ML070080522
| ML070080522 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Vermont Yankee File:NorthStar Vermont Yankee icon.png |
| Issue date: | 01/05/2007 |
| From: | Karlin A Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel |
| To: | |
| SECY RAS | |
| References | |
| 04-832-02-OLA, 50-271-OLA, ASLBP 04-832-02-OLA, RAS 12826 | |
| Download: ML070080522 (16) | |
Text
1 See NRC Staffs Proposed Transcript Corrections (Oct. 4, 2006); Entergys Proposed Transcript Corrections (Oct. 5, 2006); New England Coalitions Proposed Corrections to the Transcript for the Evidentiary Hearings of September 13, 14, 2006 (Oct. 30, 2006).
2 Entergys Objections to New England Coalitions Proposed Hearing Transcript Corrections (Nov. 3, 2006).
RAS 12826 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA DOCKETED 01/05/07 NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION SERVED 01/05/07 ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD Before Administrative Judges:
Alex S. Karlin, Chairman Dr. Anthony J. Baratta Lester S. Rubenstein In the Matter of ENTERGY NUCLEAR VERMONT YANKEE L.L.C.
and ENTERGY NUCLEAR OPERATIONS, INC.
(Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Station)
Docket No. 50-271-OLA ASLBP No. 04-832-02-OLA January 5, 2007 ORDER (Ruling on Objections to Transcript Corrections and Transmitting Errata Sheet)
On September 13 and 14, 2006, the Board held the evidentiary hearing in this proceeding. A transcript of the hearing was prepared, and parties to the proceeding had the opportunity to provide transcript corrections in late September and October.1 This process has generated an unexpected controversy.
On November 3, 2006, Entergy Nuclear Vermont Yankee L.L.C. and Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc. (collectively, Entergy) filed objections to some of the transcript corrections proposed by the New England Coalition (NEC), the intervenor in this proceeding.2 In the brief accompanying its list of objections to specific NEC corrections, Entergy noted that transcript corrections are not an opportunity for a party to delete statements it wishes its witness had not
2 3 NRC Staffs Answer to New England Coalitions Proposed Corrections to the Transcript for Evidentiary Hearings of September 13, 14, 2006 (Nov. 9, 2006).
4 New England Coalitions Answer to Entergy and NRC Staffs Objections to New England Coalitions Proposed Corrections to the Transcript for Evidentiary Hearings of September 13, 14, 2006 at 2 (Nov. 13, 2006).
made, correct or improve on statements the witness actually made, or add statements the witness did not make. Id. at 2. On November 9, 2006, the NRC Staff filed what it labeled as an answer to NECs proposed corrections, in which the Staff objected to some but not all of the same proposed corrections that appear in Entergys list of objections.3 On November 13, 2006, NEC responded with an answer of its own, in which it claimed that the documents submitted by Entergy and the Staff provided no way to determine 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... proceeding.4 The Board agrees that whatever standard applies in these matters should apply equally to all parties, and we have determined that the only completely impartial way to resolve these squabbles is to rely on what was actually said in the hearing room. In order to apply this rule, we have adopted the following procedure. We have accepted without further review all proposed corrections involving spelling errors (Ballala/Valalla), homonyms (where/wear),
misidentification of speakers, capitalization of proper names, conventions for naming and numbering the documents in the case, and transcription errors where the correct transcription is obvious from context (NSIB/MSIV). To resolve those corrections that appear to represent more substantive chances - including those proposed by Entergy, the NRC Staff, and the members of the Board in addition to those submitted by NEC - we have directed our law clerk to listen to the recordings made by the court reporter, focusing on what was actually said, and to provide us with recommendations for resolving challenges to the transcript.
3 5 Copies of this order were sent this date by Internet e-mail transmission to representatives for (1) licensees Entergy Nuclear Vermont Yankee L.L.C., and Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc.; (2) intervenor New England Coalition of Brattleboro, Vermont; and (3) the NRC Staff.
We have accepted our law clerks recommendations. Using the recording of what was actually said as our lodestar, we have rejected the majority of the proposed transcript corrections. We recognize that spoken language and written language are different, and that people may be tempted to improve on the way they actually speak after they see their spoken words taken down in writing. Although the Board believes that most changes of this nature are insignificant, we discourage this tendency. The function of a transcript is to reflect what was actually said at the hearing. The purpose of transcript correction is to catch errors in transcription, especially of names and technical terms, not to edit or improve spoken language so that it resembles written language. to this order contains the official errata list for the transcript in this proceeding. Attachment 2 contains two pages of text that were omitted from the bound transcript, plus the pages on either side of the omission. As mentioned in the errata list, these pages should be inserted at line 20 of page 1140.
It is so ORDERED.
FOR THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD5
/RA/
Alex S. Karlin ADMINISTRATIVE JUDGE Rockville, Maryland January 5, 2007 Attachment 1 Transcript Errata - Vermont Yankee Extended Power Uprate Proceeding Docket No. 50-271-OLA; ASLBP No. 04-832-02-OLA Transcript Pages 1094-1578 and 1608-1614 PAGE / LINE DELETE INSERT 1095/--
RAYMOND SHADIS, ESQ.
RAYMOND SHADIS 1103/05 Panel 1103/19 record
- record, 1104/18 Marsha Marcia 1104/22 Willkie Welkie 1105/06 Scrinchi Screnci 1105/09 Ballala Valalla 1120/12 9:2619 1125/19 MR. TURK:
1131/20 Board is to bodies that 1132/01 and need and the tests need 1132/20 transits transients 1136/04 Staffs Staff has 1137/01 as is 1137/23 POP BOP 1140/20 insert pp. 1140-A and 1140-B 1169/07 transcribing transcribe them 1179/14 AGBWR AGBWR 4 1179/21 past fast 1180/11 for example for an example 1194/08 balancing balance of the 1195/11 necessarily targeted necessarily been targeted 1195/16 examined is examined are 1195/19 originate originates 1196/01 then they 1201/19 sanction ascension 1205/12 in and 1206/08 an on 1213/06 they that 1216/10 events advanced 1220/18 know events know of events 1224/06 precision position 1230/12 where wear 1251/03 later rated 1255/14 ICRC RCIC 1259/05 CHAIR KARLIN:
WITNESS CASILLAS:
1273/23 low local 1274/23 moderated moderater 1276/04 limiters limits 1280/04 a
in 1284/05 Betty Betti 1287/16 drier dryer 1287/18 threading shedding 1287/19 drier dryer 1288/04 dymamics dynamics 1288/12 driers dryers 1288/18 drier dryer 1288/19 drier dryer 1293/02 REDDY REDY 1300/14 initial dimensional 1300/20 if is 1304/06 Marshall Marcia 1309/05 older all the 1317/17 This Tees 1324/13 do 1337/18 code, was code, or was 1338/24 cod code 1340/02 not 1344/10 bleed feed 1346/08 assertion ascension 1363/02 regulation Regulation 1363/20 office of nuclear reactor Office of Nuclear Reactor 1363/21 regulation Regulation 1364/09 Wallace Wallis 1364/20 CHAIR KARLIN MR. HAMRICK 1364/23 regulatory Regulatory 1364/24 guide, RG 1.68, initial test Guide, RG 1.68, Initial Test 1364/24 programs for water cooled Programs for Water-Cooled 1364/25 nuclear power plants Nuclear Power Plants 1367/13 Kay K.
1368/08 Wancyk Wanczyk 1370/04 closing enclosing 1373/22 Staff 22 Staff Exhibits 22 1386/06 supplemental licensing supplemental reload licensing 1386/07 fig.
figure 1386/08 about event about the MSIV closure event 1387/10 of event of the event 1387/10 MSIV MSIVs 1387/12 MSIV MSIVs 1387/15 MSIV MSIVs 1387/16 FSO vessel 1387/18 out up 1387/21 pact fact 1387/24 MSIV MSIVs 1387/25 Its finite Its a finite 1388/01
- meanwhile occur. Meanwhile 1388/07 isolating isolation 1388/11 ever every 1388/25 responds response 1389/02 field fuel 1389/20 servers SRLR 1391/09 faction fraction 1391/09 decreased increased 1391/21 occurs occur 1393/10 the water the feed water 1398/16 SIP SRP 1398/20 that they that if they 1400/20 design scram designs to scram 1401/14 whether this whether it 1401/25 10CFR50 (34) B6-3 10 CFR 50.34(b)(6)(iii) 1404/01 offers occurs 1406/07 generate a generator 1408/01 high riding hydriding 1408/21 high riding hydriding 1408/24 high riding hydriding 1409/02 would generate a or generator 1409/15 an in 1415/04 control controlled 1415/07 contains a has been a certain 1417/19 168 1.68 1417/19 168 1.68 1418/02 develop developed 1418/17 NSIB MSIV 1419/08 is versus 1420/24 important importance 1425/09-10 you need continued 1425/22 balanced balance of 1429/03 tech and technical 1429/25 Travans Thomas 1430/04 efficiencies deficiencies 1430/18 SRP SRVs 1430/22 SRB SRV 1431/01 SRBs SRVs 1431/05 scram but
- scram, 1431/05 lock occur 1432/01 relive relieve 1432/12 what
- what, 1412/13 that certainty is that uncertainty, 1433/03 big bigger 1433/16-17 inside enclosure MSIV closure 1434/05 peak went peak power went 1434/05 SRB went SRV vented 1434/13 on and 1434/18 more than frequency a moderate frequency 1439/--
RAYMOND SHADIS, ESQ.
RAYMOND SHADIS 1453/18 risk RS 1456/04 pre-risk pre-RS 1456/20 INC I and C 1457/02 168 1.68 1457/03 168 1.68 1457/08 168 1.68 1462/11 WITNESS ENNIS CHAIR KARLIN 1462/11 is 1463/21 fails falls 1463/25 allowed allows 1464/15 second 1465/04 piece point 1472/21 out up 1475/10 is boiling pressure is the boiler and pressure 1476/03 amount margin amount of margin 1476/07 percent was 499PSIG pressure was 499 [sic,1328] PSIG 1476/10 assumption when the assumption, one 1476/21 measure measurement 1477/08 where what 1478/22 talk talking 1479/23 exemption ascension 1480/01 containments components 1480/25 boiler pressure boiler and pressure 1482/13 SC SE 1482/16 CCPU CPPU 1484/12 repeated EPU 1485/09 MSIC MSIV 1490/14 livestock Liebstadt 1492/19 upright uprate 1493/05 energies Entergys 1499/11 my why 1499/17 212 2.12 1502/19 generated generator 1506/21 G-STAR-2 GESTAR-II 1511/25 inadequate an adequate 1514/10 loads flows 1515/25 stead steady 1517/18 stubbers snubbers 1519/20 free water feedwater 1520/16 flowing use flow-induced 1522/23 MR. SHADIS DR. HOPENFELD 1523/17 knowledges analogies 1541/12 signals sigmas 1541/16 CHAIR KARLIN ADMINISTRATIVE JUDGE BARATTA 1547/10 fuel level go fuel go down 1547/19 not abnormalities no abnormalities 1548/8 statement to say, statement, to say 1549/20 You see abnormality You see the abnormalities 1551/07 OPWR CPWR 1551/07 DNV DNB 1613/03 hearing obligations hearing file obligations 1613/05 hearing.
hearing file.
Attachment 2 1140 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
-1094-In addition you will also hear about 1
another factor, from 14.2.1, the transient analysis 2
that were performed using the ODYN code. You will 3
hear that the ODYN code has been approved by the NRC 4
for use in performing transient analyses and based 5
upon its comparison to actual transients at BWRs.
6 In conclusion the Staff's testimony will 7
demonstrate that it approved Entergy's test program 8
even without large transient testing because it has 9
found that large transient testing is not required in 10 this case to demonstrate that structures, systems and 11 components, important to
- safety, will perform 12 satisfactorily in service.
13 Thank you.
14 CHAIR KARLIN: Thank you, Mr. Hamrick.
15 Mr. Shadis?
16 MR. SHADIS: The performance of large 17 transient testing was first included in General 18 Electric's format for the constant pressure power 19
- uprate, 20 21 22 23 24 25
1140-A NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
-1140-their so-called constant pressure power uprate, 1
licensing topical report, which was adopted after 2
review by NRC.
3 General Electric then came back to NRC and 4
requested a generic exemption to the requirements for 5
full transient testing. NRC Staff reviewed that 6
request and denied the generic exemption offering, 7
instead, that exemption to full transient testing 8
requirements would be considered on a case by case 9
basis.
10 This requirement originally stemmed from 11 original license requirements, original license 12 testing. We believe this progression of review 13 indicates the importance of the question of full 14 transient testing.
15 In this instance Entergy proposes that 16 their Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Station should be 17 exempt from the requirement based on a collection of 18 considerations, the industry experience, experience at 19 lesser levels of power operation at Vermont Yankee, 20 some adaptation of testing of individual components, 21 as opposed to steam system, which would be tested in 22 a full transient test.
23 And, also, the application of computer 24 modeling. New England Coalition's testimony, today, 25
1140-B NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
-1141-depending on how we can answer the Panel's questions, 1
for our purposes would focus on the use of computer 2
modeling for the entire full transient test, in order 3
to determine all of the parameters and effects of that 4
full transient testing.
5 And we note that Entergy has relied, 6
heavily, on the ODYN code, computer code. This code 7
was developed in the late 1970s, at a time before 8
Pacman, before the Commodore 64 computer, and there is 9
no marked evidence that the code itself has been 10 greatly improved upon in issuance of revisions since 11 then.
12 It is largely a one dimensional code. The 13 application of it depends, largely, on attempting to 14 correlate its limited production of information, its 15 limited answers that the code provides, limited data, 16 with events that have taken place in various nuclear 17 power stations that have used the code.
18 Did the event comport with what had been 19 predicted.
20 New England Coalition, in reviewing 21 Entergy's approach, has come to the conviction, in 22 consultation with our expert, Dr. Hopenfeld, that 23 large transient testing must be conducted at extended 24 power uprate conditions, 25
1141 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
-1141-1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 in order to demonstrate that systems, structures, 20 systems and components will perform as intended, and 21 as required under NRC regulation.
22 Specifically we are looking at 10CFR Part 23 50, the Appendix B, Criterion 11, that sets the 24 requirement for such demonstration. The major 25
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION In the Matter of
)
)
ENTERGY NUCLEAR VERMONT YANKEE L.L.C. )
Docket No. 50-271-OLA and ENTERGY NUCLEAR OPERATIONS, INC.
)
)
)
)
(Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Station)
)
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that copies of the foregoing LB ORDER (RULING ON OBJECTIONS TO TRANSCRIPT CORRECTIONS AND TRANSMITTING ERRATA SHEET) have been served upon the following persons by deposit in the U.S. mail, first class, or through NRC internal distribution.
Office of Commission Appellate Adjudication U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, DC 20555-0001 Administrative Judge Alex S. Karlin, Chair Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel Mail Stop - T-3 F23 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, DC 20555-0001 Administrative Judge Anthony J. Baratta Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel Mail Stop - T-3 F23 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, DC 20555-0001 Administrative Judge Lester S. Rubenstein 4270 E Country Villa Drive Tucson, AZ 85718 Sherwin E. Turk, Esq.
Steven C. Hamrick, Esq.
Office of the General Counsel Mail Stop - O-15 D21 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, DC 20555-0001 Raymond Shadis New England Coalition P.O. Box 98 Edgecomb, ME 04556 John M. Fulton, Esq.
Assistant General Counsel Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc.
440 Hamilton Avenue White Plains, NY 10601 Sarah Hofmann, Esq.
Special Counsel Department of Public Service 112 State Street - Drawer 20 Montpelier, VT 05620-2601
2 Docket No. 50-271-OLA LB ORDER (RULING ON OBJECTIONS TO TRANSCRIPT CORRECTIONS AND TRANSMITTING ERRATA SHEET)
Anthony Z. Roisman, Esq.
National Legal Scholars Law Firm 84 East Thetford Rd.
Lyme, NH 03768 Jay E. Silberg, Esq.
Matias F. Travieso-Diaz, Esq.
Scott A. Vance, Esq.
Pillsbury Winthrop Shaw Pittman LLP 2300 N Street, NW Washington, DC 20037-1128 Terence A. Burke, Esq.
Associate General Counsel Entergy Services, Inc.
1340 Echelon Parkway Jackson, MS 39213
[Original signed by Adria T. Byrdsong]
Office of the Secretary of the Commission Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 5th day of January 2007