ML063180257
| ML063180257 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Vermont Yankee File:NorthStar Vermont Yankee icon.png |
| Issue date: | 11/09/2006 |
| From: | Sherwin Turk NRC/OGC |
| To: | Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel |
| Byrdsong A T | |
| References | |
| 50-271-OLA, ASLBP 04-832-02-OLA, RAS 12505 | |
| Download: ML063180257 (11) | |
Text
1 NECs Request indicates that it was served upon the NRC Staff and the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board on October 30, 2006. The Staff has not received a service copy of NECs Request, and only received an electronic copy on November 4, 2006, after Staff Counsel received Entergys response to NECs Request; Staff Counsel then requested a copy from NECs representative. See E-mail communication from Sherwin Turk to Raymond Shadis (Nov. 3, 2006); see also E-mail communication from Marcia Carpentier to Raymond Shadis (Nov. 6, 2006).
November 9, 2006 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD In the Matter of
)
)
ENTERGY NUCLEAR VERMONT YANKEE,
)
Docket No. 50-271-OLA LLC and ENTERGY NUCLEAR
)
OPERATIONS, INC.
)
ASLBP No. 04-832-02-OLA
)
(Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Station)
)
NRC STAFFS ANSWER TO NEW ENGLAND COALITIONS PROPOSED CORRECTIONS TO THE TRANSCRIPT FOR EVIDENTIARY HEARINGS OF SEPTEMBER 13, 14, 2006 Pursuant to 10 C.F.R. § 2.323(c), the NRC Staff (Staff) hereby responds to New England Coalitions Proposed Corrections to the Transcript for Evidentiary Hearings of September 13, 14, 2006 (NEC Request), filed by New England Coalition (NEC) on October 30, 2006.1 As more fully set forth in Attachment A hereto, the Staff opposes certain of NECs proposed transcript corrections, to the extent that those corrections seek to alter the actual testimony which was presented in the evidentiary hearing or would modify the transcript in a manner that appears to differ from the official recording of the hearing.
DISCUSSION Pursuant to 10 C.F.R. § 2.327(a), a recording is to be made of each hearing, stenographically or by other means under the supervision of the presiding officer; further, pursuant to 10 C.F.R. § 2.327(b), an official transcript is to be prepared for each hearing, which is to be the sole official transcript of the hearing. Any corrections to the hearing transcript are to be made in accordance with § 2.327(d). The regulations authorize the presiding officer to approve any corrections of the official transcript.
In this regard, the Atomic Safety and Licensing Appeal Board has observed that
[c]orrections are to be made by the presiding officer in the manner provided in [former] 10 CFR 2.750(b), i.e., in a way that also preserves the transcript as originally recorded. Public Service Co. of New Hampshire (Seabrook Station, Units 1 and 2), ALAB-839, 24 NRC 45, 51 (1986).
Further, [i]f confronted by a motion to correct, a licensing board is duty-bound to make some good faith effort to ascertain whether the transcript is accurate. Id. Transcript corrections are not proper to correct statements made by a witness, where it appears that the witness simply misspoke. Florida Power & Light Co. (St. Lucie Plant, Unit No. 1), LBP-89-12, 29 NRC 441, 1989 NRC LEXIS 25, Appendix A (1989).
The Staff has reviewed the transcript corrections proposed by NEC. Many of NECs proposed corrections appear to be corrections of typographical errors, or modifications of an inconsequential nature; other proposed corrections, however, appear to be an attempt to modify or re-write statements made on the record. While the Staff does not oppose many of NECs proposed corrections, we believe that some of the proposed corrections (as set forth in Appendix A hereto) do not properly reflect the actual record of the proceeding.
CONCLUSION For the reasons set forth above, the Staff opposes certain of NECs proposed transcript corrections, to the extent set forth in Appendix A hereto.
Respectfully submitted,
/RA/
Sherwin E. Turk Counsel for NRC Staff Dated at Rockville, Maryland this 9th day of November, 2006
1 This Table reproduces each of NECs proposed transcript corrections, and inserts (in Column 5) the Staffs response thereto. Where the Staff does not object to a proposed correction, that position is indicated in Column 5 as --.
Appendix A NRC Staffs Position on NECs Proposed Transcript Corrections1 Page Line NECs Proposed Deletion NECs Proposed Insertion Staff Position 1516 10 base basis for 11 The steady state-the transient concern that the steady state-the transient concern is that 14 the components already weakened The components have already been weakened Oppose; appears to alter the actual statement made 18 problem or it problems that 19 SSSCs are -
SSCs 1517 8
1520 8
but not in 11 happens
- happened, 13 option item 15 know it know that it 16 it doesnt experience any flowing use vibrations, well it would not experience any flow induced vibrations, well 17 then I dont think, you know, its throughout its then, I dont think, that you still know that throughout the plants Oppose; appears to alter the actual statement made 20 Each If each 21 was put was when it was put in 1523 17 knowledges analogies 22 to for 1524 16 limited what limited to what 20 been somewhere been installed somewhere 22 say to answer your question, say the answer to your question 23 question answer Oppose; appears to alter the actual statement made Page Line NECs Proposed Deletion NECs Proposed Insertion Staff Position 1524 24 is depends on Oppose; appears to alter the actual statement made 1525 11 would would be 14 the concern is there is a concern because Oppose; appears to alter the actual statement made 16 EPIJ EPU 19 answer is, to this answer to this is 20 we are 22 perform definitely Perform the tests definitely 1526 4
say keep 5
The-we We 9
hydraulics hydraulics is 13 reduces reduces it 14 reduce reduce it 1527 3
be-one be specific. One 18 we Oppose; appears to alter the actual statement made 19 rely Oppose; appears to alter the actual statement made 21 this ODYN Oppose; appears to alter the actual statement made 1528 12 everything other things Oppose; appears to alter the actual statement made 22 and that is, 23 that that that this 1529 1
confidence confidence in them 3
hard to operate how they operate 20 averaGe average 1530 4
what you, the trickle power ratio what. The Critical Power Ratio 9
that 14 that here with which Oppose; appears to alter the actual statement made 15 the 1531 13
- bypass, bypass 14 too flow 1533 13 It Page Line NECs Proposed Deletion NECs Proposed Insertion Staff Position 1533 15 density density at Brunswick 21 what you should take is you should use Oppose; appears to alter the actual statement made 22 something, something, and 24 5.2, I dont know the 5.2 power density, I dont know if the 25 average average power density.
1534 1
spaces spacers 2
there that there. That 6
dryer dryers 9
talking every little talking about including every little parameter Oppose; appears to alter the actual statement made 10 in that ODYN in the ODYN 11 that you benchmark and benchmarked 13 at, and you apply that And then you apply ODYN Oppose; appears to alter the actual statement made 14 there with at Brunswick Oppose; appears to alter the actual statement made 15 these transient Oppose; appears to alter the actual statement made 16 you make you can make 17 And you say, that And then you can say that the Oppose; appears to alter the actual statement made 18 bank.
band.
21 All I-22 says say 23
- said, said:
1535 1
is what they said, we agree We (NRC) agree to what they (Entergy) said Oppose; appears to alter the actual statement made 15 NED 241 N ED241-54-A 20 item 01 Exhibit 1 1536 13 H-OPENFELD HOPENFELD 1538 3
large transient testing exhibit 3Large Transient Testing-Exhibit1 --
22 EPIJ EPU 23 What they They 25 statement Statement means.
Oppose; appears to alter the actual statement made Page Line NECs Proposed Deletion NECs Proposed Insertion Staff Position 1539 7
into to 9
what what is 12 Because as it was-okay
- Okay, 16 it them 1540 5
difference difference, 9
originally Originally 15 And they said, the And they (NRC) said the code Oppose; appears to alter the actual statement made 16 this is not conservative. These differences are in is not conservative. These differences represent Oppose; appears to alter the actual statement made 17 error errors Oppose; appears to alter the actual statement made 19 say this code is or say that this code is conservative, Oppose; appears to alter the actual statement made 20 say exactly they say this exactly. They 22 some few data data in Oppose; appears to alter the actual statement made 25 one has to be conservative, Oppose; appears to alter the actual statement made 1541 2
first of all, is to first Oppose; appears to alter the actual statement made 3
parameters we are interested parameters that we are interested in 5
the pressure, and you can see -
Oppose; appears to alter the actual statement made 6
the pressure, they compared and Oppose; appears to alter the actual statement made 7
pressure pressure, and 11 by with 12 they can put confidence of on X number of signals on the you can put a confidence of x sigmas on the Oppose; appears to alter the actual statement made; do not oppose changing signals to sigmas 13 Confidence of the Oppose; appears to alter the actual statement made 14 it ODYN Oppose; appears to alter the actual statement made 23 because they Because they (NRC)
Oppose; appears to alter the actual statement made 24 Arnd Page Line NECs Proposed Deletion NECs Proposed Insertion Staff Position 1542 1
the 2
One of for 3
that analysis that 5
o-riginal intent of the code, to predict that original intent of the code, to predict 6
parameter, is Oppose; appears to alter the actual statement made 7
Critical power ratio for those that The Critical Power Ratio, for those that this 8
its is 9
of the in the fuel Oppose; appears to alter the actual statement made 15 like like away 17 potential for a melt a potential for a fuel melt 18 a safety, a safety issue, 19 to that into 1543 1
that this 3
comparison comparison of the data, 5
f requency frequency 1544 1
for for the 1545 3
Because the heart to your question sits Because the heart of the answer to your question is 5
to, so I to explain some of those terms, so that I 6
what what are 7
explain some of those terms Oppose; appears to alter the actual statement made 9
C and one is the C0 and the other one Oppose; appears to alter the actual statement made 11 uncertainty.
uncertainties.
12 One One, C0,
Oppose; appears to alter the actual statement made 14 VJ Vj 16 at by 17 is change is Oppose; appears to alter the actual statement made 21 C
C0 Oppose; appears to alter the actual statement made 22 that subzero Vj Oppose; appears to alter the actual statement made Page Line NECs Proposed Deletion NECs Proposed Insertion Staff Position 1546 10 kind of information boiling Oppose; appears to alter the actual statement made 11 would affect, Oppose; appears to alter the actual statement made 12 mechanism void Mechanism of void formation 20 (sic, 22)theyve theyve (GE)
Oppose; appears to alter the actual statement made 1547 1 (sic, 2) that so 5
in different plants, the only way I know to make the from different plants. The only way I know how 6
thing, to formalize this experience, is to take a to formalize this experience, is to use a 7
computer and these Computer code. These plants Oppose; appears to alter the actual statement made 8
sitting Oppose; appears to alter the actual statement made 9
here Oppose; appears to alter the actual statement made 10 fuel level go fuel level in a tank goes Oppose; appears to alter the actual statement made 12 has differences.
is different.
Oppose; appears to alter the actual statement made 13 to do, analyze the to analyze each 19 not abnormalities between no abnormalities in Oppose; appears to alter the actual statement made 23 what abnormality is what is an abnormality Oppose; appears to alter the actual statement made 1548 1
be if an enormous be: if at 2
in into 4
into. transition into transition 8
statement to say, statements as Oppose; appears to alter the actual statement made 9
anything here, therefor therefore Oppose; appears to alter the actual statement made 11 would look at, Oppose; appears to alter the actual statement made 12 put an uncertainty study on perform an uncertainty study in 13 one.
Case.
Oppose; appears to alter the actual statement made Page Line NECs Proposed Deletion NECs Proposed Insertion Staff Position 1549 17 question, abnormality question by referring to the word abnormality.
Oppose; appears to alter the actual statement made 18 they havent seen any problem.
That They have not seen any problem, that 20 You see abnormality Do you see abnormality?
Oppose; appears to alter the actual statement made 21 fuel Oppose; appears to alter the actual statement made 1550 1
what what was 2
was 4
just-the-energy the Oppose; appears to alter the actual statement made 12 gone to evaluated Oppose; appears to alter the actual statement made 15 it here Them somewhere else.
Oppose; appears to alter the actual statement made 17 Brunswick, of Brunswick, or 20 different different, 24 because this has a dryer, plus both plants have dryers. Plus, Oppose; appears to alter the actual statement made 25 modified modified it Oppose; appears to alter the actual statement made 1551 3
in,in into
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD In the Matter of
)
)
ENTERGY NUCLEAR VERMONT YANKEE
)
Docket No. 50-271-OLA LLC and ENTERGY NUCLEAR
)
OPERATIONS, INC.
)
ASLBP No. 04-832-02-OLA
)
(Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Station)
)
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that copies of NRC STAFFS ANSWER TO NEW ENGLAND COALITIONS PROPOSED CORRECTIONS TO THE TRANSCRIPT FOR EVIDENTIARY HEARINGS OF SEPTEMBER 13, 14, 2006, in the above-captioned proceeding have been served on the following by deposit in the United States mail, first class; or as indicated by an asterisk (*), by deposit in the Nuclear Regulatory Commissions internal mail system; and by e-mail as indicated by a double asterisk (**), this 9th day of November, 2006.
Alex S. Karlin, Chair**
Administrative Judge Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel Mail Stop T-3F23 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, DC 20555-0001 E-mail: ask2@nrc.gov Dr. Anthony J. Baratta**
Administrative Judge Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel Mail Stop T-3F23 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, DC 20555-0001 E-mail: ajb5@nrc.gov Lester S. Rubenstein**
Administrative Judge Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel 4760 East Country Villa Drive Tucson, AZ 85718 E-mail: lesrrr@comcast.net Office of the Secretary**
ATTN: Rulemaking and Adjudications Staff Mail Stop: O-16C1 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, DC 20555-0001 E-mail: HEARINGDOCKET@nrc.gov Office of Commission Appellate Adjudication*
Mail Stop: O-16C1 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, DC 20555-0001 Marcia Carpentier, Esq.**
Law Clerk Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel Mail Stop: T-3F23 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, DC 20555-0001 (E-mail: MXC7@nrc.gov)
John M. Fulton, Esq.
Assistant General Counsel Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc.
440 Hamilton Avenue White Plains, NY 10601 Terence A. Burke**
Associate General Counsel Entergy Services, Inc.
1340 Echelon parkway Jackson, MS 39213 E-mail: tburke@entergy.com Jay E. Silberg, Esq.**
Matias Travieso-Diaz, Esq.**
Pillsbury Winthrop Shaw Pittman, LLP 2300 N St., NW Washington, DC 20037-1128 E-mail: jay.silberg@pillsburylaw.com, and matias.travieso-diaz@pillsburylaw.com Raymond Shadis**
Staff Technical Advisor New England Coalition P.O. Box 98 Edgecomb, ME 04556 E-mail: shadis@prexar.com, shadis@ime.net
/RA/
Sherwin E. Turk Counsel for NRC Staff