ML082100008
| ML082100008 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Vermont Yankee  |
| Issue date: | 07/21/2008 |
| From: | Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel |
| To: | |
| SECY RAS | |
| References | |
| 50-271-LR, ASLBP 06-849-03-LR, NRC-2296, RAS M-150 | |
| Download: ML082100008 (187) | |
Text
ý-h-S HK- t Official Transcript of Proceedings NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
Title:
Entergy Nuclear Vermont Yankee Docket Number: 50-271-LR; ASLBP No. 06-849-03-LR DOCKETED Location: Newfane, Vermont USNRC July 25, 2008 (10:00am)
OFFICE OF SECRETARY RULEMAKINGS AND Date: Monday, July 21, 2008 ADJUDICATIONS STAFF Work Order No.: NRC-2296 Pages 694-878 NEAL R. GROSS AND CO., INC.
Court Reporters and Transcribers-1323 Rhode Island Avenue, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20005 (202) 234-4433
... . jvýtý
694 1 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 2 NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 3 + + + + +
4 ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD 5 HEARING 6
7 In the Matter of:
8 ENTERGY NUCLEAR VERMONT 9 YANKEE, LLC 11 Docket No. 50-271-LR 10 and ASLB No. 06-849-03-LR 11 ENTERGY NUCLEAR OPERATIONS, 12 INC. (Vermont Yankee Nuclear 13 Power Station) 14 15 Monday, July 21, 2008 16 17 Windham County Superior Court 18 7 Court Street 19 Newfane, Vermont 20 21 BEFORE:
22 ALEX S. KARLIN, Chair, Administrative Judge 23 RICHARD E. WARDWELL, Administrative Judge 24 WILLIAM REED, 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.nealrgross.com
695 1 APPEARANCES:
2 On Behalf of Entergy Nuclear Vermont Yankee, LLC 3 and Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc.:
4 DAVID R. LEWIS, ESQ.
5 MATIAS F. TRAVIESO-DIAZ, ESQ.
6 ELINA TEPLINSKY, ESQ.
7 of: Pillsbury Winthrop Shaw Pittman LLP 8 2300 N Street, N.W.
9 Washington, D.C. 20037-1128 10 11 On Behalf of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission:
12 LLOYD B. SUBIN, ESQ.
13 DAVID E. ROTH, ESQ.
14 MARY C. BATY, ESQ.
15 JESSICA A. BIELECKI, ESQ.
16 Office of the General Counsel 17 Mail Stop - 0-15 D21 18 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 19 Washington, D.C. 20555-0001 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 v
696 1 On Behalf of the New England Coalition:
2 KAREN L. TYLER, ESQ.
3 ANDREW LAUBVOGEL, ESQ.
4 of: Shems Dunkiel Kassel & Saunders PLLC 5 91 College Street 6 Burlington, Vermont 05401 7
8 On Behalf of the State of Vermont:
9 SARAH HOFMANN, ESQ.
10 Director for Public Advocacy 11 Department of Public Service 12 112 State Street - Drawer 20 13 Montpelier, Vermont 05620-2601 14 15 ANTHONY Z. ROISMAN, ESQ.
16 National Legal Scholars Law Firm 17 84 East Thetford Road 18 Lyme, New Hampshire 03768 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
697 1 On Behalf of the State of New Hampshire:
2 PETER C.L. ROTH, ESQ.
3 Senior Assistant Attorney General 4 State of New Hampshire 5 Office of the New Hampshire 6 Attorney General 7 33 Capitol Street 8 Concord, New Hampshire 03301 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) 234-44 M33 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nea Irgross com
698 1 TABLE OF CONTENTS 2 Preliminary Issues . . . . . . . . . . . . 704 3 Opening Statements 4 NEC ............... .................... * . 731 5 State of Vermont .. . . . . . . . . . * . 739 6 Entergy ............ .................. * . 743 7 NRC Staff ............ ................. * . 751 8 State of New Hampshire .......... * . 756 9 Exhibit No. Mark Recd 10 Entergy 11 E2-017VY Fitzpatrick/Steven Test. 762 763 12 E2-02-VY Supplemental Testimony 764 764 13 E2-37-VY Supplemental Testimony 764 764 14 NRC Staff 15 la John Fair Affidavit 766 768 16 1-13, 22, 23 771 776 17 D ASME Code Excerpt 773 774 18 NEC 19 1, 2 Hopenfeld Direct and 20 Rebuttal Testimony 778 778 21 JH02-JH35 778 778 22 JH62-JH66 778 778 23 JH68-JH72 778 778 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
699 1 P ROC E E D I N G S 2 1:01 P.M.
3 JUDGE KARLIN: Thank you. Mr. Reporter, 4 we'll go on the record now.
5 In accordance with the Atomic Energy Act 6 and the regulations of the Nuclear Regulatory 7 Commission, we are convening here today an evidentiary 8 hearing in the matter of Entergy Nuclear Vermont 9 Yankee, LLC and Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc. Let 10 me get this right, the docket number is 50-271-LR, LR 11 stands for license renewal. And the Atomic Safety and 12 Licensing Board number is 06-84903LR.
13 It is an application where Entergy is 14 applying for a 20-year renewal of its license to 15 operate the Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Plant in 16 Vernon, Vermont.
17 For the record, today's date is July 21, 18 2008 and this proceeding is being held in the Windham 19 Superior Court in Newfane, Vermont.
20 Welcome to everyone here.
21 On my left is Dr. Richard Wardwell. He is 22 a Ph.D. in groundwater and geotechnical engineering.
23 Dr. Wardwell was formerly the chair of the State Board 24 of Environmental Protection for the State of Maine and 25 is with the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board as a NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com
700 1 full-time scientific and technical member.
2 On my right is Dr. William Reed. He has 3 a degree from MIT. It's not a Ph.D. It's a Doctor of 4 Science from MIT and he's formerly one of the Deputy 5 Directors at Los Alamos and more recently was the head 6 of the Department of Energy Computational Program 7 known as the Accelerated Strategic Computing 8 Initiative.
9 My name is Alex Karlin. I'm a lawyer by 10 training. I spent about 30 years doing environmental 11 law and I've been with the Atomic Safety and Licensing 12 Board for a little over four years as a Legal Judge.
13 I'd like to introduce our other 14 administrative staff before we get started. First, we 15 have two lawyers who are our law clerks, Marcia 16 Carpentier to my right and Lauren Bregman, another 17 lawyer and law clerk who assists the Board with legal 18 and other matters.
19 Karen Valloch is our administrative 20 assistant. She's here waving her hand there and helps 21 with administrative matters.
22 We have NRC security personnel here who 23 have helped arrange this, Gary Simpler and Adam 24 Gaudreau. And the local Sheriff's Office has been 25 cooperative and helped us share Kenneth Clark, has NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com
701 1 made two of his officers available, Officer Larkin and 2 Lavalla who are here today in the courtroom. Thank 3 you for being here. And thanks to Sheriff Clark.
4 Diane Screnci is with the NRC Office of 5 Public Affairs. She's sitting over there. And for 6 media or other public affairs-related matters she'd be 7 the one you might want to talk with if you had a 8 question.
9 Our court reporter is Mr. Toby Walter and 10 he's here to record and transcribe all of the 11 proceeding and that transcription will later be made 12 public in a couple of weeks or two on the NRC website 13 so everyone can see it.
14 With that now I'd like to ask the parties 15 if they would introduce themselves, so we'll start 16 with the New England Coalition. NEC, please.
17 MS. TYLER: Karen Tyler representing NEC 18 and I'm here with my co-counsel Andrew Laubvogel. And 19 also seated at the table is our client, a 20 representative of our client, Raymond Shadis.
21 JUDGE KARLIN: Welcome, welcome. Thank 22 you.
23 Entergy.
24 MR. LEWIS: Yes, Judge Karlin, good 25 morning. My name is David Lewis. I'm with the law NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com
702 1 firm of Pilsbury, Winthrop, Shaw, Pittman representing 2 Entergy. With me from the same firm is Mr. Matias 3 Travieso-Diaz and Mr. Blake Nelson.
4 There are numerous representatives of 5 Entergy in the audience. I won't introduce them all, 6 but they include Mr. Ted Sullivan, the Site Vice 7 President, and Mr. John Dreyfus, the Director of 8 Nuclear Safety Assurance.
9 JUDGE KARLIN: Great, thank you, welcome.
10 And I might ask everyone to try to speak up as we much 11 as possible because not only are we trying to 12 communicate here, but people in the audience, they 13 also would want to here and it's a little harder when 14 you're facing this direction for them to hear what you 15 all are saying.
16 The NRC staff, please, Mr. Subin.
17 MR. SUBIN: Lloyd Subin for the NRC staff 18 attorney. Mary Baty, and Jessica Bielecki.
19 JUDGE KARLIN: Welcome, welcome. State of 20 Vermont, please.
21 MS. HOFMANN: Thank you, Sarah Hofmann, on 22 behalf on behalf of the State of Vermont, the 23 Department of Public Service of Vermont. With me is 24 my consulting attorney, Anthony Roisman of the 25 National Legal Scholars. Thank you.
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com
703 1 JUDGE KARLIN: Thank you. Welcome. State 2 of New Hampshire, is the State of New Hampshire 3 represented? No.
4 State of Massachusetts? They told us 5 there are three states who are active and involved in 6 this case. They include the State of Vermont, they 7 just spoke. And the State of New Hampshire also is 8 represented and has counsel. They, I guess, are not 9 here today.
10 And the State of Massachusetts also is an 11 interested state. It's a formal status in this type 12 of proceeding and they have formal proper status, but 13 they indicated to us that they would not be attending 14 this meeting. So we have three states and essentially 15 three main parties.
16 Welcome to all of you and thank you for 17 coming.
18 Before we get going, we want to thank this 19 Court, Judge David Howard, I believe is the presiding 20 Judge of this Court, this historic Courtroom, Windham 21 Superior Court and we appreciate that he and Larry 22 Robinson the Clerk of this Court have made this 23 facility available.
24 It's tight, it's warm, we'll all have to 25 work together and keep the fans going at full blast, NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com
704 1 but we appreciate the use of this facility, historic 2 and beautiful facility.
3 I also welcome the public and the 4 opportunity to listen, to hear, to hopefully maybe 5 understand a little bit about what we're trying to do 6 and the nature of this proceeding.
7 Before we get into it, I'll go through a 8 few sort of preliminary matters to get everyone up to 9 speed and I have five of them that I'd like to cover.
10 First, well, housekeeping, what is the 11 Atomic Safety and Licensing Board? What is the nature 12 of a license renewal proceeding? What's the history 13 of this proceeding, a very brief sort of thing on 14 that, and what's the nature of an evidentiary hearing?
15 What are we going to do in this evidentiary hearing?
16 With that, housekeeping. If everyone 17 could get their cell phones and turn them off so that 18 we don't get interrupted. I'll do the same thing.
19 The media is welcome and we're glad they're here 20 because they can provide some avenue for the public to 21 be informed about this case, so it's welcome to be 22 here.
23 In terms of the second point, the nature 24 and role of the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board. I 25 think it's a bit important to sort of understand a NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com
705 1 little bit about that.
2 Federal law says that the Nuclear 3 Regulatory Commission is supposed to regulate nuclear 4 facilities in this country. The NRC, the Commission 5 is headed by four Commissioners. They are appointed 6 by the President and confirmed by the Senate and they 7 lead the NRC.
8 The Commissioners have a large staff who 9 works for them and they are referred to as the NRC 10 staff and they're represented here today with lawyers
.11 and with technical people who have spent a lot of time 12 working on this case.
13 The third arm or entity within the NRC is 14 the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board. We're 15 established by a statute, part of the Atomic Energy 16 Act. We're kind of the judicial branch of the NRC.
17 Our Judges are separate from the staff. We're 18 separate from the Commissioners. We have no 19 connection or allegiance to the staff.
20 We have no communications with the staff, 21 except what goes informally on the record in writing 22 or what is heard here today in Court. We don't talk 23 with them or anything else, even though we're in the 24 same office building back in Rockville, Maryland.
25 It's a large office building, actually.
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com
706 1 And under the judicial rules, the rules 2 that govern this proceeding, we're prohibited from 3 talking with them, the staff, and they're prohibited 4 from talking with us. The same thing holds true with 5 regard to all the other parties, too. We don't talk 6 with them outside of the record. They don't talk with 7 us. We are a judicial type of tribunal.
8 Same thing holds true really with regard 9 to the Commissioners. We don't talk with the 10 Commissioners. They talk with us. They don't tell us 11 what. they think we should do in this case. We get the 12 case. We listen to the evidence. We try to make the 13 best decision we can and we issue a ruling and that 14 ruling will be the final ruling of the NRC, unless 15 somebody appeals it to the Commissioners and they're 16 like our appellate level. And if it's appealed to the 17 Commissioners, the Commissioners will take a look at 18 the issues that are appealed and they'll issue their 19 ruling and they can overrule us or they can affirm us, 20 but they don't give me a performance review at the end 21 of the year. They don't tell me how I ruled is good, 22 give me a bonus. No bonuses, no performance reviews, 23 no nothing. We just rule the way we see it and at the 24 end of the tribunal if somebody doesn't like it, they 25 can appeal.
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com
707 1 These rules are kind of in place to help 2 us be as neutral and impartial as we can in ruling and 3 calling them the way we see it. That's sort of what 4 the Board is.
5 Third preliminary matter is the nature of 6 the license renewal proceeding. It's limited in scope 7 by the law, by the regulations to issues that relate 8 to the renewal of the facility, to the aging of the 9 facility, and how the aging will be managed over the 10 20-year time frame they're asking for. This is not an 11 uprate tribunal. We're not dealing with the uprate 12 that occurred here. We're not dealing with other 13 collateral matters. This is not a hearing on Yucca 14 Mountain and whether it should open or close.
15 We are not even here to talk about the 16 cooling structure that had a problem in August of '07 17 and part of it collapsed or the cooling structure that 18 sprung a leak last week or the other day. That's not 19 our bailiwick. No one has brought that issue before 20 us. It's important current issues are out there and 21 we only have a limited slice in this tribunal of what 22 we're dealing with.
23 Fourth, a brief history of this 24 proceeding. And I'll try to keep it brief. It's been 25 a couple of years.
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202)t 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com
708 1 In January of '06, Entergy applied for its 2 license renewal. In May of 2006, petitions were filed 3 to challenge and ask for a hearing with regard to 4 those issues. This Board was formed in June of '06 5 and we came to Brattleboro in August of '06 and had a 6 meeting in the high school where the parties argued 7 that they should have a petition and have a right to 8 have a hearing on certain issues they thought were 9 important.
10 We listened to that, we read the briefs 11 and we issued a ruling in September of '06 saying yes, 12 some of the petitioners did have good contentions that 13 met the requirements and we're going to have a hearing 14 on it. So we granted the request to have the 15 evidentiary hearing. This is the evidentiary hearing 16 we granted in September of '06.
17 Why did it take so long since then? It's 18 because there were a lot of other things going on, not 19 by this tribunal, not by this Board, but by the staff 20 which was reviewing the application that was submitted 21 by Entergy, probing a lot of questions, doing a lot of 22 things. The staff issued an environmental impact 23 statement. That took them a couple -- took them a 24 while. They issued an SER. You'll hear that referred 25 to today, a final safety evaluation report. And those NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com
709 1 were issued -- the SER, which was sort of the last
- 2. shoe to drop before we could have this hearing was 3 issued in February 25th of '08. So with that done now 4 we could proceed to get ready for and now hold this 5 evidentiary hearing.
6 During that time frame, we did a couple of 7 things, this Board. We went to the site and took a 8 site visit and inspected the facility for those things 5 that were related to the issues in our case. Did that 10- in October of 2007 and we also had what's known as a 11 limited appearance statement session, where members of 12 the public were entitled to come forward and give us 13 a presentation and a statement as to their concerns 14 that might be related to this case. We did that in 15 the Latchis Theater in October of 2007.
16 So since that time, since February, the 17 parties have submitted piles and piles of documents, 18 exhibits, and testimony from witnesses and other 19 relevant -- we have thousands of pages of material 20 that they have submitted and we have tried to, we have 21 read and tried to understand and digest and I think we 22 want to commend, I want to personally I would commend 23 the parties for submitted for very helpful and useful 24 materials, because there's a lot of difficult 25 technical issues here.
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com
710 1 There are three issues in this case, three 2 contentions that have been admitted. One of them 3 deals with metal fatigue as Entergy, or NEC and the 4 State of Vermont have claimed that Entergy has not 5 properly calculated the fatigue that will occur with 6 regard to certain metal components in the reactor over 7 the 20-year period. And so we're going to evaluate 8 metal fatigue. That's the first contention that we 9 will deal with.
10 Steam dryers is another contention. There 11 is an aging management plan that Entergy has put 12 together as to how it is going to manage the aging of 13 that steam dryer over the 20 years, and NEC and the 14 State of Vermont have contended that that aging 15 management plan is inadequate in several respects and 16 we're going to probe that issue, the steam dryer 17 contention.
18 And third is flow-accelerated corrosion.
19 NEC and the State of Vermont have alleged that Entergy 20 has failed to adequately plan for and come up with a 21 program to manage the corrosion on pipes due to flow 22 accelerator, the flow, flow accelerated corrosion. So 23 those are the three contentions that we're going to 24 deal with. Those are the only three issues we are 25 going to deal with, because that's the way this NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com
711 1 judicial process has worked and that's what's made it
- 2. through the process to this stage.
3 Finally, the fifth point, preliminary 4 point. What'.s the nature of this proceeding? It is, 5 as you might guess, a trial, an evidentiary hearing 6 will be a trial. Witnesses will be sworn in and sit 7 in the witness box over here. Documents and exhibits 8 will be presented as evidence. Then, the only people 9 who talk and get a chance to really talk at this point 10 are the people who are involved in the trial; the 11 lawyers, the judges, and the witnesses will testify.-
12 So that's what happens here.
13 Really, the main thing will be the three 14 of us asking questions of the witnesses, trying to 15 probe some issues that we have developed or questions 16 we have as a result of the testimony and the materials 17 they have already submitted.
18 Those are the five preliminary points.
19 Now I'm going to turn to a couple of specific things 20 for today. Most of this are laid out in the order of 21 July 1 of 2007 for the public. First, we're going to 22 have opening statements. Each of the parties and the 23 interested states who are here will have an 24 opportunity to give us an opening statement. Then 25 we're going to have a presentation of the witnesses.
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com
712 1 We'll have all the witnesses for 2 contention 2 go sit over in the witness box. They 3 will be sworn in and then the exhibits for contention 4 2 will be entered and offered and presumably accepted.
5 We've had objections and ruled on earlier objections, 6 and then we'll ask them questions. At the next point, 7 the Court will ask questions. The Board will ask 8 questions of the witnesses. This may take a half a 9 day. It may take two days on any given contention.
10 We don't know. Hopefully, the witnesses will answer, 11 you know, short and sweet answers., and we'll ask 12 reasonably competent questions and maybe we can get to 13 the bottom of this.
14 We're planning this, hope to be finished 15 by the end of the week. After we ask questions and 16 we've talked about this with the parties before, after 17 we finished asking questions, we will take a 15-minute 18 break and the parties will then be entitled to suggest 19 to us at the end of that break any additional 20 questions they think we should have asked, could have 21 asked, have risen. Then we will listen to what they 22 propose and we may ask some more questions or we may 23 not as we decide is appropriate.
24 There's a few parts of this evidence which 25 is proprietary in nature. It is confidential. It is NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com
713 i business confidential or other confidential 2 information and if we get into that, and I'm not sure 3 that we're going to have to. I don't think it is 4 going to happen today or tomorrow, we may have to have 5 a closed session just for the parties who have signed 6 the nondisclosure agreement, and that would be, you 7 know, the public would not be able to sit in on that.
8 But that would maybe be an hour the whole week, I 9 don't know.
10 I think that captures it all. Anything, 11 my colleagues at this point want to add? We're going 12 to talk about three preliminary issues, but before we 13 proceed, do the parties, representatives of the 14 parties, well, first off, I see the State of New 15 Hampshire may have arrived, so please introduce 16 yourself, sir.
17 MR. ROTH: Yes, Your Honor, thank you.
18 I'm sorry for being late. There was quite a bit of 19 thunder storm traffic on the road.
20 Peter Roth for the State of New Hampshire.
21 JUDGE KARLIN: Welcome, Mr. Roth. Yes, we 22 thought you'd be here and we're glad you are. So now 23 we have three, two states, as I've said earlier, the 24 State of Massachusetts has indicated they would not be 25 able to attend today. But I'm glad New Hampshire is NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com
714 I here. Welcome.
2 We're going to talk about three things 3 that I have on the agenda before we get started. One 4 is the SECY posting of- NEC's proposed direct 5 examination questions. Two is the absence of Dr.
6 Kenneth Chang from the staff. And three is the legal 7 issues about the oral argument on the briefs for the 8 legal issues.
9 Are there any other things that the 10 parties believe are burning issues we need to cover 11 before we start with the evidentiary hearing.
12 NEC, Ms. Tyler?
13 MS. TYLER: I had discussed with Ms.
14 Carpentier this morning the fact that --
15 JUDGE KARLIN: Could you speak us so the 16 audience can hear you.
17 MS. TYLER: I wish I had a microphone.
18 Two of NEC's witnesses, Dr. Hopenfeld and Dr. Hausler 19 have put together PowerPoint slides to which they 20 would like to be able to refer as they are relevant to 21 the Board's questions. We distributed those slides to 22 staff and to Entergy and in discussions among the 23 attorneys they've objected to the admission -- the use 24 of the slides.
25 It's NEC's position, basically what the NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com
715 1 slides -- the slides with the exception of one of 2 them, they contain exclusively information that's 3 either directly copied or excerpted from the pre-filed 4 exhibits.
5 And Judge Karlin, you said you were hoping 6 for short and sweet answers. I think that that was 7 the purpose of the slides. For instance, Dr.
8 Hopenfeld at times wants to juxtapose information from 9 Entergy's materials with information from ours to 10 equations to definitions of low-accelerated corrosion, 11 those are two examples. And I think it would expedite 12 his responses to your quest-ions. If he can refer you 13 to a slide where he copied the information of 14 interest, as opposed to asking you to flip through 15 your voluminous materials.
16 JUDGE KARLIN: Okay. Entergy, do you have 17 any response to that?
18 MR. LEWIS: Yes, Judge Karlin. We have 19 objected as Ms. Tyler indicated. There is one 20 addition, it's a substantive addition to the slides 21 and we would object just on that basis. But we also 22 believe that the slides are not responsive to any 23 particular questions at this point and we would simply 24 view those as NEC's attempt to make an additional 25 presentation that's not been requested by the Board.
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com
716 1 We think that the exhibits are out there and if 2 there's a need to refer to the exhibits, the witnesses 3 are capable of identifying the exhibits and responding 4 to the questions.
5 JUDGE KARLIN: Mr. Subin, the staff, do 6 they have any thought on this?
7 MR. SUBIN: We agree with Entergy. We 8 also believe that these exhibits could have been filed 9 with the testimony originally if they knew in advance 10 that that's what he ýTas going to do for his 11 presentation.
12 JUDGE KARLIN: Okay, well, as we've said 13 several times in this proceeding when we had prior 14 conference calls and meetings with the parties, the 15 parties' opportunity to present their case was part of 16 the written submissions ahead of time and there is 17 massive exhibits and testimony submitted ahead of 18 time. Then there was rebuttal testimony and exhibits 19 submitted a bit later by everyone. And really, the 20 only purpose of this proceeding is for us to ask some 21 questions about that material.
22 Now the one thing on one of the 23 contentions, contention 4, I believe it is, we did ask 24 for Mr. Horowitz, I think it was, to give a short 25 presentation about it because we thought that might be NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com
717 1 a better way to elicit some information for us, for 2 our benefit. But all of the material in the record is 3 already there.
4 We think we'll be able to elicit from Dr.
5 Hopenfeld the information we need by asking questions 6 of him and so we will deny the request to have 7 additional slide presentations made.
8 Any other preliminary issues that want to 9 be raised at this point?
10 (No response.)
11 Okay, then we will turn to the three that 12 I did identify and the first is the Secretary of the 13 NRC, sort of the Court Reporter, not reporter, but the 14 clerk of the Court, SECY, we call it, the Secretary, 15 inadvertently posted on NRC's public website, ADAMS, 16 I believe it was or the EHD, the Electronic Hearing 17 Docket, some proposed direct examination questions 18 that had been posed by NEC. This was inappropriate 19 and they shouldn't have done that. The regulations 20 provide that those are to be kept confidential until 21 after this evidentiary hearing occurs and then they're 22 put on the record.
23 Ms. Baty notified us last week with an 24 email, I guess it was Friday the llth that this had 25 happened and I appreciate that she jumped on it and we NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com
718 1 were informed. I immediately called Emile Julian who 2 is the responsible person at the Secretary's Office 3 and asked him to immediately remove that document.
4 Ms. Baty had said she had already asked him to remove 5 it, too, but I just wanted to emphasize the point and 6 he said he would do so and in fact, he did.
7 I sent an email immediately to counsel for 8 all parties informing them that this was a problem and 9 asked -- instructing them to direct all of their 10 witnesses and the other parts of their litigation team 11 not to access that document and to investigate whether 12 such people had already accessed the document and if 13 they had, to give us a report.
14 Subsequently, Entergy and the staff did 15 give us such a report and told us what had happened 16 and I believe everyone saw a copy of that. NEC saw a 17 copy of those reports as well.
18 I'm not sure what more we can do. NEC, 19 what are your thoughts?
20 MS. TYLER: Well, I think our primary 21 thought is that it's just tremendously disappointing 22 that this occurred. Entergy has basically represented 23 that their attorneys and witnesses did not review the 24 plan. The staff, however, has represented that 25 basically all of their witnesses reviewed the plan in NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com
719 1 detail. It's hard for me -
2 JUDGE KARLIN: I'm not sure they said 3 detail.
4 MS. TYLER: They said they read it.
5 JUDGE KARLIN: They said what they said.
6 MS. TYLER: They said what they said.
7 They sa id they read it. I think it's disappointing to 8 us that it was actually the project manager for the 9 NRC staff that apparently circulated the plan among 10 the other witnesses, although I'm sure Ms. Baty put a 11 stop to it as soon as she was aware.
12 You know, I think this is a situation 13 where the secret plan is disclosed and we can't take 14 it back and I don't have a proposal, really, as to 15 what we should do to remedy this, but it feels, I 16 think very unfair at the moment.
17 JUDGE KARLIN: Well, I agree it's an 18 unfortunate situation. We had a monthly meeting of 19 all of the Judges of the Atomic Safety and Licensing 20 Board last week and I alerted all of them to this 21 problem and we have talked with SECY, Emile Julian, 22 and said we've got to work on this. There are two 23 aspects, really, to it.
24 In the future, I think lessons learned is 25 it would probably be wiser if counsel for all the NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com
720 1 parties would not send this document to the SECY at 2 all and just send it to the Judges, send it to the 3 chair of the Board and we will in future issue 4 instructions and encourage the other Judges to do that 5 so that it's not sent to the SECY, so this problem 6 doesn't occur.
7 They have training over there at SECY to 8 tell people not top ut these things on, but the person 9 who was involved apparently was a new employee and 10 didn't get the training and didn't get the word. It 11 was apparently only on there for a short amount of 12 time, but the cat is out of the bag. I think we've 13 tried to take remedial action and I think we have to 14 proceed on that basis and do the best we can. I 15 apologize for that.
16 Any other comments or thoughts?
17 (No response.)
18 The second item to talk about is Dr.
19 Chang. Dr. Chang was put forward as a witness, 20 Kenneth Chang, by the staff. He submitted testimony 21 on contention 2. It was significant. And now we got 22 a letter from the staff indicating he had an illness 23 or a medical situation and was not going to be 24 available today. We did have some questions for him.
25 Mr. Subin, can you please report on this NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com
721 1 or Ms. Baty?
2 MR. SUBIN: Ms. Baty.
3 MS. BATY: Your Honor, the staff has 4 considered the situation and under the circumstances, 5 because of his medical condition Dr. Chang has retired 6 from federal service and will not be available. In 7 order to preserve the fairness of this proceeding, 8 given that it's highly unusual to have a witness 9 prepare testimony and then not appear, we would 10 request permission to withdraw his testimony.
11 JUDGE KARLIN: Well, yes, I think this is 12 a problem. That's probably the appropriate remedy.
13 It seems to me that -- when did you find out this was 14 -- there was a difficulty with him? We had a 15 conference call on the 27th of June and talked about 16 it at that time and I asked everyone to make sure the 17 witnesses were all there. Did you know at that time 18 or have an inkling?
19 MS. BATY: We did not have confirmation on 20 his status until the day that we reported it to the 21 Board.
22 JUDGE KARLIN: All right.
23 MS. BATY: That was the day we actually 24 received notice from his doctor.
25 JUDGE KARLIN: I see. So the staff's NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com
722 1 position is to withdraw his testimony in its entirety?
2 MS. BATY: Yes, Your Honor.
3 JUDGE KARLIN: NEC any objections or 4 concerns about that?
5 MR. LAUBVOGEL: Excuse us for a moment.
6 JUDGE KARLIN: Sure.
7 (Pause.)
8 MS. TYLER: I think it's an odd situation.
9 Dr. Chang was the primary witness for the staff .on 10 NEC's contentions 2A and 2B. He apparently managed 11 the review of the analyses that we're discussing. He 12 wrote the relevant part of the SER. The other witness 13 for the staff, John Fair, submitted much less 14 extensive testimony and appears not to have been 15 remotely as involved.
16 So if Dr. Chang's testimony is withdrawn, 17 there's very little in the record regarding the 18 staff's position on this issue.
19 NEC would note as well that part of what 20 Dr. Chang had to say was actually supportive of NEC's 21 position. Dr. Chang testified that he couldn't 22 confirm the conservatism of the analysis in certain 23 respects and that testimony was, in fact, inconsistent 24 with what the Agency stated in its statements of 25 position.
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com
723 1 I think that NEC -- if the testimony is 2 withdrawn, I think that NEC's witness, Dr. Hopenfeld, 3 should be permitted to refer to the aspects of Dr.
4 Chang's testimony that were supportive of our 5 position. Dr. Chang has submitted a sworn affidavit 6 and I think that Dr; Hopenfeld can rely, quote 7 unquote, on Dr. Chang's statements as an expert 8 relying on the opinion of another expert.
9 My co-counsel has also raised the fact 10 that there were a number of exhibits to Dr. Chang's 11 testimony which presumably would be withdrawn from the 12 record as well. So again, we're left with very little 13 regarding the staff's review of the analyses which 14 seems an unfortunate situation.
15 JUDGE KARLIN: Before I go back to the 16 staff, perhaps I'll just ask Entergy if they have a 17 position. I mean in this type of proceeding I would 18 note that Entergy, the Applicant, has the burden of 19 persuading us of proving its case that it is entitled 20 to get this license renewed, that it has met the 21 criteria for the three contentions in question.
22 Entergy has the burden of proof.
23 And it might be that the loss of this 24 testimony might be more problematic to the person with 25 the -- the party with the burden of proof than not.
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com
724 1 Let's. hear from Entergy and then we'll come back to 2 the both of you.
3 MR. LEWIS: Thank you, Judge Karlin.
4 We've looked at Mr. Fair's testimony and think it 5 stands on its own quite well, so we would not oppose 6 the staff's proposal to withdraw Dr. Chang's 7 testimony.
8 We do believe this contention relates 9 mainly to the adequacy of our refined analyses and 10 confirmatory analyses and the methodologies of the 11 uncertainties and the various science and reports that 12 have been done on this phenomena and Mr. Fair is 13 eminently qualified to provide responses in that area.
14 I would suggest that the exhibits that the 15 staff has proffered remain in evidence unless there is 16 a specific objection to an individual exhibit. They 17 include the SER, a number of RAI responses. The SER, 18 in fact, is a very useful document to the extent that 19 NEC is interested in capturing Dr. Chang's review 20 because it, in fact, sets out in considerable detail 21 all the things that Dr. Chang looked at during the 22 review and his questions and his concerns and all the 23 areas where he had any issue that he thought needed to 24 be identified.
25 JUDGE KARLIN: Okay. Ms. Baty, perhaps --
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com
725 1 let me ask, the staff has a number of exhibits and 2 perhaps we'll have-to focus on this with NEC as well.
3 How many of them are related or cited only in Dr.
4 Chang's testimony?
5 MS. BATY: I'd have to take a moment, Your 6 Honor, to determine that. Which ones are not also 7 cited by Mr. Fair.
8 JUDGE KARLIN: Right.
9 MS. BATY: Just give me a moment --
10 JUDGE KARLIN: I'm not asking for a number 11 right now, but I think before the end of the day or 12 before -- we'll probably need to understand that what 13 the consequences would be for the exhibits.
14 It seemed to me that if exhibits were only 15 referred to by Dr. Chang, then they would be excluded 16 or fall or whatever as well unless they are otherwise 17 picked up in some other testimony. But this is a 18 difficult situation. What is your response to NEC's 19 argument?
20 MS. BATY: Well, I would first echo your 21 statement that this proceeding, the burden of proof is 22 on the Applicant to show the adequacy of their 23 application. The issue in this proceeding is not the 24 adequacy of the staff's review or how the staff came 25 about its review or the staff's determination. It's NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com
726 1 really about what Entergy did.
2 The SER also, that's one -- that's an 3 exhibit that all of our witnesses have referred to at 4 some point in their testimony. But that's also an 5 exhibit that the staff has required by the rules to 6 submit. It's obviously that with that exhibit there 7 shouldn't be any question, but what that's admissible, 8 but of course the weight of that exhibit and what 9 portions the Board gives weight, of course, is up to 10 the Board.
11 As Entergy said, I've seen Dr. or Mr.
12 Fair's professional qualifications. He is very well 13 qualified to speak on the issue of the various FEN 14 calculation equations and on the various NUREGs that 15 are at issue. He's eminently qualified to do that, 16 and he's qualified just the same way that Dr.
17 Hopenfeld or Dr. Hausler is able to come in and review 18 the documents and provide a professional opinion on 19 those documents.
20 JUDGE KARLIN: Well, he may be qualified, 21 but I don't know whether he actually did testify as to 22 the calculations here. If I remember, he spoke, he 23 said that he did not review the license renewal 24 application. He focused on, was it, other aspects, 25 right?
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com
727 1 So Mr. Fair, he may be qualified, but his 2 testimony does not go to any of that. Let me ask 3 this. Who was the principal author of this section in 4 the FSER?
5 MS. BATY: That was Dr. Chang.
6 JUDGE KARLIN: Who was the second staff 7 person on this section of the Safety Evaluation 8 Report?
9 MS. BATY: Dr. Chang was the author of 10 this section. Mr. Jonathan Rowley, who is also 11 witness in the proceeding, was responsible for putting 12 together the entire SER and coordinating the 13 development of that document. But there is no, if 14 there had been another individual who was prepared to 15 adopt Dr. Chang's testimony, we would have put that 16 individual forward. But given the circumstances of 17 the late date and just what happened in this 18 particular case, particularly when it comes to the 19 refined and confirmatory analyses, Dr. Chang was the 20 person.
21 JUDGE KARLIN: Okay, well, NEC, one last 22 23 MR. LAUBVOGEL: Yes, Your Honor. We would 24 certainly move that the portions of the SER that were 25 authored by Dr. Chang be struck from the record.
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com
728
.1 Based upon the representations counsel just made now, 2 we think that's critical. And then, what you're going 3 to be left with is an incomplete SER, and I think 4 you're going to have to assess what that means with 5 respect to this proceeding. But we don't see how-you 6 can admit that at least the portions of the SER that 7 were authored by Dr. Chang.
8 MS. BATY: Your Honor, may I? We would 9 strongly object to that because Mr. Rowley, who can 10 corroborate what is said in the SER to the extent of 11 did the audits take place, that Dr. Chang reviewed 12 documentation that was brought to him. So there is 13 corroborating evidence to support the SER. And he can 14 sponsor, he can sponsor it. It would be entirely 15 inappropriate to strike it at this point.
16 JUDGE KARLIN: All right, thank you.
17 We've tried, I think, my fellow judges and I will at 18 the next break discuss this and talk about it a little 19 bit and then try to rule. At this point, we'll just 20 take it under advisement. As I understand it, there 21 is a request motion by the staff to withdraw the 22 testimony of Dr. Chang entirely from the submission 23 and there's an objection from NEC about that, 24 particularly if that happens and they would object to 25 having, they want the rest of the -- the FSER, 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
729 1 section struck. Is that right?
2 Okay. So we'll take that under 3 advisement. I think we are going to proceed with this 4 matter. It may be that we have to do something after 5 the fact, but right now we're .going to proceed with 6 the evidentiary hearing.
7 MR. LEWIS: May I just offer two quick 8 thoughts? One is I believe the NRC rules require the 9 SER to be placed in evidence. I don't believe it can 10 be excluded under the NRC rules.
11 And second, I believe the NRC rules give 12 the NRC staff the right to designate the witnesses 13 that it wishes to present. In fact, in the discovery 14 rules there's a specific provision that says that it 15 is the staff's prerogative to choose what witnesses.
16 JUDGE KARLIN: Yes. You're speaking of 17 2.1207(b) (4) where the Executive Director gets to 18 designate the witnesses. We, likewise, get to accept 19 or reject the testimony and exhibits as we see fit and 20 so if someone gets withdrawn -- we have said in this 21 Court several times in this proceeding, three or four 22 times, I've said if anybody submits written testimony 23 for a witness, then that witness has to be here for us 24 to ask questions of and Dr. Chang is not here, so 25 there's a problem here and it's unfortunate, but it is NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com
730 1 what it is. There's a medical situation with regard 2 to Dr. Chang and we're going to take it under 3 advisement and try to issue something later.
4 MS. TYLER: Judge Karlin.
5 -JUDGE KARLIN: Yes.
6 MS. TYLER: Before we move on, I just 7 wanted to clarify that NEC doesn't necessarily object 8 to a withdrawal of Dr. James. But if it is withdrawn, 9 our witness, Dr. Hopenfeld, should be able to refer in 10 his testimony to those portions of Dr. James' 11 statement that supported our position.
12 JUDGE KARLIN: Okay. We said that once.
13 MS. TYLER: Yes.
14 JUDGE KARLIN: Thank you. Okay.
15 Next legal issues. On June 2 7 h, we 16 issued an order asking the parties to brief two legal 17 issues that were of concern to us that came up because 18 of factual material and the evidence that was 19 submitted. We've received those briefs. We've 20 received reply briefs on that, including the State of 21 Vermont. We thought those were helpful.
22 We haven't completed studying those briefs 23 and therefore we are not going to conduct oral 24 argument on those this week. We thought about asking 25 the lawyers to be able to do that towards the end of NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com
731 1 the week. We didn't ask you to do that and this is 2 why. So if we need oral argument on those legal 3 issues and briefs, we will schedule something later, 4 probably in August, as quickly as we can. But we
- 5. appreciate the submission. We just want to let you 6 know we're not going to have any oral argument on 7 those issues.
8 With that, we've completed the 9 introductory session and we're ready for the opening 10 statements to be made by the parties. I believe that 11 -- NEC, the floor is yours.
12 MS. TYLER: Judge Karlin, could I begin up 13 one final preliminary issues, I'm sorry, before we 14 move to opening statements?
15 JUDGE KARLIN: Yes.
16 MS. TYLER: This is something that we may 17 address when it comes up in the discussion of 18 Contention 4. But Dr. Horowitz, Energy's witness, 19 will be presenting, has a presentation prepared, about 20 the CHECWORKS Code. We've just received from 21 Entergy's counsel a copy of his slide this morning.
22 We would like to ask our witness, Dr. Hopenfeld, to 23 review them and we'd like to request the opportunity 24 for Dr. Hopenfeld to make live rebuttal to what Dr.
25 Horowitz has to say.
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com
732 1 Dr. Hopenfeld hasn't had the opportunity 2 to review the materials. So I'm actually not sure at 3 this time whether he has any rebuttal to offer. But 4 if he does, we request that time be made available for 5 that.
6 JUDGE KARLIN: Well, I think our response 7 to that goes along with the same response on this 8 issue raised earlier which is the witness testimony is 9 for us to ask questions and get answers, not for 10 people to give rebuttal statements or any other kind 11 of tutorials. So we're going to try to ask, try to 12 ask, crisp, direct questions and we're going to ask 13 our witnesses to give us crisp, direct answers, from 14 all of the witnesses, not tutorials, not long 15 statements. So this is not the time for rebuttal.
16 We'll deny that.
17 You may proceed with your opening 18 statement please, approximately ten minutes.
19 MS. TYLER: Good afternoon to Judges of 20 Atomic Safety and Licensing Board. My name again is 21 Karen Tyler. I'm representing New England Coalition.
22 New England Coalition is the sponsor of the three 23 contentions before the Board today and opposes 24 Entergy's application to operate the Vermont Yankee 25 plant for an additional 20 years.
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com
733 1 Vermont Yankee is in a special class of 2 nuclear power plants. It began operation 36 years in 3 1972. It's one of the very oldest operating nuclear 4 power plants in the country. It's also one of only a 5 few plants nationwide that have obtained NRC approval 6 to increase power output by 20 percent which increases 7 the stress on many of the plant's components and 8 systems.
9 You, Judge Karlin, have instructed the 10 parties that we're not here to discuss the failure of 11 the cooling towers and it's true that NEC doesn't have 12 a contention before the Board today about those 13 towers. Nonetheless, it's NEC's position that these 14 incidents set the stage in a sense for the Board's 15 consideration of any NEC's other issues and that the 16 Board should be concerned about what they may signify 17 about the condition and maintenance of the rest of the 18 plant. NEC's contentions and the decision to 19 relicense the plant in general deserves the Board's 20 very careful consideration. We should be absolutely 21 certain that Entergy has programs in place or has 22 completed analyses that ensure that this plant can be 23 safely operated until 2032.
24 All three of New England Coalition's 25 contentions focus on age-related deterioration of the NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com
734 1 plant and they specifically concern with Entergy has 2 proposed aging-management programs or performed 3 analyses basically that demonstrate that components of 4 the plant won't break apart with potentially 5 disastrous consequences during the period of extended 6 operations.
7 NEC's Contentions 2a and 2b concern a 8 series of analyses that Entergy performed to assess 9 the impact of environmentally-assisted metal fatigue 10 on the plant. These analyses project cumulative usage 11 factor calculations that Entergy performed under its 12 current license assuming that the plant would operate 13 for 40 years and project those CUF values to the end 14 of the.period of extended operations or 60 years.
15 These CUFen analyses are meant to demonstrate that 16 components of the plant that are vulnerable to 17 environmentally-assisted metal fatigue won't break 18 apart during the extended license term and these 19 analyses would substitute for alternative approaches 20 to ensuring the integrity of these components through 21 inspection, maintenance and replacement.
22 NEC's witness, Dr. Hopenfeld, contests the 23 validity of the methodology that Entergy has used to 24 perform its CUFen calculations, Dr. Hopenfeld contends 25 that Entergy's results are unreliable and further 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
735 1 acceptance of these results as the basis. to forego a 2 program of component inspection repair and replacement 3 will jeopardize public health and safety. NEC also 4 contends that this analysis is incomplete at this time 5 because Entergy has fully performed it only for one 6 component of the plant, that being the feedwater 7 nozzles.
8 As we've just discussed, the parties have 9 just finished briefly the legal framework for the 10 Board's consideration of Contentions 2a and 2b and 11 Entergy and the staff proposed an interpretation of 12 the NRC rules in that briefing that would basically 13 eliminate the role of the public and of the Board in 14 the review of a TLAA, time-limited aging analysis, 15 such as the CUFen calculations. In Entergy's and the 16 staff's view, an applicant is not required to include 17 an analysis projecting the TLAA until the end of the 18 period of extended operations in the application. The 19 license could instead make a very generally stated 20 commitment to perform the analysis of an aging 21 management plan after the license is approved and the 22 NRC's staff's review of that analysis would take place 23 after the license is approved.
24 If this is what the rules allow, then the 25 rules are in violation of Atomic Energy Act which NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com
736 1 requires the Nuclear Regulatory Commission to allow 2 public review of any safety issue that's material to 3 the licensingdivision in a hearing before this Board.
4 The Act also requires. that the agency find a plant can 5 be safely operated, operated without endangering 6 public health, before the license is approved and not 7 afterwards.
8 What the governing rules 54.21(c) (1) and 9 54.29 actually require is that if an applicant intends 10 to rely on a time-limited aging analysis to make its 11 demonstration of reasonable assurance of public 12 safety, it has to include an analysis that either 13 justifies or projects that TLAA to the end of the 14 period of extended operations in its application. If 15 it chooses not to do this, then the applicant has to 16 propose an aging management plan that doesn't rely on 17 the TLAA and that it has to describe that plan in 18 enough detail to allow both the NRC staff and any 19 intervenors to rigorously evaluate it.
20 What this means in the context of today's 21 proceeding is that Entergy needs to complete its CUFen 22 analyses before the license renewal is approved and 23 if, as NEC contend, these analyses don't in fact 24 provide that environmentally-assisted metal fatigue 25 won't cause failure of plant components, then Entergy NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com
737 1 needs. to develop a program of inspection repair and 2 replacement of components to address this problem and 3 NEC would then have a right to review that program 4 under its Contention 2 which is now stayed by order of 5 the Board pending the Board'.s decision of Contentions 6 2a and 2b.
7 NRC's Contention 3 concerns Entergy's plan 8 to manage the age-related deterioration of the plant's 9 steam dryer. The Contention 3 concern is that again 10 metal fatigue could cause pieces of the dryer to break 11 away and migrate through the plant where they could 12 damage the related equipment.
13 Entergy has represented to the. Board in 14 this proceeding in prior motion practice that its 15 aging management program will involve exclusively 16 visual inspection of the dryer during summary fuel 17 outages and monitoring of certain parameters for 18 evidence that the dryer could be damaged. Entergy has 19 also represented that its program will not depend or 20 repeat the stress load modeling that Entergy conducted 21 before the power uprate and the Board has also ruled 22 that that modeling has not been validated as the basis 23 for aging management of the steam dryer. NEC, 24 therefore, contends that Entergy's program is 25 insufficient because it doesn't involve any means of NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com
738 1 predicting stress loads on the dryer, establishing 2 load margins or establishing that loads in the dryer 3 will fall below ASME code fatigue limits.
4 NEC's Contention 4 finally is that Entergy 5 has not_ proposed an adequate program to manage 6 deterioration of plant piping caused by flow-7 accelerated corrosion. NEC has specifically contested 8 Entergy's reliance on a computer code called the 9 CHECWORKS. NEC's expert witness, Dr. Jerome 10 Hopenfeld, contends that the CHECWORKS model is 11 unreliable and can't be calibrated to plant conditions 12 following the power uprate before the expiration of 13 Entergy's current license.
14 In the pre-filed testimony, NEC's 15 witnesses have disagreed with Entergy's witnesses 16 concerning a number of very fundamental issues. These 17 include the definition of FAC, of flow-accelerated 18 corrosion, for purpose of Entergy's aging management 19 plan, how flow-accelerated corrosion would wear, 20 varies with velocity and with time and whether the 21 CHECWORKS model can account for variations associated 22 with geometric discontinuities in the plant. NEC has 23 also observed that Entergy hasn't specified certain 24 basic parameters of its program such as the total FAC 25 susceptible area inspects.
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com
739 1 The Board has already reviewed NEC's pre-2 filed testimony and other evidence concerning all 3 three contentions. NEC hopes that the Board will take 4 this opportunity to discuss any of the issues further 5 with NEC's witnesses.
6 On the record before the Board right now, 7 Entergy is not satisfied with standard for license 8 renewal under the Atomic Energy Act and the NRC's 9 regulations. It has not demonstrated that the plant 10 could be operated through the end of the renewed 11 license term without jeopardizing the health and 12 safety of the public. On the record before the Board 13 right now, the license renewal application should be 14 denied.
15 Thank you.
16 JUDGE KARLIN: Thank you. Next, I think 17 we have the State of Vermont opening statement please.
18 MR. ROISMAN: Mr. Chairman, with your 19 permission, may I stand?
20 JUDGE KARLIN: Yes please.
21 MR. ROISMAN: Thank you.
22 On behalf of Sarah Hoffman, the Public 23 Advocate, the Department of Public Service and myself 24 and the State of Vermont, welcome to Vermont. I 25 submit that while the days may be warm our warmest day NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., NW.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgmss.com
740 1 will be cooler than your coolest day back at home. So 2 enjoy your week in Vermont.
3 There is some irony that there is a 4 controversy about extending the life of the Vermont 5 Yankee Plant. Which of us as we reach the end of our 6 lives wouldn't like to get a 20 year extension. But 7 as you might expect, the process is much more 8 controversial than the wish to have it done. And the 9 history of this plant, there's a history of 10 controversy in the State of Vermont.
11 From the very beginning, Vermont Yankee 12 was allowed to operate and be built in this state by 13 a single vote in the state legislature, one vote.
14 Subsequently, the legislation directed that it keep a 15 close eye on this plant and controversy has followed 16 the plant since its opening days, proponents, 17 opponents, everything has been hotly contested.
18 And, throughout all of this, the State of 19 Vermont's position has remained consistent. It wanted 20 to be certain that with this plant which would be 21 built and operated in this state that it would be 22 safe, that's- why we're here, and that it would be 23 reliable and economically feasible which is why the 24 Public Service Board holds hearings frequently 25 regarding the Vermont Yankee plant.
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com
741 1 Vermont has through its Department of 2 Public Service maintained close scrutiny on Vermont 3 Yankee. A nuclear engineer has been constantly 4 present at the Vermont Yankee plant for inspections.
5 In fact, the Vermont Yankee plant inspection which is 6 occurring today is where the Vermont nuclear engineer 7 is while that inspection is taking place. Over the 8 years, that oversight by the nuclear engineer for the 9 State of Vermont has raised issues and resulted in the 10 favorable resolution to improve safety to the plant.
11 Throughout this process in this hearing, 12 Vermont was remained steadfast in its commitment to 13 the proposition that these issues of serious safety 14 concern need to be resolved by an independent, 15 competent, concerned board and we are delighted that 16 that board exists and has taken on that task. Even 17 now, the State of Vermont's legislature has authorized 18 the State in its pursuit of its concerns about 19 reliability and economic viability to conduct an 20 independent inspection of the Vermont Yankee plant and 21 a panel has been set up to do that.
22 Now as you've heard from the New England 23 Coalition, there are three, arguably four if you take 24 2a and 2b as each separate, serious safety questions 25 that are present here and these issues like the issues NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com
742 1 that have historically been raised about Vermont 2 Yankee are hotly contested and the consequences of the 3 resolution of these issues is enormous on either side.
4 For Vermont Yankee, it could mean that the plant is 5 not allowed to operate beyond the year 2012 or that in 6 order to operate beyond that time, a substantially 7 larger amount of money will have to be spent on safety 8 concerns. On the opposite side is the people who 9 believe that there is a problem here and are concerned 10 about their own safety and the reliability of their 11 own electric systems if the plant is allowed to go 12 ahead, so a very large consequence here at stake.
13 Yet here we are in front of hearing board 14 asking you to take these concerns, to strip away our 15 hot passions, to find the facts, to locate the truth 16 and to enter a decision based upon the record that's 17 in front of you. And in some ways it's a remarkable 18 thing because at this very moment in many places 19 throughout the world issues of similar hot contest are 20 being resolved with guns and bombs and in this 21 American, this unique, country in which we live, we 22 can take the most passionate issue and we can ask an 23 independent body to decide who's right and who's wrong 24 and whether we win or lose we go home knowing we've 25 had our chance. We have an opportunity to have the NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com
743 1 issue resolved and the conflict is resolved without 2 what we see in other places of the world.
3 So we thank you for coming here and 4- reaffirming that the American way of resolving 5 conflicts is still the only way for civilized society 6 to operate. Thank you very much.
7 JUDGE KARLIN: Thank you, Mr. Roisman.
8 Entergy I think is next. Mr. Lewis.
9 MR. LEWIS: Thank you. Entergy is pleased 10 to appear before you today to present its case of 11 these three contentions in this proceeding. That case 12 will show that effective aging management programs 13 have been put in place to address the aging effects 14 that are the subject of these three contentions.
15 Those programs build off extensive 16 experience. They follow NRC staff guidance that was 17 intended to capture programs that were affected at 18 other plants, but they don't stop there. They've been 19 looked at extremely carefully by the NRC staff in this 20 proceeding. They've been challenged in this 21 proceeding and, as a result, there has been a lot of 22 additional work that has gone into the testimony and 23 into addressing these issues and then putting them to 24 rest and today we will present a panel of witnesses on 25 a fatigue contention followed up by witnesses on the NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com
744 1 other two contentions who are here to demonstrate that 2 the analyses that they performed and the programs that 3 are in place are effective and will provide reasonable 4 assurance that the health and safety will be protected 5 during the period of extended operation.-
6 With respect to Contention 2, the evidence 7 will show that Vermont Yankee has established a 8 fatigue monitoring program that is consistent with the 9 NRC staff guidance and that has been determined to be 10 adequate. by the staff to manage the effects of 11 fatigue. The phenomena of environmentally-assisted 12 fatigue is addressed as part of that program. Under 13 this program, a sample of critical components is 14 evaluated by applying environmental correction factors 15 to the cumulative usage factors which are obtained in 16 turn from the ASME Code Fatigue Analysis. If any 17 environmentally-adjusted cumulative usage factor 18 exceeds unity, the program provides for corrective 19 actions which may include more refined analyses, 20 repair or replacement, or an inspection program. This 21 fatigue monitoring program also includes tracking the 22 number of transients during the period of extended 23 operation to provide assurance on a continuing basis 24 that these analyses remain valid during the period of 25 extended operation. So the program does not stop 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
745 1 analyses, but it's a continual effort to ensure that 2 these CUFs remain below one.
3 A screening evaluation in Entergy's 4 license renewal application initially indicated that 5 more refined analyses or other corrective actions 6 would be required for a number of components. In this 7 proceeding, NEC then challenged the level of detail 8 which those corrective actions were described. In 9 order to avoid arguing about the level of detail of 10 these future corrective actions, Entergy performed 11 refined calculations for all of the critical locations 12 to which the EIS phenomena applied. Those refined 13 calculations showed that the environmentally-adjusted 14 CUF would remain below one for the period of extended 15 operation. Nevertheless, we still had this fatigue 16 monitoring program which would continually validate 17 that conclusion.
18 On review, the NRC staff questioned three 19 of these refined analyses and they requested a further 20 confirmatory analysis of the most bounding nozzle of 21 these three, the feedwater nozzle. Our testimony, our 22 experts, will show that the analysis that was 23 performed will indeed demonstrate that the CUF remains 24 below one. We will present a panel of well qualified 25 experts including Mr. Gary Stevens who is a leading NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com
746 1 expert on fatigue analyses and Mr. James Fitzpatrick 2 who is an engineer with over 30 years experience and 3 was the Senior Lead Engineer in Design Engineering 4 when these calculations were performed. They will 5 demonstrate that these analyses are not.only correct, 6 but indeed conservative.
7 Now Dr. Hopenfeld for NEC has claimed that 8 the feedwater nozzle is not bounding. But as our 9 testimony will show, the feedwater nozzle is the 10 component that's of these three nozzles subject to the 11 most stresses, the most severe stresses, and the 12 highest cumulative usage factor. Thus, there is 13 simply no credible basis to the claim that this is not 14 the bounding component.
15 Dr. Hopenfeld will also claim that there 16 are uncertainties in the fatigue analyses and he 17 therefore advocates applying very extreme and 18 unsupportable Fen values. these environmental adjusted 19 factors. But again as the testimony of our witnesses 20 will show, each of the factors in Dr. Hopenfeld's 21 testimony which will show up in Table 1 of his 22 rebuttal is either already considered in the 23 methodology or is irrelevant. Moreover, as our 24 witnesses are prepared to explain, a calculation of 25 the CUFen values using the guidance document advocated NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com
747 1 by Dr. Hopenfeld, NUREG CR6909, would and properly 2 performed in fact give lower values than the ones 3 computed by Entergy in every case.
4 With respect to Contention 3, Entergy will 5 present the expert and knowledgeable testimony of Mr.
6 John Hoffman and Mr. Larry Lukens. Their testimony 7 will show that Entergy has taken a number of measures 8 to ensure that the steam dryer will not suffer from 9 vibration-induced cracking. First, Vermont Yankee 10 made significant physical modifications to strength 11 the dryer after the experience at Quad Cities to 12 improve the capability of the dryer to withstand flow-13 induced vibration.
14 Second, in the uprate proceeding, a design 15 validation was performed to demonstrate that predicted 16 stress levels would be below the endurance limit 17 specified in the ASME Code. That was in the EPU 18 proceeding. In this proceeding, we have proposed 19 additional again management programs. As part of that 20 program and indeed we've been conducting it prior to 21 the program but will continue to conduct it we will 22 perform continuous online monitoring of parameters 23 that would be indicative of dryer cracking. In 24 addition, we have been conducting and as part of our 25 aging management program we'll continue to conduct NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com
748 1 detailed inspections of all accessible, susceptible 2 dryer locations to confirm that fatigue cracking is 3 not occurring.
4 Now NEC claims that this inspection 5 program is inadequate if it doesn't include a means of 6 measuring the stresses on the dryer components. We 7 will show and our testimony and the evidence in this 8 proceeding will show that this claim lacks merit for 9 several reasons. First, as I briefly said, in design 10 validation and in the uprate proceeding, the stresses 11 were predicted to below the endurance limit which 12 means the stresses are below the levels where cracking 13 would be expected to occur. This is not a time 14 limited aging analysis. It's not time dependent.
15 It's below the endurance limit and therefore cracking 16 should not occur irregardless of cycles and 17 irregardless of years and, as a result, this is a 18 determination that's part of the plant's design and 19 current licensing basis.
20 Second, I should point out that NEC here 21 is calling for measures that are not implemented for 22 any other component in any nuclear plants including 23 ASME Class I components. There is no continuous 24 measurement of stresses for the reactor vessel or any 25 other component.
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com v
749 1 But third, most importantly as our experts 2 will demonstrate, the inspections that we are 3 performing are indeed adequate to demonstrate that 4 fatigue cracking is not occurring. As our testimony 5 of our experts will show if there were stresses that 6 could cause fatigue, evidence of that cracking and 7 crack growth would be apparent during the inspections 8 prior to the period of extended operation.
9 The aging mechanism here is high cycle 10 fatigue resulting from resident vibrations in the 11 hundred hertz or higher range. This means that the 12 steam dryer experiences literally billions of cycles 13 per year. If there were stresses that were above the 14 endurance limit, one would expect that fatigue 15 cracking would already have occurred.
16 With respect to Contention 4, the 17 testimony will show that Entergy is implementing a 18 flow accelerated corrosion program that directly 19 follows NRC guidance and that has been again 20 determined to be adequate by the NRC staff to manage 21 this aging effect. This program in turn follows the 22 guidance and the guidelines that were developed by the 23 Electric Power Research Institute in NSAC-202L.
24 As part of this program and just as one 25 element, a predictive code, CHECWORKS, is used to NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com
750 1 assist the schedule and location of inspections. This 2 entire program is an existing effective program that 3 reactor licensees have been implementing very 4 successfully for many years. That is why it is 5 endorsed in the GALL Report. The whole purpose of the 6 GALL Report was to document those programs that the 7 staff was able to say based on the experience, "Yes, 8 these are good programs. They've been working for 9 many years. We have confidence in them."
10 Now NEC has claimed that CHECWORKS cannot 11 be used without 15 years of data to re-benchmark the 12 Code after the power uprate that occurred in 2006.
13 Our experts will show that NEC's challenge here simply 14 reflects a lack of understanding of how the Code works 15 and how it's applied. Our experts will include Dr.
16 Horowitz who is the author of the Code. He is one of 17 the leading experts on this phenomena. Not only did 18 he help develop the CHECWORKS Code but he helped draft 19 NSAC-202 which has become the seminal standard-setting 20 document. Dr. Horowitz has audited the FAC program at 21 Vermont Yankee including its use of CHECWORKS to help 22 select the inspection locations and he's determined 23 that the program is appropriate and consistent with 24 good engineering practice.
25 In sum, our witnesses will meet our NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com
751 1 standard of proof. They will demonstrate the 2- effectiveness of the program. They will demonstrate 3 that these aging effects are properly managed and 4 therefore that there is reasonable assurance that 5 Vermont Yankee can operate safely during the period of 6 extended operation.
7 JUDGE KARLIN: Thank you. NRC staff, Mr.
8 Subin.
9 MR. SUBIN: Good afternoon, Judges, 10 parties and member of the public.
11 (Off the record comment.)
12 This hearing is not about the adequacy of 13 the staff's review, but the adequacy of Entergy's 14 license renewal application submitted for the Vermont 15 Yankee plant. Furthermore, it only encompasses three 16 issues, metal fatigue, the steam dryer and flow 17 accelerated corrosion.
18 Metal fatigue, NEC's Contention 2 alleged 19 originally that Entergy's license renewal application 20 did not include an adequate plan to monitor and manage 21 the effects of aging due to metal fatigue. NEC 22 Contentions 2a and 2b further refine Contention 2 to 23 contend that the analytical methods employed at 24 Entergy's environmentally-corrected cumulative factors 25 factor analyses for the critical reactor piping 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
752 1 components were flawed and therefore failed to 2 demonstrate that the reactor components would not fail 3 due to metal fatigue during the extended period of 4 operation.
5 The staff reviewed Entergy's program for 6 monitoring and managing the effects of aging due to 7 metal fatigue. As part of Entergy's program to manage 8 the effects of aging due to metal fatigue, Entergy 9 calculated environmentally-adjusted cumulative usage 10 factors for critical reactor piping and components.
11 The staff reviewed these calculations because the 12 staff was unable to make judgments regarding 13 conservatism of three of the nozzles, the calculations 14 for the three nozzles, we asked Entergy to -- which 15 they had submitted in September and December of 2007.
16 The staff requested that Entergy perform a 17 confirmatory analysis of the feedwater nozzle which is 18 Vermont Yankee's most limiting nozzle.
19 Entergy submitted its confirmatory 20 analysis on January 30, 2008. The staff reviewed the 21 confirmatory calculation and we found it acceptable.
22 Based upon its review, the staff concluded that 23 Entergy's program for managing the effects of aging 24 due to metal fatigue which includes as corrective 25 action analyses of environmentally-assisted fatigue, NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com
753 1 provides reasonable assurance that the effects of 2 aging due to metal fatigue will be adequately managed 3 during the period of extended operation. NEC's metal 4 fatigue contention lacks merit because as the evidence 5 will show, Entergy has demonstrated that the effects 6 of aging will be adequately managed in accordance with 7 10 C.F.R. 54.21(c) (1) (iii) (I).
8 Contention 3, the steam dryer. NEC 9 Contention 3 alleges that Entergy's license renewal 10 application does not include an adequate plan to 11 manage and monitor the aging of the steam dryer during 12 the period of extended operation. NEC specifically 13 contends that Entergy's plan for monitoring and 14 managing the aging of the steam dryer should involve 15 some form of stress and load analysis to insure that 16 the fatigue limits are not exceeded.
17 Let us explore. The steam dryer does not 18 perform a safety function and it is not required to 19 prevent or mitigate the consequences of accidents.
20 However, cracking of the steam dryer due to flow-21 induced vibration could generate loose parts and such 22 loose parts could affect safety-related functions 23 structures, systems or components.
24 Entergy's aging management program for the 25 steam dryer includes periodic visual inspections 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
754 1 continuous monitoring of plant parameters indicative 2 of steam dryer damage. The evidence will show that 3 Entergy's steam dryer monitoring plan provides 4 reasonable assurance in the structural capability of 5 the Vermont Yankee steam dryer over the long term and 6 including the period of extended operation.
7 The program is sufficient to detect 8 potential degradation of the steam dryer during 9 operation and continuous stream monitoring.
10 Furthermore, the results of the EPU's power accession 11 program demonstrated that the loads during EPU 12 operation did not result in stress on the steam dryer 13 that exceeded the ASME fatigue stress limits.
14 The results of the spring 2007 inspection 15 of the steam dryer verified that no significant 16 cracking of the steam dryer has occurred during EPU 17 operations. Thus, NEC Contention 3 lacks merit.
18 Contention 4, flow-accelerated corrosion.
19 NEC's Contention 4 alleges that Entergy's license 20 renewal application does not include an adequate plan 21 to monitor and manage aging of plant piping due to 22 flow-accelerate corrosion during the period of 23 extended operation. Specifically, NEC challenges 24 Entergy's use of CHECWORKS under the EPU and 25 sufficiency of the data to be collected prior to the NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com
755 1 period of extended operation.
2 The staff reviewed Entergy's flow-3 accelerated corrosion program and concluded that 4 Entergy demonstrated that the effects of the aging FAC 5 on the plant piping will adequately be managed so that 6 the intended functions will be managed consistently 7 with the CLB for the period of extended operation.
8 Furthermore, Entergy's program is consistent with the 9 staff-endorsed goal of report recommendation and 10 Entergy has addressed the impact of the EPU on all 11 FAC's susceptible systems.
12 As the evidence will show, CHECWORKS is 13 being used in numerous plants throughout the U.S. for 14 nuclear facilities and many U.S. fossil plants and 15 utilities overseas. Entergy is using CHECWORKS as a 16 tool along with past inspection results, engineering 17 judgment, industry operating experience and plant 18 specific operating experience to help selection FAC 19 susceptible locations for inspection and monitoring.
20 It provides reasonable assurance that structural 21 integrity will be maintained between inspections, not 22 that FAC will not occur, that repairs including costly 23 ones will never be needed. The evidence will show 24 that 12 to 15 years of inspection data is not required 25 to calibrate or re-calibrate to the CHECWORKS model, NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com
1 rather CHECWORKS only requires a minimum of two cycles 2 of inspection data to obtain actual wear for a 3 component. Consequently, the evidence will show that 4 NEC-Contention 4 lacks merit.
5 JUDGE KARLIN: Thank you, Mr. Lewis. Mr.
6 Roth from the State of New Hampshire.
7 MR. ROTH: Thank you, Judge Karlin. Very 8 briefly.
9 New Hampshire is obviously a neighboring 10 state of Vermont and the Vermont Yankee plant is on 11 our border and the river bank of the Connecticut River 12 on this side is the New Hampshire border. We've 13 claimed the river.
14 JUDGE KARLIN: Can you speak up also for 15 the audience?
16 MR. ROTH: The riverbank is on this side 17 of the river. The Connecticut River is our border and 18 the water that cools the plant, I believe, is New 19 Hampshire water. In addition, we're downstream from 20 or downwind from the plant and potentially effected by 21 any sort of emergency. At the same time, the Vermont 22 Yankee plant is an integral part of all of New 23 England's energy supply.
24 Yes, we have a concern that the best 25 information and the analysis that has been employed in NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com
757 1 the various positions that this plant is sound for 2 extended future use and we're grateful for the efforts 3 that the parties have put into this, the staff and our 4 sister state of Vermont for assembling the evidence 5 for the Board's review today and for the rest of this 6 hearing.
7 And I echo and share the concerns made by 8 my colleagues from the State of Vermont so eloquently 9 a few minutes ago and we look forward at this point to 10 rigorous examination of the evidence and the witnesses 11 by the Board and the careful consideration of that 12 evidence and testimony.
13 We thank you for coming.
14 JUDGE KARLIN: Thank you. Thanks to all 15 of you for your opening statements. We've gone about 16 an hour and 20 minutes now. I think that we can 17 either take a quick break or we can put the witnesses 18 on and get the exhibits introduced through the counsel 19 and then take a break. Okay?
20 Why don't we just proceed with getting the 21 witnesses in the witness stand with regard to 22 Contention No. 2, sworn in and then we'll have the 23 introduction of the exhibits associated with that and 24 then we'll take a short break before we go into the 25 questioning. So if the witnesses with reference to NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com
758 1 Contention No. 2 could all take the stand over there, 2 I would appreciate it.
3 (Off the record comment.)
4 Yes, if you'd all sit together in the back 5 row. Could you sit in the back row, Dr. Hopenfeld?
6 DR. HOPENFELD: In the back row?
7 JUDGE KARLIN: Yes please. That would be 8 helpful. Thank you.
9 MS. BATY: Can I bring copies of the 10 exhibits for my witness to use when asking questions?
11 JUDGE KARLIN: I'm sorry. I couldn't 12 hear.
13 MS. BATY: But the boxes If he could 14 put the boxes in front of him.
15 JUDGE KARLIN: Yes, that would be fine.
16 (Off the record comments.)
17 JUDGE KARLIN: I hate to do this to you, 18 but I have a request. Could we rearrange the seating?
19 Dr. Hopenfeld, could he be seated over here? Because 20 of the hearing situation, it would be better. Dr.
21 Hopenfeld, perhaps that would be better.
22 DR. HOPENFELD: I appreciate it.
23 JUDGE KARLIN: If that's your preference.
24 Sorry to rearrange the chairs, but we would like to be 25 able to accommodate 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
759 1 (Off the record comments.)
2 All right. If you could all please stand 3 up and raise your right hand.
4 Whereupon, 5 CONTENTION 2 PANEL 6 were called as witnesses and, after having been first 7 duly sworn, were examined and testified as follows:
8 JUDGE KARLIN: Thank you. Please be 9 seated.
10 Now what I'm going to do is ask the 11 counsel for Entergy to start and ask their witnesses 12 to identify themselves and to introduce the exhibits 13 that are associated with those witnesses.
14 Mr. Lewis, I guess.
15 MR. LEWIS: Thank you. I will direct 16 these questions to Mr. Fitzpatrick and Mr. Stevens.
17 Gentlemen, would you please state your name for the 18 record?
19 MR. STEVENS: Gary Lance Stevens.
20 MR. FITZPATRICK: James Fitzpatrick.
21 MR. LEWIS: You have before you a document 22 that's entitled "Testimony of James C. Fitzpatrick and 23 Gary L. Stevens on NEC Contentions 2a/2b, 24 Environmentally-Assisted Fatigue, a document dated May 25 12, 2008."
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com
760 1 MR. FITZPATRICK: Yes.
2 MR. STEVENS: Yes.
3 MR. LEWIS: Did you prepare this document 4 as your testimony for submission in this hearing?
5 MR. FITZPATRICK: Yes..
6 MR. STEVENS: Yes.
7 MR. LEWIS: Do you have any corrections to 8 this testimony?.
9 MR. FITZPATRICK: Yes.
10 MR. STEVENS: Yes.
11 MR.. LEWIS: Mr. Stevens, could you please 12 identify what they are?
13 MR. STEVENS: Yes, on page 14, answer A26 14 -
15 JUDGE KARLIN: Could we identify the 16 number of that?
17 MR. LEWIS: Sorry.
18 JUDGE KARLIN: I'm sorry.
19 MR. LEWIS: The testimony per your request 20 is not marked as an exhibit.
21 JUD GE KARLIN: Right. Okay. Yes. Go 22 ahead. Sorry.
23 MR. STEVENS: That would be page 14, 24 answer A26, line 7. It currently reads "Amendment 35 25 to the Application Exhibit E2-09" and that should be NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(2021 234-4433 WASHINGTON. D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com
761 1 corrected to read "Amendment 34 to the Application 2 Exhibit E2-28."
3 MR. LEWIS: All right. Your Honor, I 4 should -- You do have copies with these corrections 5 made and it's b-een given to the court reporter and the 6 other parties. But any party lacking from them, I 7 will provide it.
8 (Off the record discussion.)
9 MR. LEWIS: Also we'll provide you with 10 copies of the corrected testimony.
11 JUDGE KARLIN: Yes, when we get through 12 with this, you can give it to the law clerk please.
13 MR. LEWIS: Okay.
14 (Off the record discussion.)
15 JUDGE KARLIN: All right. Proceed, Mr.
16 Lewis.
17 MR. LEWIS: Are there any additional 18 corrections to this testimony?
19 MR. FITZPATRICK: Yes, at page six at A12 20 line 2 add "be" at the end of the line after "may."
21 MR. LEWIS: Then do you also have before 22 you a document entitled "Supplemental Testimony of 23 James C. Fitzpatrick and Gary L. Stevens on NEC 24 Contention 2a/2b, Environmentally-Assisted Fatigue,"
25 a document dated May 30, 2008?
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com
762 1 MR. STEVENS: Yes.
2 MR. FITZPATRICK: Yes.
3 MR. LEWIS: Was this testimony also 4 prepared by you for submission as your testimony in 5 this proceeding?
6 MR. STEVENS: Yes.
7 MR. FITZPATRICK: Yes.
8 MR. LEWIS: Do you have any corrections to 9 this testimony?
10 MR. STEVENS: No.
11 MR. FITZPATRICK: No.
12 MR. LEWIS: With the corrections that 13 you've provided in these two documents, is this 14 testimony constitute your testimony in this proceeding 15 true and accurate?
16 MR. STEVENS: Yes.
17 MR. FITZPATRICK: Yes.
18 MR. LEWIS: Your Honor, I would move to 19 move these two pieces of testimony into evidence.
20 (Whereupon, the documents 21 referred to was marked as 22 Entergy Exhibit E2-01-VY for 23 identification.)
24 JUDGE KARLIN: For general knowledge, we 25 have previously -- they have previously submitted this NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com
763 1 testimony in writing. All parties have seen that.
2 testimony in writing. They filed motions such as they 3 might with regard to objections or not and those 4 motions have already been ruled on. But I will.ask 5 for the formality. Are there any objections to this 6 testimony?
7 MS. BATY: No.
8 MS. TYLER: No.
9 JUDGE KARLIN: Okay. The testimony is 10 accepted and will be added to the record.
11 (The document referred to 12 having been previously marked 13 for identification as Entergy 14 Exhibit E2-01-VY, was received 15 in evidence.)
16 MR. LEWIS: Your Honor, you also in your 17 July I" order indicated at this point we would 18 introduce the exhibits.
19 JUDGE KARLIN: Yes.
20 MR. LEWIS: Would you like us to introduce 21 all the exhibits in all three contentions at this 22 point or simply those that relate to this contention?
23 JUDGE KARLIN: Just those that relate to 24 this contention please.
25 MR. LEWIS: Entergy has previously NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com
764 1 provided to the parties and to the clerk our exhibits 2 on this contention. They are numbered Exhibits E2 3 VY through E2-37-VY and we would move that these 4 exhibits be introduced into evidence.
5 (Whereupon, the documents 6 referred to were marked as 7 Entergy Exhibit E2-02-VY 8 through E2-37-VY for 9 identification.)
10 MR. LEWIS: Any objections?
11 (No response.)
12 JUDGE KARLIN: They are admitted into 13 evidence.
14 (The documents referred to 15 having been previously marked 16 for identification as Entergy 17 Exhibit E2-02-VY through E2 18 VY were received in evidence.)
19 Thank you. Anything else, Mr. Lewis?
20 MR. LEWIS: No, Judge Karlin.
21 JUDGE KARLIN: Okay. NRC staff please.
22 MS. BATY: Mr. Fair, state your name for 23 the record please.
24 MR. FAIR: John Fair.
25 MS. BATY: And do you have before you NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com
765 I "Affidavit of John R. Fair Concerning NEC Contentions 2 2a and 2b Metal Fatigue."
3 MR. FAIR: Yes, I do.
4 MS. BATY: Did you prepare this testimony 5 for the proceeding?
6 MR. FAIR: Yes.
7 MS. BATY: Is your statement of 8 professional qualifications attached?
9 MR. FAIR: Yes, it is.
10 MS. BATY: Do you have any corrections or 11 additions to your testimony at this time?
12 MR. FAIR: Yes, I do.
13 MS. BATY: Could you please -- Let's go 14 through those corrections you have before you and can 15 you tell me the corrections please?
16 MR. FAIR: On Ql, the first line, there 17 was a typo on the please.
18 (Off the record comment.)
19 On Q1, the first line, there is a typo in 20 the spelling of "please."
21 JUDGE KARLIN: All right.
22 MR. FAIR: On Q5, line 2, change the word 23 "outdated" to "incorrect." On Q7, line 1, change the 24 date from "December 2008" to "December 2007." And Q8, 25 lines one and two, insert "submitted January 30, 2008" NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com
766 1 after the word "analysis.' Also change the words 2 "analysis of record" to "confirmatory analysis." And 3 in A8, lines three and four, insert "January 30, 2008" 4 after the word "analysis." Excuse me. "Submitted 5 January 30, 2008" after the word "analysis."
6 MS. BATY: Mr. Fair, do you submit this 7 testimony as your testimony, as your initial 8 testimony, in this proceeding?
9 MR. FAIR: Yes, I do.
10 MS. BATY: Your Honor, I move to have the 11 testimony admitted to the record as read.
12 (Whereupon, the document 13 referred to was marked as NRC 14 Staff Exhibit No. la for 15 identification.)
16 JUDGE KARLIN: Any objections?
17 MS. BATY: And one additional, I have 18 copies of the corrections and a clean copy for all 19 parties, witnesses, Judges and court reporter that I 20 can distribute.
21 JUDGE KARLIN: Good. If you could give 22 that to our law clerk to be distributed. In the 23 meantime, any objections?
24 (Chorus of nos.)
25 MR. LAUBVOGEL: Your Honor, to the extent NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com v
7.67 1 that there's any testimony being offered now that 2 references Dr. Chang's testimony and for the truth of 3 the matter asserted in that testimony, we would ask 4 that those portions of the testimony be struck.
5 JUDGE KARLIN: Well, I don't know whether 6 that's the case here. We would probably look at it 7 for what it's worth. I don't even know whether Mr.
8 Fair's testimony does reiterate Dr. Chang's testimony.
9 If you want to submit a written motion that identifies 10 specific segments that you think are problematic under 11 those criteria I guess I would entertain that.
12 MR. LAUBVOGEL: We would like that 13 opportunity. Thank you. And to the extent that the 14 exhibits that are being offered include the FSER, we 15 would just renew our motion from earlier.
16 JUDGE KARLIN: Okay. We understand you 17 have a motion there.
18 MR. LAUBVOGEL: Thank you.
19 JUDGE KARLIN: All right. Anything --
20 Yes? Go ahead, Ms. Baty.
21 MS. BATY: You want us to go through the 22 exhibits.
23 JUDGE KARLIN: Yes please.
24 MS. BATY: The exhibits --
25 MR. LEWIS: Your Honor, I'm not sure you NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com
768 1 introduced -- you accepted the testimony.
2 JUDGE KARLIN: I'm sorry. Yes. Subject 3 to the objections that we will consider and anything 4 you have, please submit it within five days with 5 specific word-smithing from-.Mr. Fair's testimony 6 pursuant to what you just said. Otherwise, it's going 7 to be admitted and is admitted.
8 (The document referred to 9 having been previously marked 10 for identification as NRC Staff 11 Exhibit No. la, was received in 12 evidence.)
13 Thank you, Mr. Lewis.
14 MS. BATY: Your Honor, I'm not clear on 15 what the concern is about Mr. Fair's testimony given 16 that his testimony is independent of Dr. Chang. Are 17 they concerned about the overlapping exhibits?
18 JUDGE KARLIN: No, I believe it's concern 19 about whether or not Mr. Fair is repeating verbatim 20 something from Dr. Chang and thereby getting it into 21 the record as hearsay or something that does. That 22 would be problematic. We're going to hear that in 23 writing later.
24 MS. BATY: Okay. I just didn't understand 25 the nature given that John has provided his testimony NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com
769 1 under oath and is available for questioning on it. I 2 don't see the purpose of an additional motion.
3 MR. LAUBVOGEL: I think it's simply that 4 we want the chance to look at the testimony and if 5 there are -any specific statements that refer to Dr.
6 Chang's testimony and are bringing in essentially the 7 voracity of that, we would have the opportunity to ask 8 that it be scratched. So I don't have any specifics, 9 but we do want the opportunity to look at it.
10 JUDGE KARLIN: We will allow that to 11 happen, but you have to be pretty specific about it.
12 We would be --
13 MR. LAUBVOGEL: Yes.
14 JUDGE KARLIN: This is pretty -- The rules 15 of evidence, we don't follow the formal rules of 16 evidence here. We try to take all the information in 17 and consider it for what it's worth. This is an 18 expert panel. We probably won't be confused by the 19 fact that Mr. Fair may be referencing something that 20 might otherwise be hearsay and excludeable if this was 21 jury trial obviously.
22 Okay. Ms. Baty, please continue.
23 MS. BATY: The staff has Exhibits 1 24 through 13, 22 and 23 relating to Contention 2a and 25 2b.
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., NW.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com
770 1 As requested by the Board, co-counsel and 2 I have looked at the overlap between Dr. Chang's 3 testimony and Mr. Fair's testimony and have discovered 4 that Staff Exhibit 6 and 7, 23 and 9 are referenced
-.5 only Dr. Chang's testimony. However, Exhibits 6 and 6 7 are also Entergy exhibits. Staff Exhibit 6 is also 7 Entergy Exhibit 4, although only excerpts of that 8 NUREG.
9 JUDGE KARLIN: What is it? Exhibit 6 is 10 one of the NUREGs.
11 MS. BATY: Exhibit 6 is NUREG 6260.
12 JUDGE KARLIN: Okay.
13 MS. BATY: And Exhibit 7 is Entergy 14 Exhibit 5 and that is NUREG 1801, the GALL Report.
15 JUDGE KARLIN: And 23 is nine?
16 MS. BATY: Twenty-three and nine are not 17 a reference. They're not duplicates and their 18 references is in Dr. Chang's testimony.
19 JUDGE KARLIN: And what are they?
20 MS. BATY: One is a letter, Vermont Yankee 21 License Renewal Application Amendment 36 dated 22 February 21, 2008 and that would be a document 23 correspondence between the NRC Staff and Entergy, 24 letter from Entergy to the NRC Staff.
25 The other is Exhibit 9 which is an excerpt NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com
771 1 from the transcript of the ACRS meeting of Dr. Chang's 2 statements to the ACRS on February 7, 2008.
3 JUDGE KARLIN: Okay. All right. Thank 4 you.
5 But with regard to the other exhibits --
6 MS. BATY: We would move to have the 7 exhibits added to the record.
8 (Whereupon, the documents 9 referred to were marked as NRC 10 Staff Exhibits 1-13, 22 and 23 11 for identification.)
12 JUDGE KARLIN: Are you excluding those 13 four exhibits you just identified?
14 MS. BATY: We would --
15 JUDGE KARLIN: Or not?
16 MS. BATY: We don't think that -- We do 17 not have -- We do not have a sponsoring -- There is no 18 sponsoring witness on the panel for Exhibits 23 and 9.
19 JUDGE KARLIN: Well, I think nine would 20 probably go out pretty directly because it's his 21 testimony, is it not? So that's a problem.
22 MS. BATY: Yes.
23 JUDGE KARLIN: Okay. So your motion is 24 for the admission of all the exhibits.
25 MS. BATY: Yes.
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com v
772 1 JUDGE KARLIN: Other than six and seven.
2 MS. BATY: Six and seven were --
3 JUDGE KARLIN: And nine. Any objections 4 other than the one that NEC has already raised?
5 (No response.)
6 We will then admit it subject to those 7 objections and we'll consider that.
8 MS. BATY: Your Honor, I may have missed -
9 - There was another exhibit, Exhibit D.
10 JUDGE KARLIN: D?
11 MS. BATY: Exhibit D. Staff had Exhibits 12 A through D of section -- an excerpt of the ASME Code, 13 Section 3 subsection MCI, one page. I don't think I 14 mentioned that previously.
15 JUDGE KARLIN: Exhibit D, can you show me 16 that? I mean, what is Exhibit D?
17 MS. BATY: It's a page -- it's an excerpt 18 from the ASME Code.
19 JUDGE KARLIN: Okay. From the ASME Code 20 that --
21 MS. BATY: Section 3 it's relevant to 22 Contention 2 as to the requirements of the various 23 appendices.
24 JUDGE KARLIN: Okay.
25 MS. BATY: Which appendices are required NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., NW.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com
773 1 by the ASME Code.
2 JUDGE KARLIN: And are you moving to have 3 that in or out?
4 MS. BATY: Yes. I'm moving to include 5 that within the staff's exhibit list.
6 JUDGE KARLIN: Okay. Is NEC going to 7 object to that?
8 MS. TYLER: I'm sorry. Could you repeat 9 that?
10 JUDGE KARLIN: The admission of ASME Code 11 excerpt.
12 MS. BATY: Staff Exhibit D on our list.
13 I think I failed to list it when I was listing staff's 14 exhibits just now going through the exhibits.
15 (Whereupon, the document 16 referred to was marked as NRC 17 Staff Exhibit D for 18 identification.)
19 MS. TYLER: No, there is no objection.
20 JUDGE KARLIN: There's always judicial 21 notice. ASME Code is American Society for Mechanical 22 Engineers. It's a code that prescribes certain 23 standards with regard to metal fatigue and Ms. Baty is 24 referencing a part of that Code.
25 Okay. So there is no objection to 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
774 1 particular element.
2 (The document referred to 3 having been previously marked 4 for identification as NRC Staff 5 Exhibit D, was received in 6 evidence.)
7 MS. TYLER: No.
8 JUDGE KARLIN: Is that all from the staff?
9 MS. BATY: Yes.
10 JUDGE KARLIN: Thank you.
11 Ms. Tyler, anything?
12 MS. TYLER: Are you asking us -- We're not 13 to move for admission of NEC's exhibits that were 14 duplicated by the staff or Entergy.
15 JUDGE KARLIN: No. I'd like for you to 16 move for exhibits of all the exhibits that you think 17 are important.
18 MS. TYLER: You want us to move for 19 admission.
20 JUDGE KARLIN: You don't have to 21 physically produce a copy of it.
22 MS. TYLER: Right. We don't have to 23 produce a copy.
24 JUDGE KARLIN: We don't need to duplicate 25 them.
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com
775 1 MS. TYLER: Okay.
2 (Off the record comments.)
3 JUDGE KARLIN: I believe with regard to 4 the staff exhibits they were all admitted subject to 5 the objection and I believe the ones that were 6 withdrawn, Ms. Baty, were your exhibits 6, 7 and 9.
7 Is that correct?
8 MS. BATY: Well, Your Honor, to be clear 9 six and seven are duplicates of Entergy exhibits and 10 therefore we feel that those can be admitted because 11 we have sponsoring witnesses from Entergy. They are 12 duplicates.
13 JUDGE KARLIN: Yes, you don't need them to 14 be admitted separately.
15 MS. BATY: No, we don't need them. That's 16 correct. Then 23 and nine are exclusively referenced 17 in Dr. Chang's testimony and we're pointing that out 18 as a matter of the record and we would move to include 19 them. However, I don't know what the status of it is.
20 JUDGE KARLIN: All right. You can include 21 them and objections to which ones?
22 MR. LAUBVOGEL: Well, I was just confused 23 by the last statement. I thought she just said that 24 nine and 23 are Dr. Chang exhibits and, if that's 25 correct, then, yes, we would object to the admission NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com
776 1 of those exhibits.
2 JUDGE KARLIN: Okay. That's what I 3 thought. And D? No objections to that as I 4 understand. So those documents are admitted subject 5 to the recognized objection that we're taking under 6 advisement by NEC.
7 (The documents referred to 8 having been previously marked 9 for identification as NRC Staff 10 Exhibits 1-13, 22 and 23 were 11 received in evidence.)
12 That's all from the staff, right, Ms.
13 Baty?
14 MS. BATY: Yes.
15 JUDGE KARLIN: Okay. NEC, could you 16 introduce your witness and your exhibits please.
17 MS. TYLER: Yes. Can I walk over to be 18 closer to him when I talk to him?
19 JUDGE KARLIN: Yes.
20 MS. TYLER: Judge Karlin, Dr. Hopenfeld's 21 testimony of record -- and we'll be admitting his 22 testimony --
23 JUDGE KARLIN: Right. I understand that.
24 MS. TYLER: And we'll be admitting his 25 testimony all through --
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com
777 1 JUDGE KARLIN: All right. That's fine.
2 I might suggest that if he has corrections 3 on all three.
4 MS. TYLER: He has no.
5 JUDGE KARLIN: No corrections.
6 MS. TYLER: Would you please state your 7 name for the record?
8 DR. HOPENFELD: My name is Jerome 9 Hopenfeld.
10 MS. TYLER: And do you have before you a
.11 document entitled --
12 (Off the record comments.)
13 (Microphone relocation.)
14 MS. TYLER: Dr. Hopenfeld, do you have a 15 document in front of you titled "The Pre-filed Direct 16 Testimony of Dr. Joram Hopenfeld Regarding NEC 17 Contentions 2a, 2b, 3 and 4"?
18 DR. HOPENFELD: I do.
19 MS. TYLER: And do you also have before 20 you a document titled "The Pre-trial Rebuttal 21 Testimony of Dr. Joram Hopenfeld Regarding NEC 22 Contentions 2a, 2b, 3 and 4"?
23 DR.. HOPENFELD: I do.
24 MS. TYLER: Did you prepare this testimony 25 for submission in this proceeding?
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com v
778 1 DR. HOPENFELD: I did.
2 MS. TYLER: Do you have any corrections of 3 this testimony at this time?
4 DR. HOPENFELD: I do not.
5 MS. TYLER: Do you adopt this testimony as 6 your sworn testimony in this proceeding?
7 DR. HOPENFELD: Yes.
8 MS. TYLER: I move for admission of both 9 the direct and rebuttal testimony to the record.
10 (Whereupon, the document 11 referred to was marked as NEC 12 Exhibits 1 and 2 for 13 identification.)
14 JUDGE KARLIN: Any objections?
15 (Chorus of nos.)
16 JUDGE KARLIN: Okay. Your exhibits are 17 admitted.
18 (The documents referred to 19 having been previously marked 20 for identification as NEC 21 Exhibits No. 1 and 2, were 22 received in evidence.)
23 MS. TYLER: Okay. Now the exhibits?
24 JUDGE KARLIN: Yes please.
25 MS. TYLER: NEC has pre-filed and provided NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com
779 1 to all of the parties Exhibits NEC-JH02 through NEC-2 JH35. Also Exhibits NEC-JH62 through NEC-JH66 and 3 NEC-JH68-NEC-JH72 and now moves for admission of these 4 exhibits into the record.
5 .(Whereupon, the documents 6 referred to were marked as NEC 7 Exhibits NEC-JH02-JH35, JH62-8 JH66 and JH68-JH72 for 9 identification.)
10 JUDGE KARLIN: Any objections?
11 (Chorus of nos.)
12 JUDGE KARLIN: All right. They will be 13 admitted into evidence. Thank you.
14 (The documents referred to 15 having been previously marked 16 for identification as NEC 17 Exhibits JH02-JH35, JH62-JH66 18 and JH68-JH72, were received in 19 evidence.)
20 Okay. At this point, what would happen is 21 we would asking questions of the witnesses. We just 22 got them into the hot seat and it's their turn to 23 answer questions. But it's been a kind of long time 24 so far, an hour and 45 minutes. So we will take a ten 25 -- Let's make a 15 minute break and reconvene at what NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com
780 1 I have is 3:00 p.m., a 15 minute break, at which time 2 we will commence asking questions. So we are 3 adjourned at the moment. Off the record.
4 (Whereupon, at 2:45 p.m., the above-5 entitled matter recessed and reconvened at 3:02 p.m.)
6 JUDGE KARLIN: I would like to remind the 7 witnesses that you are still under oath. So what we 8 will do now is try to ask some questions related to 9 contention number 2.
10 The first topic I would like to ask a few 11 questions about is -- relates to this NUREG/CR-6909.
12 And I guess I would like to talk to -- with Mr. Fair 13 first, the witness for the NRC Staff, on these 14 questions. Could you refer to NUREG/CR-6909? I 15 believe it is Entergy 2, Exhibit E-2-30. That's the 16 reference I have for it. Mr. Fair, could you take a 17 look at that?
18 MR. FAIR: Yes, I have that.
19 JUDGE KARLIN: Okay. Now, can you -- the 20 title of this is "Effect of LWR Coolant Environments 21 on the Fatigue Life of Reactor Metals, Final Report."
22 And what was the date on that, Mr. Fair?
23 MR. FAIR: The date is published February 24 2007.
25 JUDGE KARLIN: Right. And that was, as I NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com
781 1 understand it, produced by Argonne National 2 Laboratories?
3 MR. FAIR: That is correct.
4 JUDGE KARLIN: And that was at the request 5 of the NRC Staff?
6 MR. FAIR: Yes.
7 JUDGE KARLIN: So they are like a 8 contractor for the NRC, right?
9 MR. FAIR: Yes.
10 JUDGE KARLIN: Argonne National Labs. And 11 I'm going to refer to that as 6909 from time to time.
12 And if you would go to page -- the Forward of that 13 document, page -- what -- Roman numeral little five I 14 guess it is. And it refers to the -- if you would, 15 the second paragraph. Tell me about NUREG/CR-5707.
16 What is that?
17 MR. FAIR: Do you mean 5704?
18 JUDGE KARLIN: I'm sorry. 5704, yes.
19 MR. FAIR: It's an Effects of Lightwater 20 Coolant Environments on Fatigue of Design Curves of 21 Austenitic Stainless Steels. It was the predecessor 22 of this NUREG.
23 JUDGE KARLIN: Okay. And it is dated 24 April 1999?
25 MR. FAIR: It says issued April 1999, yes.
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com
782 1 JUDGE KARLIN: Okay. And then, also refer 2 -- and that's an exhibit in this case, is it not, 3 Exhibit -- one among others, E-2-07?
4 MR. FAIR: That is correct.
5 JUDGE KARLIN: Right. So, and then if you 6 will read further on that preface, it also references 7 to another exhibit in this case, a NUREG/CR -- what is 8 it? 6583?
9 MR. FAIR: Yes.
10 JUDGE KARLIN: Could you -- and that's on 11 the same subject, is it not?
12 MR. FAIR: Yes, it is. This covers carbon 13 and low-alloy steels.
14 JUDGE KARLIN: Right, right. So it's a --
15 one of them covers stainless steel, one of them covers 16 carbon and low alloy steels.
17 MR. FAIR: That's correct.
18 JUDGE KARLIN: And then, this one -- 6909 19 -- covers both.
20 MR. FAIR: That's correct.
21 JUDGE KARLIN: All right. And it's a more 22 recent -- 2007 -- vintage report, right?
23 MR. FAIR: That's correct.
24 JUDGE KARLIN: Now, they are all issued by 25 Argonne National Labs?
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com
783 1 MR. FAIR: Correct.
2 JUDGE KARLIN: And they are all something 3 that the NRC had performed for them by Argonne --
4 MR. FAIR: That's correct.
5 JUDGE KARLIN: -- in this. So the CR in 6 the NUREG/CR, what does that mean?
7 MR. FAIR: Contractor report.
8 JUDGE KARLIN: Contractor report, right.
9 So that's a -- Argonne is the contractor, and this is 10 their report.
11 MR. FAIR: That's correct.
12 JUDGE KARLIN: And now none of these -- do 13 any of these NUREGs, the 6909, 5704, the 6583, do they 14 refer -- distinguish between license renewals and new 15 reactors and old reactors? Is there any distinction 16 when it comes to the lightwater cooling reactor 17 environments and their effect on metal fatigue?
18 MR. FAIR: I believe there is a statement 19 in 6909 saying this procedure would be applicable to 20 new reactors.
21 JUDGE KARLIN: Right. We'll get to that 22 in a minute. But as a technical matter, does it make 23 any difference -- metal fatigue is metal fatigue, and 24 whether it occurs in a new reactor, an old reactor, 25 it's the same issue?
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com
784 1 MR. FAIR: That's correct.
2 JUDGE KARLIN: Okay. You know, there's a 3 choice being made as to which to apply to what, and I 4 know that's part of the issue. Okay.
5 Bear with me for a minute while I find 6 something.
7 (Pause.)
8 Now, I guess what I'd like you to look at 9 is Staff Exhibit 13. Let me see if I can find that.
10 MS. BATY: Your Honor, is that --
11 unfortunately, we failed to bring with us an extra 12 copy for our witness. I don't know whether any of the 13 other witnesses could share with Mr. Fair or whether 14 we could borrow back Exhibit 13 for Mr. Fair to refer 15 to.
16 JUDGE KARLIN: Do you not have a copy of 17 Exhibit 13, Mr. Fair?
18 MR. FAIR: I'm sorry.
19 JUDGE KARLIN: No, no, it's not your 20 fault. All right. I can just find it myself.
21 (Pause.)
22 Could you identify, Mr. Fair, Staff 23 Exhibit 13?
24 MR. FAIR: Yes. This is Regulatory Guide 25 1.207, which is entitled "Guidelines for Evaluating NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com
785 1 Fatigue Analyses Incorporating the Light Reduction of 2 Metal Components Due to the Effects of Lightwater 3 Reactor Environment for New Reactors."
4 JUDGE KARLIN: And so -- and what's the 5 date of issuance of this, March 2007, correct?
6 MR. FAIR: That's correct.
7 JUDGE KARLIN: And this is a regulatory 8 guide issued by the NRC Staff?
9 MR. FAIR: Yes.
10 JUDGE KARLIN: And it's guidelines for
- 11. incorporating or evaluating fatigue in metals for new 12 reactors.
13 MR. FAIR: That's correct.
14 JUDGE KARLIN: That's kind of the 15 operative word. And what -- can you summarize for me 16 what that -- what this NUREG does and says?
17 MR. FAIR: This regulatory guide?
18 JUDGE KARLIN: Yes.
19 MR. FAIR: This regulatory guide 20 essentially refers back to the NUREG-6909 for the 21 procedures for incorporating environmental fatigue 22 calculations in new reactors.
23 JUDGE KARLIN: And it adopts the use of 24 NUREG-6909 for calculating the --
25 MR. FAIR: That's correct.
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com v
786 1 JUDGE KARLIN: -- fatigue in new-reactors.
2 What about existing reactors?
3 MR. FAIR: The implementation indicates 4 that this was not backfit to existing reactors.
5 . JUDGE KARLIN: Well, I'm not sure whether 6 ,backfit" is the right word, but the lawyers will have 7 to figure that one out. But you're saying that it 8 does not apply, was not applied, to existing reactors, 9 is that right?
10 MR. FAIR: That's correct.
11 JUDGE WARDWELL: Where did you come up 12 with that phrase, "backfit"? Are you quoting 13 something, or can you point to something in the reg 14 guide that may imply that?
15 MR. FAIR: Yes. The first paragraph under 16 Item D, Implementation, the purpose of --
17 JUDGE WARDWELL: Bear with us for a 18 minute. Okay. Go ahead.
19 MR. FAIR: The second sentence, "This 20 regulatory guide only applies to new plants, and no 21 backfitting is intended or approved in connection with 22 its issuance."
23 JUDGE WARDWELL: And that, again, is more 24 indicative of the fact that it's applying to new 25 plants, and that there is no intention or approval NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com
787 1 necessary in regards to backfitting. You didn't say 2 that backfitting would in fact be an accurate 3 analysis. It just is not requiring that --
4 MR. FAIR: That's correct.
5 JUDGE WARDWELL: -- a clear indication of 6 what that means?
7 MR. FAIR: That's correct.
8 JUDGE WARDWELL: Thank you.
9 JUDGE KARLIN: Let's focus on page 5 of 10 the Staff Exhibit 13, which is Reg Guide 1.207.
11 Page 5 talks about the regulatory position -- the 12 Staff's regulatory position I guess is what we're 13 saying. And. as I understand it, point 1 of the 14 regulatory position on page 5 of Staff Exhibit 13 says 15 that the -- as I understand it, NUREG-6909 should be 16 used to calculate the environmental fatigue usage for 17 carbon and low-alloy steel components in lightwater 18 reactors, right?
19 MR. FAIR: That's correct.
20 JUDGE KARLIN: And they call for the 21 adoption of a new method for calculating the fatigue 22 usage in air under ASME code analysis, right?
23 MR. FAIR: That's correct.
24 JUDGE KARLIN: 1.1. And 1.2 calls for --
25 and the NRC adopts and endorses the use of the new Fen NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com
788 1 factor -- fatigue, environmentally-adjusted fatigue 2 factor under 6909.
3 MR. FAIR: That's correct.
4 JUDGE KARLIN: Then, it goes on in .2 to 5 do the same things and adopts 6909 with regard to 6 stainless steels?
7 MR. FAIR: Yes.
8 JUDGE KARLIN: And also, is there a new 9 code or does it prescribe -- and 2.1 calculates 10 fatigue usage in air, uses an ASME code?
11 MR. FAIR: That's correct. It's a NUREG.
12 JUDGE KARLIN: So there are several things 13 going on here. One is there is new curves under ASME 14 for -- in air.
15 MR. FAIR: That's correct.
16 JUDGE KARLIN: Not adjusted 17 environmentally, as it were.
18 MR. FAIR: That's correct.
19 JUDGE KARLIN: And then, there's also a 20 new way of calculating the environmental adjustment in 21 the lightwater reactor cooling -- coolant environment.
22 MR. FAIR: That's correct.
23 JUDGE KARLIN: Okay. So that's adopted.
24 And they also talk about somewhere -- page 4, I 25 believe, is it not -- 4 and 5? Is there a new 95-95 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com
789 1 confidence criterion being used here? Bottom of 2 page 3.
3 MR. FAIR: That's correct. That's the 4 basis of deriving the new air curves.
5 JUDGE KARLIN: Could you talk about this 6 95-95 criterion for a moment? Are you familiar with 7 that?
8 MR. FAIR: Yes, I am.
9 JUDGE KARLIN: Okay. What is that?
10 What's going on there?
11 MR. FAIR: In the original ASME fatigue 12 curves there was a fixed adjustment factor made based 13 on the test data to -- to take test data and apply it 14 to actual reactor components. These were adjustment 15 factors for size, surface finish, and for the data 16 scatter in the actual test data.
17 In NUREG-6909, a statistical evaluation 18 was done assuming a statistical distribution of those 19 factors that went into this calculation of the 20 adjustment for the ASME air curves. And the basis for 21 deriving the new curves was the 95-5 basis.
22 So this was based on the statistical 23 evaluation. It included one additional parameter that 24 was not included in the derivation of the original 25 ASME air curves, which was the loading sequence.
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com
790 1 JUDGE KARLIN: Okay. So the 95-95 is a 2 statistical competence level for 3 MR. FAIR: That's correct.
4 JUDGE KARLIN: -- for whether or not it 5 satisfies the ASME requirement or the requirements?
6 MR. FAIR: Well, the 95-5 or 95-95 is a 95 7 percent confidence that there's less than a five 8 percent probability of initiating a fatigue crack at 9 the ASME code limit.
10 JUDGE KARLIN: Okay. And I would 11 reference you to page 2 of the reg guide, Exhibit.--
12 what, Staff Exhibit 13. And the last -- could you 13 read the last sentence in the second paragraph? It 14 talks about -- there's a statement about whether or 15 not this NUREG -- as I understand it, and let's 16 correct me -- Reg Guide 1.207 says, "This new method 17 for calculating environmentally-corrected metal 18 fatigue will be used for new lightwater reactors."
19 MR. FAIR: That's correct.
20 JUDGE KARLIN: The question I'm going to 21 focus on is, why not use it for the existing reactors, 22 for renewals of existing reactors? And I believe 23 there's a sentence in here that explains one of the 24 rationales for this in the reg guide, the staff's 25 rationale. Could you read that statement?
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com
791 1 "Because of significant conservatism in 2 quantifyincr other plant-related variables such as 3 cyclic behavior, including stress and loading rates 4 involved in cumulative fatigue light calculation's, the 5 design of the current fleet of reactors is 6 satisfactory." What does that mean?
7 MR. FAIR: I'm sorry, sir. I was on the 8 wrong page.
9 JUDGE KARLIN: I'm sorry. I was on 10 page 2. Did I say page 2, second paragraph, last 11 sentence.
12 MR. FAIR: Last sentence.
13 JUDGE KARLIN: Page 2 of Reg Guide 1.207.
14 MR. FAIR: I believe that was an 15 assessment that the implementation of the new criteria 16 in 6909 will not result in a significant -- would not 17 show that the previous criteria was unconservative or 18 non-conservative.
19 JUDGE KARLIN: Okay. Let me go back to 20 6909, the Exhibit 6909, NUREG-6909. Is it correct 21 that 6909 -- 6909 was done in 2007, right?
22 MR. FAIR: That's correct.
23 JUDGE KARLIN: Was it based on a larger 24 database?
25 MR. FAIR: It was in -- mostly on the NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com
792.
1 stainless steel side.
2 JUDGE KARLIN: And it's newer information, 3 it's more information, than the earlier NUREGs on the 4 same subject, right?
5 MR. FAIR: Yes.
6 JUDGE KARLIN: Is it better? Is it more 7 accurate?
8 MR. FAIR: Yes, I believe on the stainless 9 steel side. I think if you compare the carbon steel 10 and the low-alloy steel there is not a large 11 difference.
1.2 JUDGE KARLIN: Carbon steel and the low 13 alloy.
14 MR. FAIR: That's correct.
15 JUDGE KARLIN: But you would -- is it 16 based upon more data?
17 MR. FAIR: It's based upon more data.
18 JUDGE KARLIN: 6909 is based upon more 19 data. It's based upon more recent data.
20 MR. FAIR: Yes.
21 JUDGE KARLIN: And it's more accurate with 22 regard to stainless steel.
23 MR. FAIR: Yes.
24 JUDGE KARLIN: And correct me if I'm 25 wrong, this is the NUREG that NEC, when it says 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
793 1 we're -- when it alleges that staff is using an 2 obsolete methodology for calculating the CUFens, they 3 are suggesting that this is the standard that should 4 be used, is that right?
5 MR. FAIR: That's the way I read their 6 contention, yes.
7 JUDGE KARLIN: Right. Yes, that's the way 8 I read it, too. Now, you made a statement to the 9 ACRS, the Advisory Committee on Reactor Safety, back 10 in February about -- about this. Let me see if I can 11 find it.
12 (Pause.)
13 And I believe you stated that -- okay, 14 here it is. It's Staff Exhibit 31. It's a short 15 excerpt from February 7, 2008, meeting of the Advisory 16 Committee on Reactor Safeguards. And, you know, the 17 staff put this in, and you put this in about --
18 MS. BATY: Your Honor, what exhibit number 19 did you say?
20 JUDGE KARLIN: I have it down as -- oh, 21 I'm sorry -- Entergy Exhibit 31, E-2-31. Thank you, 22 Ms. Baty. E-2-31. It's an excerpt from the ACRS 23 transcript. And here you are talking -- you know, 24 they were asking you, as I understand it, "Well, why 25 don't we use -- why don't you use 6909 for the license NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com
794 1 renewals?" And you said, "We made a decision at that 2 time that we would, as criteria -- we would maintain 3 that criteria, because there were a lot of 4 applications in process." Were you involved in the 5-- thought process as to whether or not to use a new, 6 better methodology for license renewals?
7 MR. FAIR: Yes, I was.
8 JUDGE KARLIN: And is that pretty 9 accurate? I mean, why not?
10 MR. FAIR: Well, at the time that we start 11 -- first came up with the criteria for environmental 12 fatigue, Argonne was still doing work, ongoing work, 13 and they produced several slight modifications to the 14 criteria. There were two additional NUREGs before 15 6909 associated with their environmental evaluations.
16 We took a look at the significance of 17 these changes and determined that they weren't so 18 significant that we would try to implement them, and 19 we wanted to maintain a stable environment for 20 applications that were under -- that were being 21 developed at the time. So it was a judgment at the 22 time that it -- the changes that were ongoing weren't 23 significant enough to change an existing criteria that 24 applicants were working to.
25 JUDGE KARLIN: Okay. So sort of a cost-NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com
7195 1 benefit analysis that you made, it's not worth 2 imposing this more -- this new and improved method on 3 existing operations? But you would impose it on new 4 license -- new applicants?
5 MR. FAIR: That's part of it, yes.
6 JUDGE KARLIN: Yes. Okay. Well, and then 7 you made a statement on the next page of this exhibit, 8 Entergy Exhibit E-2-31, that -- well -- and, again, 9 comparing the new NUREG-6909 to the way it would be 10 calculated under the old NUREGs of the 1999 vintage, 11 you said, 'They would generally be lower." I guess 12 it's -- actually, if you go and look at the latest 13 criteria we're applying to new reactors it's not as 14 conservative as the old criteria, because we changed 15 the basis for deriving the curves.
16 If you look and go back at the Pen factors 17 themselves using the new criteria, they will generally 18 be lower.
19 MR. FAIR: That's correct.
20 JUDGE KARLIN: Arnd what do you mean 21 "lower"?
22 MR. FAIR: Well, if you were to calculate 23 the Fen with the 6909 formulas, and compare it to the 24 same Fen using the earlier NUREGs, that the current 25 criteria would give you generally lower Pen. I NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com
796 1 believe that the 2 JUDGE KARLIN: "Lower" meaning?
3 MR. FAIR: Smaller values.
4 JUDGE KARLIN: More conservative or less 5 conservative?
6 MR. FAIR: Well, it --
7 JUDGE KARLIN: More stringent or less 8 stringent?
9 MR. FAIR: The older one would be more 10 conservative.
11 JUDGE KARLIN: More conservative.
12 MR. FAIR: Right.
13 JUDGE KARLIN: And that's what you said to 14 the ACRS and --
15 MR. FAIR: That's correct.
16 JUDGE KARLIN: -- that's what your 17 testimony is here today.
18 MR. FAIR: That's correct.
19 JUDGE WARDWELL: And by that you mean the 20 number would be -- the resulting CUFen would be a 21 higher number.
22 MR. FAIR: Actually, it would be a lower 23 number. When you actually calculated the CUFen, the 24 lower the number --
25 JUDGE WARDWELL: Right. Okay.
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com
797 1 JUDGE KARLIN: The old method is safer, 2 gives you -- than the new method.
3 MR. FAIR: I use a qualifier. I mean, 4 generally, you know, they're not in each and every 5 case.
6 JUDGE KARLIN: Yes, generally. Now, have 7 you calculated that for the CUFens in this case?
8 MR. FAIR: I did not calculate specific 9 numbers. But if you go back to NUREG-6909, I believe 10 the applicant cited the assessment in 6909 that for 11 low-alloy steel components that the Fens are about 18 12 percent lower using the new criteria.
13 JUDGE KARLIN: I'm sorry. The applicant 14 said that? Or who said that?
15 MR. FAIR: That was the applicant.
16 MR. STEVENS: Your Honor, could I -- could 17 I provide some clarification on this subject?
18 JUDGE KARLIN: Well, let me ask you, Mr.
19 Stevens, have you calculated what it would be under 20 6909 -- the CUFens under 6909?
21 MR. STEVENS: Yes.
22 JUDGE KARLIN: You have.
23 MR. STEVENS: We have done an assessment 24 of that for BY.
25 JUDGE KARLIN: Holding all other variables NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com
798 1 constant, you have recalculated the CUFens under 6909 2 and Reg Guide 1.207?
3 MR. STEVENS: That is correct.
4 JUDGE KARLIN: Okay.. Great. And what are 5 you coming up with? Now, is that in. your testimony 6 that you submitted in writing?
7 MR. STEVENS: No, it is not. This was 8 recently completed over the weekend, and it was 9 provided to the other parties on Saturday.
10 JUDGE KARLIN: Dr. Hopenfeld, was that 11 presented to you?
12 DR. HOPENFELD: It was presented, but 13 that's not what I -- what I have seen not -- there 14 isn't any difference in the calculations. And I would 15 be very glad to talk about it.
16 JUDGE KARLIN: All right. Well, we'll 17 give you a moment.
18 Go ahead, Mr. Stevens.
19 MR. STEVENS: We -- I've done some --
2.0 quite a few calculations with the 6909 --
21 JUDGE KARLIN: Please speak up --
22 MR. STEVENS: I'm sorry.
23 JUDGE KARLIN: -- so people can hear.
24 MR. STEVENS: I've done quite a few 25 calculations with 6909 going back a few years as part NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com v
799 1 of the review process included. And we did the -- we 2 calculated CUFens for the VY, all nine locations that 3 were evaluated for environmental fatigue.
4 And the CUFens using 6909 are lower than 5 those reported by Entergy in the testimony for all 6 nine locations. And that would support what -- Mr.
7 Fair's prior testimony or the ACRS comment that he 8 made earlier.
9 JUDGE REED: Mr. Stevens, in fact, the 10 only change was the Fens, not the CUFs, is that 11 correct?
12 MR. STEVENS: No, sir. We used --
13 JUDGE REED: Did you also change the CUFs 14 in this --
15 MR. STEVENS: Yes. We used 6909 in its 16 entirety, so we used the curves, calculated Fens in 17 accordance with that document, and also CUFens as a 18 product of the two.
19 JUDGE REED: Okay. so we are looking at 20 a result that was attained by changes both in the 21 environmental effects as well as how you did the basic 22 CUF analysis.
23 MR. STEVENS: Yes, sir.
24 JUDGE REED: Okay.
25 JUDGE WARDWELL: How long does 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
800 i analysis take you to do?
2 MR. STEVENS: Approximately four hours.
3 JUDGE WARDWELL: Thank you.
4 JUDGE KARLIN: And let's just clarify.
5 Dr. Reed's question I think was reasonably -- was well 6 taken, and I think the clarification is you're saying 7 NUREG-6909 involves more than just changing the Fen 8 calculation, is that correct?
9 MR. STEVENS: That's correct.
10 JUDGE KARLIN: And it involves what other 11 changes?
12 MR. STEVENS: It involves calculating 13 fatigue with revised fatigue curves, compared to 14 those --
15 JUDGE KARLIN: In air.
16 MR. STEVENS: Correct.
17 JUDGE KARLIN: Right.
18 MR. STEVENS: Compared to the ASME code 19 fatigue curve.
20 JUDGE KARLIN: And what -- maybe we can 9
21 just ask what the values you derived -- what werE the 22 values for the nine -- what, nine locations, six 23 locations, nine pieces of equipment?
24 MR. STEVENS: Okay. The nine items -- and 25 I'll report the values using 6909, and these are NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrQr oss.com
801 1 CUFens. Item 1 was the RPV shell bottom head 2 location, CUFen .0263. Item 2 is the RPV shell at 3 shroud support location. CUFen was .2637. Item 3 was 4 the feedwater nozzle blend radius. CUFen was .2175.
5 Item.4 was the recirculation RHR Class 1 6 piping return T. CUFen .4151. Item 5 was the 7 recirculation inlet nozzle forging. CUFen .1921.
8 Item 6, recirculation inlet nozzle safe-in, CUFen 9 .0152.
10 Item 7, recirculation outlet nozzle 11 forging, CUFen .0278. Item 8, core spray nozzle 12 forging blend radius, CUFen .0524. Item 9, feedwater 13 Class 1 piping, CUFen .1350.
14 JUDGE KARLIN: And what was the highest 15 CUFen calculated by that in that analysis?
i6 MR. STEVENS: That would be Item 4, 17 recirculation, RHR Class 1 piping return T of .4151.
18 JUDGE KARLIN: Okay.
19 JUDGE WARDWELL: How did this analysis --
20 how was this analysis performed in regards to the 21 three sets of analyses that were presented as part of 22 the testimony in regards to the basic initial 23 calculation performed in the application, those that 24 were done for the refined analysis, and those that 25 were done for the confirmatory analysis? Analyses, I NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com
802 1 should say.
2 MR. STEVENS: We started with the -- all 3 of the calculations that Entergy has done over the 4 past year. And for the three nozzles that are a part 5 -- of the testimony -- the recirculation outlet nozzle, 6 the core spray nozzle, and the feedwater nozzle -- we 7 used the refined analyses.
8 And the analysis -- the calculations we 9 did here started with the stress results that went 10 into the fatigue calculation. So we used -- you know, 11 the majority of the analysis remained unchanged. We 12 just took the stresses that fed into the fatigue 13 analysis. We replaced the fatigue curve and 14 recalculated Fens. The very tail end of the analysis 15 was reperformed.
16 JUDGE WARDWELL: So let me make sure I 17 understand this correctly. You used the stress 18 analyses that -- the most recent stress analyses for 19 a given component based on whether or not the -- it 20 was -- the most recent was done as either a the 21 original analyses, refined analyses, or confirmatory 22 analyses.
23 MR. STEVENS: We did not use the 24 confirmatory calculation for the feedwater nozzle, our 25 reason being to be consistent with these comparisons.
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com
803 1 JUDGE WARDWELL: Strictly the refined for 2 the three nozzles and then they're basically --
3 MR. STEVENS: That's correct.
4 JUDGE KARLIN: Does that, mean that the 5 Green's function issue was eliminated, or still -- as 6 I understand it, we have three analyses essentially 7 that you submitted, that Entergy submitted. First, 8 it's the initial analyses, right? With the 9 application. Is that correct?
10 MR. STEVENS: That's correct.
11 JUDGE KARLIN: Then, there was the 12 reanalysis in September and December of '07, right?
13 MR. STEVENS: Correct.
14 JUDGE KARLIN: And that was for all seven 15 locations or pieces of equipment -- all nine, I'm 16 sorry. And then, there was a confirmatory analysis 17 with regard to the feedwater nozzle, right?
18 MR. STEVENS: Correct.
19 JUDGE KARLIN: So that's the terminology 20 I'm going to use -- the initial analysis, the 21 reanalysis for all of them, and then the confirmatory 22 analysis for the feedwater nozzle. And as I hear what 23 you're saying, you used the approach of the 24 reanalysis, and then you applied NUREG-6909 to that, 25 is that right?
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com
804 1 MR. STEVENS: That's right.
2 JUDGE KARLIN: Now -- well, then, there 3 may be a concern about that because the whole reason 4 that the confirmatory analysis was done was because, 5 as I understand it, the staff raised concerns about 6 the simplification of being caused by using simplified 7 data in the Green's function. Are you with me?
8 MR. STEVENS: Yes, sir.
9 JUDGE KARLIN: Was that -- is that problem 10 still inherent in your reanalysis of these?
11 MR. STEVENS: Well, I'd just like to 12 clarify that I don't consider that to be a problem 13 with those analyses. But the presence of the Green's 14 function is in the three evaluations of the nozzles in 15 these results I reported to you.
- 16. JUDGE WARDWELL: And just for 17 clarification, is it fair to say that the reason you 18 did that is just to compare it to using 6909 versus 19 5783 -- what's the other NUREG number -- approach?
20 You did it for comparison purposes rather than any 21 final calculation of record.
22 MR. STEVENS: Yes, sir. I believe at 23 least two of the parties -- that would be Entergy and 24 NRC Staff -- have made some statements that the newer 25 regulatory guide and associate NUREG generally provide NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com
805 1 lower results on a CUFen standpoint than the ones used 2 for license renewal. And so these were done to 3 support those statements further.
4 JUDGE WARDWELL: Okay.
5 JUDGE REED: Mr. Stevens, I need to 6 understand better how these calculations are actually 7 performed. We've kind of jumped into the middle here, 8 and I need to come back more to the beginning. You 9 work for SIA, is that correct?
10 MR. STEVENS: That's correct.
11 JUDGE REED: And you personally did all of 12 these calculations.
13 MR. STEVENS: Not -- no, sir. I was -- I 14 did a few of them, and I supervised the staff that did 15 the calculations.
16 JUDGE REED: But you are intimately 17 familiar with the methodology that goes into 18 calculating a CUFen number for a particular component.
19 MR. STEVENS: Yes, sir.
20 JUDGE REED: So you know from beginning to 21 end exactly how that calculation proceeds and what 22 assumptions are made.
23 MR. STEVENS: Yes, sir.
24 JUDGE REED: Could you give us a brief 25 discourse on how that's done? I don't want a half-NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com
806 1 hour tutorial. I want a five-minute description of --
2 take a particular transient or a set of transients 3 that are analyzed and tell us exactly how you 4 calculate and arrive at a CUFen number.
5 MR. STEVENS: Okay.
6 (Pause.)
7 I'm trying -- I'm going to look my 8 testimony up, so I can keep this as brief as possible.
9 I apologize for the delay.
10 JUDGE REED: No, that's fine. You might 11 start by talking about the kinds of transients that 12 affect, say, a feedwater nozzle and how those lead to 13 stresses, and then how you calculate the stresses, 14 then how you determine what the maximum allowable 15 stresses are, so that you -- and I don't know how to 16 do these calculations, so I don't want to lead you too 17 far.
18 MR. STEVENS: Okay.
19 JUDGE REED: But --
20 MR. STEVENS: I'll try and be brief but 21 descriptive here. So we have to - we have to collect 22 all of the loadings for a particular component we're 23 evaluating, and those would come from --
24 JUDGE REED: Can you speak just a little 25 louder?
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealraross.com
807 1 MR. STEVENS: Okay. Sorry. We have to 2 collect all of the loadings for a particular component 3 in order to analyze it from a stress and fatigue 4 standpoint. We would typically collect those loadings 5 from the design specifications for the component by 6 the vendor or manufacturer. So we would collect 7 geometry and we would construct a model that would 8 allow us to calculate stresses for all loadings. In 9 this case, a finite element model is an industry 10 standard, so we would model that component geometry --
11 JUDGE REED: So if I may interrupt, these 12 are static loadings on a particular component. You 13 calculate a stress tensor for that or a stress field?
14 MR. STEVENS: Correct.
15 JUDGE REED: Okay. So the issue of 16 transients has not yet come into it.
17 MR. STEVENS: Not yet.
18 JUDGE REED: Okay.
19 MR. STEVENS: As a part of the loadings, 20 though, there are thermal transients which are loads 21 that vary with time, and we would also use the finite 22 element model to evaluate stresses as a function of 23 time for those loadings.
24 JUDGE REED: So you take a series of 25 snapshots during a transient, and all of which have NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com
808 1 different loadings is --
2 MR. STEVENS: That's 3 JUDGE REED: -- and calculate the 4 stresses?
5 MR. STEVENS: Yes.
6 JUDGE REED: Okay. I'm with you so far.
- 7 MR. STEVENS: So during a thermal 8 transient, we would have a stress history versus time 9 for that transient. And then, knowing how pressure 10 and other loadings vary during that transient, we 11 would calculate those stresses and combine them. This 12 is all a linear, elastic analysis, so we.would combine 13 them by superposition. And we would get a stress --
14 a total stress history for the component from those 15 analyses.
16 JUDGE REED: For a particular transient, 17 you develop a stress history, meaning the stress as a 18 function of time.
19 MR. STEVENS: That's correct.
20 JUDGE REED: Okay.
21 MR. STEVENS: And then, we have 20 22 transients, we would repeat that process 20 times and 23 come up with 20 stress histories.
24 JUDGE REED: Now, when you say "20 25 transients," you don't mean the same thing happening NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com
809 1 Again and again. You mean 20 different kinds of -
2 the plant responding to something happening.
3 MR. STEVENS: That's correct.
4 Different 5 JUDGE WAR.DWELL: Are these plant-speci fic?
6 MR. STEVENS: Yes. So you are correct.
7 There would be 20 different transients of a different 8 type. Each of those transients would occur a 9 different number of times. So the quantity of those 10 20 transients would be specified and would be 11 different.
12 JUDGE REED: And some of the transients 13 are more severe than others?
14 MR. STEVENS: That's correct.
15 JUDGE REED: And would lead to larger 16 stresses?
17 MR. STEVENS: That's correct.
18 JUDGE REED: But they may occur fewer 19 times, so you may have a smaller transient that occurs 20 much more frequently that is going to contribute 21 relatively more to the ultimate answer, is that 22 correct?
23 MR. STEVENS: That's correct.
24 JUDGE REED: Okay.
25 MR. STEVENS: So now, once we have the NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com
810 1 stress history, and we would feed that into a fatigue 2 analysis, and the fatigueanalysis first tells us how 3 to take those stress histories and link them together
-4 or combine them in such a way that we can count number 5 of. stress fluctuations on a component. Stress 6 fluctuations are what lead to fatigue.
7 JUDGE REED: So it's not stress, but 8 fluctuations in stress.
9 MR. STEVENS: That's correct. It requires 10 a stress fluctuatioh to contribute any kind of 11 fatigue.
12 JUDGE REED. Okay.
13 MR. STEVENS: So, and the ASME code gives 14 us guidelines and methodology for doing all of this 15 analysis. And, in particular, counting cycles, how 16 that's done in a conservative fashion, because in a 17 fatigue analysis of the component we don't necessarily 18 know the order of occurrence of the events. So the 19 methodology assumes the worst possible occurrence by 20 pairing the extreme stresses together.
21 So when we go through this counting 22 process, we take the highest extreme, the highest peak 23 stress with the lowest low stress and pair these off 24 to get these stress fluctuations.
25 JUDGE REED: So that's a conservative NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com
811 1 assumption you are making? Is that the point?
2 MR.-STEVENS: Yes, sir.
3 JUDGE REED: So you don't take the actual 4 stress history of the transients. You somehow take 5 the high stress and the low stress and pair them up 6 to -
7 MR. STEVENS: Well, when we -- when we --
8 that's correct.
9 JUDGE KARLIN: May I ask a question in 10 this -- on any given transient, you are talking about 11 the stress load that occurs during a transient, right?
12 MR. STEVENS: Yes.
13 JUDGE KARLIN: Do you have monitors that 14 are telling you what the stress load is on this 15 particular valve or nozzle or outlet? How do you know 16 -- where are you getting the data that tells you how 17 much stress they have?
18 MR. STEVENS: The stress comes from the 19 finite element analysis of that component.
20 JUDGE REED: And what code is being used 21 to do that analysis?
22 MR. STEVENS: We use the ANSYS finite 23 element code.
24 JUDGE REED: And that is a commercially-25 available code?
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com
812 1 MR. STEVENS: Yes, sir.
2 JUDGE REED: And ANSYS stands for?
3 MR. STEVENS: I don't recollect.
4 JUDGE KARLIN: Could you spell the 5 acronym?
6 MR. STEVENS: A-N-S-Y-S.
7 JUDGE KARLIN: Okay.
8 JUDGE REED: And that code is in wide use 9 or very narrow use throughout the industry or --
10 MR. STEVENS: It's widely used in the 11 nuclear industry for finite element analysis.
12 JUDGE REED: And what can you say about 13 the accuracy of the code, the benchmarking of the 14 code? How confident are you that it is giving you 15 correct numbers?
16 MR. STEVENS: The code is extensively 17 benchmarked. It comes with verification manuals that 18 -- where analyses are run and compared to theoretical 19 or hand solutions and checked for accuracy. It is all 20 controlled and developed under a 10 CFR 50 Appendix B 21 quality assurance program.
22 And when we bring that code into our house 23 we also have to adopt it as part of that program and 24 do the extensive checking and verification in 25 accordance with those verification manuals, and 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
813 1 ensure that our use is consistent with those -- the QA 2 program and those checks.
3 JUDGE REED: So when you generate a finite 4 element mesh for ANSYS, do you do- a mesh refinement 5 study?
6 MR. STEVENS: Generally not on a case-by-7 case basis. This is one of the areas where it does 8 require analyst judgment and experience to do it 9 properly. We have done those as a part of our company 10 extensively for other reasons, but we don't do it on 11 a case-by-case basis.
12 JUDGE REED: Would it not be possible that 13 as you refined the mesh you would find a little local 14 area where the stress is much higher than it would be 15 calculated with a much .coarser finite element grid?
16 MR. STEVENS: That's possible. I don't 17 think that that's -- I would not agree with that 18 assessment for the models used for Vermont Yankee.
19 JUDGE REED: But you can't rule it out, 20 since you haven't done the mesh refinement study.
21 MR. STEVENS: No. We can only rule it out 22 based on our experience.
23 JUDGE REED: So you can't actually be 24 certain that higher stresses might not be generated if 25 you refined the meshes in your calculations.
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com
814 1 MR. STEVENS: Generally, that kind of an 2 artifact would come near discontinuities.
3 JUDGE REED: Yes.
4 MR. STEVENS: And the locations that we're 5 evaluating here don't have those kinds of 6 discontinuities.
7 JUDGE REED: Okay.
8 MR. STEVENS: So I'm confident that you 9 would not experience a significant change in stress 10 with your suggestion.
11 JUDGE REED: So is it your point that you 12 believe that you have resolved the stress field 13 reasonably accurately with the finite element meshes 14 you're using in your calculations?
15 MR. STEVENS: Yes, sir.
16 JUDGE REED: Okay. I hope we can proceed 17 with how you do the calculation now. And I'm sorry 18 that --
19 (Judges confer.)
20 JUDGE WARDWELL: Dr. Hopenfeld, do you 21 have any major objections or arguments with the way 22 Mr. Stevens just described the approach that they use?
23 DR. HOPENFELD: Yes.
24 JUDGE WARDWELL: Is that your 25 understanding of how the approach was used?
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com
815 1 DR. HOPENFELD: Yes. Yes, Your Honor. I 2 understand exactly what he's talking about.
3 JUDGE WARDWELL: And is that your 4 understanding of how it was performed when you 5 supplied your testimony?
6 DR. HOPENFELD: Yes. Yes, it is.
7 JUDGE WARDWELL: Okay. That's all I 8 needed to know. We'll get to you in a moment. Just 9 wanted to make sure we're all in agreement.
10 DR. HOPENFELD: Well, make sure you pick 11 me up.
12 JUDGE KARLIN: No. But I'm trying to --
13 when you said yes, do you have disagreements with what 14 he just said, or are you on board?
15 DR. HOPENFELD: I have no disagreement 16 with what he said.
17 JUDGE KARLIN: Okay.
18 DR. HOPENFELD: But that's only part of 19 it.
20 JUDGE KARLIN: Yes, right. We'll get to 21 that.
22 DR. HOPENFELD: That's not the whole 23 story.
24 JUDGE KARLIN: Okay. Fine. I just want 25 to be clear on that. We'll get the rest of the story.
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com
816 1 DR. HOPENFELD: Okay.
2 JUDGE WARDWELL: Go ahead. I just wanted 3 to --
4 JUDGE REED: Well, we were partway through 5 this issue of exactly how you take .a series of 6 transients and calculate a CUFen number.
7 MR. STEVENS: Correct. So once I have all 8 of these different stress histories for, arbitrarily 9 talking, 20 transients here, the ASME code tells me 10 how to start to pair these together to get fluctuating 11 stresses that would contribute to fatigue. So I have 12 to combine these transients. As I said, it does it in 13 a conservative way that it takes the most the 14 extreme stresses and pairs those and uses those 15 fluctuating stresses into a fatigue analysis.
16 And very, very simplistically, if I took 17 the highest stress and the lowest stress that would be 18 a stress range, and alter -- a possible alternating 19 stress range that that component may have been exposed 20 to --
21 JUDGE REED: For that one kind of 22 transient.
23 MR. STEVENS: For that one pairing of two 24 extremes, which could be from two different 25 transients. Remember, I'm going after extremes to get NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com v
817 1 the most conservative fluctuation of stress that 2 component would have seen.
3 JUDGE REED: I'm failing completely to 4 understand why you picked the high stress from one 5 transient and the low stress from a completely 6 different transient that presumably occurs at some 7 other time in the plant's history.
8 MR. STEVENS: Well, because that -- the 9 component would see the stresses caused by both of 10 those transients at some point in its life. So in 11 terms of a fluctuating stress --
12 JUDGE REED: These could be days, months 13 apart, though.
14 MR. STEVENS: Could be years apart. But 15 you see that a typical design analysis does not know 16 the order of events. So if it's analyzing 20 17 transients, and it has no particular knowledge on the 18 order those events could occur, and if it puts them 19 next to each other as if they occurred minutes apart, 20 that would be the most conservative.
21 JUDGE REED: And that's what you do.
22 MR. STEVENS: That's what we do. And it's 23 a conservative way of stating the extreme stress 24 fluctuations that that component will go through, not 25 knowing the order of events ahead of time.
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com
818 1 JUDGE REED: I'm struggling to understand.
2 1 want to ask you at some point -- you've got 20 3 different kinds of transients.
4 MR. STEVENS: Correct.
5 JUDGE REED: Presumably all sorts of 6 things that happen to the plant -- changes in power 7 level, turbine trips, whatever. And these 'are all 8 stressing this particular component, and they are all 9 occurring with different frequencies, some occurring 10 once a year, some occurring every several years, some 11 occurring every decade. Am I right, in this --
12 MR. STEVENS: That's correct.
13 JUDGE REED: So what. I want to understand 14 is how you ultimately take all of those various 15 transients, calculate some sort of utilization 16 factors, and then cumulate them up into a CUF.
17 MR. STEVENS: Let me try again. Let's 18 start with the stress history for one transient. So 19 1 have one transient that has temperature during the 20 time, and I have calculated stresses for that 21 transient. So I have a stress versus time plot I can 22 make for that one transient.
23 JUDGE REED: Okay.
24 MR. STEVENS: Now I have 19 other 25 transients that I do the same thing. And what I'm NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com
819 1 going to do is I'm going to take the stress history 2 for each of those other 19 transients, I'm going to 3 tag it on to the end of the stress history for 4 transient number 1. Now what I've got is this very, 5 very long stress history versus time that has all 20 6 transients attached together to each other.
7 JUDGE WARDWNELL: These aren't 20 actual 8 transients that occurred at Vermont Yankee. These are 9 20 different types of transients that are generically 10 experienced at a boiling water reactor similar to 11 might be at Vermont Yankee.
12 MR. STEVENS: These are specified by the 13 designer for the plant.
14 JUDGE WARDWELL: Okay.
15 MR. STEVENS: So I now have a long stress 16 history, stress versus time, that represents 20 17 transients attached together, one after another.
18 Now, when I put that history together, I 19 made a big assumption on the order of those 20 transients. If I would have done transient 1, 21 transient 2, transient 3, then that stress history 22 represents that the order of occurrence of those 20 23 transients was in that order -- time order I put them 24 in.
25 JUDGE WARDWELL: And the time is not a NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com
820 1 real time, it is the linkage of all of the transients, 2 and they are attached based on the link that the 3 transient occurs. Then, you immediately start the 4 next transient after that one is over with, is that 5 correct?
6 MR. STEVENS: Yes, that's correct.
7 JUDGE REED: So you are putting the plant 8 through all of its paces basically one right after the 9 other with no intervening period of six months of 10 stable operation, is that --
11 MR. STEVENS: That's correct.
12 JUDGE REED: Okay.
13 JUDGE KARLIN: Let me just -- may I ask 14 basic questions, where we're going here.. I was 15 concerned by the answer you gave to Dr. Wardwell's 16 question. Are these -- when you were talking about 17 the 20 transients, are these actual transients that 18 occurred at Vermont Yankee that you were basically 19 saying, okay, there are 20 transients and here is how 20 much stress -- transient 1 gave X stress, transient 2 21 gave Y stress.
22 We're going to add them all together, and 23 here's how much stress Vermont Yankee has experienced 24 over the 35 years it has been operating. Is that what 25 is going on, or are these some sort of assumed NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com
821 1 stresses that are theoretical?
2 MR. STEVENS: These are -- the transients 3 that we're calculating these stresses for are 4 specified by the designer, they are part of the design 5 basis, and they have been shown to be conservative --
6 very conservative definitions, compared to the actual 7 transients that Vermont Yankee --
8 JUDGE KARLIN: Yes, because here's where 9 I'm going. Let me just be real basic. Metal fatigue, 10 I'm focusing on the NUREGs and the CUFens and that 11 sort of thing, metal fatigue. As I understand it, 12 metal fatigue -- you take a paper clip, it's made of 13 metal. You bend it once, twice, you bend it 100 times 14 and then it breaks. And you do this experiment a 15 dozen times and it breaks at a hundred.
16 With the hundredth bend, 90-degree bend, 17 it breaks. So now you know that that piece of metal 18 is going to break at the hundredth twist of 90 19 degrees. That's my simplistic way of thinking about 20 this. This is the ASME curve that says at a hundred 21 breaks in air -- bends at 90 degrees in air this paper 22 clip will break.
23 Now you go and say, "All right. I've got 24 a paper clip here. I bent it 37 times. And I bent it 25 90 degrees some of those times, and I bent it 45 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com
822 1 degrees some of those times. I bent it 200 degrees 2 some of -- I bent it a lot of different ways." And I 3 total up those 37 bends, and I say, "Okay. I have 4 used up this amount of stress." And if I -- and now 5 I know how long it is going to take for me to get to 6 the hundredth time when it breaks. Is that what's 7 going on?
8 MR. STEVENS: That's simplistically what 9 is going on.
10 JUDGE KARLIN: And so when we are talking 11 about the calculations of the 20 transients, which are 12 bends, the times that there was stress imposed upon 13 this, are you talking about the -- how we get to the 14 hundredth, the theoretical one hundred, or how do we 15 get to the actual history of this plant?
16 MR. STEVENS: The transient severity is 17 analogous to your how far did you bend your paper 18 clip?
19 JUDGE KARLIN: Right.
20 MR. STEVENS: Because if you bent your 21 paper clip 90 degrees and got 100 times until failure, 22 you would get a different number if you only bent your 23 paper clip 45 degrees.
24 JUDGE KARLIN: Right.
25 MR. STEVENS: It's a measure of the load NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com
823 I on that component. These transients all have 2 different severity. One transient may have a 45-3 degree bend analogy, another one a 90-degree bend 4 analogy, another one a 10-degree bend analogy.
5 JUDGE KARLIN: Right.
6 MR. STEVENS: They all have different 7 severities. They are specified by the designer to be 8 very conservative, so that the designer can do a 9 fatigue design of the plant prior to construction.
10 And those have been shown through numerous studies 11 throughout the industry over the history to be 12 conservative, and those are the definitions that were 13 used in the analyses for Vermont Yankee.
14 JUDGE KARLIN: So the American Society for 15 Mechanical Engineers and the people who designed this 16 particular boiling water reactor figured out for each 17 type of metal in that reactor how many bends, how many 18 stresses it would take before it broke. Is that 19 right?
20 MR. STEVENS: Not quite.
21 JUDGE KARLIN: Okay.
22 MR. STEVENS: What they would do is an 23 analysis in accordance with ASME code to demonstrate 24 that for those loadings the component will not show 25 unacceptable results. And in this particular case NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com
824 1 that's a usage factor less than one.
2 JUDGE KARLIN: Right.
3 MR. STEVENS: That does not necessarily
- 4. mean failure.
5 JUDGE KARLIN: Yes. So you have a hundred 6 -- if you had -- so the calculation is this thing will 7 -- you can bend it a hundred times 90 degrees and it 8 will break. Now, you've actually only bent it 70 9 times at 90 degrees, so your CUFen factor is .7, 10 right?
11 MR. STEVENS:. That is correct.
12 JUDGE KARLIN: And you've got 30 bends 13 left before it is going to break or before the 14 calculation says it will break, right?
15 MR. STEVENS: Well, again, the calculation 16 isn't indicating breakage. It's --
17 JUDGE IKARLIN: Failure of some kind.
18 MR. STEVENS: -- the acceptance criteria 19 that's used, and there is margin on that acceptance 20 criteria.
21 JUDGE KARLIN: Okay. I understand.
22 MR. STEVENS: We work with safety factors 23 and other things that prevent breakage.
24 JUDGE KARLIN: Okay. Sorry for the 25 digression. Go ahead.
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrqross.com
825 1 JUDGE REED: Please continue.
2 MR. STEVENS: Back to our -- we now have 3 our 20 transients linked together. I have made an 4 assumption in how those transients link together, the 5 order they occur. And what the ASME code tells us to 6 do as well, in order to capture the most conservative 7 order, we're going to go through this history and 8 we're going to take the largest extremes and say that 9 they define a stress fluctuation that the component 10 will go through.
11 So perhaps of this entire stress history 12 let's say the highest stress experienced was 13 transient 1, and the lowest stress was transient 18.
14 I would start by pairing those, and that would define 15 a stress range, the maximum stress range that could be 16 conceivable for that component to see throughout that 17 stress history.
18 When I make that choice it is like taking 19 transient 18 and moving it next to transient 1, 20 assuming that order, adjacent order.
21 JUDGE REED: Well, aren't you, 22 furthermore, assuming that these two transients occur 23 with the same frequency? Suppose one is an annual 24 thing and one is a weekly thing. How do you justify 25 putting them together in your analysis when you know NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross-com
826 1 that one occurs 50 times more often than the other?
2 MR. STEVENS: That would be something I 3 would like to take advantage of, because -- but this 4 way is conservative and it's making that assumption.
5 It is. very bounding.
6 JUDGE REED: Okay. I understand that.
7 JUDGE WARDWELL: This is just defining the 8 angle at which you're bending the paper clip.
9 MR. STEVENS: It's trying to -- back to 10 your paper clip analogy, it is trying to just say that 11 based on the stress history, and if I could reorder 12 things in any order I wanted to, the worst extreme 13 your paper clip may go through is 90 degrees, so I 14 want you to take that as the top cycle, the most 15 severe cycle to evaluate. But it's --
16 JUDGE WARDWELL: The right paper clip 17 would -- the fact that one transient occurs now and 18 another one occurs a week later isn't necessarily --
19 I'm trying to find a word that -- with a paper clip 20 you could bend it once, and then a week later bend it, 21 it's still going to know -- it's got a memory -- it's 22 going to know you have bent it. So it's not 23 completely unreasonable to move 18, because this is an 24 arbitrary number, up next to the other one, because 25 that range of stresses has been felt by that metal.
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com
827 1 MR. STEVENS: That's correct. But it 2 ignores that there could have been events in between 3 those two. But in principle what you're saying is 4 correct.
5 JUDGE KARLIN: Why does it make any 6 difference, I mean, whether you put them together -
7 you have had 37 events at this -- on this paper clip, 8 you know, of bending at different angles. I don't 9 care whether they are all done, what order they are 10 done, at the end of the day 37 events have occurred, 11 this much stress has occurred, and you have used up 12 this amount of your CUFen before you get to 1, right?
13 MR. STEVENS: if transient 15 actually 14 occurred after transient 1, and had a much smaller 15 stress associated with it than transient 18, then the 16 cycle the component saw on that day is much smaller 17 than the one I assumed by putting transient 18 next to 18 1.
19 JUDGE KARLIN: So you're assuming a 20 conservative assumption, the worst case as it were.
21 MR. STEVENS: It's the worst possible --
22 JUDGE KARLIN: Higher stress. So it would 23 be more consumption of the -- what's available 24 fatigue, what available fatigue there is before it 25 breaks or fails.
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com
828 1 JUDGE WJARDWELL: I hate to beat this, but 2 180 degrees as opposed to 90 degrees is --
3 MR. STEVENS: That's a very good analogy, 4 yes.
ES JUDGE REED: So if we move on now, you've ES taken and done this pairing, what do you do with all 7 of the other transients?
8 MR. STEVENS: Well, I go -- okay.
9 JUDGE REED: You pick the worst two, put 10 together, and you put those together --
11 MR. STEVENS: One occurrence of the worst 12 two.
13 JUDGE REED: One occurrence.
14 MR. STEVENS: If you can imagine now, 15 remember in the beginning I told you that each 16 transient has a specific number of occurrences 17 associated with it.
18 JUDGE REED: Yes.
19 MR. STEVENS: So, if you will, each peak 20 and valley of this long stress history --
21 JUDGE REED: Yes.
22 MR. STEVENS: -- has a number of cycles 23 associated with it that's equal to the number of 24 transients. If I take the portion that's transient 1, 25 and if my designer said 100 of those could occur NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON. D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com
829 1 during the life of the plant, then that stress history 2 -- every point on it -- could occur 100 times, almost 3 analogous to now I've got this third dimension kind of 4 on this graph. I've got a stress versus time history, 5 and each point has a different number of occurrences 6 associated with it -- the number of transients that 7 were specified by the designer.
8 So if I take transient 1 and transient 18, 9 I have now taken one occurrence of each of those 10 events. If I had 100 occurrences of transient 1, I 11 have 99 of those points left to deal with. So you can 12 imagine, if I go through this history and take the 13 highest and the lowest, and cross one site -- one 14 occurrence of each of those off, and take the next 15 highest or the next lowest, and I repeat that process 16 until all occurrences of all transients have been 17 consumed, I'd get a nice stress array right from 18 largest stress range to lowest with the number of 19 occurrences next to it.
20 JUDGE REED: I see that.
21 JUDGE WARDWELL: So far, the three NUREGs 22 of interest haven't even come into play yet, is that 23 correct?
24 MR. STEVENS: Yes.
25 JUDGE WARDWELL: This is all stress NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com
830 1 analysis.
2 MR. STEVENS: That's correct.
3- JUDGE KARLIN: So in that respect it's the 4 ASME code as opposed to the Fen part of the analysis?
5 MR. STEVENS: That's correct.
6 JUDGE KARLIN: Okay.
7 MR. STEVENS: So now I have a spectrum of 8 stress range and cycles applied to that stress range.
9 So now I have what's required to calculate fatigue.
10 I'll stop here for.-one --
11 JUDGE WARDWELL: To calculate what?
12 MR. STEVENS: Fatigue usage.
13 JUDGE WARDWELL: Fatigue.
15 JUDGE WARDWELL: CUF.
16 MR. STEVENS: Now, this represents 90, 95 17 percent of the work.
18 JUDGE WARDWELL: How long does it take to 19 do this -- person-hours, labor-hours?
20 MR. STEVENS: Just as an example, the 21 confirmatory calculations for Vermont Yankee feedwater 22 nozzle took about three weeks dedicated. approximately 23 three individuals full-time.
24 JUDGE KARLIN: So let me understand. The 25 confirmatory analysis for one nozzle, the feedwater NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com
831 1 nozzle, took three people three weeks of work?
2 MR. STEVENS: That's correct.
3 JUDGE KARLIN: It took nine weeks of time, 4 nine--
5 MR. STEVENS: Nine man-weeks.
6 JUDGE KARLIN: Nine man-weeks.
7 MR. STEVENS: You must understand that 8 that includes all the quality assurance checks and 9 documentation proper filing.
10 JUDGE KARLIN: Well, how did you do all of 11 them in four hours?
12 MR. STEVENS: No.
13 (Laughter.)
14 MR. STEVENS: This is the point I was 15 going to make. What's left took us four hours. So 16 I'll describe what's left next.
17 JUDGE WARDWELL: Before you do that, Dr.
18 Hopenfeld, is everything Mr. Stevens has said to date 19 your understanding of how they did it when you did 20 your review and filed your testimony?
21 DR. HOPENFELD: With respect to the 22 specific numerical analysis, I am not an expert in 23 stress numerical analysis.
24 JUDGE WARDWELL: I'm not asking you any 25 opinion. I'm asking you whether or not, when you were NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com
832 1 reviewing this for NEC and filed your testimony, is 2 everything that Mr. Stevens said consistent with what 3 you thought they had done?
4 DR. HOPENFELD: Yes, yes.
5 JUDGE WARDWELL: That's all we need right 6 now.
7 DR. HOPENFELD: Oh, yes. I will -
8 JUDGE WARDWELL: Thank you. Just want to 9 make sure he hasn't told any --
10 DR. HOPENFELD: Even now, I don't have any 11 issue with what he said.
12 JUDGE WARDWELL: And there isn't a 13 misunderstanding --
14 DR. HOPENFELD: No, no, no. I have no --
15 I am absolutely in agreement with it.
16 JUDGE WARDWELL: So you don't contest --
17 DR. HOPENFELD: No.
18 JUDGE WARDWELL: -- the basic approach 19 that they have said they did.
20 JUDGE KARLIN: And the answer to that is 21 -- Dr. Hopenfeld, you don't contest that approach.
22 DR. HOPENFELD: I have -- no, this has 23 gone on for 30 years in the industry.
24 JUDGE KARLIN: Right.
25 DR. HOPENFELD: I mean, this is acceptable NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON. D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com
833 1 practice.. But you did go to the Fen before, and I 2 really want to get there, and I also would like to go 3 a little bit further beyond that, because I think 4 there are a few things here that are not complete.
5 JUDGE KARLIN: Yes, sir. I just want to 6 get that on the record, because you nodded.
7 DR. HOPENFELD: As to the merits, I agree 8 with him.
9 JUDGE KARLIN: You nodded, and the Court 10 Reporter wouldn't capture that, unless we got 11 something.
12 JUDGE REED: So I would like to 13 understand, then, how you actually calculate the CUF 14 number, given this spectrum of transients, because it 15 is my understanding that if you take a particular 16 loading and you assume it occurs that the ASME code 17 basically tells you how many times a particular piece 18 of metal can be stressed in that way before it breaks.
19 So you -- well, instead of me trying to 20 say this, let me let you tell me exactly how you go 21 from -- from this -- from where you left us to a 22 single number, a CUF, or a feedwater nozzle.
23 MR. STEVENS: Okay. In this discussion 24 I'm going to keep it simple. There is details that 25 I'm going to leave out that I recognize are there, 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
834 1 I am just trying to keep the conversation simple. And 2 so we have this stress range number of cycles. One of 3 the things that the ASME code defines for us is an SN 4 curve or stress versus number of cycles or-a fatigue 5 curve. That's a function of the materials, the 6 material property based on testing for that material.
7 But it does relate stress to number of 8 allowable cycles for that material. So you can see 9 now I have this spectrum of stress and number of 10 occurrences. So for each of those stresses I can go 11 look up in that ASME code curve the allowable number 12 of cycles for that stress level. That's a material 13 property.
14 So for this whole spectrum now I can take 15 each one of the stresses and I can go look up what 16 I'll call an "N allowable," the number of allowable 17 cycles that can be tolerated by that material.
18 JUDGE REED: For that particular stress.
19 MR. STEVENS: For that particular stress, 20 so if my stress -- if my stress table I have reduced 21 this big, long stress history into has a thousand 22 points, I would go look at 1,000 different stresses on 23 that curve and determine 1,000 different allowable 24 number of cycles.
25 JUDGE KARLIN: And you call that an "N NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com
835 1 allowable"?
2 MR. STEVENS: N subscript allowable.
3 JUDGE KARLIN: N subscript allowable, 4 okay.
5 MR. STEVENS: Or lairge N, I think is what 6 has been used in a lot of the testimony.
7 JUDGE KARLIN: Okay.
8 MR. STEVENS: From the definition of the 9 transients in this counting process, I have the number 10 of occurrences of each of those stresses. We'll call 11 that little N. It's the applied number of cycles. So 12 for each of these thousand stress entries in the table 13 I have an applied number of cycles, and per the code 14 I have an allowable number of cycles. I have little 15 N and big N.
16 JUDGE REED: So you take the ratio of each 17 one and sum up a thousand numbers.
18 MR. STEVENS: That's correct. The usage 19 factor is defined as little N divided by big N, and 20 the cumulative usage factor is the sum of a thousand 21 Us, usage factors.
22 JUDGE REED: Is there any body of 23 experimental evidence that shows that that summation 24 is conservative? Is that just a pure assumption?
25 It's a linearity assumption?
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com
836 1 MR. STEVENS: It's documented in the 1945 2 paper. It's called Miner's Rule, or Palmgren-Miner 3 Rule. So it has been around for 60 years.
4 JUDGE REED: Has it been verified?
5 MR. STEVENS: It has been verified based 6 on laboratory testimony at the time. It has also been 7 verified now by almost 40 years of industry experience 8 with its use.
9 JUDGE KARLIN: And when you say "industry 10 experience, " do you mean nuclear industry or all 11 industries?
12 MR. STEVENS: I mean just nuclear. It 13 also has been used in other industries as well.
14 JUDGE KARLIN: Okay.
15 MR. STEVENS: Now, last point on this 16 description. In your paper clip example, where you 17 just bent 90 degrees back and forth until failure, 18 your stress table would really just have one line in 19 it, not 1,000 lines. You just loaded it once.
20 So you can see that if you bent the paper 21 clip the number of times the code curve told you to, 22 simplistically, it would break. Now, when we have a 23 thousand different loadings, keeping the total usage 24 factor, the cumulative usage factor less than one is 25 another way of expressing that same thing, except for NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.neatrgross.com
837 1 a thousand different loadings.
2 I want to keep the ratio of applied cycles 3 to the allowable cycles in total less than unity. And 4 we don't mean failure here; what we mean is it's a 5 criteria for acceptability by Section 3, because of 6 the factors that have been built into that as well as 7 other conservatisms in the process. We talked about 8 one is how I link these transients together. It's a 9 criteria that we have to meet, though.
10 JUDGE KARLIN: So at this point we are 11 just dealing with the CUF factor, the cumulative use 12 factor. You haven't gotten to the environmentally-13 adjusted side of the equation, right?
14 MR. STEVENS: That's correct.
15 JUDGE KARLIN: Okay. And as I understand 16 your -- I would like you to address that. But as I 17 understand it, it would be, well, okay, I did my test 18 with the paper clip 100 times in air 90 degrees. Now 19 I'm going to do it in --
20 MR. STEVENS: Sulfuric acid.
21 JUDGE KARLIN: -- sulfuric acid or boiling 22 water at 500 degrees or whatever -- you know, at some 23 other environment, dissolved oxygen, you know, 24 different kinds of whatever is going on, a different 25 environment, and then we'll see -- the stress may be NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com
838 1 more or it may be less, you know, so it has to be 2 adjusted from smooth pieces of metal in air to 3 possibly non-smooth pieces of metal in a lightwater 4 reactor.
5 And that adjustment is what the NUREG-6 6909, NUREG-5704, those NUREGs attempt to provide how 7 is it adjusted from the ASME air, smooth metal to 8 lightwater reactor, you know, high temperature, high 9 pressure type of situation. Right?
10 MR. STEVENS: That's correct, but I would 11 like to make one clarification to what you said.
12 JUDGE KARLIN: Yes, please.
13 MR. STEVENS: You said that the stress 14 would change.
15 JUDGE KARLIN: I don't know. Would it?
16 MR. STEVENS: If you're still bending 17 these paper clips to 90 degrees, the stress would not 18 change. What would change, if you do it in sulfuric 19 acid or whatever is the fatigue curve itself. So for 20 a given stress level you would look up a different 21 allowable number of cycles that would cause a 22 different cumulative usage factor.
23 JUDGE KARLIN: All right.
24 MR. STEVENS: But the stress in that 25 component is still the stress given that you are NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com
839 1 applying the same load to it. No change there.
2 JUDGE KARLIN: Okay. But it might be --
3 if I could do -- bend it a hundred times in air before 4 it broke, and I put it in water, it might only be 75 5 times before it's going to break.
6 MR. STEVENS: That's a good analysis.
7 JUDGE KARLIN: Or 200 times. It could be 8 more, it could be less. It's a different environment, 9 so it's a different experiment. Okay.
10 MR. STEVENS: Yes.
11 JUDGE KARLIN: So maybe I could ask -
12 don't know if this is jumping the gun, but do you 13 agree that the -- the Argonne came up -- Argonne 14 National Labs came up with a new method for doing this 15 in 2007. Do you agree that they used more data to 16 develop the 6909?
17 MR. STEVENS: I agree with that, yes.
18 JUDGE WARDWELL: And can I just clarify a 19 point on that? Somewhere in the testimony, or I read 20 it somewhere -- I was trying to find it and couldn't 21 in the short time we had available -- but it was my 22 understanding that the 1997 or 1998 analysis that 23 Argonne had performed, that really generated NUREG-24 6260 and 5704, was where they were at that point, and 25 that 6909 is a -reflection of them really completing NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com
840 1 their analysis. Is that a fair representation of it, 2 or did I read something that isn't a fair 3 representation of the process?
4 MR. STEVENS: I guess I would characterize 5 it as they came out with relationships at the time 6 that the data supported, and with additional data 7 those relationships refined based on that additional 8 data.
9 JUDGE WARDWELL: But they were always 10 planning on doing that final completion, is that 11 correct, or not? Or did they do it because some new 12 data demonstrated something unusual?
13 MR. STEVENS: I'm not sure what their 14 intent was. So I --
15 JUDGE WARDWELL: Mr. Fair, do you have any 16 idea?
17 MR. FAIR: Yes. As I said previously, on 18 the carbon and low alloy steel there was not a very 19 significant change to the basic formulas in 6909 20 compared to the previous. In stainless steel there 21 was a change, because they developed more data.
22 If you go back to the old stainless steel 23 NUREG, the older stainless steel NUREG, they have an 24 abrupt change in the Fen factor at a temperature of 25 200 degrees. In the current NUREG, they have a more NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., NW.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com
841 1 general transition of that Fen factor based on 2 additional data. It goes from slightly below 200 3 degrees to up to 325 degrees Centigrade.
4 JUDGE WARDWELL: So was it fair to say 5 that in 1998 they-.knew they were going to have to 6 continue on with the analysis of the stainless steel 7 in order to refine it for these other aspects?
8 MR. FAIR: Well, I don't know that I would 9 characterize it quite like that. What they were doing 10 was developing additional data. And once they had the 11 data, then they felt it was necessary to refine their 12 correlations.
13 JUDGE WARDWELL: But it is not a 14 completely new analysis. It is pretty much the same 15 analysis except now refining it for the updated 16 information on stainless steel.
17 MR. FAIR: That's correct.
18 JUDGE KARLIN: Why did they do -- why did 19 NRC have Argonne go off and do it again? Why did --
20 was something wrong with the stuff in '97 and '98? I 21 mean, or is it just science always progresses and they 22 keep working more and more and they -- whatever. Why 23 did we bother? Why did NRC bother to have it redone?
24 MR. FAIR: Well, in the original 25 correlations on the carbon and low-alloy steel, it was NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com
842 1 originally thought that that was the only area where 2 you had an environmental impact. It was questioned 3 about in that timeframe what was the potential for an 4 impact on stainless steel, and that drove some testing 5 on the stainless steel.
6 And once that testing started to develop, 7 they started to find there was an impact on the 8 stainless steel, and it led to trying to develop more 9 and more data.
10 JUDGE KARLIN: So 6909 is based on 11 additional data.
12 MR. FAIR: Right.
13 JUDGE KARLIN: More information and -- Mr.
14 Stevens, would you agree with what Mr. Fair said?
15 It's more accurate, 6909 is a more accurate way of 16 calculating this?
17 MR. STEVENS: Yes.
18 JUDGE KARLIN: Okay.
19 JUDGE WARDWELL: I fear that still begs 20 the question to me, and needs repeated again, on why 21 -- why was this under that reg guide limited -- why 22 was the application of 6909 limited to only new 23 reactors and not applied to license renewals? I see 24 that basically it is just a continuation of Argonne's 25 work, incorporating new data where there was a paucity NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrqross.com
843 1 of it in the original analysis, and it would seem to 2 be very applicable to license renewals.
3 MR. FAIR: Well, there was one potential 4 concern with applying this 6909 to existing reactors, 5 and that is we change the ASME air curves for both 6 carbon and stainless steel. So there is a potential 7 problem with changing the licensing bases for their 8 original fatigue usage factors in applying this new 9 NUREG.
10 JUDGE WARDWELL: But if that's what should 11 be done, shouldn't it be done?
12 MR. FAIR: Well, the other way that we 13 could have done it was instead of adjusting the air 14 curves is to reduce the Fens for this -- for the 15 carbon and low-alloy steel. And I think as we've said 16 a couple of times the -- currently what they are using 17 in license renewal is generally conservative compared 18 to the new data. It would be acceptable for a license 19 renewal applicant to ask the staff to use the new 20 data.
21 JUDGE KARLIN: New method or new data?
22 MR. FAIR: Well, new method. I'm sorry.
23 JUDGE KARLIN: New method.
24 MR. FAIR: But we didn't feel it was 25 necessary to backfit, because we didn't think there NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.neafrgross.com
844 1 was a significant enough issue there to require --
2 JUDGE KARLIN: Well, let me ask -- this is 3 not a backfit. A backfit, as I understand it, under 4 the regs -- 5109 -- is when you take an existing 5 licensee and you say, "Well, you know, we've come up 6 with a better method for doing something, and we're 7 going to impose this new requirement on somebody who 8 has already got a reactor building and a license."
9 This company has got a license that is 10 going to expire in three years, four years -- 2012.
11 Done. So when you apply a new method to a renewal, 12 that isn't to backfit, is it?
13 JUDGE WARDWELL: It's a new application.
14 JUDGE KARLIN: It's a new application.
15 It's a new ball game. If they don't get this new 16 license, they close on 2012, so it's not a backfit.
17 MR. FAIR: Well, I think the license 18 renewal rule does say the current licensing basis 19 carries forward, and the current licensing basis would 20 be the ASME code fatigue usage factor calculated using 21 the current ASME code fatigue curve.
22 JUDGE KARLIN: Right, right. Current 23 licensing basis. I mean, we're asking -- this is a 24 legal issue that we may need briefed or something, so 25 it's hard -- unfair to ask --
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., NW.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com
845 1 JUDGE WARDWELL: From a technical 2 standpoint, is there,anything wrong with applying 6909 3 to a licensee renewal application submittal?
4 MR. FAIR: No. Technically, there is not 5 a problem with that.
6 JUDGE WARDWELL: If someone -- if a plant 7 chose to do that, just so they could say, "Hey, we're 8 up to date on everything. Here it is. "And it may in 9 fact, as you say, come out with lower numbers because 10 it is -
11 MR. FAIR: Yes. I understand.
12 JUDGE WARDWELL: -- lower numbers, it 13 would be further away from one in this analysis, would 14 you reject that in your technical review as long as it 15 -- if in fact they had done it correctly?
16 MR. FAIR: No.
17 JUDGE KARLIN: So the applicant has a 18 choice of applying this NUREG, but nobody else.
19 JUDGE WARDWELL: But new plants don't have 20 a choice. They have to use it.
21 MR. FAIR: That's right. That's the 22 current status of --
23 JUDGE KARLIN: No. But, I mean, if -- if 24 NEC says this NUREG should be applied, the staff's 25 answer is, "Oh, no, I'm sorry, that -- you can't NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.neafrgross.com
846 1 insist on that." Whereas, if Entergy asked to apply 2 it, it would be okay. That's a legal question. 1 3 would -
4 (Laughter.)
5 JUDGE REED: I have a few more questions 6 continuing on with --
7 JUDGE KARLIN: Yes, go ahead.
8 JUDGE REED: I want to turn now to how we 9 get these Fen numbers. And my understanding of the 10 definition of 'Fens" is that they are basically the 11 number of cycles that a particular sample can sustain 12 in air versus in the environment in which you're 13 considering. Is that basically right, it's a ratio of 14 two numbers of cycles?
15 MR. STEVENS: You're asking me?
16 JUDGE REED: Yes, I'm sorry. Mr. Stevens.
17 MR. STEVENS: Yes.
18 JUDGE REED: So, and the numbers -- I 19 guess the smallest number is one, and they go up to 20 approximately 70 or something like that is the worst 21 number I've seen. Is that correct?
22 MR. STEVENS: Depending on the material 23 and the conditions they can go higher than that.
24 JUDGE REED: So in -- it's fair to say 25 that environmental effects can make a really major NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com
847 1 affect on the number of cycles. They can reduce 2 substantially the number of cycles that a particular 3 component can withstand.
4 MR. STEVENS: If you have the proper 5 conditions, yes.
6 JUDGE REED: Okay. The definition of 7 these environmental factors makes no mention of how 8 you calculate the CUFs. You know, it's just a ratio 9 of two numbers that could be basically experimentally 10 observed, is that correct?
11 MR. STEVENS: I don't recall the specifics 12 on the NUREG, whether it said that or not.
13 JUDGE REED: Well, the number -- the 14 definitions that I have seen, basically it's the ratio 15 of two numbers -- you know, one is the number of 16 cycles in air and one is the number of cycles in the 17 environment that you are considering.
18 MR. STEVENS: That is correct.
19 JUDGE REED: It doesn't make any reference 20 to how you calculate stresses or transients or 21 anything.
22 MR. STEVENS: That's correct.
23 JUDGE REED: But presumably underlying 24 that is an assumption that you are bending a paper 25 clip over and over again, or you are stressing this NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com
848 1 material a certain number of times, and presumably in 2 the same way. I mean, this is a case where we are 3 repeating a transient over and over again, the same 4 transient.
5 So underlying this is an assumption that 6 there is a particular transient, but it doesn't have 7 anything to do with how one calculates that -- the 8 stresses. Is that fair to say?
9 MR. STEVENS: That's fair to say.
10 JUDGE REED: Okay. So I -- something 11 earlier in the testimony led me to believe that the 12 way you were applying these Fens in this later 13 analysis was a function of how you are calculating the 14 CUFs. Did I understand that incorrectly? Is there no 15 -- if Mr. Fair would like to take that question, I 16 would love to hear his answer.
17 MR. FAIR: Yes, I think I was -- it was 18 because we changed the basic air curves. When we did 19 the new analysis in 6909 to determine what the 20 appropriate adjustment factors were to take the air 21 test data --
22 JUDGE REED: Are you saying error or air?
23 MR. FAIR: Air.
24 JUDGE REED: Air.
25 MR. FAIR: Air, a-i-r.
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrqross.com
849 1 JUDGE REED: A-i-r.
2 MR. FAIR: Air test data and use a design 3 curve. They did a new statistical analysis and 4 determined that they didn't need as much an adjustment 5 on cycles as was used previously in the ASME code to 6 derive their air curves.
7 So another way to have implemented the 8 NUREG would have been to take the Fen factors and 9 divide them by this factor of I'll call it 10 conservatism in the adjustment that was used in the 11 air curves or as we did in the NUREG was to put it 12 into the development of a new air curve. There were 13 two ways to do it. We could take the old ASME curves, 14 calculated the Fen based on the formulas in 6909 and 15 divided them by a factor that we had determined from 16 the statistical analysis, which would have been about 17 1.7.
18 JUDGE REED: Now, I'd like to ask since 19 we've been through now the calculation of the CUFen 20 numbers and we've talked a bit about conservatism in 21 the calculations, can you review for me; can you list 22 out and call out for me all of the places where you 23 believe conservatisms exist in the calculations that 24 were done specifically for this reactor, for this 25 feedwater nozzle?
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com
850 1 What were the conservatisms .in. the 2 calculations that were made for the CUFens or the 3 CUFen, singular, for this particular nozzle?
4 MR. FAIR: Are you asking me?
5 -. JUDGE REED: yes.
6 MR. FAIR: I did, not review the 7 calculations directly.
8 JUDGE REED: I'll ask Mr. Stevens first, 9 but if you would like to offer an opinion, I'd be glad 10 to hear it.
11 MR. STEVENS: Major conservatisms that 12 -were incorporated into these calculations, number one, 13 the number of transients compared to what's expected 14 at 60 years for Vermont Yankee.
15 JUDGE REED: Okay. Now, let's stop here 16 because this is going to take us down a path. Do we 17 want to digress?
18 JUDGE KARLIN: No, let's get all the 19 conservatisms.
20 JUDGE REED: You want to get them all 21 listed and then come back?
22 JUDGE KARLIN: I would.
23 JUDGE REED: Okay. So are they listed in 24 some of your testimony, Mr. Stevens?
25 MR. STEVENS: Yes. I'm referring to A-30 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com
851 1 on page 16 of our initial testimony.
2 JUDGE WARDWELL: Would you say it again?
3 I'm sorry.
4 MR. STEVENS: A-30, page 16..
5 JUDGE REED: Right. And this is?
6 JUDGE KARLIN: Question 30.
7 JUDGE WARDWELL: And that's of zero, one; 8 is that correct? Are you including zero, one? If you 9 can, give us --
10 JUDGE KARLIN: The Exhibit number is E-ll .201, I believe is the testimony; is that right, Mr.
12 Stevens?
13 MR. FAIR: Yeah, I don't have it marked as 14 that, but my recollection is that's true.
15 JUDGE KARLIN: Your initial testimony, 16 right. And so that's the question to Dr. Reed's.
17 JUDGE REED: Okay. I found the testimony.
18 I'm with you on that point if you'd like to continue.
19 MR. STEVENS: Okay. So the first one I 20 mentioned is Item A there. Item B, you know, we use 21 the transient definitions specified by the designer of 22 the plant which are very conservative. They assume 23 that changes in temperature and flow are very abrupt, 24 and they're meant to be very bounding for design 25 purposes. We used those definitions, as proposed to NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com
852 1 the actual transient severity measured in the plant, 2 which is much less severe.
3 JUDGE REED: Can you give me some specific 4 examples? Because what I'm not understanding is I 5 know that if you take a particular plant transient 6 that happens in the plant, you must be able to count 7 how many times that occurs, but if you take a design 8 basis transient, it's not clear to me how you get a 9 count associated with that particular transient.
10 MR. STEVENS: The designer would make an 11 assumption on those transients of how many times they 12 will occur over the life of the plant.
13 JUDGE REED: And what's a transient here?
14 Give me an example.
15 MR. STEVENS: A transient could be when 16 they heat up the plant. So they've been in an outage 17 and everything is at ambient condition and they're 18 going to heat the plant up and pressurize it prior to 19 entering into full power operation. So that heat-up 20 process the plant would see would go from ambient 21 temperature up to rated reactor conditions at a 22 controlled rate, and that's a temperature change and 23 a pressure change versus time thereby being a 24 transient.
25 There's other events like when the plant NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com
853 1 shuts down it's the reverse. There's pressure tests 2 prior to start-up where they pressurize things to look 3 for leaks. That's a pressure transient. There's 4 other trip scrams that are kinds of events during 5 operation of the plant that would cause temperature 6 changes with time.
7 JUDGE REED: So when you say that you take 8 a design basis, you take a theoretical assumption 9 about how that heat-up would progress. You would take 10 presumably fluid temperatures as a function of time 11 that come from an assumption that the designer made.
12 You would plug that into your models to calculate the 13 stresses using ANSIS (phonetic) . Have I got it right?
14 MR. STEVENS: Yes, sir.
15 JUDGE WARDWELL: And is it more than an 16 assumption though? I mean, it's a design value that's 17 used by engineers the same way a wind blow would be 18 one that's based on something, but that has a factor 19 to it that says, okay, we're fine; that we're going to 20 use this for our design because we know it will be 21 enough above what we've seen to be conservative.
22 MR. STEVENS: Yes. It's based on physics, 23 the limitations of physics in the plant and field 24 experience that the designer has, as well as their 25 experience with designing the components themselves.
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com
854 1 All of that is factored into those assumptions. So 2 they are call them very educated assumptions, 3 validated by field experience.
4 JUDGE WARDWELL:, Do. you have .any 5 quantification of how conservative they are?
6 You know, in structural design you take 7 wind loads and you put a factor on to know what that 8 number is. At least we know how far away we are from 9 the meteorological data. How is that handled here?
10 MR. STEVENS: And your question is 11 referring to the thermal transients themselves?
12 JUDGE WARDWELL: Sure, and then I'll also 13 ask it for all of A, B, C, D. And if there is no 14 quantification, that is an answer.
15 MR. STEVENS: I have no quantification of 16 those effects with me.
17 JUDGE WARDWELL: Do you have them for any 18 of those, A through D, the degree of conservatism?
19 MR. STEVENS: We have it on Item A, which 20 is the number of transients we used for 60 years, what 21 we assumed versus what is predicted to occur at 60 22 years at Vermont Yankee.
23 On Item C, I don't recollect if any of the 24 testimony has it directly, but we know the difference 25 in temperature and pressure and flow caused by EPU, or NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com
855 1 extended power up rate.
2 JUDGE KARLIN: Now, when you say the Item 3 C, for the record and testimony clarity, please recite 4 what Item C is.
5 MR. STEVENS: Item C is. the answer to 6 Question 30, which is the refined calculation to use 7 bounding values for pressure and temperature at EPU 8 conditions for the entire 60-year period of plant 9 operation, and that's referring to the fact that EPU 10 changes temperatures and pressures in the reactor when 11 it's implemented, and those assumptions were made for 12 all transients over the entire 60-year period of our 13 analysis.
14 JUDGE REED: So you assume transients that 15 occurred prior to the up rate were actually more 16 severe than they really were.
17 MR. STEVENS: That's correct.
18 JUDGE REED: You assumed that they're 19 consistent with the 20 percent increase in power 20 level.
21 MR. STEVENS: Yes. We assumed 20 percent 22 increased transients all the way back to the beginning 23 of the plant operation.
24 JUDGE WARDWELL: And did you use the 25 design basis transience or the actual transients 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
856 1 have occurred to date?
2 MR. STEVENS: We used the design basis 3 severity and counts. The counts were demonstrated to 4 be very conservative compared to the actual counts
.5 that would be projected at 60 year-s.
6 JUDGE KARLIN: Explain that if you would 7 a little more.
8 MR. STEVENS: Simplistically, this is in 9 our testimony also. After approximately 36 years of 10 operation there have been 96 -- how many start-ups?
11 I- need to refer.to the testimony.
12 Okay. I'm referring to our supplemental 13 declaration and I'm sorry. I don't have the exhibit 14 number of this one. It's our --
15 JUDGE KARLIN: Is this dated June 2nd?
16 MR. STEVENS: The one dated May 30th.
17 JUDGE KARLIN: May 30th supplemental --
18 Joint Supplemental Declaration of James C. Fitzpatrick 19 and General Stevens on NAC Contentions 2(a), 2(b),
20 environmental system fatigue.
21 MR. STEVENS: That's correct.
22 JUDGE KARLIN: Okay, and this supplemental 23 testimony that is attached?
24 MR. LEWIS: Yes, it's titled Declaration 25 Supplemental Testimony.
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com v
857 1 JUDGE KARLIN: Well, the -- yeah, I'm 2 readying the cover.
3 MR. LEWIS: Oh, yes, I'm sorry.
JUDGE KARLIN-: Joint Supplemental 5 Declaration and then the --
6 MR. LEWIS: Yes, you're correct.
7 JUDGE KARLIN: -- attachment, May 30th 8 Supplemental Testimony of James C. Fitzpatrick and 9 Gary L. Stevens on NAC Contentions 2(a) and 2(b),
10 environmental issues of fatigue.
11 MR. LEWIS: Yes.
12 JUDGE KARLIN: We're with you. Is that an 13 exhibit, Mr. Lewis?
14 MR. LEWIS: The original had an exhibit 15 because we thought we were going to introduce them.
16 So the ones that you originally received have the 17 exhibit number.
18 JUDGE KARLIN: Ah, but this is not --
19 MR. LEWIS: If you would like, please 20 don't use that.
21 JUDGE KARLIN: This goes in as -- okay, 22 but we know what you're referring to now. Please 23 proceed.
24 MR. STEVENS: Okay. I'm on Q. 17, page 25 17.
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com
858 1 JUDGE KARLIN: okay. All right.
2 Transient cycle projections, Q. 17. And this was Mr.
3 Fitzpatrick actually testifying.
4 Mr. Fitzpatrick, why don't you address 5 -. that?
6 MR. FITZPATRICK: The number cycles used 7 in the half (phonetic) analysis bound by number cycles 8 spherically by the plant, is significant. An example 9 we cite in the testimony, I think it's on the top of 10 page 8. Two hundred start-up/ shutdown cycles were 11 included in the original analysis.
12 JUDGE KARLIN: So when you say 200 start-13 up/shutdown cycles were included in the original 14 Vermont Yankee design, so when the plant was initially 15 licensed back in 30-some years ago, do you assume that 16 there would be 200 start-up/shutdown cycles? That is 17 the assumption that was made.
18 MR. FITZPATRICK: Yes.
19 JUDGE KARLIN: And now you say, however, 20 300 start-up/shutdown cycles were conservatively used 21 in the EAN for 60 years, that is to say 200 plus 22 another 20 years proportionally is 300. All right?
23 Okay. So I'm with you so far. Three 24 hundred, is that the figure that was used?
25 MR. FITZPATRICK: Used in the half NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com
859 1 analysis, yes.
2 JUDGE KARLIN: And how many actually have 3 occurred? I mean, so originally Vermont Yankee was 4 assumed it was going to have 200 start-up/shutdowns in 5 40 years, and how many has it actually had so far?
6 MR. FITZPATRICK: Ninety. I don't have the 7 exact figure.
8 JUDGE KARLIN: Approximately 90?
9 MR. FITZPATRICK: It's 93 to 95.
10 JUDGE KARLIN: So there's been 11 considerably less than the original assumption was.
12 MR. FITZPATRICK: If you project that 13 number out to 60 years, it's approximately 160.
14 JUDGE KARLIN: I see, yes.
15 MR. FITZPATRICK: One hundred sixty versus 16 the 300.
17 JUDGE KARLIN: Okay. And which one are 18 you using then?
19 MR. FITZPATRICK: Well, the 160 would be 20 the existing number of cycles projected for 60 years.
21 I mean, the substance of the analysis was 300.
22 JUDGE REED: Okay. So that's the 23 justification for saying the number of transient 24 cycles for 60 years using the refined calculations is 25 conservative relate to the number of transients NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com v
860 1 expected to occur through the 60 years. It's 2 conservative.
3 MR. FITZPATRICK: Yes, sir.
4 JUDGE REED: Okay. That's true only for 5 what you're calling the refined calculations, not for 6 the original, not for the confirmatory; is that 7 correct?
8 MR. FITZPATRICK: The original assessment 9 used the existing number of transients in the designer 10 specifications. In the license rule application 11 labeled 432, and that table shows that the projections 12 still exceed the original number of transients.
13 JUDGE KARLIN: Now, I want to if I may 14 stop here and ask Dr. Hopenfeld do you agree that what 15 they've done is more conservative in terms of number 16 of transients?
17 DR. HOPENFELD: Honestly I don't -- no, I 18 do not. However, I do not understand what they've 19 done. Let me tell you that originally I thought I 20 did. I thought what they did, they assumed this is 21 the number transients we had up to date. Let's say it 22 was like five years ago, whatever it was, and then 23 we're going to jack it up by a factor of 51.5, which 24 is 60 over 40.
25 I understood that, and I was happy 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
861 1 it, and I just came along and I said, now wait a 2 minute. We had the bathtub curve. We also know we 3 had an up-rate. Maybe you want to make allowance, and 4 I suggest 20 percent.
5 Then I see that later on I see a 6 definition, which I completely don't understand, and 7 I'd like to read it to you if you wish. I can quote 8 you where it comes. It's on -- I don't understand 9 what they're talking about.
10 However, Dr. Chang also testified that he 11 doesn't -- he has no way of telling whether this is 12 conservative or not, and I don't understand it. Let 13 me read it to you.
14 JUDGE WARDWELL: What are you reading 15 from?
16 DR. HOPENFELD: I'm reading from E-201, at 17 A-55.
18 JUDGE WARDWELL: Okay. Just hold on a 19 second. E-201.
20 DR. HOPENFELD: At A-55.
21 JUDGE WARDWELL: A?
22 DR. HOPENFELD: I think it's --
23 JUDGE WARDWELL: Page 31?
24 JUDGE KARLIN: Hold on a second. All 25 right. Page 31.
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com
862 1 DR. HOPENFELD: Shall I read it?
2 JUDGE KARLIN: Yes, sir, please.
3 DR. HOPENFELD: Rewired projections for 60 4 years were made based. on all available sources 5 including the numbers of cycles for 40 years that are 6 BUI reactor pressure vessel design specification, the 7 number of cycles actually analyzed in the BUI design 8 stress report and the number of cycles experienced by 9 BUI.
10 It's some kind of a combination which I 11 don't -- this doesn't specify what it is, but then 12 there's what Dr. Chang says at NRC Exhibit 2, at page 13 10, which says the staff cannot determine the level of 14 conservative regarding the number of transients.
15 So after they cannot determine, I just 16 couldn't stretch my imagination to see what they 17 really mean. I understood the first time.
18 JUDGE KARLIN: As I understood, you cited 19 Dr. Chang's statement. The NRC could not determine 20 the level of conservatism.
21 DR. HOPENFELD: The level of conservatism 22 regarding the number of transients, the number.
23 JUDGE KARLIN: All right.
24 DR. HOPENFELD: Not the intensity of the 25 transients, but the number.
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com
863 1 JUDGE KARLIN: But as I understood it, he 2 was saying that he did believe it's conservative, but 3 he wasn't able to quantify by how much it's 4 conservative.
5 DR. HOPENFELD: That's like not knowing.
6 JUDGE KARLIN: Okay. You think that if 7 you don't know the number of how much --
8 DR. HOPENFELD: -- you don't know what it 9 is, but the point is what he's really making very 10 clear at the meeting that we were in January -- at the 11 meeting in January, the subject came up, and you could 12 ask him, "What do you mean?" because there was a 13 number of transients, because it went to the heart of 14 the issue: how are we going to monitor this whole 15 thing?
16 What I'm saying, honestly I understood at 17 first. I don't understand it now, exactly what 18 they've done, and it's my understanding that the NRC 19 really doesn't understand what is conservative or not, 20 the number that's conservative. The words are number.
21 MR. STEVENS: May I offer some 22 clarification?
23 JUDGE WARDWELL: I'd like to just fix a 24 point, I think, what you have and with Dr. Hopenfeld, 25 if I could, and I'll seek your assistance, Mr.
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com
864 i Stevens. Where were we when we were talking about the 2 degree of conservatism A through D? What page was 3 that and what answer?
4 JUDGE KARLIN: Page 16, 16, I believe.
5 JUDGE WARDWELL: Yes,-.good. I've got it.
6 Thank you.
7 Dr. Hopenfeld, did you just testify that 8 you felt there's no difference between someone saying 9 I know it's conservative but I just can't quantify the 10 degree of conservatism and someone saying I don't know 11 how conservative it is, meaning it may be not 12 conservative at all? It may be negatively 13 conservative.
14 DR. HOPENFELD: And what subjective means, 15 which is a subjective judgment of someone. I know 16 it's conservative.
17 To me unless I can quantify, it doesn't 18 have to be exact if I can explain, explain why I 19 quantified the way I quantified. This is an 20 indication I have some understanding. But what he 21 says here, we just have no way of telling.
22 JUDGE WARDWELL: Well, for instance, B of 23 Answer 30 on page 16 of B-201 --
24 DR. HOPENFELD: I don't have it here just 25 in front of me.
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com
865 1 JUDGE WARDWELL: Do you want to get it?
2 DR. HOPENFELD: Yeah. Which one is it?
3 JUDGE WARDWELL: Or I can read it to you 4 if you wish.
5 DR.- HOPENFELD: Okay.
6 JUDGE WARDWELL: B says -- the question 7 was what conservatisms are incorporated into the 8 refined CUFen calculations, and Answer B said the 9 refined calculations use design basis' transient 10 severity definitions as opposed to the lesser actual 11 transient severity.
12 DR. HOPENFELD: I understand.
13 JUDGE WARDWELL: One could easily see how 14 that would be conservative.
15 DR. HOPENFELD: Possibly, although you 16 could quantify it, but you could see it.
17 JUDGE WARDWELL: Right. So isn't that 18 different than saying that, in fact, we had no 19 knowledge of whether or not it's conservative or not?
20 DR. HOPENFELD: No, because he's talking 21 about the numbers now. You see the numbers is 22 different because, you see, we all know that when you 23 buy a car, okay, you know that after 50 years things 24 are starting to fall apart. They're not going to be 25 as it was in the beginning.
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com
866 1 So we're not talking about the intensity, 2 and he is talking about the intensity disputing -- I 3 don't know what the intensity. I haven't got that 4 definition. I'm talking about the numbers.
5 JUDGE REED: I want to take issue with 6 buying your car. It's well known among engineers that 7 when something new is built, that often there are high 8 failure rates initially.
9 DR. HOPENFELD: Absolutely.
10 JUDGE REED: So isn't it true that cars 11 during the first month or two or six months --
12 DR. HOPENFELD: Yes.
13 JUDGE REED: -- fail more frequently?
14 DR. HOPENFELD: Absolutely. That's the 15 bathtub curve. That's exactly --
16 JUDGE REED: Okay. That's the bathtub 17 curve.
18 DR. HOPENFELD: That's the bathtub.
19 JUDGE REED: Okay. So your point is that 20 then you enter a period of very stable operations.
21 DR. HOPENFELD: Yes, right.
22 JUDGE REED: And then at some point you 23 wear out.
24 DR. HOPENFELD: Absolutely.
25 JUDGE REED: And so then you begin to have NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com v
867 1 more --
2 DR. HOPENFELD: It doesn't have to be a 3 car. It's consumer electronics. I would think it's 4 in your life expectancy, and insurance companies use 5 it, too.
6 JUDGE REED: We all agree that that's the 7 traditional engineering curve for failures, but do we 8 know where we are on that curve for this particular 9 plant? Are we still down at the bottom of a bathtub 10 and do we have a long way to go before it goes up?
11 Why do you believe that we're at the cusp 12 where we're just about to see a huge number of 13 increases?
14 DR. HOPENFELD: There are a lot of factors 15 in here, but let me give you one. I get all of you 16 gentlemen from the D.C. area. We just came last week.
17 I know that there was a brief --
18 JUDGE REED: Please speak up a little.
19 I'm having a hard time hearing you.
20 DR. HOPENFELD: You all from the D.C.
21 area, last week there was a major, major pipe drop 22 underground, and I don't know. It wasn't the Missouri 23 River, but it was the whole neighborhood was flooded.
24 And these pipes, when they get over 40 years, they get 25 to their 60 years, things just happen. It's an NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com
868 1 example as to when you get to a certain point where 2 things start falling apart.
3 Now, in this case, taking other 4 consideration, flow accelerated corrosion, the number 5 of cycles which you accumulate, and there are, since 6 I just cannot think off the top of my head right now, 7 it shows that you're aging, and that's why I can't.
8 This is all statistics. It's all averages. I can't 9 define the thing where you're really sit the thing at 10 the inflection point.
11 But you're getting there, and you have to 12 consider that. If you made a change in the plan, you 13 increased the power by 20 percent, at least I would 14 claim that you want a conflict. Is it exact science?
15 No, it's not. This is judgment, but you can't ignore 16 it.
17 JUDGE WARDWELL: Have you done anything, 18 Mr. Stevens, to account for the increase in orders?
19 MR. STEVENS: Yes.
20 JUDGE WARDWELL: Would you care to 21 elaborate on what you have done?
22 MR. STEVENS: That would be Item C on page 23 16 of our testimony, where again we took in the 24 magnitude of the transients as defined under EPU 25 conditions and applied them for the entire 60-year NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com
869 1 life of the plant.
2 JUDGE WARDWELL: Are there any other 3 parameters that influence this refined calculation 4 besides pressure and temperature that should have been 5 incorporated to account for the EPU conditions?
6 MR. STEVENS: Well, flow rate is a 7 significant contributor, and we incorporated that.
8 JUDGE WARDWELL: For the 60 years?
9 MR. STEVENS: Yes.
10 JUDGE WARDWELL: So it's really pressure, 11 temperature, and flow rate.
12 MR. STEVENS: Those are the three primary 13 inputs that drive our stress analysis.
14 May I clarify the discussion on number of 15 cycles and bathtub effects?
16 JUDGE KARLIN: Yes, sir.
17 JUDGE REED: I'd be willing to hear you.
18 MR. STEVENS: You know, first we have to 19 keep in mind the relevance of pipes underground versus 20 what we're talking about here, which is a nuclear 21 reactor where conditions are much, much, much more 22 controlled. There's no field evidence anyway to 23 support a bathtub effect, and in fact, the evidence 24 that is out there would support just the opposite.
25 The simply example would be the number of NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com
870 1 start-up/shutdown events experienced by Vermont 2 Yankee. Currently the frequency of those events is 3 half of what it used to be. In the beginning of plant 4 operation, they operated on 12-month operating cycles.
5 So ignoring all other upset events that could have 6 occurred, the control events occurred once a year.
7 Today they're on 24-month cycles, 18 8 moving to 24. They occur one and a half times less 9 frequent than they used to.
10 The other thing we know about extensive 11 field experience for the entire fleet of U.S. nuclear 12 reactors is there were learning curve effects in the 13 beginning of plant operations. Plants tripped a lot 14 in early years, and through improved maintenance 15 procedures, processes, ASME code improvements, 16 inspections, all sorts of activities, those trip 17 frequencies have reduced down to a fraction of what 18 they were early.
19 So what we see today across the industry, 20 including several reactor operating years, EPU 21 operation, transient occurrences, they occur less 22 frequently than they did in early years of plant 23 operation throughout the fleet of U.S. reactors.
24 So it is conservative to take a linear 25 projection forward with time because those events are NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com
871 1 less frequent now than they used to be.
2 But having said all of that, we did the 3 linear projections to justify that the number of 4 cycles we used from the design was very conservative.
5 The example we give in our testimony, what Mr.
6 Fitzpatrick just said, was on start-up events where in 7 40 years they've experienced less than 100.
8 So we expect, given all that I've just 9 said, they would experience on the order of 150 or 160 10 at the end of 60 years of operation. That tells us 11 that the 300 cycle assumed in the design is very 12 conservative for use, and that's what we use.
13 Having said all of that, if there's 14 uncertainty, that's where we have an aging management 15 program, and my opinion of Dr. Chang's philosophy is 16 that's what he's referring to. We have projected out 17 what the future will be, and because of any 18 uncertainty that folks might have with that 19 projection, there's an aging management program that 20 will continue to monitor and verify those assumptions, 21 and if need be, take corrective action if any of those 22 limits are going to be exceeded.
23 JUDGE REED: So does that mean that you 24 have someone who is counting the number of transients 25 and keeping track of that and comparing it to the NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com
872
- 1. number assumed in your analyses?
2 MR. STEVENS: Entergy does, not myself.
3 JUDGE REED: I'm sorry. I should have 4 addressed that to Mr. Fitzpatrick.
5 MR. FITZPATRICK: We have a plant procedure 6 for coding transients.
7 JUDGE REED: So you keep a record of these 8 transients. You sum them up and somebody is watching?
9 MR. FITZPATRICK: We have an established 10 time per plant procedure.
11 JUDGE REED: And so what would happen if 12 you suddenly encountered the other end of the bathtub 13 and you started having a lot of transients and you 14 started exceeding or you saw you were going to exceed 15 the numbers in these analyses, the CUFen analyses?
16 MR. FITZPATRICK: We would revisit the 17 analysis to see if there's any conservatism in the 18 analysis. If it looks like we exceed it before the 19 beginning of whatever the license period is at the 20 time, we either go into an inspection program, 21 depending on the phenomenon component. It depends on 22 what the effects of the transient preexist.
23 For example, feedwater. If there was more 24 transients than we predicted, we'd have to start 25 inspecting.
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com
873 1 JUDGE KARLIN: And that's what you 2 referred to as a fatigue monitoring plan?
3 MR. FITZPATRICK: Well, the fatigue 4 monitoring plan right now is common cycles based on 5 existing analysis. The normal cycle fatigue, we don't 6 get in a section.
7 JUDGE WARDWELL: And for those transients, 8 is it merely counting the transients or do you also 9 incorporate consideration of actual measurements of 10 pressure temperatures and flow rates?
11 MR. FITZPATRICK: We keep the data, the 12 actual data, but for the purpose of cycle counting 13 right now, we assume each transient is as a design 14 basis severity.
15 MR. STEVENS: May I clarify that just one 16 bit? The plant procedures require that temperature 17 limits be tracked. It's part of technical 18 specifications to maintain reactor within heat-up/cool 19 down limits and all of that. So as a part of all 20 those procedures what you're asking is, in fact, 21 monitored continuously, and if any of those limits are 22 exceeded, that also must be evaluated.
23 So there are other programs in place that 24 track those temperature and pressure limits 25 continuously within the plant.
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com
874 1 JUDGE WARDWELL: How about flow rates?
2 MR. FITZPATRICK: Flow rates would be 3 proportional power.
4 JUDGE REED: Would you speak up?
<-5 MR. FITZPATRICK: I'm sorry. The 6 feedwater flow rate is proportional with power, and 7 the flow rate in the design analysis --
8 JUDGE KARLIN: Could you hold down the 9 conversation, sir?
10 I'm sorry. Thank you.
11 MR. FITZPATRICK: Flow rate is typically 12 proportional to the power. The flow rate in the 13 analysis bounds the typical operating 100 percent 14 power curve.
15 JUDGE WARDWELL: So you have an indirect 16 measure of flow rate --
17 MR. FITZPATRICK: Yes.
18 JUDGE WARDWELL: -- based on power.
19 MR. FITZPATRICK: And flow rate is recorded 20 with time.
21 JUDGE REED: So the procedures that you 22 mentioned keep an individual transient. You look at 23 individual transients to make sure that they stay 24 within bounds.
25 MR. FITZPATRICK: Yes.
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com
875 1 JUDGE REED: But what we were talking 2 about goes to the number of transients rather than an 3 individual transient.
4 MR. FITZPATRICK: And. those numbers are 5 also factors.
6 JUDGE REED: The numbers are also tracked.
7 MR. FITZPATRICK: yes.
8 JUDGE REED: And you know, it's one thing 9 to track numbers. It's quite another to compare them 10 and realize that you're hitting the limit. And I'm 11 just wanting a very clear statement that there is 12 somebody's job at the plant who tracks those and 13 compares them to the numbers that you have assumed in 14 these analyses.
15 MR. FITZPATRICK: In the procedure, it's 16 Engineering's job to assess the number cycles and 17 transients.
18 JUDGE KARLIN: Well, following up on that, 19 I mean, is there an exhibit that we can look at that 20 says that? Is there a document in this that says 21 here's how we're going to do that? Are you just 22 telling us that that will be done?
23 MR. FITZPATRICK: It hasn't been entered 24 into evidence.
25 JUDGE KARLIN: Okay. All right. Okay.
NEAL R.. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com
876 1 I think we're going to call it a day. It's about five 2 o'clock. It has been a warm day. I appreciate 3 everyone's attention and help in answering our 4 questions and being patient in that regard.
5 We have a lot more to go on Contention 2, 6 and we may get to Contention 3 tomorrow.
7 Dr. Hopenfeld, did you have something?
8 DR. HOPENFELD: Would I be allowed to make 9 a comment from the three comments that were made here 10 or would you like me to talk about it tomorrow?
11 JUDGE KARLIN: No, go ahead.
12 DR. HOPENFELD: Okay. I jotted it down 13 because I think in context I could -- first of all, 14 with regard to the comment about the fact that EPU 15 didn't make any difference. You have to realize it is 16 affected by the degree of the power increase, and I 17 believe there weren't that many that went up to 20 18 percent. I don't know how many were.
19 In the case of BY, I think we're only a 20 year and a half down the pike on this, and I don't 21 know if there was a cooling tower, another vault that 22 day. I don't think the statistics is enough to make 23 any case out of it.
24 The more important thing that is missing, 25 and I think very important that we all focus on 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
877 1 and they say they have a monitoring program. They 2 don't have a widget on every pipe that measures the 3 crack propagation. There isn't such a thing in the 4 world.
5 What they have, what they're telling you, 6 did they monitor based on their calculation. They 7 have different calculations if the FUAns are all by a 8 factor of 50, which I'll show you that was what the 9 case is. You'll find out that the monitor program is 10 no better than their assumption.
11 Now, with regard to the last that they 12 were talking about, with all due respect, if you make 13 assumption in your basic modeling, and I'm going now 14 to the CUF. I'm away from the FDN. There are two 15 estimates. I'm kind of oscillating here, but with CUF 16 they made certain assumptions, and the presumption 17 here, that that's what it is.
18 But it isn't. These are assumptions. So 19 I would like to tell you those and then you can decide 20 whether that makes sense or not. So to me I believe 21 that relates to the flow rate because the flow rate 22 does make a difference. I mean the other rate, but it 23 does come into play here, too, and I'll tell you how.
24 JUDGE KARLIN: All right. Thank you. You 25 will have an opportunity tomorrow.
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com
878 1 JUDGE WARDWELL: You will regret, rue the 2 day you said that.
3 JUDGE KARLIN: Right now we're going to 4 adjourn for the day. We will reconvene tomorrow at 5 8:30 crisply, and try to proceed as far as we can, and 6 so for the moment we will stand adjourned.
7 Thank you.
8 (Whereupon, at 5:07 p.m., the hearing in 9 the above-entitled matter was adjourned, to reconvene 10 at 8:30 a.m., Tuesday, July 22, 2008.)
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.nealraross.com
CERTIFICATE This is to certify that the attached proceedings before the United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission in the matter of: Entergy Nuclear Vermont Yankee, LLC & Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc.
Name of Proceeding: Hearing Docket Number: 50-271-LR, ASLBP No. 06-849-03-LR Location: Newfane, Vermont 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.
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