ML072330411
| ML072330411 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Oyster Creek |
| Issue date: | 08/14/2007 |
| From: | Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel |
| To: | |
| SECY RAS | |
| References | |
| 50-219-LR, ASLBP 06-844-01-LR, NRC-1736, RAS 14005 | |
| Download: ML072330411 (21) | |
Text
Official Transcript of Proceedings NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
Title:
Oyster Creek Nuclear Generating Station DOCKETED USNRC Docket Number: 50-021 9-LR August 21, 2007 (10:02am)
OFFICE OF SECRETARY RULEMAKINGS AND ADJUDICATIONS STAFF Location: (telephone conference)
Date: Tuesday, August 14, 2007 Work Order No.: NRC-1736 Pages83-101 NEAL R. GROSS AND CO., INC.
Court Reporters and Transcribers 1323 Rhode Island Avenue, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20005 (202) 234-4433 ZS a-c- I-- - -
'StL-y - 0 a,)
83 1 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 2 NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 3
4 BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD PANEL 5
6 7 In the Matter of: ) Docket No.
8 AMERGEN ENERGY CO., LLC ) 50-0219-LR 9 (Oyster Creek Nuclear 10 Generating Stations) 11 12 13 Tuesday, August 14, 2007 14 9:20 a.m.
15 16 17 18 19 20 21 BEFORE:
22 23 PAUL B. ABRAMSON, Administrative Judge 24 ANTHONY J. BARATTA, Administrative Judge 25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.neaIrgross.con n
84 1 APPEARANCES:
2 On Behalf of Amergen Energy Co., LLC:
3 ALEX POLONSKY, ESQ.
4 KATHRYN SUTTON, ESQ.
5 Of: Morgan, Lewis & Bockius LLP 6 1111 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W.
7 Washington, D.C. 20004 8
9 On Behalf of the Nuclear Information and 10 Resources Service:
11 RICHARD WEBSTER, ESQ.
12 Rutgers Environmental Law Clinic 13 123 Washington Street 14 Newark, New Jersey 07102-3094 15 16 On Behalf of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission:
17 MITZI YOUNG, ESQ.
18 MARY BATY, ESQ.
19 Office of the General Counsel 20 Mail Stop - 0-15 D21 21 Washington, D.C. 20555 22 23 24 25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com
85 1 ALSO PRESENT:
2 JAMES DAVIS 3 PAUL GUNTER
.4 LOUISE LUND 5 MICHAEL MODES 6 TIMOTHY O'HARA 7 ARTHUR SALOMON 8 KAREN VALLOCH 9 DEBRA WOLF 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com
86 1 P-R-O-C-E-E-D-I-N-G-S 2 9:33 a.m.
3 JUDGE ABRAMSON: Let's go on the record.
4 This is a conference call in Docket No. 50-0219-LR, 5 the Matter of Amergen Energy Company's licensing 6 renewal application for Oyster Creek Nuclear 7 Generating Plant. Today is the 14 h of August.
8 Let's go through a roll call with the 9 parties here. Here with me in the hearing room is our 10 law clerk, Debra Wolf, and our able managing 11 assistant, Karen -- What is it?
12 MS. VALLOCH: Valloch.
13 JUDGE ABRAMSON: Valloch, right. How's 14 that for drawing a blank? Judge Baratta is on the 15 line. Judge Hawkens will not be joining us. Let's go 16 down the names of the parties and I'll ask you that 17 you spell your names for the court reporter please.
18 Start with Amergen, Morgan Lewis.
19 MR. POLONSKY: This is Alex Polonsky. The 20 last name is spelled P as in Peter, O-L-O-N-S-K-Y.
21 MS. SUTTON: And Kathryn Sutton, K-A-T-H-22 R-Y-N S-U-T-T-O-N.
23 JUDGE ABRAMSON: And is there anybody on 24 from your client?
25 MS. SUTTON: No sir.
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com
87 1 JUDGE ABRAMSON: Okay. For NIRS?
2 MR. WEBSTER: This is Richard Webster and 3 that's W-E-B-S-T-E-R, from Rutgers Environmental Law 4 Clinic.
5 JUDGE ABRAMSON: And you have one of your 6 clients on with you.
7 MR. WEBSTER: And I believe that Paul 8 Gunter is on the line, although I haven't heard him 9 yet.
10 MR. GUNTER: Yes. Paul Gunter on behalf 11 of Nuclear Information and Resource Service, G-U-N-T-12 E-R, and I'll be on mute.
13 JUDGE ABRAMSON: And for the staff?
14 MS. YOUNG: Good morning. This is Mitzi 15 Young, M-I-T-Z-I Y-O-U-N-G, counsel for the NRC Staff.
16 With me is Mary Baty, B-A-T-Y. Also in the room here 17 listening are technical members of the staff, James 18 Davis, Michael Modes, Arthur Salomon.
19 JUDGE ABRAMSON: Will you spell the names 20 for us please, Ms. Young?
21 MS. YOUNG: Sure. James Davis, J-A-M-E-S 22 D-A-V-I-S. Michael Modes. Modes is M-O-D-E-S.
23 Arthur Salomon. Salomon is S-A-L-O-M-O-N. And Louise 24 Lund. Lund is L-U-N-D. And listening on mute will be 25 Timothy O'Hara who also called in, O'H-A-R-A. That NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com
88 1 completes the staff list.
2 JUDGE ABRAMSON: Okay. Good. Let's 3 proceed with this. This conference call was convened 4 at the request of Morgan Lewis who I understand made 5 some attempt to contact either of the parties. Staff, 6 were you contacted directly by Morgan Lewis about 7 this?
8 MS. YOUNG: Yes, we were.
9 - JUDGE ABRAMSON: And, Mr. Webster, were 10 you contacted?
11 MR. WEBSTER: Well, Morgan Lewis and I did 12 speak this morning. Yes.
13 JUDGE ABRAMSON: All right. The purpose 14 of this and the sole purpose of this is to try to 15 resolve any question you may have about our August 9 16 Memorandum and Order. So let's proceed with this.
17 Since Amergen asked for this call, why don't we start 18 with Amergen. What questions do you have and what can 19 we do to help clarify this?
20 MR. POLONSKY: Thank you, Judge. We have 21 two primary questions. The first one can be found on 22 page four and there's a statement from the Board that 23 says, "Four May citizens argue that Amergen's input 24 are not sufficiently accurate." We interpret the word 25 "input" as Amergen's or not necessarily Amergen's but NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com
89 1 Oyster Creek Nuclear Generating Station's raw UT data 2 and we just want to make sure we are correct in that 3 interpretation.
4 JUDGE ABRAMSON: That was the intent of 5 the Board that .the raw data is not to be challenged, 6 but its interpretation and the uncertainties 7 associated with are in play. Is that correct, Judge 8 Baratta?
9 JUDGE BARATTA: Yes, that's correct.
10 MR. POLONSKY: Thank you. The second 11 question we had goes to question 12 of the twelve 12 questions that the Board asked at the end of its 13 August 9 1h Order. Question 12 which has five subparts 14 we have interpreted as asking questions specifically 15 about the derivation of the acceptance criteria, both 16 the buckling criteria and the pressure criteria.
17 JUDGE ABRAMSON: No, that's not correct.
18 What we -- This question is an effort by the Board to 19 resolve questions in our minds about how the data 20 should be presented and whether it matters at all 21 whether the data should be viewed as presented by Dr.
22 Hausler in the contour plots, or whether it's quite 23 sufficient to do the averaging that Amergen or that 24 the Oyster Creek Generating Station has done. For 25 that reason, we are interested in and we think it NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com
90 1 necessary to understand the size and shape of the 2 elements in the finite element methodology. Are we 3 correct that this was a finite element methodology?
4 MR. POLONSKY: I couldn't answer that 5 question for you.
6 JUDGE ABRAMSON: And you have not talked 7 to your technical people to find that out.
8 MR. POLONSKY: We have talked with them, 9 but I couldn't answer that specific question for you.
10 JUDGE ABRAMSON: We're assuming that this 11 was done by finite element methodology which means 12 that the shell is divided into finite pieces with 13 certain dimensions and that within those dimensions 14 the physical properties are averaged and, if that's 15 the case, then what we are after is whether or not it 16 would matter at all if the data had been dealt with by 17 contour plots or by the simple averaging methodology 18 that Oyster Creek Generating Station used or that GE 19 used in its original analysis.
20 So this question is aimed at understanding 21 the size and shape of the elements in the region of 22 interest. You don't need to talk about the elements 23 over the whole dry well shell, just the region where 24 the corrosion has been, and what we want to know is 25 what are the size and shape of those elements and NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com
91 1 would it matter and our questions are quite clear, I 2 think, on that point.
3 MR. POLONSKY: Thank you for the 4 clarification, Your Honor. The concern I have, I 5 guess, in one in how we answer this. We think we need 6 to go into the discussion of the GE analyses which are 7 the basis of Amergen's acceptance criteria. The Board 8 has asked that those answers be included not only in 9 the brief but in the testimony and we feel that by 10 discussing how GE came upon its analysis or how it 11 based its analysis and then we put that in our 12 testimony we're then opening up the GE analysis to 13 sur-rebuttal by citizens and, in effect, we will then 14 have opened up a part of the proceeding which we 15 thought the Board had closed which was the derivation 16 of the acceptance criteria.
17 JUDGE ABRAMSON: Yes, and we are not 18 interested in the derivation of the acceptance 19 criteria. We're really quite --
20 JUDGE BARATTA: Or what our criticisms of 21 it are. This is Judge Baratta. What Judge Abramson 22 points out what we're looking is really something 23 about the interpretation of the UT data to make sure 24 that whatever is being done is consistent with that.
25 That's basically what we're looking for. So any NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com
92 1 discussion really should be directed in that manner, 2 I think, or once the basic model, I guess, is 3 described. Is that correct, Judge Abramson?
4 JUDGE ABRAMSON: I think our questions are 5 self-explanatory, Mr. Polonsky, and if you had taken 6 the trouble to talk to your technical experts you 7 might have been able to realize this. Our final 8 question in Item 12 was whether or not this was 9 treading on the current licensing basis and we're 10 quite aware that the current licensing basis is 11 founded in the GE methodology.
12 So we're not -- We want to make sure there 13 is no challenge to the current licensing basis because 14 that's not. proper fuel for this proceeding and by 15 focusing on the shapes of the elements, now remember, 16 your technical people have suggested that the 17 appropriate way to view this data is by how much 18 volume is missing from certain shell regions due to 19 corrosion. That to us if I put my technical hat on 20 sounds very much like what they're saying to you and 21 to us is that they're looking at a finite element and 22 they're looking at the physical properties of the 23 particular element that's been corroded.
24 We would expect these elements are very 25 large because of the technology that was available at NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com
93 1 the time GE did this. So you need to speak with your 2 technical people. If you come back convinced that 3 this winds up going into derivation of the acceptance 4 criteria, you're welcome to send us a memorandum to 5 that effect and we'll consider it.
6 MR. POLONSKY: Thank you.
7 JUDGE ABRAMSON: I'm very unhappy with the 8 fact that you raised legal questions without talking 9 to your technical people about the nature of these 10 questions.
11 MR. POLONSKY: Your Honor, I have 12 contacted the technical people. Unfortunately, the 13 experts here we believe are at GE, not at Amergen, and 14 those experts are currently unavailable. So we're 15 trying to contact and work with them. We may end up 16 supplying testimony by someone from Amergen to the 17 best that they can answer these questions.
18 JUDGE ABRAMSON: If you need more time to 19 properly answer them, certainly you may ask.
20 MR. POLONSKY: I understand. We'll do our 21 best with the testimony that we can by this Friday and 22 inform the Board if we can't provide an adequate 23 answer.
24 MS. YOUNG: Judge Abramson, the Staff has 25 a question.
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com
94 1 JUDGE ABRAMSON: Yes.
2 MS. YOUNG: Staff counsel's understanding 3 is that the dry well shell was broken into pie shaped 4 elements to do the finite model that was done by GE 5 before, I guess, 36 degree sections. So I'm having 6 trouble understanding what the Board's question 7 regarding the shape and size of elements. It seems 8 that the Board is asking really the shape and size of 9 the degradation modeled by GE, not the sections across 10 which the degradation was modeled.
11 JUDGE ABRAMSON: I don't believe that 12 that's correct, but are your technical people -- Do 13 you have any structural people in your technical group 14 that's there? Are any of these four people 15 structural?
16 MS. YOUNG: No, the structural people 17 weren't able to participate this morning.
18 JUDGE ABRAMSON: Okay. I think you also 19 need to talk to your structural people. My guess is 20 that they did this bay by bay as we understood it and, 21 yes, we understood they took certain radial segments.
22 But my guess is they're also vertical delineations 23 within that. You can't do a finite element, buckling 24 load analysis on one single vertical slice that goes 25 all the way to the top. So I think you need to talk NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com
95 1 to your technical people.
2 MS. YOUNG: Could you hold on for one 3 moment please?
4 (Pause.)
5 MS. YOUNG: Judge Abramson?
6 JUDGE ABRAMSON: Yes.
7 MS. YOUNG: This is Ms. Young for the 8 Staff again.
9 JUDGE ABRAMSON: Yes.
10 MS. YOUNG: My understanding that the 11 Board's question is asking whether Dr. Hausler's 12 contour plot is a better way of representing the 13 pattern of degradation for the dry well shell than 14 what the GE analysis modeled and to that extent, it 15 would be challenging the current licensing basis, but 16 we can --
17 JUDGE ABRAMSON: That is not what we're 18 asking. What we're asking is what's the size of the 19 elements and the shape of the elements over which 20 physical properties were averaged when GE did its 21 original analysis. Once you understand that, you will 22 know whether it matters at all how this data is 23 averaged or viewed. But you can't know that until you 24 answer the first question.
25 And if, in fact, it doesn't matter then NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com
96 1 the whole point is mute. If it matters, then it will 2 be as you say a challenge to the CLB and we'll deal 3 with that at that point. This is a technical matter 4 and, Counsel, you must be well aware. This is a court 5 dealing with technical issues. Let's make sure we get 6 the technical information right..
7 MR. WEBSTER: Judge, could I just ask a 8 question here because -- This is Richard Webster from 9 representing citizens.
10 JUDGE ABRAMSON: Yes.
11 MR. WEBSTER: My understanding is that 12 although the CLB is based upon the GE model the 13 current pattern of degradation is not part of the CLB.
14 Is that correct?
15 JUDGE ABRAMSON: The degradation that has 16 occurred to date, I think we'll have to deal with this 17 one perhaps in a hearing if this piece goes this far, 18 whether or not the current degradation is part of CLB.
19 Certainly, it is a matter of ongoing operation and 20 maintenance. So to the extent -- Remember that the 21 renewal proceeding is only dealing with what happens 22 during the license extension term. So the license 23 extension term starts from the current conditions. I 24 think that that's not -- That's not, however, the 25 point we are worried about here. The current NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com
97 1 licensing basis relies on the GE analysis and the GE 2 analysis used certain assumptions about the size of 3 how small it had to do to divide the structure in 4 order to get an accurate structure analysis. No 5 structure analysis treats this as a continuum. It 6 also divides it into what are called finite elements.
7 MR. WEBSTER: Right.
8 JUDGE ABRAMSON: And the older technology 9 that was used at the time of this application had less 10 capable computers and probably therefore used 11 relatively large elements. If those elements are 12 indeed very large, then the volume and surface area 13 over which these physical properties were averaged 14 when they did the analysis is very large and that's 15 the question we're trying to resolve.
16 Because if those areas, for example, are 17 80 feet by 90 feet, then changes in corrosion over a 18 one foot or two feet area won't matter. If those 19 elements are one foot by two feet, then differences in 20 corrosion pattern will matter and that's what we're 21 trying to find out. And that's, I believe, the basis 22 for the response we saw that said that the view of 23 this is that a certain volume of material is missing 24 from a region or from an element. But we don't know 25 this until we get proper answers from the people who NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com
98 1 did the analysis or understand the analysis.
2 MR. WEBSTER: Okay.
3 JUDGE ABRALMSON: It's not a matter for 4 lawyers to deal with. We'll deal with the legal 5 issues after we have the technical information.
6 MR. WEBSTER: Thank you. Could I ask one 7 question?
8 JUDGE ABRAMSON: Certainly.
9 MR. WEBSTER: This is again with regard to 10 Section 4 about th e local buckling acceptance criteria 11 on pages five and six. I think from our perspective 12 we've shown that there was some inconsistency in both 13 the definition of what the acceptance criteria were 14 and in their application. The question I have is how 15 do we go from there to resolve which is the approach 16 acceptance criterion without getting into derivation.
17 We did take the route of looking at the SER and seeing 18 what the SER says. But it appears that NRC's 19 testimony is somewhat -- There is some tension there 20 between the NRC's testimony, the Staff testimony, and 21 the SER specific wording.
22 JUDGE ABRAMSON: I think we've been pretty 23 clear from the outset of this proceeding that citizens 24 can't challenge the derivation of the acceptance 25 criteria. You certainly may argue that they've been NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com
99 1 applied inconsistently and you can speak to which 2 criteria you think is better and why without going 3 into the derivation. I mean, the problem is we can't 4 go into the derivation. There are -- That's a limit 5 that we've established from the beginning.
6 MR. WEBSTER: But just to clarify then, we 7 can draw conclusions about which would be the 8 appropriate criterion to use of the various criteria that have been suggested.
10 JUDGE ABRAMSON: Excuse us a moment.
11 (Pause.)
12 JUDGE ABRAMSON: I think we're going to 13 *have to deal with this question more in depth at the 14 point it comes up, Mr. Webster. It is a difficult 15 question, but we clearly are expecting the citizens 16 will challenge that the acceptance criteria have not 17 been consistently applied and that will undoubtedly 18 lead us to have to deal with what are the appropriate 19 margins.
20 MR. WEBSTER: Okay. Thank you.
21 JUDGE ABRAMSON: Does Staff have any 22 questions?
23 MS. YOUNG: No, we think we understand the 24 Board's question.
25 JUDGE ABRAMSON: Anything further from NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com
100 1 Amergen?
2 MR. POLONSKY: No, we'll do the best 3 answer to the question if we can't get our GE experts 4 in line in time and, if so, we'll notify the Board.
5 JUDGE ABRAMSON: Okay. And anything 6 further from the Interveners?
7 MR. WEBSTER: No, Judge. Thank you.
8 MS. SUTTON: Can we hold on for one 9 second?
10 JUDGE ABRAMSON: Go ahead.
11 (Pause.)
12 JUDGE ABRAMSON: Judge Baratta, do you 13 have anything you want to add here?
14 JUDGE BARATTA: No. Are we going to talk 15 afterwards though?
16 JUDGE ABRAMSON: Yes, we can do that. One 17 thing that Ms. Wolf has noted that we don't want to 18 find ourselves in a last minute no man's land. So we 19 would ask Amergen that you let us know by close of 20 business on Thursday, 5:00 p.m. on Thursday, whether 21 or not you're going to need more time and whether or 22 not you're going to be able to give an answer that 23 you're comfortable with.
24 MS. SUTTON: Your Honor, we will do that.
25 JUDGE ABRAMSON: Thank you. Okay. With NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com
101 1 that.
2 (Off the record discussion.)
3 JUDGE ABRAMSON: Okay. The hearing is 4 finished. Thank you all for participating. Off the 5 record.
6 Whereupon, at 9:55 a.m., the above-7 entitled matter was concluded.)
8 9
10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com
CERTIFICATE This is to certify that the attached proceedings before the United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission in the matter of:
Name of Proceeding: Oyster Creek Nuclear Generating Station Docket Number: 50-0219-LR Location: (Teleconference) were held as herein appears, and that this is the original transcript thereof for the file of the United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission taken by me and, thereafter reduced to typewriting by me or under the direction of the court reporting company, and that the transcript is a true and accurate record of the foregoing proceedings.
ftby Wa ter Official Reporter Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com