ML080840441

Riverkeeper, Inc.'S Request for Admission of Amended Contention 6

ML080840441
Person / Time
Site:	Indian Point
Issue date:	03/05/2008
From:	Curran D, Musegaas P, Tafur V Harmon, Curran, Harmon, Curran, Spielberg & Eisenberg, LLP, Riverkeeper
To:	Lathrop K, Lawrence Mcdade, Richard Wardwell Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel
SECYRAS
References
50-247-LR, 50-286-LR, RAS-E-23
Download: ML080840441 (11)

Text

!i 7"*'¸*,

'-ýA-S- c-- -cý 3 March 5, 2008 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION DOCKETED USNRC ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD March 6, 2008 (9:00am)

Before Administrative Judges:

OFFICE OF SECRETARY Lawrence G. McDade, Chairman RULEMAKINGS AND Dr. Richard E. Wardwell ADJUDICATIONS STAFF Dr. Kaye D. Lathrop

)

In the Matter of )

)

Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc. ) Docket Nos.

(Indian Point Nuclear Generating ) 50-247-LR Units 2 and 3) ) and 50-286-LR RIVERKEEPER, INC.'S REQUEST FOR ADMISSION OF AMENDED CONTENTION 6 I. INTRODUCTION Pursuant to 10 C.F.R. § 2.309(f)(2), Riverkeeper, Inc., hereby seeks leave to amend Contention TC-1, which challenges the adequacy of Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc.'s ("Entergy's") license renewal application ("LRA"), as recently amended, to satisfy NRC regulations for the management of aging equipment. The contention is supported by the attached Declaration of Dr. Joram Hopenfeld in Support of Riverkeeper's Amended Contention TC-1 (March 4, 2008).

Amended Contention TC-l contention meets the timeliness requirements of 10 C.F.R. §§ 2.309(f)(i) - (iii), because it is based on new information, materially different from the information presented in Entergy's original LRA, that became available to Riverkeeper within the last 30 days via Entergy's second amendment to its LRA. See 7e/,tPz-P+TC-- = S C-C4-03 ý Cs C-Qjý 0c-:)

Letter from Fred R. Dacimo, Entergy to U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, "

Subject:

License Application Amendment 2" (Entergy Letter NL-08-021) (January 22, 2008)

("LRA Amendment 2")). LRA Amendment 2 was posted on the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission's ("NRC's" or "Commission's") Agency-wide Document Access Management System ("ADAMS") 30 days ago, on February 6, 2008. Entergy Nuclear Vermont Yankee, LLC, and Entergy Nuclear Operations,Inc. (Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Station), LBP-07-15, 66 NRC 261, 266 n. 11 (2007) (noting that many Atomic Safety and Licensing Board ("ASLB") panels, including the Vermont Yankee panel, have found that 30 days is a reasonable period for filing new contentions).

II. BACKGROUND As submitted by Riverkeeper on November 30, 2007, Contention TC-1 asserts that Entergy's LRA fails to satisfy 10 C.F.R. § 54.21(c)(1) in the following respects:

1. Tables 4.3-13 and 4.3-14 identify four representative reactor coolant components for which Entergy's evaluation of Time Limited Aging Analyses ("TLAAs") is facially non-compliant with the standard of 10 C.F.R. § 54.21 (c)(i)-(ii) for avoiding a demonstration, under 10 C.F.R. § 54.21 (c)(iii), that it will adequately manage the effects of aging on the intended functions of the components during the license renewal term. For these four components -

pressurizer surge line piping (IP2 & IP3), the RCS piping charging system nozzle (IP2), and pressurizer surge line nozzles (IP3) - the environmentally adjusted cumulative usage factor ("CUF) estimated by Entergy exceeds the regulatory threshold for submitting an aging management program. Yet, Entergy has failed to broaden its TLAA analysis beyond the scope of the representative components identified in Tables 4.3-13 and 4.3-14 to identify other components whose CUF may'be greater than one; nor has it submitted any demonstration that it will adequately manage the aging of components with a CUF greater than one.

Therefore Entergy's LRA does not satisfy 10 C.F.R. §§ 54.21(c) or (c)(iii).

2. Entergy's list of components with CUFs of less than one in Tables 4.3 -13 and 4.3-14 is incomplete, because Entergy's methods and assumptions for identifying those components are unrealistic and inadequate.

2

3. For a number of other components subject to the license renewal regulations, which are listed in Tables 4.3-3 through 4.3-12, Entergy has also failed to perform complete TLAAs. The TLAAs for these components are incomplete because they omit consideration of the exacerbating effects of environmental conditions on the fatigue of metal components. Therefore Entergy has failed to satisfy 10 C.F.R. § 54.21(c)(1)(i)-(ii). Nor has Entergy submitted an aging management program for these components, as required by 10 C.F.R. § 54.2 1(c)(1)(iii).

Riverkeeper, Inc.'s Request for Hearing and Petition to Intervene in the License Renewal Proceeding for the Indian Point Nuclear Power Plant at 7 (November 30, 2007)

("Riverkeeper Hearing Request"). Riverkeeper does not seek to withdraw any portion of Contention TC-1, but rather to amend the basis to Subpart 1 of the contention to address the reasons that Entergy's LRA Amendment 2 does not cure Entergy's failure to demonstrate that it will adequately manage the aging of components with a CUF greater than one.

III. AMENDED CONTENTION TC-1: INADEQUATE TIME LIMITED AGING ANALYSES AND FAILURE TO DEMONSTRATE THAT AGING WILL BE MANAGED SAFELY Riverkeeper amends the basis statement regarding the "Inadequacy of Entergy's Aging Analysis" (Riverkeeper's Hearing Request at 12-15) as follows:

In Section 4.3 of its LRA, Entergy acknowledges that its Time Limited Aging Analyses ("TLAAs") for selected representative components show the environmentally adjusted cumulative usage factors ("CUFs") for a number of components will exceed one during the license renewal term. See LRA at 4.3-22 and Tables 4.3-13, 4.3-14.

On March 4, 2008, the NRC Staff wrote a letter to the ASLB stating that it considers Riverkeeper's Contention TC-1 to be moot in light of LRA Amendment 2. Letter from David E. Roth and Kimberly A. Sexton to Lawrence G. McDade, Kay Lathrop, and Richard E. Wardwell. Riverkeeper disagrees with the Staff s conclusion, and does not consider Contention TC-1 to be moot in any respect.

3

Therefore, on their faces, the TLAAs for these components do not satisfy 10 C.F.R. §§ 54.21 (c)(1)(i) or (ii). As a result, Entergy must "demonstrate that the effects of aging on the intended function(s) will be adequately managed for the period of extended operation." 10 C.F.R. § 54.21(c)(1)(iii).

In its original LRA, Entergy provided no information about how it will manage the effects of aging. See Riverkeeper Hearing Request at 12. Instead, the LRA stated that Entergy will choose among three options: (a) "[r]efine" the fatigue analysis to determine CUFs less than one, (b) "[m]anage" the effects of aging by an inspection program, or (c) "[r]epair or replace the affected locations before exceeding a CUF of 1.0." LRA at 4.3-22. As discussed in Riverkeeper's Hearing Request, none of these options satisfies the regulations. Id. at 12-13.

In LRA Amendment 2, Entergy purports to provide additional information regarding its aging management program, but in reality it does not make any meaningful changes to options (a), (b), and (c). For option (a), Entergy states that it will "update fatigue analyses" for components in Tables 4.3-13 and 4.3-14 with CUFs less than one, in a manner that is consistent with its "Fatigue Monitoring Program, Detection of Aging Effects." LRA Amendment 2, Attachment 1 at 1. But Entergy does not explain why it is likely that CUFs that are now above one are likely to be less than one when re-calculated.

See Riverkeeper's Hearing Request at 13, Riverkeeper's Reply to Entergy's and NRC Staff s Responses to Hearing Request and Petition to Intervene at 5 (February 15, 2008)

("Riverkeeper's Reply"). Nor does Entergy address the legal requirement that the LRA application itself is required to demonstrate that CUFs for representative components are 4

less than one, not that it is possible that results of future re-calculations may be less than one. See Riverkeeper's Hearing Request at 12, Riverkeeper's Reply at 6. Finally, Entergy fails to address NRC guidance requiring that if CUFs for representative components in the license renewal application are more than one, the applicant must evaluate all components that are subject to the effects of aging. See Riverkeeper's Hearing Request at 14-15, citing NUREG-1801, Rev. 1, Generic Aging Lessons Learned Report, Vol. 2 at X M X- M-2 (2005) ("Gall Report"); Electric Power Research Institute, Material Reliability Program.- Guidelinesfor Addressing Fatigue Environmental Effects in a License Renewal Application Revision 1, at 3-4 (2005)

("MRP-47").

Entergy's LRA Amendment 2 also limits the recalculation of CUFs to locations specified in Tables 4.3-13 and 4.3.14, rather than including the six representative locations identified in NUREG/CR-6260, Application of NUREG-CR-5999-Interim Fatigue Curves to Selected Nuclear Power Plant Components (February 1995)

("NUREG/CR-6260"). LRA Amendment 2, Attachment 1 at 1. The changes to the LRA are marked in Amendment 2 as follows:

For locations in LRA Table 4.3-13 (IP 2) and 4.3-13 (IP 3), i "euding-NUREG/.R 6260 lo.ations, with existing fatigue analysis valid for the period of extended operation, use the existing CUF to deter-mine the envir..nmentally adjusted-CUE.

LRA Amendment 2, Attachment 1 at 1. Thus, for five locations for which Entergy now lacks plant-specific CUFs -- the RCS piping safety injection nozzle and RHR Class 1 piping at Unit 2 (Table 4.3-13) and the RCS piping charging system nozzle, RCS piping safety injection nozzle, and RHR Class 1 piping at Unit 3 (Table 4-3-14) -- Entergy 5

proposes to drop its commitment to calculate CUFs at any time in the future.

By deleting from the LRA a commitment to evaluate CUFs for all six NUREG/CR-6260 locations, Entergy fails to satisfy NRC guidance and regulations for managing aging components. As discussed in Riverkeeper's Hearing Request at 10-11, NUREG/CR-6260 lists examples of critical locations that should be evaluated in aging analyses. These components were selected "to give a representative overview of components that had higher CUFs and/or were important from a risk perspective."

NUREG/CR-6260 at 4-1. For this reason the GALL Report requires that an "acceptable" aging management program must perform fatigue calculations for all six NUREG/CR-6260 locations. Id. at X M-1. Failing to calculate CUFs for any one of the NUREG/CR-6260 locations would be inconsistent with the Gall Report, and therefore would also demonstrate that Entergy had failed to satisfy NRC safety regulations. LouisianaEnergy Services (Claiborne Enrichment Center), LBP-91-41, 34 NRC 332, 338 (1991), citing CarolinaPower and Light Co. (Shearon Harris Nuclear Power Plant), ALAB-852, 24 NRC 532, 544-45 (1986) (recognizing that because regulatory guides reflect the "considered judgment of Staff and offer insight on what is needed to satisfy a regulation,"

they constitute "evidence of legitimate means for complying with regulatory requirements.")

Like Entergy's original LRA, Amendment 2 continues to be unacceptably vague about Entergy's plans for improving its methodology for calculating CUFs or its criteria for repairing or replacing components. The original LRA made a general statement that affected locations would be repaired or replaced before exceeding a CUF of one. LRA at 6

4.3-22. LRA Amendment 2 adds little substantive information. The amendment states that Entergy will comply with the "Fatigue Monitoring Program, Corrective Actions" in repairing or replacing components. LRA Amendment 2, Attachment 1 at 2. LRA Amendment 2 also provides a revised description of its "Fatigue Monitoring Program" which includes the following description of Entergy's proposed corrective actions:

The program requires corrective actions including repair or replacement of affected components before fatigue usage calculations determine the CUF exceeds 1.0. Specific corrective actions are implemented in accordance with the IPEC corrective action program. Repair or replacement of the affected component(s), if necessary, will be in accordance with established plant procedures governing repair and replacement activities. These established procedures are governed by Entergy's 10 CFR 50 Appendix B QA program and meet the applicable repair or replacement requirements of the ASME Code Section XI.

LRA Amendment 2, Attachment 1 at 2.

This description of Entergy's proposed corrective actions is unacceptably vague, because it does not provide any information regarding how Entergy will develop a credible and acceptable methodology for calculating CUFs, or Entergy's criteria for repairing or replacing equipment. It is not sufficient to merely presume that these things will happen; they should be described sufficiently in the LRA so that the adequacy of Entergy's program can be evaluated. Entergy Nuclear Vermont YankeeL.L. C. and Entergy Nuclear Operations,Inc. (Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Station), LBP-06-20, 64 NRC 131, 186 (2006) (ruling that an aging management program must provide sufficient detail to "demonstrate" that the applicant "will" adequately manage aging of equipment; and that it is not sufficient to merely "summarize options for future plans").

7

IV. CONCLUSION For the foregoing reasons, the ASLB should admit Amended Contention TC-1.

Respectfuýy submitted, Harmon, Curran, Spielberg, & Eisenberg, L.L.P.

1726 M Street N.W., Suite 600 Washington, D.C. 20036 202/328-3500 FAX 202/328-6918 dcurrangharmoncurran.com Phillip Musegaas Staff Attorney Riverkeeper, Inc.

828 South Broadway Tarrytown, NY 10591 914-478-4501 (ext. 224)

Fax 914-478-4527 phillipgriverkeeper.org www.riverkeeper.org Victor M. Tafur Senior Attorney Riverkeeper, Inc.

828 South Broadway Tarrytown, NY 10591' 914-478-4501 (ext. 224)

Fax 914-478-4527 vtafur(2riverkeeper.org March 5, 2008 8

I .

March 4, 2008 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD Before Administrative Judges:

Lawrence G. McDade, Chairman Dr. Richard E. Wardwell Dr. Kaye D. Lathrop

)

Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc. ) Docket Nos.

(Indian Point Nuclear Generating ) 50-247-LR Units 2 and 3) ) and 50-286-LR DECLARATION OF DR. JORAM HOPENFELD IN SUPPORT OF RIVERKEEPER'S AMENDED CONTENTION TC-1 I, Dr. Joram Hopenfeld, declare as follows:

1 I am an expert in the fields relating to nuclear power plant aging management. A statement of my qualifications was previously submitted in this proceeding as an attachment to Riverkeeper, Inc.'s Request for Hearing and Petition to Intervene in Indian Point License Renewal Proceeding (November 30, 2007) ("Riverkeeper's Hearing Request").

2. Riverkeeper's Contention TC-1 (Inadequate Time Limited Aging Analyses and Failure to Demonstrate That Aging Will be Managed Safely), submitted by Riverkeeper in this proceeding on November 30, 2007, is based on my professional knowledge and expert opinion regarding the adequacy of Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc.'s (Entergy's)

April 23, 2007, application for renewal of the operating licenses for the Indian Point nuclear power plant with respect to the management of aging equipment.

3. In addition, I have assisted Riverkeeper with the preparation of Amended Contention TC- 1. The factual statements in Amended Contention TC- 1 are true and correct to the best of my knowledge, and the expressions of opinion in Amended Contention TC-I are based on my, est professional judgment.

March +,-2008

/,

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I certify that on March 5, 2008, copies of the foregoing letter from Riverkeeper, Inc.'s Request for Admission of Amended Contention 6 were served on the following by e-mail and first-class mail:

Lawrence G. McDade, Chair Robert D. Snook, Esq.

Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel Assistant Attorney General Atomic Safety and Licensing Board 55 Elm Street, P.O. Box 120 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Hartford, CT 06141-0120 Washington, D.C. 20555 By e-mail: Robert.Snook@po.state.ct.us Also by e-mail: Lawrence.McDade(nrc.gov Richard E. Wardwell Michael J. Delaney, V.P. - Energy Atomic Safety and Licensing Board New York City Econ. Development Corp.

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 110 William Street Washington, D.C. 20555 New York, NY 10038 Also by e-mail: Richard.Wardwell@nrc.gov Also by e-mail: mdelaney@nycedc.com John LeKay Martin J. O'Neill, Esq.

Heather Ellsworth Burns-DeMelo Kathryn M. Sutton, Esq.

Remy Chevalier Paul M. Bessette, Esq.

Bill Thomas Mauri T. Lemoncelli, Esq.

Belinda J. Jaques Morgan, Lewis & Bockius, LLP FUSE USA 1111 Pennsylvania Ave. N.W.

351 Dyckman Street Washington, D.C. 20004 Peekskill, NY 10566 martin..oneill(morganlewis.com Also by e-mail: fuse usa~ycyahoo.com pbessette:morganlewis.com ksutton@morganlewis.com Susan H. Shapiro, Esq. Office of Commission Appellate Adjudication 21 Perlman Drive U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Spring Valley, NY 10977 Washington, D.C. 20555 Also by e-mail: mbs(aourrocklandoffice.com Also by e-mail: OCAAMAIL@nrc.gov John J. Sipos, Esq. Sherwin E. Turk, Esq., Lloyd B. Subin, Esq.

Janice A. Dean, Esq. Beth N. Mizuno, Esq., David E. Roth, Esq.

Assistant Attorney General Christopher C. Chandler, Esq.

Office of the Attorney General Kimberly A. Sexton, Esq.

for the State of New York Office of General Counsel The Capitol U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission State Street Washington, D.C. 20555 Albany, New York 12224 sbtgnrc.gov; lbs3mnrc.gov; bnm2(@i)nrc.gov; Also by e-mail: John.Siposaoag.state.ny.us; der(cnrc.gov; Kimberly.sexton@nrc.gov; Janice. dean@oag. state.ny.us christopher. chandlergnrc .gov

Office of the Secretary William C. Dennis, Esq.

Rulemakings and Adjudications Staff Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc.

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 440 Hamilton Avenue Washington, D.C. 20555 White Plains, NY 10601 Also by e-mail: HEARINGDOCKETa,,nrc.gov Also by e-mail: wdennisgentergy.com Stephen C. Filler, Board Member Manna Jo Greene Hudson River Sloop Clearwater, Inc. Hudson River Sloop Clearwater, Inc.

303 South Broadway, Suite 222 112 Little Market Street Tarrytown, NY 10591 Poughkeepsie, NY 12601 Also by e-mail: sfiller@nylawline.com Also by e-mail: Mannajo(Dclearwater.org Justin D. Pruyne, Esq. Joan Leary Matthews, Esq.

Assistant County Attorney, Litigation Bureau Senior Attorney for Special Projects Of Counsel to Charlene M. Indelicato, Esq. New York State Department Westchester County Attorney of Environmental Conservation 148 Martine Avenue, 6 th Floor 625 Broadway, 1 4 th floor White Plains, NY 10601 Albany, New York 12233-5500 Also by e-mail: jdp3@awestchestergov.com By e-mail: jlmatthews(agw.dec.state.ny.us Zackary S. Kahn, Esq., Law Clerk Thomas F. Wood, Esq.

Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel Daniel Riesel, Esq.

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Sive, Paget and Riesel, P.C.

Washington, D.C. 20555 460 Park Avenue Also by e-mail: Zachary.Kahngnrc.gov New York, NY 10022 Also by e-mail: driesel@sprlaw.com Judge Kaye D. Lathrop Nancy Burton 190 Cedar Lane East 147 Cross Highway Ridgeway, CO 81432 Redding Ridge, CT 06878 Also by e-mail: Kaye.Lathrop(2nrc. gov Also by e-mail: NancyBurtonCT~aol.com Elise N. Zoli, Esq. Phillip Musegaas, Esq.

Goodwin Procter, LLP Victor Tafur, Esq.

53 State Street Riverkeeper, Inc.

Boston, MA 02109 828 South Broadway Also by e-mail: ezoli(&goodwinprocter.com Tarrytown, NY 10591 Marcia Carpenter, Esq., Law Clerk Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Mail Stop: T-3 E2B U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C. 20555-0001 Marcia.Carpenter@nrc.gov Diane Curran 2