ML063260458
| ML063260458 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Vermont Yankee File:NorthStar Vermont Yankee icon.png |
| Issue date: | 11/13/2006 |
| From: | Shadis R New England Coalition |
| To: | Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel |
| Byrdsong A T | |
| References | |
| 50-271-OLA, ASLBP 04-832-02-OLA, RAS 12569 | |
| Download: ML063260458 (10) | |
Text
-¶ ~45 !Q56,7 DCEE DOCKETED USNRC November 14, 2006 (7:48am)
UNITED STATES OFFICE OF SECRETARY RULEMAKINGS AND NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION ADJUDICATIONS STAFF BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD In the matter of November 13, 2006 ENTERGY NUCLEAR VERMONT YANKEE, LLC Docket No. 50-271 and ENTERGY NUCLEAR OPERATIONS, INC.
(Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Station) ASLBP No. 04-832-02-OLA NEW ENGLAND COALITION'S ANSWER TO ENTERGY AND NRC STAFF OBJECTIONS TO NEW ENGLAND COALmON'S PROPOSED CORRECTIONS TO THE TRANSCRIPT FOR EVIDENTIARY HEARINGS OF SEPTEMBER 13,14,2006 I. INTRODUCTION On October 30, 2006, in accordance with the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board's ("Board") Order of October 12, 2006, New England Coalition filed proposed corrections to the transcript of September 14, 2006.
On November 3, 2006, Entergy Nuclear Vermont Yankee, LLC and Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc ("Entergy') filed Objections to New England Coalition's Proposed Corrections.
On November 9, 2006, NRC Staff filed Objections to New England Coalition's Proposed Corrections'.
1NRC Staff had not received New England Coalition's October 30, 2006 electronic filing Proposed Corrections to the Transcript and was unaware of the filing until Entergy filed its objections on November 4, 2006.. NRC Staff then notified New England Coalition that NRC Staff had not received the filing.
Subsequently, Marcia Carpentier, Esq., clerk to the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board notified New England Coalition that the Board had also not received the electronic filing. New England Coalition then retrieved a copy of the transmission of its October filing, which indicated that it had been sent to the entire docket service list. Uncertain, which parties had actually received a copy and which had not received a copy, New England Coalition resent the electronic filing to the entire list. In any case, NRC Staff's Objections were filed within ten days of the original October 30, 2006 filing.
-1eph~-=s-e y049l
II. DISCUSSION Both Entergy and NRC Staff objected to certain of New England Coalition' s proposed corrections to the transcript on the basis that the proposed corrections were, in the opinion of Entergy and NRC Staff, proposed changes to the substantive and material content of the record.
Entergy and NRC Staff both proposed that they were applying standards implicit in regulation and in the Board's Order (from the Bench) of September 14, 2006.
These very serious charges prompted New England Coalition to:
- 1. compare the individual corrections to which Entergy and NRC Staff objected, and
- 2. search the Entergy and NRC Staff Proposals for Corrections to the Transcript, as filed on October 5, 2006 and October 4, 2006: respectively.
New England Coalition's intent in this assay was to gain some insight as to the standard that Entergy and NRC Staff were proposing the Board should apply; both in the case of their filings and that of New England Coalition's Proposed Corrections.
This exploration was not very fruitftl in terms of understanding what Entergy and NRC Staff might agree to be a universally applicable standard for determining if proposed corrections cross the line, as it were, from proposed corrections to the transcription and proposed changes to the record of the this proceeding for the following reasons.
First, a comparison of Entergy and NRC Staff Objections shows that Entergy and NRC Staff did not select and object to the same New England Coalition proposed corrections, which can only mean that the two parties read the proposed corrections, recall the record, read the transcript, and/or view the applicable standards differently.
2
Thus, where one disagrees with New England Coalition's application of the standards, the other agrees.
Secondly, and moreover, Entergy and NRC Staff both filed Proposed Corrections that contained substantive and material changes to the text which plainly altered meaning of the transcribed testimony in ways and to extremes that New England Coalition's few proposed corrections did not.
For example, For example, on Transcript page 1300, Line 21, Entergy proposed changing "initial" to "dimensional" and on Transcript page 1472, Line 20-21, NRC Staff proposed changing "When your EPU goes out" to "When your EPU goes up" and on page 1434, Line 5, NRC Staff proposed changing "if it experience at flux scram" to "It experienced MSIV scram" Clearly, if the above examples were weighed by the same standard with which Entergy and NRC Staff objections appear to weigh New England Coalition's proposed corrections, then the above-proposed corrections would not be allowed.
In contrast to the heavy revisionist approach to the transcript employed by Entergy and NRC Staff, New England Coalition has proposed corrections that are entirely consistent with 10CFR 2.327(d) and implicit in the Board's Order (from the Bench) of September 14, 2006.
The clear intent of the changes made by the NEC to the transcript was to correct spelling and grammatical errors, clarify sentences where a word or more were missing, and correct words that the court reporter did not record properly.
3
Nowhere there was an attempt to make changes to the original testimony of Dr.
Hopenfeld2 .
1II. CONCLUSION In consideration of the forgoing and the attached Affidavit of Dr. Joram Hopenfeld, New England Coalition respectfully requests the Board now dismiss the objections of Entergy and NRC Staff and, instead, admit New England Coalition's proposed corrections to the transcript into the record.
In the alternative, New England Coalition respectfidly requests that the Board determine and articulate a definitive standard for proposed transcript corrections and examine the proposed corrections of all parties against a fair and equal application of the standard.
Respectfully submitted:
NEW ENGLAND COALITION BY: L ,
Raymond G. Shadis, pro se representative P.O. Box 98 Edgecomb, ME 05446 (207) 882-7801 shadis@prexar.com 2 Please see the attached, Affidavit of Dr. Joram Hopenfeld in Support of New England Coalition's Answer....
4
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD In the Matter of ENTERGY NUCLEAR VERMONT YANKEE Docket No. 50-2710LA 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 New England Coalition's Answer to Enteruy and NRC Staff Objections to New England Coalition's Proposed Corrections to the Transcript for Evidentiary Hearings of September 13, 14, 2006 and Affidavit of Dr. Joram Hopenfeld in Support of New Ensland Coalition's Answer, in the above-captioned proceeding have been served on the following by deposit in the United States mail, first class; or by e-mail as indicated by a double asterisk (**), this 13t day of November, 2006.
Alex S. Karlin, Chair" Dr. Anthony J. Baratta" Administrative Judge Administrative Judge Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel Mail Stop T-3F23 Mail Stop T-3F23 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, DC 20555-0001 Washington, DC 20555-0001 E-mail: ask2@nrc.gov E-mail: ajb5@nrc.gov Lester S. Rubenstein" Office of the Secretary" Administrative Judge ATTN: Rulemaking and Adjudications Staff Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel Mail Stop: O-16C1 4760 East Country Villa Drive U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Tucson, AZ 85718 Washington, DC 20555-0001 E-mail: iesrrr(@comcast.net E-mail: HEARINGDOCKET@nrc.gov John M. Fulton, Esq.
Office of Commission Appellate Adjudication* Assistant General Counsel Mail Stop: O-16C1 Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc.
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 440 Hamilton Avenue Washington, DC 20555-0001 White Plains, NY 10601 5
Jay E. Silberg, Esq.**
Jonathan M. Rund, Esq.**
Matias Travieso-Diaz, Esq.**
Law Clerk Pillsbury Winthrop Shaw Pittman, LLP Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel 2300 N St., NW Mail Stop: T-3F23 Washington, DC 20037-1128 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission E-mail: jay.silberg@pilsburylaw.com Washington, DC 20555-0001 matias.travieso-diaz@pillsburylaw.com (E-mail: jmr3@Mc.goy)
Sherwin E. Turk, Esq.**
Marcia Carpentier, Esq.** Richard Ennis, NRR, US NRC Law Clerk Office of the General Counsel Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel Mail Stop 0-15 D21 Mail Stop: T-3F23 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, DC 20555-0001 Washington, DC 20555-0001 (E-mail: MXC7@,nrc.gov) sEqn.gov. icz@Tnrc.ov Raymond Shadis ProSe Representative New England Coalition 6
UNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD In the matter of November 13, 2006 ENTERGY NUCLEAR VERMONT YANKEE, LLC and ENTERGY NUCLEAR OPERATIONS, INC. Docket No. 50-271 (Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Station) ASLBP No. 04-832-02-OLA AFFIDAVIT OF DR. JORAM HOPENFELD IN SUPPORT OF NEW ENGLAND COALITION'S ANSWER TO ENTERGY AND NRC STAFF OBJECTIONS TO NEW ENGLAND COALITION'S PROPOSED CORRECTIONS TO THE TRANSCRIPT FOR EVIEDENTIARY HEARINGS OF SEPTEMBER 13,14,2006 I, Dr. Joram Hopenfeld, declare as follows:
- 1. My name is Dr. Joram Hopenfeld. I reside at 1724 Yale Place, Rockville, Maryland.
- 2. The New England Coalition has retained me as an expert witness in the above captioned matter.
- 3. On September 14, 2006, I testified before the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel
("Board') in the above caption proceeding during Evidentiary Hearings held at Newfane, Vermont.
- 4. Following the Hearings, I reviewed the transcript of my testimony and provided a list of proposed corrections to New England Coalition.
- 5. New England Coalition incorporated the list that I produced into its October 30, 2006 filing, New England Coalition's Proposed Corrections to the Transcript for Evidentiary Hearings of September 13. 14, 2006 without alteration.
- 6. All of the proposed corrections that I produced, and which were incorporated in New England Coalition's filing of October 30, 2006, were based upon my precise recollections of my testimony
and confirmed by comparison of my recollections with those of New England Coalition's pro se representative.
- 7. With the sole exception of a few clarifying annotations, contained in brackets and meant to indicate such intended meanings as the nouns to which certain pronouns refer, (such as [NRC] to more precisely identify what was implied in, "we"), in no case, according to my best recollection, do any of my proposed corrections represent material or substantive changes to my actual stments as given in the September 14. 2006 hearing.
- 8. I have read Entergy's and NRC Staff's Objections to New England Coalition's Proposed Corrections and offer the following comments by way of clarifying examples:
Entergy incorrectly asserts that some proposed corrections are actually proposed changes. Among the Entergy's objections, were the following proposed corrections on page 1520, line 16 and page 1523, line 17 page of the transcript, Line 16: " it doesn't experience any flowing use vibrations, well " corrected by NEC to " it would not experience any flow induced vibrations, well" Line 17: "knowledges" corrected by NEC to "analogies" I clearly remember that I, in fact, used the words "flow induced vibrations" and "analogies." I never uttered the words "flowing use vibrations" and "knowledges."
- It must be noted that unlike Entergy, the NRC did not object to the NEC corrections on lines 1520/ 16 and 1523/ 17. On the other hand NRC Staff objected to a correction adding a subscript "o" to "C" on page 1545 line p.21. NEC added the subscript confirmed by a reference to Table 1 (Exhibit 26), under consideration and before the Board at the time, which clearly indicates that I was referring to Co. As any competent Thermal Hydraulic engineer knows, C. rather than C is universally used in the literature to describe void distribution, a central technical issue in this case. I wrote this
proposed correction so the transcript would more accurately reflect a professional discussion.
I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing statements are to my best knowledge true and correct Executed this day, November 13, 2006 at Rockville, Maryland.
/ orraiii openfeild, PqVý e
UNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD In the matter of November 13, 2006 ENTERGY NUCLEAR VERMONT YANKEE, LLC Docket No. 50-271 and ENTERGY NUCLEAR OPERATIONS, INC.
(Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Station) ASLBP No. 04-832-02-OLA Office of the Secretary ATTN: Rulemaking and Adjudications Staff Mail Stop: O-16C1 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, DC 20555-0001
Dear Rulemaking and Adjudications Staff,
Please find for filing in the above captioned matter one original and two copies of NEW ENGLAND COALITION'S ANSWER TO ENTERGY AND NRC STAFF OBJECTIONS TO NEW ENGLAND COALITION'S PROPOSED CORRECTIONS TO THE TRANSCRIPT FOR EVIDENTIARY HEARINGS OF SEPTEMBER 13, 14,2006 and the AFFIDAVIT OF DR- JORAM HOPENFELD IN SUPPORT OF NEW ENGLAND COALITION'S ANSWER Thank you for your kind assistance in making this filing, Raymond Shadis Pro se Representative New England Coalition Post Office Box 98 Edgecomb, Maine 04556 207-882-7801 shadisa,,prexar.com