ML082540485

LB Memorandum and Order (Topics for Discussion and Procedures for Oral Argument)

ML082540485
Person / Time
Site:	Oyster Creek
Issue date:	09/10/2008
From:	Abramson P, Anthony Baratta, Hawkens E Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel
To:
SECYRAS
References
06-844-01-LR, 50-0219-LR, RAS H-63
Download: ML082540485 (7)

Text

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

E. Roy Hawkens, Chairman Dr. Paul B. Abramson Dr. Anthony J. Baratta In the Matter of Docket No. 50-0219-LR AMERGEN ENERGY COMPANY, LLC ASLBP No. 06-844-01-LR (License Renewal for Oyster Creek Nuclear September 10, 2008 Generating Station)

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER (Topics for Discussion and Procedures for Oral Argument)

On September 8, 2008, the Board issued a memorandum and order scheduling oral argument on the issue the Commission referred to the Board on August 21, 2008. In that order, the Board advised that it would provide counsel with the substantive areas that would be the focus of the Boards interest, as well as procedural details regarding how the oral argument will be conducted. This information is provided below.

A. Topics for Discussion Counsel should be prepared to address the following topics at oral argument:

1. How did AmerGen choose the thicknesses and mesh for the 3D model?

• It may assist the Boards understanding if AmerGen were to prepare a diagram that explains Table 1 in Mr. ORourkes June 11, 2008 affidavit.

If AmerGen elects to use a diagram at argument, it should provide the Board and other counsel with a copy no later than noon, Tuesday, September 16, 2008.

• AmerGen should also be able to identify, if asked, the locations of all internal and external measurements in each zone on the diagram should it elect to use such a diagram.

• AmerGen should be prepared to explain in detail how data from adjacent bays were used to estimate the thickness in a given bay.

2. AmerGen should be prepared to explain the bases for its use of engineering judgment in the development of the model, where and why such judgement was used, and what specifically was the result.

• Using an illustrative photo from the record that shows bay corrosion, AmerGen should explain how engineering judgment was used in taking that corrosion into account for the 3D model.

3. AmerGen should be prepared to discuss how the finite element grid size was chosen, how it overlays the measurements, and how the physical properties were selected/assigned to each element.

• Amergen should also be prepared to discuss why it believes those properties are conservative, and how Amergen became convinced that the number of elements it has selected will represent a "converged" solution, or if one or more of the sensitivity studies it proposes is designed to establish that convergence.

• The Staff should also be prepared to discuss how it intends to address convergence and conservatism.

4. AmerGen should be prepared to explain in detail how the cases it chose result in a conservative best estimate analysis of the drywell shell.

5. AmerGen should be prepared to explain in detail how the cases modeled by AmerGen provide for sensitivity studies using an extrapolation scheme or equivalent method to determine the thicknesses between the measured locations.

6. Discuss the assertion (Citizens Reply at 3) that AmerGen improperly failed to include its own estimates of the existing severely corroded areas in its modeling base case.

7. Discuss the assertion (Citizens Reply at 3) that even if AmerGens use of average thicknesses were acceptable, AmerGens estimates of those thicknesses are overly optimistic in part because AmerGen estimated the average thickness of the shell in Bays 1, 3, 7, and 15 below the eleven-foot three-inch level without using any of the measurements taken in those bays.

8. Discuss the suggestion (Citizens Reply at 3) that the NRC Staff believes that the 106 external measurements should form the base case from which sensitivity studies should be conducted.

9. Discuss the assertion (Citizens Reply at 3 n.3) that Mr. ORourke mistakenly states that the thickness selected for Bay 1 is consistent with the external data for that Bay.

10. Discuss the assertion (Citizens Reply at 3 n.3) that AmerGen is acting inconsistently and nonconservatively, because it previously estimated the thickness for Bay 15 to be 0.788 inch, but it now proposes to model the lower part of Bay 15 at 0.931 inch.

11. Discuss the assertion (Citizens Reply at 4) that both the internal and external thickness data should be input into a mathematical extrapolation technique to derive the most accurate picture possible of the state of the shell.

12. Discuss the assertion (Citizens Reply at 4) that the internal measurements, which cover less than 1% of the shell area, produce nonconservative and uncertain estimates of the spatially distributed thickness.

13. Discuss the assertion (Citizens Reply at 4) that, where there is both local thinning and generalized thinning, the acceptance criteria could allow the factor of safety to drop to 1.81.

14. Discuss the assertion (Citizens Reply at 4-5) that the Staffs reliance on the Sandia Study to support a conclusion that the drywell shell satisfies safety requirements is misplaced.

In addressing these topics, counsel should keep in mind that this is an oral argument, not an evidentiary hearing. Counsels presentations - which are not part of the evidentiary record -

should endeavor to clarify the positions taken in their briefs and respond to the Boards questions.

B. Procedures for Oral Argument As discussed during the Boards September 5 conference call with counsel, the Board will allocate five minutes to counsel for each of the parties to discuss what they believe are the boundaries of the Commissions August 21 referral order.1 AmerGen will speak first, followed by the NRC Staff and Citizens.

1 See Tr. at 897, 899-902.

Thereafter, counsel for each party will be allocated one hour to address the questions and discussion points in Part A above.2 Counsel are encouraged to address the questions and discussion points in order. AmerGen will speak first, followed by the NRC Staff and Citizens.

AmerGen and the NRC Staff will have an opportunity for rebuttal. If they wish to avail themselves of this opportunity, they should advise the Board at the outset of their presentations of the amount of time they wish to reserve for rebuttal.

It is so ORDERED.

FOR THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD3

/RA/

E. Roy Hawkens, Chairman ADMINISTRATIVE JUDGE Rockville, Maryland September 10, 2008 2

Counsel need not use the entire hour if they are able to address the Boards concerns in less time. On the other hand, if counsel are unable to fully address the Boards concerns within an hour, the Board may require them to go beyond their allocated time.

3 Copies of this Memorandum and Order were sent this date by Internet e-mail to counsel for: (1) Citizens; (2) AmerGen; (3) the NRC Staff; and (4) New Jersey.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION In the Matter of )

)

AMERGEN ENERGY COMPANY, LLC ) Docket No. 50-219-LR

)

)

(Oyster Creek Nuclear Generating Station) )

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that copies of the foregoing LB MEMORANDUM AND ORDER (TOPICS FOR DISCUSSION AND PROCEDURES FOR ORAL ARGUMENT) have been served upon the following persons by U.S. mail, first class, or through NRC internal distribution.

Office of Commission Appellate Administrative Judge Adjudication E. Roy Hawkens, Chair U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel Washington, DC 20555-0001 Mail Stop - T-3 F23 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, DC 20555-0001 Administrative Judge Administrative Judge Paul B. Abramson Anthony J. Baratta Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel Mail Stop - T-3 F23 Mail Stop - T-3 F23 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, DC 20555-0001 Washington, DC 20555-0001 Emily Krause, Law Clerk Richard Webster, Esq.

Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Julia LeMense, Esq.

Mail Stop - T-3 F23 Eastern Environmental Law Center U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 744 Broad Street, Suite 1525 Washington, DC 20555-0001 Newark, NJ 07102

2 Docket No. 50-219-LR LB MEMORANDUM AND ORDER (TOPICS FOR DISCUSSION AND PROCEDURES FOR ORAL ARGUMENT)

Mary C. Baty, Esq. Donald J. Silverman, Esq.

Marcia J. Simon, Esq. Kathryn M. Sutton, Esq.

Brian Newell, Paralegal Alex S. Polonsky, Esq.

Office of the General Counsel Raphael P. Kuyler, Esq.

Mail Stop - O-15 D21 Morgan, Lewis & Bockius LLP U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 1111 Pennsyvlania Ave., NW Washington, DC 20555-0001 Washington, DC 20004 Paul Gunter, Reactor Oversight Jill Lipoti, Director Kevin Kamps New Jersey Department of Beyond Nuclear Environmental Protection Nuclear Policy Research Institute Division of Environmental Safety and Health 6930 Carroll Avenue, Suite 400 P.O. Box 424 Takoma Park, MD 20912 Trenton, NJ 08625-0424 Bradley M. Campbell, Commissioner J. Bradley Fewell, Esq.

New Jersey Department of Exelon Corporation Environmental Protection 4300 Warrenville Road P.O. Box 402 Warrenville, IL 60555 Trenton, NJ 08625-0402 Ron Zak Suzanne Leta New Jersey Department of NJPIRG Environmental Protection 11 N. Willow St.

Nuclear Engineering Trenton, NJ 08608 P.O. Box 415 Trenton, NJ 08625-0415

3 Docket No. 50-219-LR LB MEMORANDUM AND ORDER (TOPICS FOR DISCUSSION AND PROCEDURES FOR ORAL ARGUMENT)

John A. Covino, Esq.

Ellen Barney Balint, Esq.

Valerie Anne Gray, Esq.

Deputy Attorneys General New Jersey Office of the Attorney General Environmental Permitting &

Counseling Section Division of Law Hughes Justice Complex P.O. Box 093 Trenton, NJ 08625

[Original signed by Christine M. Pierpoint]

Office of the Secretary of the Commission Dated at Rockville, Maryland this 10th day of September 2008