somewhere limited to what been installed somewhere YES 4
Page Line Delete Insert Entergy Objection?
22 say to answer your
- question, 23 question say the answer to your question answer YES YES 24 is depends on 1525 11 would 14 the concern is would be there is a concern because YES 16 EPIJ EPU 19 20 22 1526 4
5 9
13 14 1527 3
18 19 21 1528 12 22 23 1529 1
3 20 1530 4
9 14 15 1531 13 14 1533 13 answer is, to this we are perform definitely say The-we hydraulics reduces reduce be-one this everything and that is, that that confidence hard to operate averaGe what you, the trickle power ratio that that here the
- bypass, too It answer to this is Perform the tests definitely keep We hydraulics is reduces it reduce it be specific. One we rely ODYN other things that this confidence in them how they operate average what. The Critical Power Ratio YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES with which YES YES bypass flow YES 5
Page Line Delete Insert Entergy Objection?
15 21 22 24 25 1534 1
2 6
9 10 11 13 14 15 16 17 18 21 22 23 1535 1
density what you should take is something, 5.2, I don't know the average spaces there that dryer talking every little in that ODYN that you benchmark at, and you apply that there with these you make And you say, that bank.
All I-says
- said, is what they said, we agree NED 241 item 01 H-OPENFELD large transient testing exhibit 3 EPIJ What they statement into what Because as it was-okay it density at Brunswick you should use something, and 5.2 power density, I don't know if the average power density.
spacers there. That dryers talking about including every little parameter in the ODYN and benchmarked And then you apply ODYN at Brunswick transient you can make And then you can say that the band.
YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES 15 20 13 3
1536 1538 say said:
We (NRC) agree to what they (Entergy) said N ED241-54-A Exhibit I HOPENFELD Large Transient Testing-Exhibit 1 EPU They Statement means.
to what is
- Okay, them YES YES YES YES YES 22 23 25 1539 7
9 12 16 YES 6
Page Line Delete Insert Entergy Objection?
1540 1541 1542 5
difference 9
originally 15 And they said, the 16 this is not conservative.
These differences are in 17 error 19 say this code is or 20 say exactly they 22 some few data 25 one has to be conservative, 2
first of all, 3
parameters we are interested 5
the pressure, and you can see 6
the pressure, they compared 7
pressure 11 by 12 they can put confidence of on X number of signals on the 13 Confidence of the 14 it 23 because they 24 Amd 1
the 2
One of 3
that 5
o-riginal intent of the code, to predict that 6
parameter, is 7
Critical power ratio for those that 8
its 9
of the 15 like 17 potential for a melt difference, Originally And they (NRC) said the code is not conservative. These differences represent errors say that this code is conservative, say this exactly. They data in is to first parameters that we are interested in YES and YES YES YES YES YES YES pressure, and with you can put a confidence of x sigmas on the ODYN Because they (NRC) for analysis that original intent of the code, to predict The Critical Power Ratio, for those that this is in the fuel like away a potential for a fuel melt YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES 7
Page Line Delete Insert Entergy Objection?
18 a safety, 19 to that 1543 1
that 3
comparison 5
frequency 1544 1
for 1545 3
Because the heart to your question sits 5
to, so I a safety issue, into this comparison of the data, frequency for the Because the heart of the answer to your question is to explain some of those terms, so that I what are YES YES YES YES YES YES 1546 1547 6
7 9
11 12 14 16 17 21 what explain some of those terms C and one is the uncertainty.
One vJ Co and the other one uncertainties.
One, Co, V;
at is C
22 that subzero 10 kind of information 11 would affect, 12 mechanism void 20 they've 1
that 5
in different plants, the only way I know to make the 6
thing, to formalize this experience, is to take a 7
computer and these 8
sitting 9
here 10 fuel level go 12 has differences.
by change is Co vi boiling Mechanism of void formation they've (GE) so from different plants. The only way I know how to formalize this experience, is to use a Computer code. These plants fuel level in a tank goes is different.
YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES 8
Page Line Delete Insert Entergy Objection?
13 19 23 1548 1
2 4
8 9
11 12 13 1549 17 to do, analyze the not abnormalities between what abnormality is be if an enormous in into. transition statement to say, anything here, therefor would look at, put an uncertainty study on one.
question, abnormality to analyze each no abnormalities in YES YES YES YES what is an abnormality be: if at into into transition statements as therefore perform an uncertainty study in Case.
question by referring to the word "abnormality".
They have not seen any problem, that Do you see abnormality?
YES YES YES YES YES 18 they haven't seen any problem. That 20 You see abnormality 21 fuel 1550 1
what 2
was 4
just-the-energy 12 goneto 15 it here 17 Brunswick, of 20 different 24 because this has a dryer, plus 25 modified 1551 3
in,in what was the evaluated Them somewhere else.
Brunswick, or different, both plants have dryers. Plus, YES YES YES YES YES YES modified it 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 NUCLEAR OPERATIONS, INC.
(Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Station)
))
)
)
)
ASLBP No. 04-832-02-OLA (Operating License Amendment)
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 3Pd day of November, 2006.
- Administrative Judge Alex S. Karlin, Chair Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel Mail Stop T-3 F23 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C. 20555-0001 ask2a&nrc.sgov
- Administrative Judge Dr. Anthony J. Baratta Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel Mail Stop T-3 F23 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C. 20555-0001 aJb5 (qnrc.gov
- Administrative Judge Lester S. Rubenstein 4760 East Country Villa Drive Tucson, AZ 85718 lesrrr(dcomcast.net Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Mail Stop T-3 F23 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C. 20555-0001
- Secretary Att'n: Rulemakings and Adjudications Staff Mail Stop 0-16 Cl U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C. 20555-0001 secy(&,nrc.gov hearingdocket(anrc.gov
- Raymond Shadis New England Coalition P.O. Box 98 Shadis Road Edgecomb, ME 04556 shadis(ýprexar.com
- Marcia Carpentier, Esq.
Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel Mail Stop T-3 F23 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C. 20555-0001 MXC7(@nrc.-gov Office of Commission Appellate Adjudication Mail Stop 0-16 C I U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C. 20555-0001
- Sherwin E. Turk, Esq.
- Steven C. Hamrick, Esq.
Office of the General Counsel Mail Stop 0-15 D21 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C. 20555-0001 seta-nrc.gov. schl (nrc.gov
- Jonathan M. Rund, Esq.
Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel Mail Stop T-3 F23 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C. 20555-0001 imr3wnrc.gov
- M45F, Matias F. Traviesoi-Diaz 2