ML081480403

From kanterella
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Entergy'S Request for Protection from Disclosure of Proprietary Documents Submitted by New England Coalition
ML081480403
Person / Time
Site: Vermont Yankee Entergy icon.png
Issue date: 05/07/2008
From: Travieso-Diaz M
Entergy Nuclear Operations, Entergy Nuclear Vermont Yankee, Pillsbury, Winthrop, Shaw, Pittman, LLP
To:
Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel
SECY RAS
References
50-271-LR, ASLBP 06-849-03-LR, RAS M-51
Download: ML081480403 (28)
v • d • e


Text

19A6 "_S/

COPY DOCKETED USNRC May 7, 2008 May 7, 2008 (9:15am)

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA OFFICE OF SECRETARY RULEMAKINGS AND NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION ADJUDICATIONS STAFF Before the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board In the Matter of )

)

Entergy Nuclear Vermont Yankee, LLC ) Docket No. 50-271-LR and Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc. ) ASLBP No. 06-849-03-LR

)

(Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Station) )

ENTERGY'S REQUEST FOR PROTECTION FROM DISCLOSURE OF PROPRIETARY DOCUMENTS SUBMITTED BY NEW ENGLAND COALITION The exhibits submitted by intervenor New England Coalition ("NEC") with its April 28, 2008 "New England Coalition, Inc.'s Statement of Position, Direct Testimony and Exhibits"

("NEC Testimony") include four documents identified as containing proprietary information:

1. Recommendations for an Effective Flow-Accelerated Corrosion Program (NSAC-202L-R3);
2. EPRI: Recommendations for FAC Tasks;
3. Letter to James Fitzpatrick from EPRI (February 28, 2000); and
4. Letter from Entergy to NRC re Extended Power Uprate: Response to Request for Additional Information.

NEC Testimony, Cover Letter. The four documents are identified as NEC Exhibits NEC-JH_38, NEC-UW_16, NEC-UW_14, and NEC-UW_17. Id., "New England Coalition, Inc.'s List of Prefiled Direct Testimony and Exhibits."

Pursuant to Paragraph 11 of the Order (Protective Order Governing Non-Disclosure of Certain Documents Claimed to be Proprietary) ("Protective Order") issued by the Board on o'-( I IDS-

7,.

January 12, 2007, Applicants Entergy Nuclear Vermont Yankee, LLC and Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc. (collectively "Entergy") hereby request that continued proprietary protection be afforded to three of the above referenced four documents: JH_38, NEC-UW_ 16, and NEC-UW_17 (items 1, 3, and 4 in the above list).

The reasons for this request are as follows. Items 1 and 3 are already covered by Entergy's earlier request, filed on July 26, 2007 and supported by the "Nondisclosure Certification Pursuant to 10 C.F.R. § 2.390 - Affidavit of John P. Gaertner" ("Gaertner Affidavit") demonstrating that the two documents are entitled to protection as containing proprietary information that is privileged and confidential and warrants protection under 10 C.F.R. § 2.390(a)(4) and (b)(4)(i)-(v). For the convenience of the Board, copies of Entergy's July 26, 2007 "Submittal of Affidavit of John P. Gaertner in Support of Continued Protection of Proprietary Documents" and of the Gaertner Affidavit are enclosed as Attachments 1 and 2 hereto.

The fourth item in the above list, "Letter from Entergy to NRC re Extended Power Uprate: Response to Request for Additional Information" is in fact the cover letter and excerpts (pages 126 through 134) from Attachment I to Entergy's letter BVY 04-058 dated July 2, 2004 to the NRC providing responses to requests for additional information from the NRC Staff in connection with the then proposed extended power uprate of VY. Attachment 1 was submitted under the affidavit of George B. Stramback, a General Electric official who attested as to the reasons why Attachment 1 should be protected from disclosure as containing proprietary information. See Attachment 3 hereto. The NRC has afforded Attachment 1 such protection; the version of BVY 04-058 that is publicly available in the NRC ADAMS system includes as Attachment 2 a redacted version of the document with the proprietary information deleted. See 2

V ADAMS Accession Number ML042090103. Indeed, the pages included in NEC Exhibit NEC-UW_17 are identical in both the proprietary and non-proprietary versions. See Attachment 4.

It is unclear why NEC chose to include in Exhibit NEC-UW_ 17 pages 126 through 134 of the proprietary version of Attachment 1 to BVY 04-058, when the same pages were publicly available in the ADAMS system. We respectfully request that, if NEC Exhibit NEC-UW_17 is admitted into evidence, NEC substitute the pages in question from Attachment 1 with the corresponding pages from the non-proprietary version.

We have been advised by the Electric Power Research Institute ("EPRI") that the document listed as item 2 (NEC Exhibit NEC-UW_1 6) is an excerpt from the EPRI report "Recommendations for an Effective Flow-Accelerated Corrosion Program (NSAC-202L-R2),"

which is an earlier revision of the first document in the list, NEC Exhibit NEC-JH_38. EPRI is no longer asserting proprietary protection over the earlier revision, so we do not request such protection in the instant proceeding, Repectfully Submitted, David R. Lewis Matias F. Travieso-Diaz PILLSBURY WINTHROP SHAW PITTMAN LLP 2300 N Street, N.W.

Washington, DC 20037-1128 Tel. (202) 663-8000 Counsel for Entergy Nuclear Vermont Yankee, LLC, and Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc.

Dated: May 7, 2008 3

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION Before the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board In the Matter of ))

Entergy Nuclear Vermont Yankee, LLC ) Docket No. 50-271-LR and Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc. ) ASLBP No. 06-849-03-LR

)

(Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Station) )

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that copies of"Entergy's Request for Protection from Disclosure of Proprietary Documents Submitted by New England Coalition" dated My 7, 2008, were served on the persons listed below by deposit in the U.S. Mail, first class, postage prepaid, and where indicated by an asterisk by electronic mail, this 7 th day of May, 2008.

  • Administrative Judge *Administrative Judge Alex S. Karlin, Esq., Chairman Dr. Richard E. Wardwell Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Mail Stop T-3 F23 Mail Stop T-3 F23 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C. 20555-0001 Washington, D.C. 20555-0001 ask2@n-rc. gov rew@nrc.gov
  • Administrative Judge *Secretary William H. Reed Att'n: Rulemakings and Adjudications Staff 1819 Edgewood Lane Mail Stop 0-16 Cl Charlottesville, VA 22902 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission whrcvillee(aembarcrnail.com Washington, D.C. 20555-0001 secy@nrc.gov, hearingdocket@nrc. gov
  • Office of Commission Appellate Adjudication Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Mail Stop 0-16 C I Mail Stop T-3 F23 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C. 20555-0001 Washington, D.C. 20555-0001 OCAArnaildlhnrc. gov
  • Lloyd Subin, Esq. *Sarah Hofmann, Esq.
  • Mary Baty, Esq. Director of Public Advocacy Office of the General Counsel Department of Public Service Mail Stop 0- 15 D21 112 State Street - Drawer 20 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Montpelier, VT 05620-2601 Washington, D.C. 20555-0001 Sarah.hofmann(state.vt.us LBS33@nrc.gov; mcb 1@nrc.gov
  • Anthony Z. Roisman, Esq. *Ronald A. Shems, Esq.

National Legal Scholars Law Firm *Karen Tyler, Esq.

84 East Thetford Road Shems, Dunkiel, Kassel & Saunders, PLLC Lyme, NH 03768 9 College Street aroisman(inationallegalscholars.com Burlington, VT 05401 rshemsosdkslaw.com ktyler(asdkslaw.com

  • Peter L. Roth, Esq. *Marcia Carpenter, Esq.

Office of the New Hampshire Attorney General Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel 33 Capitol Street Mail Stop T-3 F23 Concord, NH 03301 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Peter.rothldoj.nh.gov Washington, D.C. 20555-0001 mxc7(@,nrc.gov

  • Lauren Bregman, Law Clerk *Diane Curran, Esq.

Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Harmon, Curran, Spielberg, & Eisenberg, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission L.L.P.

Mail Stop: T-3 F23 1726 M Street N.W., Suite 600 Washington, D.C. 20555-0001 Washington, D.C. 20036 Lauren.Bregman(@,nrc. gov dcurran@harmoncurran .com

  • James R. Milkey, Esq.

Assistant Attorney General, Chief Environmental Protection Division Office of the Attorney General One Ashburton Place, 18th Floor Boston, MA 02108 jim.milkeyv(state.ma.us 2

EXHIBIT I July 26, 2007 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION Before the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board In the Matter of )

)

Entergy Nuclear Vermont Yankee, LLC ) Docket No. 50-271-LR and Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc. ) ASLBP No. 06-849-03-LR

)

(Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Station) )

SUBMITTAL OF AFFIDAVIT OF JOHN P. GAERTNER IN SUPPORT OF CONTINUED PROTECTION OF PROPRIETARY DOCUMENTS Pursuant to Paragraph 11 of the Order (Protective Order Governing Non-Disclosure of Certain Documents Claimed to be Proprietary) ("Protective Order") issued by the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board ("Board") on January 12, 2007 in the above captioned proceeding, Applicants Entergy Nuclear Vermont Yankee, LLC and Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc.

(collectively "Entergy") submit hereby the "Nondisclosure Certification Pursuant to 10 C.F.R. § 2.390 - Affidavit of John P. Gaertner" ("Gaertner Affidavit") demonstrating that two documents filed by the New England Coalition, Inc. ("NEC") in its Opposition to Entergy's Motion for Summary Disposition of NEC's Contention 4 (Flow Accelerated Corrosion) ("NEC's Opposition"), dated July 16, 2007, are Proprietary Documents that contain commercial information that is privileged and confidential and warrants protection under 10 C.F.R. § 2.390(a)(4) and (b)(4)(i)-(v).

The documents in question, listed in Attachment 1 to the Gaertner Affidavit, were discussed in NEC's Opposition and in the Declaration of Ulrich Witte ("Witte Declaration")

filed in support of NEC's Opposition. They were also included as Attachments F and H to the Witte Declaration.

For the reasons set forth in the Gaertner Affidavit, Entergy requests that the protections established in the Board's Protective Order continue to be afforded to these two documents.

Respectfully Submitted,

/Original signed by Matias F. Travieso-Diaz/

David R. Lewis Matias F. Travieso-Diaz PILLSBURY WINTHROP SHAW PITTMAN LLP 2300 N Street, N.W.

Washington, DC 20037-1128 Tel. (202) 663-8000 Counsel for Entergy Dated: July 26, 2007 2

1ý UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION Before the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board In the Matter of ))

Entergy Nuclear Vermont Yankee, LLC ) Docket No. 50-271-LR and Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc. ) ASLBP No. 06-849-03-LR

)

(Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Station) )

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that copies of "Submittal of Affidavit of John P. Gaertner in Support of Continued Protection of Proprietary Documents" and "Nondisclosure Certification Pursuant to 10 C.F.R. § 2.390 - Affidavit of John P. Gaertner" were served on the persons listed below by deposit in the U.S. Mail, first class, postage prepaid, or with respect to Judge Elleman by overnight mail, and where indicated by an asterisk by electronic mail, this 26thth day of July, 2007.

  • Administrative Judge *Administrative Judge Alex S. Karlin, Esq., Chairman Dr. Richard E. Wardwell Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Mail Stop T-3 F23 Mail Stop T-3 F23 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C. 20555-0001 Washington, D.C. 20555-0001 ask2(biic..ýg.y rewvafLr.gj(-~y
  • Administrative Judge *Secretary Dr. Thomas S. Elleman Att'n: Rulemakings and Adjudications Staff Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Mail Stop 0-16 Cl 5207 Creedmoor Road, #101, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Raleigh, NC 27612. Washington, D.C. 20555-0001 tse('ainrc.gzov ; elleraniv).eos.ncsu.edu secy@nrc.gov, hearin gdocket(Ftnrc.gov

Office of Commission Appellate Adjudication Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Mail Stop 0-16 C1 Mail Stop T-3 F23 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C. 20555-0001 Washington, D.C. 20555-0001

  • Lloyd B. Subin, Esq. *Sarah Hofmann, Esq.
  • Mary C. Baty, Esq. Director of Public Advocacy Office of the General Counsel Department of Public Service Mail Stop 0-15 D21 112 State Street - Drawer 20 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Montpelier, VT 05620-2601 Washington, D.C. 20555-0001 Sarah.hofin ann(di.,ýstate.vt. us

.lbs*)n*re.r~*gp0; rncb_!(42!.nc :*ov

  • Anthony Z. Roisman, Esq. *Ronald A. Shems, Esq.

National Legal Scholars Law Firm *Karen Tyler, Esq.

84 East Thetford Road Shems, Dunkiel, Kassel & Saunders, PLLC Lyme, NH 03768 9 College Street aroisman (ii-natina.lega lschlo.ar's.corii Burlington, VT 05401 rsherri s,s slaw.coni ktvl.eraj).sdkslaw.com

  • Peter C. L. Roth, Esq. *Marcia Carpentier, Esq.

Senior Assistant Attorney General Law Clerk State of New Hampshire Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel Office of the Attorney General Mail Stop: T-3F23 33 Capitol Street U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Concord, NH 03301 Washington, DC 20555-0001 Peter.Rotrhihdoi.nh.gov m xc7 Lv,nrc, gov

/Original signed by Matias F. Travieso-Diaz/

Matias F. Travieso-Diaz 2

EXHIBIT 2 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION Before the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board In the Matter of )

)

Entergy Nuclear Vermont Yankee, LLC ) Docket No. 50-271 -LR and Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc. ) ASLBP No. 06-849-03-LR

)

(Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Station) )

Nondisclosure Certification Pursuant to 10 C.F.R. §2.390(b)

Affidavit of John P. Gaertner County of Mecklenburg )

) ss.

State of North Carolina )

I, John P. Gaertner, being duly sworn according to law, depose and state as follows:

. 1. I am the Senior Sector Business Operations Manager for the Electrical Power Research Institute, Inc. ("EPRI"). My business address is 1300 W.T. Harris Blvd.,

Charlotte, NC 28262. I am authorized to provide this certification, pursuant to 10 C.F.R.

§2.390(b), on behalf of EPRI.

2. I have been asked to review the two documents listed in Attachment 1 to this Affidavit to determine whether they meet the requirements for protection from public disclosure set forth in U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission regulations and regulatory guidance. I have personally conducted or overseen such a review against the criteria in 10 CFR § 2.390(b) and the guidance in NRC Staff Regulatory Issue Summary ("RIS")

2004-11. It is my opinion that each of the documents in Attachment 1 meets the

requirements for withholding from public disclosure because each of them contains information that:

a. Is and has been held in confidence by EPRI.
b. Is of a type that is customarily held in confidence by a party in EPRI's position because it contains sensitive technical analyses, techniques, know-how and data
c. Is not available in public sources and could not be gathered readily from other publicly available information.
d. If publicly disclosed, its disclosure would create substantial harm to the competitive position of EPRI by making available to EPRI's competitors technical analyses, techniques, know-how and data that could be used to EPRI's commercial disadvantage.
e. Has been transmitted to Entergy Nuclear Vermont Yankee, LLC and Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc. ("Entergy") in confidence, for its internal use only and in the course of a commercial relationship between EPRI and Entergy.
f. Has been provided by Entergy to other parties in the above captioned proceeding in confidence and only to fulfill its discovery obligations therein.
3. Further, the affiant sayeth not.

G before me Subscribed and sworn to this,25ay of July, 2007 My commission expires: -,

ATTACHMENT 1 EPRI DOCUMENTS FOR WHICH PROTECTION FROM DISCLOSURE IS SOUGHT PURSUANT TO 10 C.F.R. § 2.390

1. EPRI Report No. 1011838 entitled "Recommendations for an Effective Flow-Accelerated Corrosion Program (NSAC-202L-R3)" (May 2006)
2. Letter from Douglas P. Munson (EPRI) to James Fitzpatrick (Entergy) (February 28, 2000).

Entergy Nuclear Vermont Yankee, LLC Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc.

185 Old Ferry Road Brattleboro, VT 05302-0500 EXHIBIT 3 July 2, 2004 BVY 04-058 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission ATTN: Document Control Desk Washington, DC 20555

Subject:

Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Station License No. DPR-28 (Docket No. 50-271)

Technical Specification Proposed Change No. 263 - Supplement No. 8 Extended Power Uprate - Respohse to Request for Additional Information

Reference:

1) U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission.(Richard B. Ennis) letter to Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc. (Michael Kansler), "Request for Additional Information - Extended Power Uprate, Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Station (TAC No. MC0761), dated May 28, 2004

Dear Sir:

This letter provides a response to NRC's request of May 28, 2004 (Reference 1) for additional information regarding the application by Entergy Nuclear Vermont Yankee, LLC and -Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc. (Entergy) for a license amendment to increase the maximum authorized power level of the Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Station (VYNPS) from 1593 megawatts thermal (MWt) to. 1912 MWt.

Each of the 60 individual requests identified in the NRC staffs May 28, 2004 letter has been the subject of discussions held during conference calls between the staffs of the NRC and Entergy to further clarify the information needs of the NRC staff. In certain instances the requests for additional information (RAIs) were modified based on clarifications and understandings reached during the telecons. The information provided herein is consistent with those understandings. to this letter provides Entergy's response to each of the RAIs. Because certain RAI responses contain proprietary information as defined by 10CFR2.390, Attachment 1 has been designated in its entirety as proprietary information. Anon-proprietary version, suitable for public disclosure, is provided as Attachment 2 to this letter with the proprietary information redacted. An affidavit that constitutes a request for withholding of the proprietary information in from public disclosure in accordance with NRC regulations is provided by the owner of the proprietary information (General Electric Company (GE)) as Attachment 3. The proprietary information in Attachment 1 is designated by double underline within double square brackets. In each case, the superscript notation, "{3)", refers to paragraph (3) of the affidavit, which provides the basis for the proprietary determination. The proprietary information has been handled and classified as proprietary, customarily held in confidence, and withheld from

BVY 04-058 \ Page 2 Docket No. 50-271 public disclosure. The proprietary information contained in the responses to the RAIs was provided to Entergy in a GE transmittal that is referenced by the affidavit. The proprietary information has been faithfully reproduced in the enclosed RAI responses such that the affidavit remains applicable. GE requests that the enclosed proprietary information be withheld from public disclosure in accordance with the provisions of 10CFR2.390 and 9.17.

Two of the RAI responses reference calculations and certain marked-up pages that are provided as separate exhibits. Those items are provided in Attachment 4 to this letter as Exhibits 1-3. to this letter summarizes the new commitments contained in the responses to the RAIs.

This license amendment request supplement provides additional information to clarify Entergy's application for a license amendment and does not change the scope or conclusions in the original application, nor does it change Entergy's determination of no significant hazards consideration.

If you have any questions or require additional information, please contact Mr. James DeVincentis at (802) 258-4236.

I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct.

Executed on Julyj.ý_,.2004 Sincerely, Jay .a7yer*

e Vice President Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Station Attachments (5) cc: USNRC Region 1 Administrator (w/o attachments)

USNRC Resident Inspector - VYNPS (w/o attachments)

USNRC Project Manager - VYNPS Vermont Department of Public Service (w/non-proprietary attachments)

VERMONT YANKEE LICENSING DEPARTMENT Outgoing NRC Correspondence Distribution FOR INFORMATION 0

0YES 0 NO 10CFRI9.l l(a)(4) action? Irves BVY 04-058. DATE: 7/2/04 posting required within 2 working days after dispatch.

SUBJECT:

TS Proposed Change No. 263-Supplement No.

Extended Power Uprate - Response to Request for Additional Information LICENSING LEAD: _Len Gucwa CONMMlTMENTS:E~~nter ENN-LI-1 10 /NO COMMENTS: _None BRATTLEBORO DISTRIBUTION VERNON DISTRIBUTION All: By Subiect:

0 Sally Sandstrum (Chronological File) Kevin H. Bronson, General Manager 0 Dave K. McElwee, State Liaison (cover page, only) 0 Chris J. Warnser, Manager, Operations 0[3 John Dreyfuss, Director, Engineering By Subiect: Stan Jefferson, Manager, P&S Outages 0

George Wierzbowski, Manager, System Engineering Io Jay K. Thayer, Site Vice President 0

[0 Brian Finn, Manager, Tech. Support o Robert J. Wanczyk, Director, NSA 0 El Jim Callaghan, Manager, Design Engineering

[I Jim DeVincentis, Manager, Licensing Patrick B. Corbett, Manager, Maintenance O] Michael P. Desilets, Manager, Training & Development 0 0]

13 Dave Tkatch, Manager, Outage o Rob Williams, Company Spokesperson 0]

[3 David J. Mannai, Superintendent, Reactor Engineering EO Lori Tkaczyk, Mgr, Emergency Prep 0] Mike McKenney, Superintendent, Maintenance Support o Sally Sandstrum (IR)--SRC 0]

13 0 Craig J. Nichols, Manager, Project (Power Uprate) 0] Steve K. Naeck, Superintendent, Elec/Mech 0 Other: Len Gucwa 0 0] Frank Lipinski, Superintendent, I&C 0] John J. Geyster, Superintendent, Rad. Protection 0] Sam Wender, Superintendent, Chemistry 0 Patrick Ryan , Manager, Security 0] Fred Burger, Corrective Action Eng 0] Thomas White, Manager, QA White Plains:

Wayne Aho, Operating Experience (OEC)

Ken Farabaugh, Maintenance Rule Program (MRE) 0 Charlene Faison, Manager, Licensing, ENN (access to file provided via E-mail and considered acceptable (RMD))

0 Other: Brian Hobbs 0 Other:

Distributed by: zM Date: 76 lo Latest interim update: June 30, 2004

Docket No. 50-271 BVY 04-058 Attachment 3 Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Station Proposed Technical Specification Change No. 263 - Supplement No. 8 Extended Power Uprate Response to Request for Additional Information Affidavit - General Electric Company

General Electric Company AFFIDAVIT I, George B. Stramback, state as follows:

(1) I am Manager, Regulatory Services, General Electric Company ("GE") and have been delegated the function of reviewing the information described in paragraph (2) which is sought to be withheld, and have been authorized to apply for its withholding.

(2) The information sought to be withheld is contained in Attachment 2 to GE letter GE-VYNPS-AEP-3 50, Michael Dick (GE) to Craig Nichols (ENOI), VYNPS Extended Power Uprate - Response to NRC Request for Additional Information, Proprietary and Non-Proprietary Versions, dated July 1, 2004. The Attachment 2 proprietary information, GE Responses to NRC RAls, is delineated by a double underline inside double square brackets.

In each case, the superscript notation 3) refers to Paragraph (3) of this affidavit, which provides the basis for the proprietary determination.

(3) In making this application for withholding of proprietary information of which it is the owner, GE relies upon the exemption from disclosure set forth in the Freedom of Information Act ("FOIA"), 5 USC Sec. 552(b)(4), and the Trade Secrets Act, 18 USC Sec. 1905, and NRC regulations 10 CFR 9.17(a)(4), and 2.790(a)(4) for "trade secrets" (Exemption 4). The material for which exemption from disclosure is here sought also qualify under the narrower definition of "trade secret", within the meanings assigned to those terms for purposes of FOIA Exemption 4 in, respectively, Critical Mass Energy Proiect v. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, 975F2d871 (DC Cir. 1992), and Public Citizen Health Research Group v. FDA, 704F2d1280 (DC Cir. 1983).

(4) Some examples of categories of information which fit into the definition of proprietary information are:

a. Information that discloses a process, method, or apparatus, including supporting data and analyses, where prevention of its use by General Electric's competitors without license from General Electric constitutes a competitive economic advantage over other companies;
b. Information which, if used by a competitor, would reduce his expenditure of resources or improve his competitive position in the design, manufacture, shipment, installation, assurance of quality, or licensing of a similar product;
c. Information which reveals aspects of past, present, or future General Electric customer-funded development plans and programs, resulting in potential products to General Electric;
d. Information which discloses patentable subject matter for which it may be desirable to obtain patent protection.

GBS-04-1 0-GE-VYNPS-AEP-350.doc Affidavit Page I

The information sought to be withheld is considered to be proprietary for the reasons set forth in paragraphs (4)a., and (4)b, above.

(5) To address 10 CFR 2.790 (b) (4), the information sought to be withheld is being submitted to NRC in confidence. The information is of a sort customarily held in confidence by GE, and is in fact so held. The information sought to be withheld has, to the best of my knowledge and belief, consistently been held in confidence by GE, no public disclosure has been made, and it is not available in public sources. All disclosures to third parties including any required transmittals to NRC, have been made, or must be made, pursuant to regulatory provisions or proprietary agreements which provide for maintenance of the information in confidence. Its initial designation as proprietary information, and the subsequent steps taken to prevent its unauthorized disclosure, are as set forth in paragraphs (6) and (7) following.

(6) Initial approval of proprietary treatment of a document is made by the manager of the originating component, the person most likely to be acquainted with the value and sensitivity of the information in relation to industry knowledge. Access to such documents within GE is limited on a "need to know" basis.

(7) The procedure for approval of external release of such a document typically requires review by the staff manager, project manager, principal scientist or other equivalent authority, by the manager of the cognizant marketing function (or his delegate), and by the Legal Operation, for technical content, competitive effect, and determination of the accuracy of the proprietary designation. Disclosures outside GE are limited to regulatory bodies, customers, and potential customers, and their agents, suppliers, and licensees, and others with a legitimate need for the information, and then only in accordance with appropriate regulatory provisions or proprietary agreements.

(8) The information identified in paragraph (2), above, is classified as proprietary because it contains detailed information in support of NEDC-33090P, Safety Analysis Report for Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Station Constant Pressure Power Uprate, Class Mf1(GE Proprietary Information), Revision 0, dated September 2003, which was submitted to the NRC. This power uprate report contains detailed results and conclusions from evaluations of the safety-significant changes necessary to demonstrate the regulatory acceptability for the power uprate of a GE BWR, utilizing analytical models, methods and processes, including computer codes, which GE has developed, obtained NRC approval of and applied to perform evaluations of the transient and accident events in the GE Boiling Water Reactor

("BWR"). The development and approval of these system, component, and thermal hydraulic models and computer codes was achieved at a significant cost to GE, on the order of several million dollars.

The development of the evaluation process along with the interpretation and application of the analytical results is derived from the extensive experience database that constitutes a major GE asset.

(9) Public disclosure of the information sought to be withheld is likely to cause substantial harm to GE's competitive position and foreclose or reduce the availability of profit-making opportunities. The information is part of GE's comprehensive BWR safety and technology base, and its commercial value extends beyond the original development cost. The value of GBS-04-1 0-GE-VYNPS-AEP-350.doc Affidavit Page 2

the technology base goes beyond the extensive physical database and analytical methodology and includes development of the expertise to determine and apply the appropriate evaluation process. In addition, the technology base includes the value derived from providing analyses done with NRC-approved methods.

The research, development, engineering, analytical and NRC review costs comprise a substantial investment of time and money by GE.

The precise value of the expertise to devise an evaluation process and apply the correct analytical methodology is difficult to quantify, but it clearly is substantial.

GE's competitive advantage will be lost if its competitors are able to use the results of the GE experience to normalize or verify their own process or if they are able to claim an equivalent understanding by demonstrating that they can arrive at the same or similar conclusions.

The value of this information to GE would be lost if the information were disclosed to the public. Making such information available to competitors without their having been required to undertake a similar expenditure of resources would unfairly provide competitors with a windfall, and deprive GE of the opportunity to exercise its competitive advantage to seek an adequate return on its large investment in developing these very valuable analytical tools.

I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing affidavit and the matters stated therein are true and correct to the best of my knowledge, information, and belief.

Executed on this Ja day of 2004.

""_rge B."tramback General Electric Company GBS-04-10-GE-VYNPS-AEP-350.doc Affidavit Page 3

EXHIBIT 4 BVY 04-058 \ Attachment 2 \ Page 126 of 189 Docket No. 50-271 NON-PROPRIETARY INFORMATION Plant Systems Branch (SPLB)

RAI SPLB-A-1 General: _-

Implementation of the proposed VYNPS EPU requires increased volumetric flow rates, which result in higher flow velocities in the existing piping systems for the CPPU conditions. Please provide the calculated flow velocities that will result due to the proposed EPU conditions, and compare them to the design criteria and industry guidelines for systems such as main steam and associated systems, condensate and feedwater system, and other balance-of-plant (BOP) systems that are affected. Also, discuss in detail any dynamic loading and water hammer affects that the EPU will have on system functional and design capabilities.

Response to RAI SPLB-A-1 The CPPU evaluation of velocities in BOP Systems determined that the existing design was acceptable. Flow velocities also affect pipe wall thinning due to flow accelerated corrosion (FAC). Other factors including piping material, flow conditions, and water chemistry can affect FAC wear rates. These factors are considered and will continue to be considered as part of the FAC program. FAC is discussed in PUSAR section 10.7:

"VYNPS has evaluated CPPU system operating conditions for changes in FAC effects on plant piping and components. Implementation of CPPU primarily affects moisture content, temperature, oxygen, and flow velocity. The magnitude of predicted wear rates increase and vary throughout the BOP piping due to increased flows, temperatures, and the moisture removal capabilities of plant equipment ...

Based on experience at pre CPPU operating conditions and previous FAC modeling results, CPPU operating conditions will result in the need for additional FAC inspections.

The increase in MS (Main Steam) and FW (Feedwater) flow rates at CPPU conditions do not significantly affect the potential for FAC in these systems.

Increases in the low measured wear rates are expected to increase proportionately with flow. Operation under CPPU conditions will require additional focus for the FAC inspection program for the Main Steam Drains, Moisture Separator Drains, and the Turbine Cross Around System piping. The Extraction Steam System piping at VYNPS is constructed of FAC resistant material."

Note: No new systems are required to be added to FAC program, rather the "need for additional FAC inspections" (stated above) refers to potential changes in monitoring frequency/number of data points evaluated as part of the current FAC inspections, based on any changes in predicated wear rates or component life.

The following discussions summarize the calculated flow velocities and acceptance criteria for CPPU conditions. Note that in many cases velocities were calculated using a 122% power PEPSE heat balance model, which bounds the 120% CPPU condition.

BVY 04-058 \ Attachment 2 \ Page 127 of 189 Docket No. 50-271 NON-PROPRIETARY INFORMATION Main Steam Velocity Main Steam flow velocity values for original design, current, and expected uprate conditions are contained in Table SPLB-A-1-1. 'The steam velocity will increase approximately 29% from current. The uprate flow velocity remains within Stone &

Webster / industry guidance for steam velocities. . ---..

The predicted uprate pressure, temperature, and velocity operating conditions in the Main Steam piping are acceptable and considered to be within the current design for proposed CPPU (including 122% analyzed conditions). Incorporation of uprate parameters and continued monitoring in accordance with the VYNPS FAC program will continue for the CPPU conditions.

BVY 04-058 \ Attachment 2 \ Page 128 of 189 Docket No. 50-271 NON-PROPRIETARY INFORMATION Table SPLB-A-1-1 RPV Steam Outlet/Main Steam Parameters S&W Current, GE S&W ....

Parameter Design, Current UFSAR CPPU, 122% Is uprate condition PEPSE Fig. 1.6-2 120% PEPSE Reactor Core Power 1593 1593 1593 1912 1951 Info only Level, MWt I Power Increase from N/A 0 0 319 358 Info only Original, MWt From Reactor Velocity, Ft./s. 174 173 173 213 218 Yes - Note 1 Turbine Stop Valve Inlet Piping (18") Conditions Design S&W Current, GE S&W GE CPPU Is uprate Parameter Rated Current UFSAR CPPU, 122% 125%

PEPSE Fig. 1.6-2 120% PEPSE bounded?

Steam Flow 6,423,000 6,430,654 6,431,532 7,900,000 8,068,494 8,295,000 Yes Rate, lbmlhr I__________

Velocity, iFt./s. 185 181 185 228 233.6 239.4 Yes - Note 1 Notes: 1. Stone & Webster / accepted industry recommended velocity is -250 ft/sec. maximum.

Uprate velocity is bounded by this recommendation.

BVY 04-058 \ Attachment 2 \ Page 129 of 189 Docket No. 50-271 NON-PROPRrETARY INFORMATION Extraction Steam Velocity Table SPLB-A-1-2 summarizes extraction steam velocities. The extraction steam piping at VYNPS is constructed of FAC resistant material. The extraction steam flow velocities listed below are based on the analyzed 122% heat balance conditions (1950.9 MWt) assuming a condenser pressure of 2.25 in Hg. The accepted I recommended maximum velocities for saturated steam in this pressure range are 1,000 feet per minute per inch diameter, with a maximum velocity of 15,000 fpm and a minimum velocity of 4,000 fpm. For low pressure extraction (below 15 psig) a velocity range of 12,000 to 18,000 fpm is recommended.

Table SPLB.A-1-2 Summary of Extraction Line Velocities Extraction Line to Extraction Line to Extraction Line to Extraction Line to Extraction Line to Heater I Heater 2 Heater 3 Heater 4 Heater 5 Current PEPSE Current PEPSE Current PEPSE Current PEPSE Current PEPSE PEPSE 122% PEPSE 122% PEPSE 122% PEPSE 122% PEPSE 122%

Velocity, fpm Ift 8,326 /139 9,061 10,226/170 11,033 9,823/164 10,685 10,613/177 10,695 14,551/243 19,152 per sec /151 /184 /178 /178 /319 Max. 12,000/200 10,000/167 15,000/250 18,000/300 18,000/ 300 Recommended Note 1 Note 1 Velocity (fpm / ft per sec)

Note 1. The 122% velocities in extraction lines to FW heaters 2 and 5, exceed the recommended maximum by approximately 10%

and 6% respectively. Note that the extraction line to FW heater 5 velocity at 120% power is 17,760 ft/min (296 ft/sec) and is less than maximum recommended velocity. Considering that all the extraction lines are low-alloy steel, and therefore, more corrosion resistant than carbon steel piping, this uprate velocity is considered acceptable, with appropriate FAC monitoring. Currently, all extraction lines are monitored by the FAC program. This piping has not experienced excessive corrosion/erosion rates and no significant changes are expected due to CPPU.

BVY 04-058 \ Attachment 2 \ Page 130 of 189 Docket No. 50-271 NON-PROPRIETARY INFORMATION Condensate and Feedwater Velocity Table SPLB-A-1-3 provides the calculated piping velocities in the Condensate and Feedwater system based on flows at the analyzed 122% power level and with Condenser pressure at 5" Hg. These conditions were used as the bounding parameter to determine the CFW system- velocities because the CFW mass flows (and hence;-

piping velocities) are greater in this CPPU case when the flows are compared to the other CPPU cases.

Each segment from the Condenser Hotwell to the Reactor Vessel supply line was evaluated at CPPU conditions and compared to pre-CPPU operating conditions. The resulting CPPU piping velocities are presented below and compared to acceptable industry standards including S&W standards.

Typical acceptable velocities based on industry experience -

" Feedwater Pump Suction - 600 feet / minute = 10 ft / sec

  • Feedwater discharge - 1,200 to 1,500 feet / minute = 20 to 25 ft/sec

" Condensate Pump Suction - 3 feet per second at pump runout

BVY 04-058 \ Attachment 2 \ Page 131 of 189 Docket No. 50-271 NON-PROPRIETARY INFORMATION Table SPLB-A-1-3 Condensate/FW Branch Line Velocity Evaluation Results Line Branch Description Velocity at Velocity at Velocity 100% 122% Criteria Power Power ft/sec ft/sec ft/sec (current) (Note 1)

Hotwell to Condensate Pump Suction Header 4 4.5 5 Condensate Pump Suction Header 6 7.8 5 Condensate Suction Header to Cond Pumps 3 4.1 3 Condensate Pumps to Discharge Header 6 7.8 10 Condensate Pump Discharge Header 10 13.0 10 Cond Pump Discharge Header to SJAE 12 15.5 10 SJAE to Steam Seal Exhauster 10 13.1 10 Steam Seal Exhauster to Cond Demins 10 13.1 10 Cond Demins to LP Heaters 5A and 5B Header 10 13.1 10 LP Heater Header to Individual LP Heaters 7 9.4 10 FW Heater #5 to FWH #4 8 9.6 12 FW Heater #4 to FWH #3 8 9.8 12 LP Heaters to RFP Suction Header 8 10.2 10 Reactor Feedpump Discharge to Common Discharge 15 13.0 25 Header (Note.2)

Reactor Feedpump Common Discharge Header 7 8.5 25 RFP Common Discharge Header to Individual HP FWH 12 15.2 25 (Note 3)

FW Heater #2 to FWH #1 13 15.7 25 Individual HP Heaters to FW 16x18 Reducer 13 16.2 25 From 16x18 Reducer to Reactor Vessel Supply Lines 16 20.5 25 Reactor Vessel Supply 18 22.9 25 Note 1: As stated in Section 10.7 of PUSAR, feedwater flow rates at CPPU conditions do not significantly affect the potential for FAC in these systems. Increases in the low measured wear rates are expected to increase proportionately with flow. FAC wear rates are managed under the FAC Program.

Note 2: Based upon 2 pump operation at CLP and 3 pump operation at CPPU Note 3: The maximum velocity in the FW system occurs at 18"x10" eccentric reducer at inlet and outlet of FWRVs. The velocityin these fittings is 34 ft/sec currently and increases to 43 ft/sec at CPPU. The fittings are currently monitored in the FAC program.

BVY 04-058 \ Attachment 2 \ Page 132 of 189 Docket No. 50-271 NON-PROPRIETARY INFORMATION Feedwater Heater Drains Velocity Table SPBL-A-1-4 provides the calculated piping velocities in the Feedwater Heater Drains System based on flows at the analyzed 122% power level and with Condenser pressure at 2.25" Hg and 1" Hg.

Table SPLB-A-1-4 FW Heater Drain System Evaluation Results Drain Flow Velocity from FW Heaters Equipment Sch. Flow Vol. Flow Velocity, Conditions Size Note Area, No. of Drain Flow, Spec vol., Rate, ft/sec Note 1 1 1 sq.ft, Note__ 1_ 1 Note lines

_u Ibm/hr, total cu. ft/Ibm cu.ftlhr (Note 1) fthr_(Note_1)

FW Heaters IA&B, HD-1AB & HD-2A/B, Nor and Alt, Htr I to LCV 100%, Current 374,388 0.0179 6,702 4.64 122%, 2.25" 6" Std 0.2006 2 501,134 0.0181 9,071 6.28 CPPU 122%, 1" CPPU 501,756 0.0181 9,082 6.29 FW Heaters 2A&B, HD-3A/B & HD-4AIB, Nor and Alt, Htr 2 to LCV 100%, Current 1,237,922 0.0179 22,159 5.62 122%, 2.25" 10" Std 0.5475 2 1,539,413 0.0181 27,863 7.07 CPPU 122%, 1" CPPU 1,541,888 0.0181 27,908 7.08 FW Heaters 3A&B, HD-5AIB & HD-6AIB, Nor and Alt, Htr 3 to LCV 100%, Current 1,630,730 0.0179 29,190 4.23 122%C 2.25" 14 Std 0.9575 2 2,064,066 0.0181 37,360 CPPU 5.42 122%, 1" CPPU 2,074,241 0.0181 37,544 5.45 FW Heaters 4A&B, HD-7AIB & HD-BAIB, Nor and Alt, Htr 4 to LCV I 100%, Current 1,980,787 0.0179 35,456 3.88 122%, 2.25" 16 Std 1.2684 2 2,491,524 0.0181 45,097 4.94 CPPU 122%, 1" CPPU 2,527,482 0.0181 45,747 5.01 FW Heaters 5A&B, HD-14 A&B, Nor and Alt, Htr 5 to LCV 100%, Current 2,421,084 0.0179 43,337 4.75 122%, 2.25' 16" CPPU Branc CPPU Branch Std 1.2684 2 3,088,475 0.0181 55,901 6.12 122%, 1" CPPU 3,239,069. 0.0181 58,627 6.42 100%, Current 20" Std 2.0142 2 2,421,084 0.0179 43,337 2.99 122%, 2.25" 3,088,475 0.0181 55,901 3.85 CPPU Header 122%, 1" CPPU 3,239,069 0.0181 58,627 4.04 Notes:

1. Stone &Webster/Industry Heater Drain Line Design Criteria state that the maximum velocity for subcooled heater drain flow is 8 feet per second. All heater drain lines meet this criterion.

BVY 04-058 \ Attachment 2 \ Page 133 of 189 Docket No. 50-271 NON-PROPRIETARY INFORMATION Moisture Separator Drain Velocity Table SPLB-A-1-5 lists all the normal and emergency drain path flow velocities for current and uprate conditions. The velocity in these drain lines is evaluated based on flow of saturated water. The flow rates and specific volumes used to determine the velocities are from the current and 122%PEPSE heat balances. Pipe Section HD-13A-D exceeds this recommendation for current and CPPU conditions. This piping is inlet to the alternate drain path level control valve. The velocity is acceptable for this short piping section at the inlet to the control valve (LCV-1 03-23A-D).

Table SPLB-A-1-5 Moisture Separator Drain Line Velocity Evaluation Results Drain Flow Velocity from Moisture Separators Equipment Size Sch. Flow No. of Drain Flow, Spec vol., Vol. Flow Velocity, Condiins Siz Area, l Ibm/hr, Rate, ft/sec Ct sq.ft, I total Icu. ft/Ibm cu.ft/hr (Note 1)

Moisture Separators, HD-IIA-D, 24" section, Capacitance adding pipe section 100%, Current 122%, 2.25" CPPU 24 sI2l t

2.481 1 -

1 701,53210.0184_

809,548 0.0184 12,908 14,896 0.30 0.35 Moisture Separators, HD-1IA-D, 6" section 100%, Current s ooo 701,532 0.0184 12,908 4.47 122%, 2.25" CPPU d 6 I 809,548 0.0184 14,896 5.16

,o0 cu re, I61~Q 100%, Current 122%, 2.25" CPPU 6 St oFo20061 Moisture Separators, HD-12A-D, 6" section 6 A L701,532 809,548 0.0184 I12,908 0.0184 14,896 4.47 5.16 Moisture Separators, HD-12A-D, 8" section, Drain Tank Outlet 100%, Current o0.0184 701,532 o12,908o2.58 122%, 2.25" CPPU 8" 1 809,548 0.0184 14,896 2.98 Moisture Separators, HD-13A-D, 4" section, LCV-23 Inlet Emergency Drain 100%, Current 4"S t d 0.0884 1701,532 0.0184 12,908 I 10.14 122%, 2.25" CPPU j 0 1 4 809,548 .0.0184 14,896 11.70 Moisture Separators, HD-13A-D, 6" section, Emergency Drain 100%, Current '6",Sd 1 02006 1 701,532 0.0184 12,908 4.47 122%, 2.25" CPPU t ,2 1 809,548 0.0184 14,896 5.16 Note 1: Stone &Webster/Industry Heater Drain Line Design Criteria state that the maximum velocity for saturated drain flow is 4 feet per second. This velocity is exceeded for the 4" and 6" pipe sections for current and uprate conditions. Significant Increases in the low measured wear rates are not expected. However, FAC monitoring will note any changes and the wear rates will continue to be managed under the FAC Program.

BVY 04-058 \ Attachment 2 \ Page 134 of 189 Docket No. 50-271 NON-PROPRIETARY INFORMATION Cross-Around Pipinq Velocity As shown in Table SPLB-A-1-6, the expected flow velocity is expected to have minimal, if any change. The mass flow rate increases by as much as 26% above the current flow, however, the increase in pressure will cause a decrease in the specific volume, which reduces the volumetric flow rate. The net affect of the increase in mass flow rate and decrease in specific volume is a minimal change in flow velocity. The Cross-Around flow velocities are approximately 7,500 fpm for the 36 inch pipe sections and 11,800 fpm for the 30 Inch sections; all within the Stone &

Webster guidance (15,000 fpm for saturated steam in this size piping and pressure range).

Therefore, the uprate flow velocities are considered acceptable. Continued Flow Accelerated Corrosion (FAC) program monitoring will ensure that any changes to the erosion/corrosion rates are captured and managed.

Table SPLB-A-1-6 Cross-Around Piping Velocity Evaluation Results Cross-Around Piping (HP Turbine Exhaust)

Design, "Tuned" UFSAR 120%, 122%

Parameter Rated- PEPSE- Fig. 1.6- Rated, PEPSE - Is uprate condition 2-1593 1912 1950 bounded?

1593 MWt 1593 MWt MWt MWt MWt 36- inch Section From HP Turbine to Moisture Separator Velocity, ft/min 7,597 7,098 7,526 1 7,554 7,573 Yes - Note 1 Velocity, ft/sec. 126.6 118.3 125.4 125.9 1 126.2 See fL/min.

Note: 1. The Stone & Webster/Industry criteria is 15,000 fpm for saturated steam in this size piping and pressure range Cross-Around Piping (Moisture Separator Outlet)

Design, "Tuned" UFSAR 120%, 122%,

Parameter Rated - PEPSE - Fig. 1.6- Rated, PEPSE- Is uprate condition

_____________1593_MWtI 1593 MWt 2-Mt 1593 Mt 1912 Mt 1950 __________ bounded?

MWt MWt MW~t 30-inch Section From MS to LP Turbine Velocity I IIII Velocity, ft/min Note 2 11,494 11,546 111,590 11,564 Yes - Note 1 Velocity, ft/sec Note 2 192 192 1 193 93 See ft/min.

Note: 1. The Stone & Webster/Industry criteria is 15,000 fpm for saturated steam in this size piping and pressure range Note: 2. Conditions not shown on design heat balance Cross-Around Piping (LP Turbine Inlet)

UFSAR 120%, 122%

Parameter Rated - PEPSE - Fig. 1.6- Rated, PEPSE- Is uprate condition 2- 1593 1912 1950 bounded?

1593 MWt 1593 MWt MWt MWt MWt LP Turbine Inlet Velocity, ft/min 11,689 11,583 11,576 11,624 11,610 Yes - Note 1 Velocity, ft/sec 195 193 193 194 193 See ft/min.

Note: 1. The Stone & Webster/Industry criteria is 15,000 fpm for saturated steam in this size piping and pressure range

Retrieved from "https://kanterella.com/w/index.php?title=ML081480403&oldid=2248545"