ML083380657

LB Memorandum (Submission of Proposed Questions Into the Official Record)

ML083380657
Person / Time
Site:	Vermont Yankee File:NorthStar Vermont Yankee icon.png
Issue date:	12/03/2008
From:	Karlin A Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel
To:
SECY/RAS
References
06-849-03-LR, 50-271-LR, RAS M-363
Download: ML083380657 (114)

Text

1 Copies of this order were sent this date by Internet e-mail transmission to counsel for (1) licensees Entergy; (2) intervenors Vermont Department of Public Service and New England Coalition of Brattleboro, Vermont; (3) the NRC Staff; (4) the State of New Hampshire; and (5) the Commonwealth of Massachusetts.

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

Alex S. Karlin, Chairman Dr. Richard E. Wardwell Dr. William H. Reed In the Matter of ENTERGY NUCLEAR VERMONT YANKEE, L.L.C.,

and ENTERGY NUCLEAR OPERATIONS, INC.

(Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Station)

Docket No. 50-271-LR ASLBP No. 06-849-03-LR December 3, 2008 Memorandum (Submission of Proposed Questions into the Official Record)

The Board hereby provides to the Secretary of the Commission, for inclusion in the official record of this proceeding, the questions submitted by the parties in this proceeding, pursuant to 10 C.F.R. § 2.1207(a)(3)(i)-(ii). Appendix A is a list of the sets of questions proposed by the parties prior to the evidentiary hearing. Appendix B is a list of the sets of questions proposed by the parties during the evidentiary hearing.

FOR THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD1 Alex S. Karlin, Chairman ADMINISTRATIVE JUDGE Rockville, Maryland December 3, 2008

/RA/

Appendix A (Sets of Questions Proposed Prior to the Evidentiary Hearing) 1.

New England Coalition, Inc.s Direct Examination Plan (June 23, 2008).

2.

Entergys Proposed Board Examination Questions to Direct and Rebuttal NEC Witnesses on NEC Contentions 2A and 2B (June 23, 2008).

3.

Entergys Proposed Board Examination Questions to Direct and Rebuttal Witnesses on NEC Contention 3 (June 23, 2008).

4.

Entergys Proposed Board Examination Questions to Direct and Rebuttal NEC Witnesses on NEC Contention 4 (June 23, 2008).

5.

NRC Staff Proposed Questions Regarding Direct and Rebuttal Testimony (June 20, 2008).

June 23, 2008 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION Before the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board In the Matter of

)

)

Entergy Nuclear Vermont Yankee, LLC

)

Docket No. 50-271-LR and Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc.

)

ASLBP No. 06-849-03-LR

)

(Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Station)

)

ENTERGYS PROPOSED BOARD EXAMINATION QUESTIONS TO DIRECT AND REBUTTAL NEC WITNESSES ON NEC CONTENTIONS 2A AND 2B Pursuant to 10 C.F.R. § 2.1207(a)(3)(i) and (ii), paragraph 10.F of the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board (Board)s Initial Scheduling Order dated November 17, 2006, and the Boards December 13, 2007 Order (Addressing Scheduling Issues for Evidentiary Hearing),

Entergy Nuclear Vermont Yankee, LLC and Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc. (collectively Entergy) submit hereby their proposed questions for the Board to consider propounding to the New England Coalition (NEC) witnesses on NRC Contentions 2A and 2B in this proceeding.

As directed by the Board in the Initial Scheduling Order, the sets of questions contained herein are prefaced by a brief description of the issues that Entergy contends need further examination, the objective of the examination, and the proposed line of questioning (including specific questions) that may logically lead to achieving the objective.

Entergy is filing separately sets of proposed questions on NEC Contention 3 and NEC Contention 4.

I.

QUESTIONS TO BE POSED TO NEW ENGLAND COALITIONS WITNESS DR. JORAM HOPENFELD Dr. Hopenfeld is the chief witness of intervenor NEC regarding NEC Contentions 2A and 2B.1 Dr. Hopenfeld addresses these contentions in his pre-filed direct testimony (NEC Exhibit NEC-JH_01 at 3-7), in a report entitled Review of Entergy Nuclear Vermont Yankee, LLC and Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc. (Entergy) Analyses of the Effects of Reactor Water Environment on Fatigue Life of Risk-significant Components During the Period of Extended Operation, NEC Exhibit NEC-JH_03 (Corrected) (April 21, 2008) (Report), and in his rebuttal testimony, NEC Exhibit NEC-JH_63.

Dr. Hopenfeld has alleged that a number of deficiencies exist in Entergys calculations of environmentally assisted fatigue (EAF) of critical reactor components. EAF is the phenomenon of fatigue occurring on components operating in a reactor coolant environment.

The EAF of a component over the operating life of a reactor is obtained as the product of two parameters: the cumulative usage factor or CUF for the component over the operating life period, and an environmental correction factor Fen that accounts for the reactor coolant environment to which the component is exposed.

Both aspects of the determination of a components potential vulnerability to EAF can be addressed separately. The following questions are intended to explore the objections to Entergys methodology for calculating the CUF and the Fen for the analyzed VY components and locations, and to clarify other aspects of his testimony.

1 Mr. Ulrich Witte submitted late rebuttal testimony on June 6, 2008 in which he addresses Contentions 2A and 2B.

Mr. Wittes rebuttal testimony is discussed below.

2

A.

FAILURE TO RECEIVE NEEDED INFORMATION Dr. Hopenfeld alleges that Entergy failed to provide in discovery all the information necessary to establish the validity of Entergys EAF analyses. Since this is a leading claim in Dr.

Hopenfelds Report and in his direct and rebuttal testimony, it would be useful for the Board to probe into the circumstances relating to this alleged failure and its consequences.

1.

Importance of Information

a.

b.

c.

d.

e.

f.

g.

In your Report you indicate on p. 8 that Entergy did not provide all the information needed to establish the validity of Entergys analyses. Did you consider that information to be important for your review?

Isnt it true that Entergy provided to NEC its final refined fatigue calculations in August 2007? [Joint Declaration of James C.

Fitzpatrick and Gary L. Stevens on NEC Contentions 2A and 2B

- Environmentally Assisted Fatigue (May 12, 2008)

(Fitzpatrick - Stevens Dir.) at A26]

When did you realize that the calculations did not contain the information you describe as missing?

Your questions were posed to Entergy in mid-April of this year, only a few days before you provided your sworn declaration and your Report. How was it that you did not ask for the missing information until then?

Isnt it true that the inputs, reference documents, applicable plant drawings, and the transient definitions for 60 years for the VY EAF analyses performed in 2007 are defined in Entergys Design Input Record (DIR), Rev.1, EC No.1773-Rev.0 Environmental Fatigue Analysis for VYNPS 7/26/07 SI file VY-16Q-209?

Isnt it true that the DIR was referenced in eight of the final refined fatigue calculations produced in August 2007? [Entergy Exhibits E2-11, E2-16, E2-17, E2-18, E2-20, E2-22, E2-23 and E2-24]

Isnt it true that on May 26, 2008 you requested through counsel and obtained, the location of the DIR in the documents produced in discovery?

3

h.

2.

Other parties, such as the NRC Staff, have been able to conduct thorough reviews of Entergys refined calculations without recourse to anything further than the references cited in those calculations. Why is it that you could not similarly conduct your review?

Piping Layout Drawings

a.

b.

c.

d.

e.

f.

3.

Your Report states on p. 8 that Entergy did not provide adequate layout drawings of plant piping. Were you aware during your investigations that such layout drawings existed?

Were you aware that Entergy had not provided them?

Did you ask your counsel to try to obtain them for you?

Were you aware that the Design Information Record lists all drawings and other inputs used in the refined fatigue calculations? Did you review the DIR?

Were any of the drawings you wanted to review listed in the DIR?

If they were, why did you not ask your counsel to seek their production?

Description of the Methods Used to Determine Velocities and Temperatures During Transients

a.

b.

B.

Your rebuttal testimony (at A19) acknowledges that you requested through counsel that Entergy provide information on the methods used to determine flow velocities and temperatures during transients. Isnt it true that Entergy responded to your counsels request and provided information on how the temperatures and velocities are computed? [Fitzpatrick - Stevens Dir. at A48]?

Your rebuttal testimony at A19 does indicate that you still had a question as to how the flow velocity is computed when the flow is zero. Did you ask your counsel to go back to Entergy and ask for further clarification?

COMPUTATION OF CUF The CUFs for the various reactor components and locations of interest are computed based on the estimated number of transients to occur through sixty years of plant operation, and 4

include consideration of both the historical plant operating experience and the pressures and temperatures experienced by the components of interest during each transient. Dr. Hopenfeld raises several concerns about how the CUFs for the components and locations of interest are obtained. The questions below are intended to explore some of the issues raised by Dr.

Hopenfeld.

1.

Number of Transients

a.

b.

c.

d.

In your rebuttal testimony at A21, you state that Entergy has not indicated whether it has made any allowance for the likely increase in plant transients resulting from the uprate or the fact that the number of transients is likely to increase as the plant ages. Isnt it true that in the Stevens/Fitzpatrick supplemental testimony2 at A17, the Entergy witness indicated that, in some cases, the number of assumed stress cycles in the calculations was obtained by extrapolating to 60 years the number of stress cycles assumed in the design specification, even though the number of cycles experienced to date, if extrapolated to 60 years, would be lower than that assumed in the design specification?

In your Report at p.16 you state that in your opinion the number of transients proposed by Entergy should at a minimum be multiplied by 1.2 to account for the probability of an increase in anticipated failures due to the 20% power uprate. What is your basis for assuming that operation at 20% higher power will result in 20% more transients?

Entergy witnesses testify [Fitzpatrick - Stevens Supp. at A17]

that bounding EPU conditions were used for all transient definitions for all assumed cycles, even though EPU operation did not apply to the first 35 years of plant operation. Doesnt that added conservatism help resolve your concern?

In any event, isnt it true that Entergy intends to monitor, throughout the period of extended operations, the actual number of plant transients that VY experiences and make sure the number of transient cycles experienced by the plant does not exceed the assumed number of transients used in the fatigue analyses [Fitzpatrick - Stevens Supp. at A17]?.

2 Joint Supplemental Declaration of James C. Fitzpatrick and Gary L. Stevens on NEC Contentions 2A and 2B -

Environmentally Assisted Fatigue (May 30, 2008) (Fitzpatrick - Stevens Supp.)

5

2.

Use of Greens Functions

a.

b.

C.

You indicate in your rebuttal testimony at A20 that the refined analysis using Greens functions generates non-conservative results because it yields CUFen values that are lower than those obtained by using the classic NB-3200 analysis as a more exact methodology. Isnt it true that two methodologies based on different mathematical modeling would be unlikely to give the same results?

Isnt it true that in neither case did the computed CUFen exceed the Code limit of 1.0?

ENVIRONMENTAL CORRECTION FACTOR Dr. Hopenfeld criticizes the calculation of Fen that Entergy applies in its analyses, alleging that the methodology used by Entergy is obsolete and does not take into account a number of factors that influence the value of Fen. He claims that it is impossible to compute values of Fen that are tailor made to the particular application, so he proposes that bounding values be used. The following questions are intended to explore Dr. Hopenfelds position on the proper application of Fen factors for use at VY.

1.

Appropriate Guidance to Use

a.

b.

c.

In your rebuttal testimony at A5 you refer to the guidance documents used by Entergy to compute the Fen factors, NUREG/CR-6583 and NUREG/CR-5704, as providing a developing methodology still unfinished. Isnt it true that the NRC Staff has for many years endorsed the use of that methodology in performing Fen analyses for license renewal applications?

Isnt it true that the methodology in NUREG/CR-6583 and NUREG/CR-5704 has been used throughout the industry for years?

Isnt it true that the principal guidance for license renewal analyses, the GALL Report, recommends the use of those NUREGs?

6

d.

e.

f.

g.

h.

2.

You make reference to a 2007 Report, NUREG/CR-6909, as identifying many factors that affect fatigue life that are not included in the methodology of the earlier NUREGs. What evidence do you have that these same factors were not also considered in NUREG/CR-6583 and NUREG/CR-5704?

Can you cite any industry reference that recommends that the NUREG/CR-6909 methodology be used in place of that in NUREG/CR-6583 and NUREG/CR-5704 in computing the EAF for operating plant components?

Isnt it true that in A7 of your rebuttal testimony you yourself do not recommend using the procedure for determining the Fen multipliers specified in NUREG/CR-6909?

In A6 of your rebuttal testimony you stated one cannot expect the decision makers such as the ACRS to understand the degree of uncertainty in Entergys methodology. What is your basis for stating that the ACRS does not understand Entergys EAF methodology?

Are you aware that Dr. W.J. Shack, the chairman of the ACRS, was co-author or both NURG/CR-6853 and NUREG/CR-6909?

[See Entergy Exhibits E2-06 and E2-30]

Factors to be incorporated into Fen computation

a.

b.

c.

d.

Table 1 in your rebuttal testimony identifies thirteen factors whose use you recommend. Isnt it true that, as you recognize in your rebuttal testimony at 4, neither the NUREG/CR-6909 analyses nor those in NUREG/CR-6583 and NUREG/CR-5704 incorporate most of the factors whose use you advocate?

What is your justification for not recommending using NUREG/CR-6909 but criticizing Entergy for not incorporating the factors cited there in its the fatigue analyses?

Your Report and your rebuttal testimony do not identify how each of these thirteen factors should be incorporated into the analyses. Have you developed recommendations for how each of these factors should be integrated into the analyses? For example, factor 6, heat to heat variation, how would you account for this factor?

Have you done any sensitivity analysis to determine how the results of the Fen factor computation would change if each factor was taken into consideration?

7

e.

f.

g.

h.

i.

j.

k.

Other than identifying the potential influence of these factors, can you shed any light on their practical significance in terms of the CUFen analyses performed by Entergy?

With respect to data scatter, NUREG/CR-6909 (at 3, 19, and 78) states that data scatter is included in the ASME fatigue curves.

The ASME fatigue curves are used in both the NUREG/CR-6583 and NUREG/CR-5704 Fen calculations. Based on this statement, why do you feel that data scatter effects are not incorporated into Entergys analyses?

With respect to surface finish, NUREG/CR-6909 states that

[t]he effect of surface finish is not considered in the environmental fatigue correction factor; it is included in the subfactor for surface finish and environment that is applied to the mean data curve to develop the Code fatigue design air curve. Based on this statement, why do you feel that surface finish effects are not incorporated into Entergys analyses?

Regarding size, NUREG/CR-6909 states that the current ASME Code requirements of a factor of 20 on cycle to account for the effects of material variability and data scatter, as well as size, surface finish, and loading history Based on this statement, why do you feel that size effects are not incorporated into Entergys analyses?

Regarding flow rate, NUREG/CR-6909 states that the beneficial effect of flow rate on fatigue life is presently not included in fatigue evaluations. If the effect of flow rate is beneficial, and would therefore increase the fatigue life, why is it non-conservative on the part of Entergy not to include flow rate effects into its fatigue analysis?

With respect to strain rate, NUREG/CR-6909 states that [t]he effects of strain rate are not explicitly considered in the fatigue design curves, they are accounted for in the subfactor for data scatter and material variability. Based on this statement, why do you feel that strain rate effects are not incorporated into Entergys analyses?

With respect to heat to heat variation, NUREG/CR-6909 states that heat-to-heat variability is included in the subfactor that is applied to the mean data curve to account for data scatter and material variability. Based on this statement, why do you feel that heat-to-heat variability effects are not incorporated into Entergys analyses?

8

l.

m.

n.

o.

3.

Regarding loading history, NUREG/CR-6909 states that such effects are accounted for in the factors of 20 on life and 2 on stress that are applied to the mean data curve to obtain the Code fatigue design curve. Based on this statement, why do you feel that loading history effects are not incorporated into Entergys analyses?

About cyclic strain hardening, NUREG/CR-6909 states that variations in fatigue life due to the effects of strain hardening are accounted for in the subfactor for data scatter and material variability. Based on this statement, why do you feel that cyclic strain hardening effects are not incorporated into Entergys analyses?

With respect to the effect of temperature below 150°C, NUREG/CR-6909 states that variations in fatigue life due to temperature are accounted for in the subfactor for data scatter and material variability. Based on this statement, why do you feel that temperature effects below 150°F are not incorporated into Entergys analyses?

With respect to sulfide morphology, NUREG/CR-6909 states that variations in fatigue life due to differences in sulfide morphology are accounted for in the subfactor for data scatter and material variability. Based on this statement, why do you feel that sulfide morphology effects are not incorporated into Entergys analyses?

Cracking of Cladding and Base Metal

a.

b.

In your Report at p. 16 you fault Entergy for not providing any proof that the base metal of the feedwater nozzle at VY is not cracked. In response, Entergys witnesses have testified in their direct testimony at (A53) that VY inspects the feedwater nozzle for potential cracks in the base metal and in the most recent inspection in 2007 it established there were none. Do you have any evidence that this practice will not continue to be carried out during the period of extended operations after license renewal?

Entergy also provided an exhibit (E2-33) showing results from the 2007 inspection, which appears to conclude that there are no cracks in the base metal of the feedwater nozzle. However, in your rebuttal testimony, you challenge the results of the 2007 inspection because they conclude that [n]o relevant information was recorded. Isnt it true that the Report actually concludes that [n]o relevant indications were recorded? Isnt indications an ASME Code,Section XI nomenclature used to refer to 9

potential cracks? [This is discussed in the testimony on NEC Contention 3] And isnt it true that the inspection was conducted to look for cracks, and concluded that [u]ltrasonic examination results were acceptable to the requirements of ASME B&PV Code Section XI, etc.? How else could that inspection report be interpreted than as a finding that there are no cracks in the feedwater nozzle base metal?

c.

Isnt it true that the Staffs SER that you cite in your rebuttal testimony does not say that there are fatigue cracks in the cladding of the VY feedwater nozzle, but on p. 4-26 it states that VYNPS has conservatively assumed that fatigue cracks may be present in the clad?

d.

4.

Isnt the purpose of requiring that CUFen not exceed the Code limit of 1.0 that of ensuring that no cracks form in the components base metal?

Oxygen Levels During Transients

a.

b.

c.

d.

In your rebuttal testimony at A14, you indicate that there are high oxygen concentrations in the feedwater during transients, which Entergy does not take into account in its Fen factor computations. What data do you have to support this claim?

In the same testimony, you indicate that there is no technology that can predict the oxygen concentration at a given surface during reactor transients. Does that mean you do not know what the concentration of oxygen during transients at VY is?

Have you determined what the impact of the oxygen concentrations during transients would be on the fatigue life of reactor components?

In your rebuttal testimony at A9 you indicate that your choice of Fen factors of 12 for austenitic stainless steel and 17 for carbon and low alloy steel is not overly conservative because these values do not account for the presence of cracks in the cladding and base metal of the feedwater nozzles, or for high oxygen concentrations during transients. Does that mean that if there are no cracks in the cladding or the base metal and if high oxygen concentrations did not exist during transients, that your use of those values would be overly conservative?

10

5.

Use of Bounding Values

a.

b.

c.

d.

e.

6.

In A7 of your rebuttal testimony you recommend the use of Fen factors of 12 for austenitic stainless steel and 17 for carbon and low alloy steel based on the bounding values contained in NUREG-CR/6909. Isnt it true that those values are provided without elaboration in the abstract to NUREG-CR/6909 as potentially applying to certain environmental and loading conditions that are not discussed anywhere in the document?

Isnt it true that the NUREG-CR/6909 does not use or recommend using these Fen factors?

You indicate in your testimony at A11 that Dr. Chopra, the author of NUREG-CR/6909, is in no position to recommend the use of bounding Fen factors. Isnt it true, however, that Appendix A to NUREG-CR/6909 does in fact contain sets of recommended Fen curves, which the authors consider acceptable for incorporating the effects of reactor coolant environments on fatigue usage factor evaluations of metal components for new reactor construction?

What are the environmental and loading conditions to which the bounding values you advocate would apply?

Do those environmental and loading conditions exist at VY? Do you know one way or another?

Conservatism of ASME Code

a.

b.

c.

You assert in your rebuttal testimony at A12 that there is no general agreement among researchers that the current ASME code fatigue curves are conservative. What evidence have you provided in support of that statement?

Isnt it true that NUREG-CR/6909 concludes after some analysis that the ASME code curves are conservative by a minimum factor of 1.7? [Exhibit NEC-JH_26 at Section 4.1.10, p. 19; 5.8, p.48; p.78]

Have you yourself done any analysis to determine whether the ASME code curves are conservative?

11

D.

LACK OF ERROR ANALYSIS Dr. Hopenfelds Report criticizes Entergys EAF calculations for not including an error analysis to show the admissible range of each variable. The following questions are intended to explore this criticism.

1.

Where required or recommended?

a.

b.

c.

2.

Your Report at 18 and your rebuttal testimony state that Entergy should have performed an error analysis to validate its CUFen calculations. Is the performance of such an analysis part of the recommendations in the GALL Report or any other NRC publication?

Can you cite to any technical publication that recommends the performance of error analyses to validate CUFen calculations?

Can you cite to any instance in which such an analysis was performed?

Methodology

a.

b.

c.

E.

Can you cite to any reference that describes how such an analysis should be conducted?

Is there any NRC or industry guidance on the acceptance criteria for such an error analyses?

Is there any NRC or industry guidance on the interpretation of the results of such an error analyses?

DR. HOPENFELDS OWN EAF COMPUTATION Dr. Hopenfelds Report includes (Table 3, p. 20) his own recalculation of the CUFens for the critical VY components and locations. Other than stating that his recalculation is an alternative to Entergys, Dr. Hopenfeld does not explain what use is to be made of his recalculation. The following questions might clarify whether Dr. Hopenfelds calculation is of any practical use.

12

1.

CUF and Fens Used

a.

b.

c.

In your rebuttal testimony you acknowledge that the set of CUFen values you developed (which is shown on Table 3 on page 20 of your Report) uses the cumulative usage factors from Section 4.3.3 of the VY license renewal application. Isnt it true that nearly half of those values were not specific to VY but were generic CUF values taken from NUREG/CR-6260 for B31.1-designed components?

And you used what you describe as the bounding values of 17 and 12 for the Fens for carbon steel and stainless steel, right?

Given those assumptions, can you represent to this Board that the CUFen values in your calculation are realistic assessments of the potential fatigue risks for each component and location over the period of extended VY operations?

II.

QUESTIONS TO BE POSED TO REBUTTAL WITNESS ULRICH WITTE NEC has moved for the Boards acceptance for filing of the late-filed rebuttal testimony and exhibits submitted by Ulrich Witte on behalf of NEC in this proceeding, Exhibit 3 to NECs June 6, 2008 Motion to Late-File Rebuttal Testimony of Ulrich Witte (Witte Rebuttal Testimony). The Witte Rebuttal Testimony addresses NEC Contentions 2A and 2B in Q/A 4 through 6, p. 2-7.

Entergy is opposing NECs motion and is also filing a Motion in Limine to exclude the Witte Rebuttal Testimony because Mr. Witte is not qualified to opine as an expert on the contentions addressed in the testimony and because he fails to provide any factual support for his opinions. If either NECs late filing motion is denied or Entergys Motion in Limine is granted, there will be no need for the Board questions that follow.

13

A.

MR. WITTES EXPERIENCE AND QUALIFICATIONS ON ENVIRONMENTALLY ASSISTED FATIGUE

1.

Education and Work Experience

a.

Your curriculum vitae indicates that you received a B.A. degree in Physics in 1983. Did you receive any other college degrees prior to that date?

According to A4 of your rebuttal testimony and your curriculum vitae, the work that qualifies you as an expert on environmentally assisted fatigue took place between 1979 and 1981, while you were a Senior Engineer at ABB-Impell. What kind of position was Senior Engineer? Did the job require an engineering degree? Was it a start-up job as a junior technical person?

b.

c.

d.

e.

What were the qualifications for that position?

What was the nature of your pipe stress analysis and support placement work for the Catawba plant? Did you write computer code or did you run existing applications? Did you provide numerical inputs for existing programs?

Your curriculum vitae only mentions that work for the Catawba plant, whereas A4 of the rebuttal testimony mentions the Maguire and V.C. Summer plant as well. Why the difference?

f.

(1)

(2)

(3)

g.

Your rebuttal testimony states that you have performed non-linear finite element analysis for a number of components and that you are familiar with Swansons computer algorithms such as ANSYS, RELAP, and other commercial analytical computer programs.

What was the nature of the non-linear finite element analysis you performed? For what components?

When and how did you use ANSYS? RELAP? What other commercial analytical computer programs did you use?

For what application?

What structures or components have you modeled using any computer program? Which program?

According to your curriculum vitae your next assignment involved performing non-linear element finite element analysis 14

of large diameter piping for EPRI. What was the nature of the analysis? What piping was involved?

h.

i.

j.

2.

Your rebuttal testimony at A4 describes the same work as performing detailed correlation studies of non-linear finite element analysis code predictions against actual in situ testing of piping and components at the Indian Point 1 nuclear facility.

What components are these?

You also indicate that you performed an analysis of production stress code versus non-linear evaluation techniques, versus in situ testing of the system. What was the nature of the analysis? Was it in the nature of a comparison of the piping stress results obtained by various methods?

Isnt it a good summary of the prior experience that you cite as qualifying you as an expert on NEC Contentions 2A and 2B that the work in question was performed about thirty years ago, while you were a college student, and was not the type of work that would require being an experienced practicing engineer?

Performance of work on reactor vessel components

a.

b.

c.

d.

3.

Have you ever performed any evaluation of the stresses to which reactor components are subjected during plant operations in accordance with ASME Code,Section III, Subparagraph NB-3200 methodology?

Have you ever analyzed any of the following components: (1) the reactor vessel shell and lower head, (2) the reactor vessel feedwater nozzle, (3) the reactor recirculation piping (including the reactor inlet and outlet nozzles), (4) the core spray line reactor vessel nozzle and associated Class 1 piping, (5) the residual heat removal (RHR) return line Class 1 piping, and (6) the feedwater line Class 1 piping?

Have you ever modeled, or reviewed the mathematical model, of any of these components?

How does your piping analysis experience relate to evaluation of vessel components?

Performance of environmentally assisted fatigue evaluations

a.

b.

Have you ever evaluated the fatigue of reactor components?

Have you ever performed any evaluations of environmentally assisted fatigue of reactor components?

15

B.

TRANSIENT CYCLE COMPUTATIONS Mr. Wittes rebuttal testimony on NEC Contentions 2A and 2B addresses the operational time histories used by Entergy for its confirmatory environmentally assisted fatigue analysis of the feedwater nozzle. The following questions are intended to explore the bases for his testimony and the extent to which his opinions have a factual basis.

1.

Experience

a.

2.

Your rebuttal testimony on NEC Contentions 2A and 2B addresses the operational time histories used by Entergy for its confirmatory environmentally assisted fatigue analysis of the feedwater nozzle. In particular you state at A5 of your rebuttal testimony that the causal relationship between the event as found and historical records and the consequences in terms of thermal shock is key. Have you ever analyzed a historical transient and derived its consequences in terms of thermal shock to the reactor components?

History

a.

b.

c.

d.

What is the factual support for your statement in A5 that GE and the Licensee did not fully predict all of the events in their shutdown estimates?

What do you mean by the statement in A5 [t]he simplified method was shown to be overly dependent on skillful and experienced engineering? What simplified method was this?

What is your factual support for this statement?

What do you mean by the statement in A5 [n]ew methods removed the uncertainties and doubts of accuracy in CUFs and CUFen. Not just cycle counting but examination of derivative temperature changes forced on the reactor vessel, the associated safe end, and, of course, the feedwater nozzle as well. When were these new methods developed? What were they? How were they applied?

You state in A5 that it appears to me that the major thermal transients have likely not been incorporated into the VY operational history, as referenced in the SER. To what major thermal transients do you refer?

16

e.

f.

g.

h.

i.

j.

k.

Did you try to determine whether those major thermal transients were incorporated into the VY operational history?

Did you succeed? Do you know for a fact one way or another?

On page 5 of your rebuttal testimony you refer to an operational event that occurred at VY in December 1972. What is your source for your description of the event? You indicate that odds for a core melt for that event were 1.4E-3. What is the basis for that estimate? How does the nature of the event correlate with the shortening of the fatigue life of the components of interest in NEC Contentions 2A and 2B? What evidence do you have that Entergy did not consider this event?

You say that [m]ore significant to the issue of fully recovering the record of all transients and accurately incorporating them in assessing the remaining fatigue life is the assessment of wear, damage, and stress on each relevant component during each transient event. Assuming this is true, was it or was it not done at VY with respect to the December 1972 transient?

You go on to indicate that [t]here are other examples of transients that appear not to have been incorporated as input in the refined fatigue analysis. What are the other examples, and can you testify for a fact as to whether they were incorporated in the VY fatigue analysis?

You assert that during the period 1973 through 1977, VY experienced 42 unplanned forced shutdowns, which expended much of the fatigue life of the reactor vessel and feedwater nozzle. What is the source of the 42 unplanned forced shutdowns statistic? What is the factual basis for your statement that they expended much of the life of the reactor vessel and feedwater nozzle? How much of the life, and how was it estimated?

What evidence do you have that Entergy did not consider these events?

You refer to a July 6, 1976 event at VY. What is your source for your description of the event? You indicate that odds for a core melt for that event were 6.25E-2. What is the basis for that estimate? How does the nature of the event correlate the event with shortening of the fatigue life of the components of interest in NEC Contentions 2A and 2B? Have you done an analysis?

What evidence do you have that Entergy did not consider this event?

17

l.

3.

More generally, do you know one way or the other whether any of the transients discussed in your testimony were incorporated into Entergys environmentally assisted fatigue analyses for VY and if so, how?

Implications for the validity of the VY environmentally assisted fatigue analyses

a.

b.

c.

d.

e.

At the end of A5 in your rebuttal testimony you state that [i]t appears that, in Entergys calculation of 60-year CUFs in its CUFen reanalyses, operational histories were not properly or accurately compiled and that instead of documented transients, estimated thermal transients were used to predict the number of Reactor Thermal Cycles for 60 years. Do you know for a fact what Entergy did?

If Entergy used estimated thermal transients as you suggest, do you know how far off were those from the actual operational histories?

Assuming Entergy did as you suggest, how much of an error was introduced in the counting of number of transient cycles?

The conclusion of your testimony, in A6 at p.7, is that by using estimated histories as opposed to actual history, specific transients that shorten the component fatigue life appear not to be acknowledged or included in the Applicants fatigue analysis.

Do you know for a fact whether specific transients were not acknowledged or included in VYs fatigue analyses? Do you know for a fact of any one transient that was not acknowledged or included in the fatigue analyses?

Entergy states in its direct testimony [Fitzpatrick - Stevens Dir.

at A55] that to date VY has experienced only 95 startup -

shutdown cycles after 36 years of operation as opposed to 200 postulated in the VY design basis, and has made its fatigue analysis based on 300 startup - shutdown cycles. So what difference does it make if one or more transient cycles were not properly or accurately compiled?

18

Respectfully Submitted,

/Original Signed by Matias F. Travieso-Diaz/

David R. Lewis Matias F. Travieso-Diaz Blake J. Nelson PILLSBURY WINTHROP SHAW PITTMAN LLP 2300 N Street, NW Washington, DC 20037-1122 Tel. (202) 663-8000 Counsel for Entergy Dated: June 23, 2008 19

June 23, 2008 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION Before the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board In the Matter of

)

)

Entergy Nuclear Vermont Yankee, LLC

)

Docket No. 50-271-LR and Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc.

)

ASLBP No. 06-849-03-LR

)

(Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Station)

)

ENTERGYS PROPOSED BOARD EXAMINATION QUESTIONS TO DIRECT AND REBUTTAL WITNESSES ON NEC CONTENTION 3 Pursuant to 10 C.F.R. § 2.1207(a)(3)(i) and (ii), paragraph 10.F of the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board (Board)s Initial Scheduling Order dated November 17, 2006, and the Boards December 13, 2007 Order (Addressing Scheduling Issues for Evidentiary Hearing),

Entergy Nuclear Vermont Yankee, LLC and Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc. (collectively Entergy) submit hereby their proposed questions for the Board to consider propounding to the New England Coalition (NEC) and NRC Staff witnesses on NRC Contention 3 in this proceeding.

As directed by the Board in the Initial Scheduling Order, the sets of questions contained herein are prefaced by a brief description of the issues that Entergy contends need further examination, the objective of the examination, and the proposed line of questioning (including specific questions) that may logically lead to achieving the objective.

Entergy is filing separately sets of proposed questions on NEC Contentions 2A/2B and NEC Contention 4.

I.

QUESTIONS TO BE POSED TO NEW ENGLAND COALITIONS WITNESS DR. JORAM HOPENFELD A.

DR. HOPENFELDS EXPERIENCE WITH THE ANALYSIS, MONITORING AND INSPECTION OF STEAM DRYERS IN BOILING WATER REACTORS Dr. Hopenfeld is the sole witness of intervenor NEC regarding NEC Contention 3 (steam dryer). Dr. Hopenfeld addresses that contention in his pre-filed direct testimony (NEC Exhibit NEC-JH_01 at 7-10), in April 25, 2008 report Assessment of Proposed Program to Manage Aging of the Vermont Yankee Steam Dryer due to Flow-Induced Vibrations, NEC Exhibit NEC-JH_54, and in his rebuttal testimony, NEC Exhibit NEC_JH_63.

Dr. Hopenfelds curriculum vitae (NEC Exhibit NEC-JH_02) does not state that he has any professional experience or training on matters relating to the performance of steam dryers in boiling water reactors (BWRs). Dr. Hopenfeld has not provided in his testimony any links between his experience and expertise on the evaluation of the performance of steam dryers.

Dr. Hopenfelds familiarity with the issues related to the performance of the Vermont Yankee (VY) steam dryer during the period of extended plant operations after license renewal is an area that warrants illumination at the hearing, so the weight of his testimony and opinions can be assessed. The following lines of inquiry would assist the Board in determining what weight should be given to Dr. Hopenfelds testimony regarding NEC Contention 3.

1.

Familiarity with methods of monitoring steam dryer performance in BWRs

a.

b.

c.

Have you ever written a procedure for monitoring the performance of a steam dryer during plant operations?

Have you ever written a procedure for evaluating the data obtained through monitoring the performance of a steam dryer during plant operations?

Have you developed any programs to monitor the performance of steam dryers in BWRs?

2

d.

e.

f.

g.

h.

2.

Have you ever written a procedure for determining what actions to take in response to data obtained through monitoring the performance of a steam dryer during plant operations?

Other than in connection with his testimony at the VY license renewal proceeding, have you ever reviewed any programs to monitor steam dryer performance?

Have you ever developed procedures for actions to be taken in response to the values of the monitored parameters?

Other than in this proceeding, have you ever reviewed procedures governing the actions to be taken in response to the values of the monitored parameters?

Have you ever monitored the stresses in an operating steam dryer?

Familiarity with steam dryer inspections

a.

b.

c.

d.

e.

f.

B.

Have you ever written a procedure for conducting a steam dryer inspection?

Other than in connection with the testimony at the VY license renewal proceeding, have you ever reviewed a steam dryer inspection procedure?

Have you ever performed an inspection of a steam dryer?

Have you witnessed any part of a steam dryer inspection?

Have you evaluated the results of a steam dryer inspection?

Have you evaluated a steam dryer indication to determine whether it constitutes a crack, and if so, of what type?

SUCCESS OF VY DRYER MONITORING AND INSPECTION PROGRAMS Dr. Hopenfeld states in his pre-filed report on NEC Contention 3 that [t]he history of steam dryer cracking at the VY plant indicates that Entergys program to date of visual inspection and moisture monitoring have [sic] been ineffective in identifying cracking at the time it occurs, when it occurs between inspections. Assessment of Proposed Program to Manage Aging of the Vermont Yankee Steam Dryer due to Flow-Induced Vibrations (Steam Dryer 3

Report), NEC Exhibit NEC-JH_54 at 2-3. The questions that follow are intended to elucidate whether Dr. Hopenfelds allegation has a basis in fact and if so what is its significance.

1.

a.

b.

You state in your pre-filed report on NEC Contention 3 (NEC Exhibit NEC-JH_54) at 2-3 that [t]he history of steam dryer cracking at the VY plant indicates that Entergys program to date of visual inspection and moisture monitoring have [sic] been ineffective in identifying cracking at the time it occurs, when it occurs between inspections. You cite four exhibits, NEC-JH_57 through NEC-JH_60. Lets take a look at those.

NEC Exhibit NEC-JH_57 is an internal NRC e-mail dated April 16, 2004 summarizing the cracks found at the VY steam dryer.

Isnt it true that subsequent to this e-mail VY made a number of modifications to its steam dryer and instituted the steam dryer monitoring program?

Did VY have a steam dryer monitoring program in effect at the time this e-mail was written? [Dr. Hopenfeld should know that the VY dryer modifications were implemented in the Spring 2004 refueling outage, Testimony of John Hoffman and Larry D. Lukens on NEC Contention 3, Entergy Exhibit E3-01 at A16. A dryer monitoring program was instituted at approximately the same time.

See id.]

c.

d.

e.

NEC Exhibit NEC-JH_58 is a report of an NRC inspection at VY conducted by the NRC between April and June 2004. The report states: In response to Entergys extended power up-rate request and recent industry experience, the inspectors observed portions of the steam dryer visual testing (VT) type 1 and 3 examinations and reviewed the documented examination reports. The examination reports documented that cracks were identified on both the internal and external surfaces of the steam dryer. NEC Exhibit NEC-JH_58 at 4-5. Do you know whether VY had a steam dryer monitoring program in place at the time of the inspection?

NEC Exhibit NEC-JH_59 has apparently been superseded by NEC Exhibit NEC-JH_68. Both Exhibits are copies of a 2007 Entergy Condition Report CR-VY-2007-02133, issued in June 2007.

Doesnt the report conclude that no fatigue cracks were detected in the inspection conducted during the 2007 refueling outage at VY?

Isnt it true that the report references the GE evaluation of the indications found during the steam dryer inspection and concludes that none of them were fatigue cracks?

4

f.

g.

h.

i.

j.

k.

l.

2.

a.

b.

c.

Does the report conclude that the identified indications were IGSCC and required no repair?

Doesnt the report state that the same indications had been detected two years earlier in the 2005 refueling outage inspection and had not grown in the intervening two years?

Does the report indicate that any of the plant parameters tracked by the VY monitoring program were exceeded at any time?

If the indications described in the report were IGSCC, would they have resulted in any of the monitored parameters being exceeded?

NEC Exhibit NEC-JH_60 is an excerpt of the 2006 testimony by an Entergy official before the Vermont Public Service Commission, in which the official states that sometimes it very difficult to distinguish or differentiate between the type of cracking that you see with this intergranular stress corrosion cracking, IGSCC, and fatigue cracking. How does that statement support your thesis that monitoring at VY has been ineffective in detecting cracks at the time they occur, if they occur between inspections?

Can you cite an instance in which a fatigue crack occurred at VY between inspections and was not detected by VYs monitoring program?

Can you cite any instance in which steam dryer inspections during refueling outages identified a fatigue crack that had gone undetected?

You state in your report at p. 5 that Plant parameter monitoring is not effective to prevent the generation of loose parts that can damage safety-related plant components. Most parameter monitoring (moisture, steam flow, water level, dome pressure) may indicate the formation of only those steam dryer cracks that increase moisture carryover; those cracks that do not lead to significant moisture carryover may continue to grow undetected.

What cracks are those that do not lead to significant moisture carryover?

How can you have a growing crack of sufficient size that may lead to a failure of the steam dryer without its resulting in the release of moisture through the crack?

If the crack is not large enough to result in the escape of moisture through it, why would it be a concern?

5

d.

e.

f.

g.

3.

4.

a.

Isnt it true that all the reported instances of dryer failure were accompanied by large increases in moisture carryover? [See, e.g.,

discussion in Appendices A and B of GE SIL-644].

Isnt it true that the parameters that are being monitored at VY (see Hoffman/Lukens Direct Testimony at A24 and Entergy Exhibit E3-07) are those recommended by GE in SIL-644 (at p. 31)?

What operational parameters should be added to the VY monitoring program that would detect the existence of cracks that did not result in increase in moisture carryover?

You express the concern on p. 5 of your report that [m]oisture monitoring only indicates that a failure has occurred; it does not prevent the failure from occurring. How is this concern consistent with your rebuttal testimony (NEC Exhibit NEC-JH_63) where you agree that no one can predict the exact time for transition from crack initiation to crack propagation. Arent you agreeing that what is important is not to prevent cracks from forming but detecting them before they grow to a size where they can cause structural failure of the dryer?

In your Report at 5-6 you quote the GE-SIL-644 guidance document as stating that monitoring steam moisture content and other reactor parameters does not consistently predict imminent dryer failure nor will it preclude the generation of loose parts. (GE-SIL-644, NEC Exhibit NEC-JH_55 at 6). Isnt it true that the GE document goes on to state, immediately after the wording you quote: Monitoring is still useful in that it does allow identification of a degraded dryer allowing appropriate action to be taken to minimize the damage to the dryer and the potential for loose parts generation.? Do you disagree with GEs conclusion that monitoring is useful in that it allows identification of a degraded dryer allowing appropriate actions to be taken?

In your Report you indicate at 4 that GE-SIL-644 recommends visual inspections during each refueling outage, but does not require any measurements that could indicate whether existing cracks in the dryer grow in number or length.

Isnt it true that SIL-644 [NEC Exhibit NEC-JH_55, Entergy Exhibit E3-06] requires on p. 6, item A1.c that Flaws left as is should be inspected during each scheduled refueling outage until it has been demonstrated that there is no further crack growth and the flaws have stabilized?

6

b.

c.

C.

Isnt that what Entergy does as part of its inspection plan? [Refer, e.g., to NEC Exhibit NEC-JH_68, which is an evaluation during RFO 26 in 2007 of flaws identified in RFO 25 and left as is]

Isnt it true that Entergys inspections since implementation of the EPU have looked at potential crack growth and have detected no significant growth in existing cracks?

MECHANISM OF CRACK FORMATION AND GROWTH1 In his initial Declaration in support of the admission of NEC Contention 3 Dr. Hopenfeld testified that implementation of the VY power uprate was accompanied by a 20% increase in flow velocity. The increase in velocity, stated Dr, Hopenfeld, is accompanied by an increase in flow induced vibrations, FIV, which in turn may have a marked effect on the cyclic loads that act on the steam dryer. These loads may cause a break up of the dryer, creating loose parts which would be free to be transported by flow or gravity to various parts of the reactor system.

Declaration of Dr. Joram Hopenfeld, Exhibit 7 to NECs Petition for Leave to Intervene, Request for Hearing and Contentions (May 26, 2006) (First Hopenfeld Declaration), at ¶ 16. The phenomenon of concern to Dr. Hopenfeld, therefore, was the effect of flow-induced vibrations on the dryer, which may ultimately cause the dryer to fail by fatigue.

In his Report, Dr. Hopenfeld describes this failure mechanism as high cycle fatigue.

Report at 2. However, both in his Report and in his rebuttal testimony Dr. Hopenfeld seeks to postulate another failure mechanism, growth through fatigue of cracks due to IGSCC. That failure mechanism is both newly expressed by Dr. Hopenfeld and unsupported. Dr. Hopenfeld should explain the bases for this asserted expansion and whatever technical support exists for it.

1 Entergy has a filed a motion in limine to exclude, inter alia, Dr. Hopenfelds new claim that IGSCC provides a mechanism for fatigue cracks to develop. If that motion is granted, questions 1 through 5 in this section will not be necessary.

7

1.

2.

3.

4.

5.

6.

7.

8.

9.

Isnt it true that, according to GE-SIL-644 at 1, 2, and 3 and Appendices A and B all steam dryer failures have been attributed to higher fluctuating pressure loads at extended power uprate operation?

In your rebuttal testimony at A31 you state that In stating that the IGSCC cracks are not active, Mr. Lukens essentially dismissed the possibility of continued growth of cracks by fatigue. He apparently did not recognize that IGSCC can provide sites for corrosion attack which in turn would accelerate crack growth under cyclic loading. Can you point to any reported incident in which IGSCC led to crack growth through fatigue?

You refer in your rebuttal testimony at A29 to a statement attributed to GE that said that, for steam dryer unit end plates at VY exhibiting IGSCC indications, continued growth by fatigue cannot be ruled out and cite Exhibit NEC-JH_68 as the source of the statement. Isnt it true that GE never made such a statement?

Isnt it true that the statement appears in a draft of a VY (not GE) engineering report, and was removed in the final version of the report?

Isnt it true that cracks due to IGSCC grow very slowly, if at all? [In Entergy Exhibit E3-16 GE concludes that These indications are most likely IGSCC and therefore they will propagate very slowly if at all. These indications have little or no structural impact on the steam dryer assembly and do not pose a risk of creating lost parts during the next operating cycle.]

Your report indicates at p. 2 that in cases where there were steam dryer failures small pressure fluctuations on the dryer can generate altering

[sic] stresses that exceed the endurance limit at some dryer locations.

Where in GE-SIL-644, which you cite as the source for this statement, is the information found?

Can you refer to any technical reference that supports your statement that even small pressure fluctuations on the dryer can cause stresses that exceed the dryers endurance limit?

What is the technical basis for your assertion that even small pressure fluctuations on the dryer can cause stresses that exceed the dryers endurance limit?

Your report at p. 5 indicates that [s]mall changes in local velocity may cause pressure frequencies of local pressure fluctuations to approach the natural frequency of the dryer. You make the same assertion in A28 and A33 of your rebuttal testimony. What is your support for these statements? What is their technical basis?

8

10.

a.

b.

c.

d.

D.

Your rebuttal testimony at A35 faults Entergy for not providing a quantitative estimate of the probability of crack detection, POD.

Is there any regulatory requirement to provide this information?

Are there any industry standards for estimating POD?

How would the POD be computed?

How would the POD results be used?

MEASUREMENT OF STRESSES ON DRYER

1.

2.

3.

4.

5.

6.

7.

a.

b.

c.

d.

e.

You state in your report and your testimony that there is a need to estimate the stresses on the dryer as an ongoing proposition. You acknowledge in A28 of your rebuttal testimony that there is no regulatory requirement to do so. Is there any practice in the industry to estimate dryer stresses?

Does GE recommend that dryer stresses be estimated?

Is there any guidance in the applicable technical literature recommending that steam dryer stresses be computed as an ongoing matter?

Can you cite any component in a nuclear power plant for which stresses are monitored on an ongoing basis?

What is the technical basis for requiring monitoring stresses on the dryer when this is not done for any safety-related components, including safety-related piping?

Are you aware of any NRC requirements or industry guidance calling for the continuous monitoring of stresses on any nuclear power plant component?

How would you go about actually measuring stresses on the dryer on a continuing basis?

What equipment would you use?

How would it be installed?

How would it be qualified for use in a reactor environment?

How would the stresses be monitored?

How would the accuracy of the measurements be checked?

9

f.

g.

h.

A.

What safety issues would be raised by installing instrumentation on or near the reactor vessel?

How would the possibility of failure of the instrumentation and generation of loose parts be avoided?

What occupational dose exposures would be raised by the need to periodically calibrate, repair, or replace the instrumentation in a high radiation reactor environment?

II.

QUESTIONS TO NRC STAFF WITNESSES K.R. HSU, JONATHAN G.

ROWLEY, AND THOMAS SCARBOROUGH CONCERNING NEC CONTENTION 3 STATUS OF VY STEAM DRYER The NRC Staff conducts periodic inspections of VY operations, including the status of the steam dryer. Those inspections provide confirmation of the absence of fatigue cracks on the dryer after implementation of the EPU.

1.

2.

3.

In A17 of your prefiled direct testimony you indicate that the staff reviewed the plant data and analyses to confirm that the pressure loads during EPU operation did not result in stress on the steam dryer that exceeded the ASME fatigue stress limits. Further, the staff reviewed the results of the Vermont Yankee steam dryer inspection in spring 2007 to verify that no significant fatigue cracking occurred during EPU operation. Were you able to establish through these reviews that no fatigue cracks exist at VY?

Is it your conclusion from your inspections and reviews that the programs that Entergy will implement at VY during the period of extended operations after license renewal will be sufficient to assure that the steam dryer supports safe plant operations during that period?

Are you aware of any nuclear power plants where there is monitoring of actual stress loads on the steam dryer during plant operations?

10

Respectfully Submitted,

/Original Signed by Matias F. Travieso-Diaz/

David R. Lewis Matias F. Travieso-Diaz Blake J. Nelson PILLSBURY WINTHROP SHAW PITTMAN LLP 2300 N Street, NW Washington, DC 20037-1122 Tel. (202) 663-8000 Counsel for Entergy Dated: June 23, 2008 11

June 23, 2008 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION Before the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board In the Matter of

)

)

Entergy Nuclear Vermont Yankee, LLC

)

Docket No. 50-271-LR and Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc.

)

ASLBP No. 06-849-03-LR

)

(Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Station)

)

ENTERGYS PROPOSED BOARD EXAMINATION QUESTIONS TO DIRECT AND REBUTTAL NEC WITNESSES ON NEC CONTENTION 4 Pursuant to 10 C.F.R. § 2.1207(a)(3)(i) and (ii), paragraph 10.F of the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board (Board)s Initial Scheduling Order dated November 17, 2006, and the Boards December 13, 2007 Order (Addressing Scheduling Issues for Evidentiary Hearing),

Entergy Nuclear Vermont Yankee, LLC and Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc. (collectively Entergy) submit hereby their proposed questions for the Board to consider propounding to the New England Coalition (NEC) witnesses1 on NEC Contention 4 in this proceeding.

As directed by the Board in the Initial Scheduling Order, the sets of questions contained herein are prefaced by a brief description of the issues that Entergy contends need further examination, the objective of the examination, and the proposed line of questioning (including specific questions) that may logically lead to achieving the objective.

1 The entirety of NEC witnesses Dr. Joram Hopenfelds and Dr. Rudolf Hauslers testimony on NEC Contention 4 is subject to exclusion under a Staffs motion in limine, and portions of Dr. Hopenfelds direct and rebuttal testimony on NEC Contention 4 are subject to exclusion through motions in limine by both Entergy and the Staff.

Likewise, both the direct and rebuttal testimony of Mr. Ulrich Witte on Contention NEC 4 are subject to exclusion through motions by Entergy and the Staff. The questions presented herein assume all motions are denied; to the extent, however, that portions of the motions are granted, the corresponding suggested examination questions become moot.

Entergy is filing separately sets of proposed questions on NEC Contentions 2A/2B and NEC Contention 3.

I.

QUESTIONS FOR NEC WITNESSES DR. JORAM HOPENFELD AND DR.

RUDOLPH HAUSLER Dr. Hopenfeld, the first NEC witness on NEC Contention 4 (Flow-Accelerated Corrosion (FAC)), addresses the contention in NEC Exhibit NEC-JH_01 (at 10-14), in an April 24, 2008 report, Review of License Renewal Application for Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Station: Program for Management of Flow-Accelerated Corrosion, NEC Exhibit NEC-JH_36, and in his rebuttal testimony, NEC Exhibit NEC-JH_63. Dr. Hausler is the second NEC witness regarding NEC Contention 4.2 Dr. Hausler addresses NEC-4 in his pre-filed direct testimony (NEC Exhibit NEC-RH_01), in an April 25, 2008 report Discussion of the Empirical Modeling of Flow-Induced Localized Corrosion of Steel under High Shear Stress, NEC Exhibit NEC-RH_03, in his rebuttal testimony, NEC Exhibit NEC-RH_04, and in his Report Flow Assisted Corrosion (FAC) and Flow Induced Localized Corrosion: Comparison and Discussion, NEC Exhibit NEC-RH_05 (Hausler Rebuttal Report). Because Dr. Hausler offers no independent opinions, but rather provides theoretical discussions in his reports and then agrees with the opinions in Dr. Hopenfelds direct and rebuttal testimony, the following questions are appropriately applicable to both Dr. Hopenfeld and Dr. Hausler, unless otherwise noted.

A.

DR. HOPENFELD AND DR. HAUSLER HAVE NO OR LIMITED EXPERIENCE WITH FLOW-ACCELERATED CORROSION MONITORING AND INSPECTION OF SUSCEPTIBLE PIPING IN BOILING WATER REACTORS Dr. Hopenfelds curriculum vitae (NEC Exhibit NEC-JH_02) does not state that he has any professional experience or training on matters relating to the modeling related to a FAC 2 Questions for the third NEC witness on NEC Contention 4, Mr. Ulrich Witte, are provided in Section II.

2

management program. Likewise, Dr. Hauslers curriculum vitae (NEC Exhibit NEC-RH_02) does not state that Dr. Hausler has any professional experience or training on matters relating to modeling related to a FAC management program or matters having to do with FAC itself.

Dr. Hopenfelds and Dr. Hauslers familiarity with issues related to the Vermont Yankee (VY) FAC program, and particularly the use of CHECWORKS, during the period of extended plant operations after license renewal is an area that warrants inquiry at the hearing, so the weight of their testimony and opinions can be assessed. The following lines of inquiry would assist the Board in determining what weight should be given to Dr. Hopenfelds and Dr.

Hauslers testimony regarding NEC Contention 4.

1.

Familiarity with FAC management programs

a.

b.

c.

d.

2.

Have Dr. Hopenfeld or Dr. Hausler ever written a procedure for selecting components for inspection as part of a FAC program?

Have Dr. Hopenfeld or Dr. Hausler ever written a procedure for inspecting components for FAC?

Have Dr. Hopenfeld or Dr. Hausler ever written a procedure for evaluating the data obtained through inspection of components as part of a FAC program?

Have Dr. Hopenfeld or Dr. Hausler ever used a computer program as part of a FAC program to select components for inspection?

Familiarity with CHECWORKS In his First Declaration (Declaration of Dr. Joram Hopenfeld, Exhibit 7 to NECs Petition for Leave to Intervene, Request for Hearing and Contentions) (May 26, 2006), Dr.

Hopenfeld states (at ¶ 24) that CHECWORKS accurately predicts pipe wall thinning, as long as provided with adequate historical data: The [CHECWORKS computer] code can be used to predict pipe wall thinning as long as plant parameters (velocity, coolant chemistry, etc.) do not 3

change drastically and the data has been collected for a long period of time.3 However, Dr.

Hopenfeld in his recent rebuttal testimony (Exhibit NEC-JW_63 at 30) attacks the reliability of CHECWORKS. Dr. Hopenfelds understanding of CHECWORKS is thus germane to whether his lately-found concerns regarding the accuracy of CHECWORKS should be accorded any weight and whether such assertions have any significance.

a.

b.

B.

Neither Dr. Hopenfeld nor Dr. Hausler ever received any formal training in the use of CHECWORKS, is that correct?

Nor have either of you done any analyses using CHECWORKS, correct?

NEC WITNESSES SEEK TO EXPAND THE ACCEPTED INDUSTRY AND NRC DEFINITIONS OF FAC TO INCLUDE PROCESSES OTHER THAN FAC Dr. Hopenfeld states for the first time in his rebuttal testimony (NEC-JH_63 at 26, 31-32) that the definition of FAC used in NRC guidance, in EPRI Report NSAC-202L, and in Dr.

Horowitzs testimony is narrow and that there is no theoretical justification for such a definition (id. at 31). This re-definition of FAC results, among other things, in expanding the number of examples of reported piping failures to be classified as FAC-related. The following lines of inquiry would assist the Board in determining whether Dr. Hopenfelds re-definition of FAC should be accepted.

1.

Definition of FAC

a.

Is it not correct that NUREG/CR-6936, cited by Dr. Hopenfeld in his rebuttal testimony, defines FAC as follows:

5.3.1 Flow-Accelerated Corrosion(b) 3 Dr. Hopenfeld reiterated this position in the Fifth Declaration of Dr. Joram Hopenfeld, dated July 16, 2007, filed as Exhibit 1 to NECs Opposition to Entergys Motion for Summary Disposition of NECs Contention 4 (Flow Accelerated Corrosion) (Fifth Hopenfeld Declaration): I continue to maintain that CHECWORKS is not a mechanistic model, and therefore it requires considerable benchmarking to be used as a reliable predictive tool.

Fifth Hopenfeld Declaration at ¶ 10.

4

Flow-accelerated corrosion (FAC) is defined as a chemical process whereby the normally protective oxide layer on carbon or low-alloy steel dissolves into a stream of flowing water or water-steam mixture. FAC corrosion rate controlling conditions are primarily electrochemical. FAC occurs in high-energy piping systems and can occur in single-and two-phase flow regions. The cause of FAC is a specific set of water chemistry conditions (for example, pH, level of dissolved oxygen), and absent of any mechanical contribution to the dissolution of the normally protective iron oxide (magnetite) layer on the inside pipe wall (as in pipe degradation by erosion-corrosion). The cause and effect of FAC is well understood, and the industry has implemented FAC inspection programs, as well as piping replacements using FAC resistant materials such as stainless steel, carbon steel clad on the inside diameter with stainless steel, or chrome-molybdenum alloy steel.

b In the United States, flow-accelerated corrosion (FAC) is commonly but incorrectly known as erosion-corrosion. Unlike FAC, the accelerated corrosion rates in the erosion-corrosion process are dominated by mechanical factors such as the impact of water droplets on the surface in two-phase flow steam systems, cavitation effects, or entrained particles.

(Probabilities of Failure and Uncertainty Estimate Information for Passive Components - A Literature Review, NUREG/CR-6936 at 5.24 - 5.25.)?

b.

c.

d.

e.

Dr. Hopenfeld, on page 32 of your rebuttal testimony (at A45), you state that: Other causes of wall thinning (droplet impingement, cavitation, erosion, pitting) should not be excluded from inspection programs because CHECWORKS predictions of wall thinning do not account for such mechanisms. Is it not correct that those mechanisms are expressly excluded from the definition of FAC in NUREG/CR 6936?

Dr. Hausler, starting at page 6 of the Hausler Rebuttal Report you state that phenomena, in addition to FAC, may occur that are described as erosion corrosion, impingement corrosion, and finally cavitation is that correct?

And those phenomena are excluded from the definition of FAC in NUREG/CR-6936, correct?

Is it not correct that EPRI Report NSAC-202L-R2 includes EPRIs definition of FAC, which is wall thinning (metal loss) of steel piping exposed to flowing water or wet steam. (EPRI Report NSAC-202L-R2, Entergy Exhibit E4-33, at v)?

5

f.

g.

h.

i.

j.

C.

Is it not correct that NSAC-202L-R2 makes it clear that FAC is sometimes, but incorrectly, called erosion-corrosion. Erosion, it should be noted, is not part of the degradation mechanism. (Id. at 1, n.1)?

Is it not correct that the definitions of FAC in NSAC-202L-R2 and NUREG/CR-6936 are consistent with one another?

Is it not correct that impingement or droplet impingement is mechanical damage to a surface caused by the impact of high water droplets, not corrosion, as stated in NUREG/CR-6936?

Is it not correct that cavitation or cavitation erosion is mechanical damage to a surface caused by the collapse of bubbles, not corrosion, as indicated in NUREG/CR-6936?

Is it not correct that entrained particles may cause damage to a surface in a process of mechanical damage known as solid particle erosion, which is not corrosion, as indicated in NUREG/CR-6936?

NEC WITNESSES NEW ASSERTIONS REGARDING THE USE OF NSAC-202L AS GUIDELINES FOR A FAC MANAGEMENT PROGRAM AND THE ACCURACY OF CHECWORKS DEMONSTRATE A LACK OF KNOWLEDGE OR MISUNDERSTANDING REGARDING THE USE OF BOTH AT VY Dr. Hopenfeld states in his pre-filed report on NEC Contention 4 that NEC is concerned with the FAC program because its validity is based in large part on the use of CHECWORKS, which NEC considers unreliable. Exhibit NEC-JH_63 at 32. Dr. Hopenfeld further asserts that the entire VY FAC Program itself is insufficient because... it is based on EPRI guidelines NSAC-202 L, which largely rely on an unproven computer code called CHECWORKS to predict corrosion rates and therefore the scope of the inspection. Exhibit NEC-JW_63 at 25. Dr.

Hopenfelds understanding of NSAC-202L and the role of CHECWORKS in those guidelines are important to determine the weight to give his testimony. The questions that follow are intended to probe into Dr. Hopenfelds new challenges to NSAC-202L and the reliability of CHECWORKS, and their significance to the VY FAC Program.

6

1.

Use of NSAC-202L and CHECWORKS at VY

a.

b.

2.

Is it not correct that Dr. Hopenfeld stated (Exhibit NEC-JW_63 at

25) that the VY FAC Program itself is insufficient because... it is based on EPRI guidelines NSAC-202 L, which largely rely on an unproven computer code called CHECWORKS to predict corrosion rates and therefore the scope of the inspection.?

Isnt it correct that the VY FAC Program document EN-DC-315 (Exhibit E4-06, Sec. [6](e)) provides that component selection is based on ten separate criteria, only one of which is Components ranked high for susceptibility from current CHECWORKS evaluation?

Grid Size Selection

a.

b.

c.

d.

e.

3.

a.

Dr. Hopenfeld, you stated in your Report (NEC-JH_36 at 7) that you were concerned about the grid size selection as being one of the most critical inspection tasks. If the selected grid size is too large, local corrosion in a form of small pockets would escape detection. Such pockets have escaped detection in a plant that used 4x4 inch inspection grid on a 30-inch size component.?

Is it not correct that Section 4.5.1 of NSAC-202L calls for the inspection of components and a portion of the attached piping using a grid?

Have you reviewed ENN-EP-S-005, Flow Accelerated Corrosion Component Scanning and Gridding Standard, Exhibit E4-25?

Isnt it true that Exhibit E4-25 provides (at Sec. 5.4.3.1) that a 100% scan of the grid area or square shall be performed for the lowest wall thickness reading contained within the area?

Isnt it true that if the entire surface area of a component and portions of the attached piping are scanned and the thinnest part of any part of that component and attached piping is identified by the scan that there are no small pockets that will escape detection?

Dr. Hopenfeld, you state in your pre-filed report on NEC Contention 4 (Exhibit NEC-JW_63) at 27 that Dr. Horowitz... fails, however, to credibly explain away CHECWORKS failure to predict the hundreds of unanticipated FAC-related failures that occurred in PWRs and BWRs.

Is it not correct that if we use the definition of FAC in NUREG/CR-6936 or NSAC-202L and limited to reactors in the United States that many of your hundreds of FAC-related failures would be just a handful, not hundreds?

7

b.

4.

5.

Is it not correct that in your statement regarding hundreds of failures that you do not know whether all of those units were using NSAC-202L or CHECWORKS?

Dr. Hopenfeld, on page 9 of your Report (NEC-JH_36 at 9) you state that your review of data presented in NUREG/CR-6936 leads you to calculate that [o]n a yearly basis, there has been the equivalent of a a reduction of 2 failures per year during the 1988-2005 period compared to the previous period... Isnt it true that those failure rates include foreign units [see NRC Staff Rebuttal Testimony of Kaihwa R. Hsu Concerning NEC Contention 4 at 4-5 (A7)]? And that you do not know for each reported failure whether the plant was following NSAC-202L or using CHECWORKS?

Dr. Hopenfeld cites a number of examples of what he claims are FAC-related failures that call into question the use of CHECWORKS. These examples, however, do not support Dr.

Hopenfelds statements. Questions regarding Dr. Hopenfelds examples will clarify whether CHECWORKS or the guidelines in NSAC-202L were involved in the failures.

Questions Regarding December 1986 Incident at Surry Unit 2

a.

b.

c.

d.

e.

Dr. Hopenfeld, you state (NEC-JH_36 at 9) that EPRI guidelines regarding FAC were available to the industry about two years before the Surry accident occurred and you repeat this in your rebuttal testimony (NEC-JH_63 at 34) (A49). Is it correct that the EPRI guidelines to which you refer is EPRI Report NP-3944 and that NSAC-202L had not yet been written in December 1986?

Is your testimony that EPRI Report NP-3944 had anything to do with the December 1986 incident at Surry Unit 2?

Is it not correct the pipe rupture at Surry Unit 2 in December 1986 was in the condensate pipe?

Is it not correct that EPRI Report NP-3944 addresses only two-phase (i.e., steam-water) FAC and is not applicable to single-phase (i.e., water) FAC, to which a condensate pipe is subject?

Isnt it true that neither CHECWORKS nor its predecessor codes were written at the time of the condensate pipe rupture at Surry Unit 2 in December 1986?

8

6.

Questions concerning Millstone Unit 3, December 1990

a.

b.

c.

d.

7.

Dr. Hopenfeld, the incident you refer to as a failure of the EPRI Guidelines and the CCCs Codes (NEC-JH_36 at 9-10) includes

[t]wo six inch pipes [that] were damaged as a result of wall thinning at Millstone 3. These pipes were in the moisture drain system, also singe-phase, correct?

Meaning that EPRI Report NP-3944 was not applicable to those pipes, correct?

And isnt it also correct that NSAC-202L was not written until after December 1990?

Isnt it also true that CHECWORKS was not used to analyze the two pipes that were damaged at Millstone 3?

Questions regarding May 1992 Susquehanna Incident

a.

b.

c.

d.

8.

Dr. Hopenfeld, you also refer to the incident at Susquehanna in May 1992, where the licensee found what you describe as

[u]nexpected high erosion rates in the feedwater piping (NEC-JH_36 at 10). And the feedwater piping carries water, it is a single-phase pipe, correct?

EPRI Report NP-3944 was not applicable to those pipes, correct?

NSAC-202L was written after May 1992, correct?

As far as you are aware, CHECWORKS, or its predecessors, were not used at Susquehanna prior to May 1992, were they?

Questions regarding August 2004 Mihama Unit 3 Failure Dr. Hopenfeld uses the August 9, 2004, incident at the Mihama plant in Japan as an example of a failure of the EPRI Guidelines and CCC Codes. NEC-JH_36 at 10.

a.

b.

With respect to your example of the August 2004 incident at the Mihama plant in Japan, you state (NEC-JH_36 at 10) that MIHAMA did not use EPRI guidelines or CHECWORKS, is that correct?

Is it not correct that, as stated in the final report on the Mihama incident (Exhibit E4-24, Sec. 3.7.3) that the pipe wall thinning that occurred was in single-phase water flow piping and that EPRI Report NP-3944, which deals with two-phase (i.e., steam-water)

FAC is not applicable to the August 2004 Mihama incident?

9

c.

d.

A.

And you acknowledge (NEC-JH_36 at 10) that neither NSAC-202L nor CHECWORKS were used by the operator of Mihama prior to the failure at Mihama Unit 3 in August 2004, isnt that right?

Is it not correct that the Japanese approach used by FAC programs at the time of the Mihama accident, described in Exhibit E4-24 at Section 4, differed from the NSAC-202L approach (E4-33 at Section 4) in several respects, including: (1) how susceptibility was determined; (2) how inspection locations were selected and (3) the methodology used for predicting FAC wear?

II.

QUESTIONS FOR MR. ULRICH WITTE Mr. Witte addresses NEC Contention 4 in his pre-filed direct testimony (NEC Exhibit NEC-UW_01), in an April 25, 2008 report Evaluation of Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Station License Extension: Proposed Aging Management Program for Flow Accelerated Corrosion, NEC Exhibit NEC-UW_03, and in his late-filed rebuttal testimony, Exhibit 3 to NECs June 6, 2008 Motion to Late-File Rebuttal Testimony of Ulrich Witte (Witte Rebuttal Testimony).4 MR. ULRICH HAS NO EXPERIENCE, TRAINING, OR EDUCATION REGARDING FLOW-ACCELERATED CORROSION MONITORING AND INSPECTION OF SUSCEPTIBLE PIPING IN BOILING WATER REACTORS Mr. Wittes curriculum vitae (NEC Exhibit NEC-UW_02) does not state that he has any professional experience or training on matters relating to a FAC management program, modeling of FAC, or use of engineering judgment related to a FAC management program. Mr. Witte has not provided any explanation regarding how his experience, which does not touch upon any aspect of the development or implementation of a FAC management program, relates to the VY FAC Program. Mr. Witte further admits that he has no experience or training relevant to FAC in his late-filed rebuttal testimony in his answer to question 8 where the basis for his testimony 4 As noted earlier, the entirety of Mr. Wittes direct and rebuttal testimony on NEC Contention 4 is subject to be stricken by motions in limine by Entergy and the NRC Staff.

10

comes down to Mr. Wittes claim that [a]s a seasoned engineer, manager, and problem solver, my expertise and track record demonstrate successfully implemented solutions to complex organizational, technical, or regulatory challenges in nuclear plant operations. Nowhere in that statement, or any other statement of his, is there a reference to actual experience, training or education related to any aspect of FAC management.

Mr. Wittes lack of experience and familiarity with the VY FAC program during the period of extended plant operations after license renewal warrants inquiry at the hearing, so the weight of his testimony and opinions can be assessed. The following are lines of inquiry that would assist the Board in determining what weight should be given to Mr. Wittes testimony regarding NEC Contention 4.

1.

Familiarity with and Training Regarding FAC management programs.

a.

b.

c.

d.

2.

a.

b.

Isnt it true that you have not written a procedure for selecting components for inspection as part of a FAC program?

Isnt it true that you have not written a procedure for inspecting components for FAC?

Isnt it true that you have not written a procedure for evaluating the data obtained through inspection of components as part of a FAC program?

Isnt it true that you have not used a computer program such as CHECWORKS as part of a FAC program to select components for inspection?

In his late-filed rebuttal testimony, Mr. Witte claims for the first time in his answer to Q/A No. 8 an ability to independently assess the fidelity of a comprehensive FAC program, that includes CHECWORKS. Mr.

Witte, however, appears to have no familiarity with CHECWORKS.

Mr. Witte, in your rebuttal testimony (at 8-10) (A8), you state how you think your training and experience relate to the VY FAC program, is that correct?

Mr. Witte, is it correct that you have no experience using CHECWORKS?

11

c.

d.

3.

Mr. Witte isnt it true that in your rebuttal testimony (at 10 (While I do not purport to be intimately familiar with the empirically based CHECWORKS algorithm.)) (A8) you dont claim to have an understanding of how CHECWORKS models FAC?

And you do not know what, if any, differences there are between various versions of CHECWORKS - 1.0D, 1.0F, and 1.0G - with respect to water chemistry and wear rate predictions for BWRs?

CHECWORKS Results Mr. Witte asserts that CHECWORKS results that present a negative time to Tmin demonstrate that: (1) the component should be considered unsafe with potential rupture at anytime; (NEC-UW_03 at 16); (2) Negative cycles of operations, mean[s] wall thinning beyond acceptable code limits, were also predicted; (id. at 16-17); (3) the results predict[ed]

potential code violation or failure could have occurred 3 000+ hours previously to October 23, 2006; (id. at 17); and (4) condition reports should have been written relevant to this significant indication by CHECWORKS predicting substantial wall thinning beyond code limits to occur with negative margin of this magnitude (id.). These assertions demonstrate a fundamental misunderstanding of the results produced by CHECWORKS that the following questions explore:

a.

b.

Mr. Witte can you explain the difference between the terms Average Wear Rate and Predicted Wear Rate as shown in CHECWORKS output in Exhibits E4-28, E4-29, E4-30)?

In your direct testimony (NEC-UW_03 at 16-17) you refer to your concerns regarding the CHECWORKS results reported in NEC-JH_42 at NEC 17893 that indicate that there are components with negative time to Tmin, you interpret these results as indicating a problem with the VY FAC program. Is it not correct that the same document you cite (id.) states with the first component in the Condensate System that The inspections on this system in 2001, 2004, and 2005 indicate minimal wear?

c.

Likewise, as to the three components in the extraction steam system (id.) that the document indicates that The piping is

[chromium molybdenum], which is FAC-resistant material?

12

4.

a.

b.

B.

Conservatism of CHECWORKS predictions Isnt it true that in your testimony with respect to the VY FAC program that you do not identify a single instance where CHECWORKS underestimated the actual rate of FAC wear on a component?

Are you aware of any such instance?

MR. ULRICH ASSERTIONS REGARDING THE COMPLIANCE OF THE VY FAC PROGRAM WITH NSAC-202L AS GUIDELINES FOR A FAC MANAGEMENT PROGRAM DEMONSTRATE A LACK OF KNOWLEDGE OR MISUNDERSTANDING OF THE VY FAC PROGRAM, NSAC-202L, OR BOTH Mr. Witte asserts that the current VY FAC program does not comply with NSAC-202L.

In his discussion in his rebuttal testimony (at 8-10) (A8) with respect to how Mr. Witte believes his experience can be related to a FAC program, Mr. Witte does not provide any indication he has any experience with or understanding of NSAC-202L. The questions that follow are intended to determine whether Mr. Wittes allegations regarding compliance with NSAC-202L and the reliability of CHECWORKS have a basis in fact and, if so, whether the allegations have any significance.

1.

Familiarity with NSAC-202L

a.

b.

c.

Mr. Witte in your testimony you do not claim that you have ever administered a FAC program conducted under NSAC-202L, is that correct?

Is it not correct that NSAC-202L recommends (Exhibit E4-07, Sec.

4.3) performing FAC analysis be performed for each system and line with known operating conditions using a predictive methodology such as CHECWORKS?

Is it correct NSAC-202L (Exhibit E4-07, Sec. 4.3) states that [t]he purpose of a quantitative analysis is to predict the FAC wear rate and to determine the remaining service life for each piping component, including uninspected components and thats what EN-DC-315 (Exhibit E4-06) does?

13

2.

Inspections Mr. Witte asserts in his Report (NEC-UW_03 at 6-7) that... under the 2005 scoping document, the rationale for selection of grid points relied on (1) length of time since the lapsed inspections had ceased to examine a particular inspection point, (2) CHECWORKS User Groups, (CHUG) suspects found at other plants, (3) exclusion of components that were intended to be replaced based upon another regime or degraded condition. Mr. Witte asserts that (id. at 7)

[h]ad data from previous FAC inspections routinely been entered into CHECWORKS, the selection of grid points and ranking would have provided a better historical perspective on where to inspect in successive outages.

a.

b.

Mr. Witte, you state in your report (NEC-UW_03 at 6-7) that grid points were selected for inspection on three criteria: (1) length of time since the lapsed inspections had ceased to examine a particular inspection point, (2) CHECWORKS User Groups, (CHUG) suspects found at other plants, (3) exclusion of components that were intended to be replaced based upon another regime or degraded condition. Doesnt EN-DC-315 (Exhibit E4-06, Sec. [6](e)) provide that component selection is based on ten separate criteria and that those include:

(1) Components selected from measured or apparent wear found in previous inspection results; (2) Components ranked high for susceptibility from current CHECWORKS evaluation; (3) Components identified by industry events/experience via the Nuclear Network or through the EPRI CHUG; (5) Components subjected to off normal flow conditions. ; and (6) Piping identified from Condition Reports/ Corrective action, Work Orders?

In your direct testimony (NEC-UW_03 at 7), you state that [h]ad data from previous FAC inspections routinely been entered into CHECWORKS, the selection of grid points and ranking would 14

have provided a better historical perspective on where to inspect in successive outages. Is it correct that NSAC-202L (Exhibit E4-07, Sec. 4.3) states that [t]he purpose of a quantitative analysis is to predict the FAC wear rate and to determine the remaining service life for each piping component, including uninspected components?

c.

d.

e.

f.

3.

Have you reviewed ENN-EP-S-005, Flow Accelerated Corrosion Component Scanning and Gridding Standard, Exhibit E4-25?

Isnt it true that Exhibit E4-25 provides (at Sec. 5.4.3.1) that a 100% scan of the grid area or square shall be performed for the lowest wall thickness reading contained within the area?

Isnt it true that if the entire surface area of a component and portions of the attached piping is scanned to determine the thinnest part of each grid area or square that the thinnest part of that component and attached piping will be identified by the scan?

Doesnt such a selection procedure eliminate concerns about the selected size of the grid?

Evaluation of VY FAC Program Mr. Witte asserts with respect to the VY FAC program (NEC-UW_03 at 2) that the oversights are substantial in program scope, application of modeling software, and finally necessary revisions to the program not implemented as was promised to support the power uprate. Mr. Wittes understanding of the VY FAC program and the documents he uses as support of these allegations is central to the weight to be given to Mr. Wittes testimony. The following line of questions explores Mr. Wittes understanding of those documents.

a.

(1)

QA-8-2004-VY-1 Mr. Witte, you cite NEC-UW_09 as the basis for Entergy being aware of the problematic state of the program (NEC-UW_03 at 15), but that document is a quality assurance audit, No. QA-8-2004-VY-1 (Exhibit E4-26),

Isnt it true that at page 2 of that document (NEC-UW_09 at 2), it states that [n]one of the findings or areas for improvement, individually or in the aggregate, were indicative of significant programmatic weaknesses which 15

would impact the overall effectiveness of the Engineering Programs assessed.?

b.

(1)

c.

(1)

FAC Program Health Report, Cornerstone Rollup Mr. Witte, you state (NEC-UW_03 at 19) that The 2006 cornerstone report shows a number of indicators as yellow, with lists of open CR corrective actions, and a new CR written in August 30, 2006. Isnt it true that the FAC Program Health Report, Cornerstone Rollup (Exhibit NEC-UW_07 at 1) shows the overall VY FAC Program status as Green?

Small Bore Piping Mr. Witte, you state (NEC-UW_03 at 20) that Ranking of small bore piping was not done. With no ranking, the basis for selection of high susceptible points for small bore piping is not evident. Isnt it true that Exhibits E4-41 and E4-42 demonstrate that the initial scoping and inspection selection of small bore piping was performed at VY in 1993 and 1995?

Respectfully Submitted,

/Original Signed by Matias F. Travieso-Diaz/

David R. Lewis Matias F. Travieso-Diaz Blake J. Nelson PILLSBURY WINTHROP SHAW PITTMAN LLP 2300 N Street, NW Washington, DC 20037-1122 Tel. (202) 663-8000 Counsel for Entergy Dated: June 23, 2008 16

UNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20555-0001 OFFICE OF THE GENERAL COUNSEL June 20,2008 Administrative Judge Alex S. Karlin, Chairman Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Mail Stop T-3 F23 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, DC 20555-0001 Administrative Judge Richard E. Wardwell Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Mail Stop T-3 F23 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, DC 20555-0001 Administrative Judge William H. Reed Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Mail Stop T-3 F23 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, DC 20555-0001 In the Matter of ENTERGY NUCLEAR VERMONT YANKEE, LLC AND ENTERGY NUCLEAR OPERATIONS, INC.

(Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Station)

Docket No. 50-271 -LR; ASLBP No. 06-849-03-LR

Dear Administrative Judges:

In accordance with the Initial Scheduling Order (Nov. 17, 2006) (unpublished), please find enclosed the "NRC Staff Proposed Questions Regarding Direct and Rebuttal Testimony" (June 20, 2008).

Pursuant to 10 C.F.R. 9 2.1207(a)(3)(i), the enclosed questions are being submitted only to the Board at this time. The Staff understands that, consistent with 9 2.1207(a)(3), the questions will be confidential until propounded by the board or until issuance of an initial

Judge Alex S. Karlin Judge William H. Reed Judge Richard E. Wardwell June 20,2008 decision, at which time they will be forwarded to the Secretary of the commission for inclusion in the official record of this proceeding. Xpw san L. Uttal Counsel for NRC Staff

Enclosure:

NRC Staff Proposed Questions Regarding Direct and Rebuttal Testimony cc W/ encl.:

Marcia Carpentier Lauren Bregman cc W/O encl.:

Ronald A. Shems, Esq.

Diane Curran David R. Lewis, Esq.

Elina Tepinsky, Esq.

Blake J. Nelson, Esq.

Off. of the Secretary Sarah Hoffmann, Esq.

Matias F. Travieso-Diaz, Esq. Karen Tyler, Esq.

Peter C. L. Roth, Esq.

Anthony Z. Roisman, Esq.

Matthew Brock, Esq.

Office of Appellate Adjudication

June 20,2008 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD In the Matter of 1 i ENTERGY NUCLEAR VERMONT YANKEE, LLC )

Docket No. 50-271 -LR AND ENTERGY NUCLEAR OPERATIONS, INC. )

)

ASLBP NO. 06-849-03-LR (Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Station)

)

NRC STAFF PROPOSED QUESTIONS REGARDING DIRECT AND REBUTTAL TESTIMONY Pursuant to 10 C.F.R. 5 2.1207(a)(3) and the Atomic and Safety Licensing Board's

("Board") Initial Scheduling Order (Nov. 17, 2006) (unpublished), the staff of the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission ("Staff') hereby submits proposed questions for the Board to pose to the witnesses.

I.

Questions for Dr. Joram Hopenfeld

a. Questions for Dr. Hopenfeld Regardina NEC Contentions 2A and 2B

i. Questions reaardinq Dr. Hopenfeld's expertise on metal fatigue.

NEC relies upon the testimony of Dr. Hopenfeld to support its contention that Entergy has failed to demonstrate that key reactor components will not fail due to metal fatigue during the period of extended operation. Experts, however, must be qualified by knowledge, training, education, or experience. Duke Cogema Stone & Webster (Savannah River Mixed Oxide Fuel Fabrication Facility), LBP-05-04, 61 NRC 71, 80 (2005). Both the Staff and Entergy have questioned Dr. Hopenfeld's expertise on the topic of metal fatigue. See NRC Staff's Motion in Limine to Strike Testimony and Exhibits Filed by New England Coalition, Inc. ("Staff Motion in Limine") (June 12, 2008) at 12; Entergy's Initial Statement of Position on New England Coalition Contentions (May 13, 2008) at 34,72. Therefore, the following questions are intended to explore Dr. Hopenfeld's expertise.

1.

Dr. Hopenfeld, in your rebuttal testimony (Exhibit NEC-JEH-63 at A4), you state that you have reviewed and approved "metal-fatigue related issues" for the fast flux test facilities (FFTF) and controlled recirculation boiling water (CRB) reactors. Please describe those "metal fatigue related issues."

la.

What do you mean by metal fatigue issues?

I

b.

When did you review these issues?

I

c.

What was your role?

Id.

Was environmental correction of cumulative usage factors considered?

2.

Also in A4 of your rebuttal testimony, Dr. Hopenfeld, you state that you have "participated in the development of related codes and standards."

2a.

Describe these codes and standards.

2b.

How were these codes and standards "related" to metal fatigue?

2c.

Did your participation include membership on a code or standards committee?

2d.

If you were a member of a code or standards committee, was that committee's work related to metal fatigue?

2e.

If yes, when were you a member of that committee?

3.

Have you ever been a member of an ASME Code Committee?

3a.

If yes, did that committee's work relate to metal fatigue? Explain.

4.

Prior to this proceeding, was reviewing Cumulative Usage Factors (CLIF) or environmentally corrected cumulative usage factor (CUFen) calculations ever part of your professional responsibilities?

4a.

If yes, explain when, where, and why.

4b.

If no, why do you think you are qualified to provide testimony concerning Entergy's calculations?

ii. Questions for Dr. Hopenfeld reqardina NEC's Position on the use of NUREGICR-6583 and NUREGICR-5704 Equations to com~ute Fen Multipliers IVEC and Dr. Hopenfeld have asserted that the equations for calculating metal fatigue in NUREGICR-6583 and NUREGICR-5704 are out of date and that Entergy should have used the bounding environmental correction factor (Fen) values in NUREGICR-6909. See, e.g. Exhibit NEC-JH-03 at 10. The Staff and Entergy disagree with NEC's and Dr. Hopenfeld's insistence on using the bounding Fen values from NUREGICR-6909 and have questioned Dr. Hopenfeld's understanding of these NUREGs. See Staff Exhibit 3 at A.5; Applicant Exhibit E2-01 at A50.

The Staff has also questioned Dr. Hopenfeld's understanding of and familiarity with the ASME code related to metal fatigue. See Staff Motion in Limine at 9. The following questions are intended to explore the basis of NEC's and Dr. Hopenfeld's insistence on applying the bounding NUREGICR-6909 to Vermont Yankee; Dr. Hopenfeld's understanding of NUREGSICR-6909, NLIREGICR-6583, and NLIREGICR-5704; and the requirements of the ASME Code.

1.

Dr. Hopenfeld, in A5 of your rebuttal testimony (Exhibit NEC-JH-63) you state that the ASME Code "requires that in situations where the environment is more aggressive than air the owner must account for such conditions" and reference ASME Code, Appendix B at 8-2131. The Staff asserts that Appendix B of the ASME does not contain mandatory requirements. See Staff Motion in Limine at 9; Staff Exhibit D.

l a.

Isn't it true that Appendix B of the ASME code offers non-mandatory guidance for the preparation of the Owner's design specifications?

I

b.

If no, explain why you believe that Appendix B contains requirements.

2.

Dr. Hopenfeld, you state that equations in NUREGICR-6583 and NUREGICR-5704 are out of date and Entergy should use NUREGICR-6909, even though the Staff has determined that it is acceptable for license renewal applications to use NUREGICR-6583 and NUREGICR-5704.

2a.

What is your basis for challenging the Staffs determination in GALL (NUREG-1801) that the use of NUREGICR-6583 and NUREGICR-5704 is acceptable?

2b.

What established scientific studies have you identified that support your opinion?

2c.

Does anyone else, qualified by knowledge, training, experience, or education, share your view? If yes, explain.

3.

Dr. Hopenfeld, on page 6 of your rebuttal testimony, you suggest that the methodology described in NUREGICR-6583 (carbon and low alloy steel) and NUREGICR-5704 (stainless steel) ignores factors affecting fatigue that are considered in NLIREGICR-6909 and therefore the method describe in NUREGICR-6583 and NLIREGICR-5704 is not in agreement with the ASME Code.

3a.

Isn't it true that the ASME Code does not require consideration of environmental factors when calculating CUFs?

3b.

If you believe that the Code does require consideration of environmental factors, explain your basis and reference the Code provision(s) imposing the requirement.

4.

Dr. Hopenfeld, in A5 of your rebuttal testimony (Exhibit NEC-JH-63) you provide a table listing what you believe to be the most significant factors that affect fatigue life and opine that Entergy must account for all of these factors and should do so by using the bounding Fen values in NUREGICR-6909. Identify which of the factors in your table that are included in the NUREGICR-6909 Fen calculation but not included in the NUREGICR-5704 and NUREGICR-6583 Fen factors?

5.

Dr. Hopenfeld, you state that Entergy should use the bounding Fen values from NUREGICR-6909 because the equations for Fen values in NLIREGICR-6583 and NUREGICR-5704 are out of date and do not consider all factors affecting fatigue life. Isn't it true that NUREGICR-6909 also contains new curves for fatigue life in air?

5a.

If no, Dr. Hopenfeld, please turn to page A4 of NEC-JH-26 and describe what you see. Isn't that a revised fatigue design curve for carbon and low-alloy steels in air?

5b.

If yes, Dr. Hopenfeld, please turn to page A4 of NEC-JH-26. If you believe that Entergy uses the bounding Fen values from NUREGICR-6909 for carbon and low-alloy steel, why do you not also believe that Entergy also use the fatigue design curves provided by NUREGICR-6909?

5c.

(Follow-up to 5b): Isn't it true that the Fen equations in NUREGICR 6909 were developed to be used with the revised fatigue air curves in NLIREGICR-6909, not with the ASME Code fatigue air curves?

5d.

(Follow-up to 5b): If Entergy uses the Fen values from NUREGICR-6909, why shouldn't Entergy also use the fatigue air curves in NUREGICR-6909? In other words, why should Entergy be required to use half of one procedure and half of another?

5e.

What is your basis for insistence that Entergy use the ASME Code fatigue air curves and the bounding Fen values of NUREGICR-6909?

6.

Dr. Hopenfeld, you have criticized the Staff for asserting that the CUFens generated using the ASME Code fatigue design curve for carbon and low allow steel in air (not stainless steel) and the equations in NLIREGICR-6583 and NUREGICR-5704 are more conservative than the results using the method in NLIREGICR-6909.

6a.

Have you performed the calculations?

6b.

If not, what is the basis for your conclusion?

6c.

If so, what were the results of your calculations?

7.

Dr. Hopenfeld, in the first paragraph of A10 of your rebuttal testimony, you say that you do not agree that Fen = 17 derived from NUREGICR-6909 is restricted to high temperature and high oxygen environments.

7a.

Please turn to page A1 of NUREGICR-6909. Doesn't that page indicate that for low oxygen the factor in the Fen formula is zero?

7b.

What is the resulting Fen when the factor for oxygen is zero?

8.

Dr. Hopenfeld, in the second paragraph of A10 of your rebuttal testimony, you reference a paper by Garry Wire and William Mills (Exhibit NEC-JH-66). The referenced paper discusses fatigue crack propagation, not fatigue crack initiation.

8a.

Isn't true that the CUFen calculation is about determining when cracks are likely to initiate?

8b.

What is the difference between crack propagation and initiation?

8c.

Why is crack propagation relevant?

9.

Dr. Hopenfeld, in A1 I of your rebuttal testimony, you state that the author of NUREGICR 6909, "understands the limitation of the Fen methodology very well" but "he is not in a position to recommend or not to recommend the use of bounding Fen values" and, therefore, "it is up to the user to assess his specific conditions and make the appropriate corrections to the ANL equations."

9a.

Doesn't the appendix to NUREGICR-6909 recommend a procedure for calculating Fens?

9b.

If, as you suggest, NUREGICR-6909 does not specify the use of bounding Fen values, why do you insist that Entergy must use the bounding values from NUREGICR-6909?

10.

Dr. Hopenfeld, in A1 3 of your rebuttal testimony, you state that you disagree with Mr. Fitzpatrick's statement that Entergy's CUFen analyses properly accounted for surface roughness effects through the use of the ASME Code design fatigue curves. You further state that until data shows that corroded surfaces and machine surfaces equally effect fatigue, possible differences cannot be ignored.

10a.

Does the data from the Argonne National Laboratory tests reported in NUREGICR-6909 support you assertion?

lob.

Isn't it true that the data reported on page 34 of NUREGICR-6909 show that the fatigue lives of rough and smooth specimens are about the same in high dissolved oxygen water, where the Fen factor is maximum.

b.

Questions for Dr. Hopenfeld Resardinq NEC Contention 3 NEC relies upon the expert testimony of Dr. Hopenfeld to support its position that Entergy has not demonstrated an adequate plan to monitor and manage aging of the steam dryer during the period of extended operation. The factual basis for an expert's opinion must be adequately stated and explained. Duke Cogema Stone & Webster (Savannah River Iilixed Oxide Fuel Fabrication Facility), LBP-05-04, 61 NRC 71, 80-81 (internal citations omitted). The following questions are designed to explore Dr. Hopenfeld's factual bases, reasoning, and conclusions regarding NEC Contention 3.

i.

Questions Regarding Dr. Hopenfeld's "Assessment of Proposed program to Manage Aging of the Vermont Yankee Steam Dver Due to Flow-Induced Vibrations" (Exh. NEC-JH 54)

The following questions are intended to explore the factual basis relied for the assertions Dr. Hopenfeld makes in Exhibit NEC-JH-56.

1.

Dr. Hopenfeld, in Section I of Exhibit NEC-JH-54, you refer to vortices shed by flow over the surface of the steam dryer matching the natural frequency of the steam dryer, but you do not discuss potential pressure pulses on the steam dryer that can result from acoustic resonance in the main steam lines caused by flow over the branch lines to the safety relief valves, such as that which occurred at the Quad Cities nuclear power plant prior to the steam line modifications.

l a.

Are you aware of the pressure pulses that resulted from acoustic resonance in the main steam lines caused by flow over the branch lines to the safety relief valves at Quad Cities?

I

b.

Is your concern focused on the possible effects of vortices shed by flow over the surface of the steam dryer at Vermont Yankee?

Ic.

If not, then what is the focus of your concern?

2.

Dr. Hopenfeld in Exhibit NEC-JH-54 at Section I1 you state that a "public safety hazard would result if the dryer was damaged and some of its parts broke loose and were transported by flow or gravity to other areas of the reactor system."

2a.

Are you trying to assert that a public safety hazard would result in any instance of loose parts from the steam dryer at Vermont Yankee?

2b.

If yes, how do you explain the fact that the steam dryers in the two reactor units at the Quad Cities nuclear power plant were damaged and resulted in loose parts during power uprate operation, however no public safety hazard resulted from the presence of the loose dryer parts?

3.

Dr. Hopenfeld, in Section II of Exhibit NEC-JH-54, you state that loose parts may block flow channels in the reactor core, block spray cooling nozzles, or prevent the main steam isolation valves from isolating the system during loss of coolarit accidents (LOCAs).

3a.

Do you agree that if the steam dryer at Vermont Yankee failed to the extent that loose parts were released, the moisture carryover would increase through the failed steam dryer?

3b.

If moisture carryover increased through the failed stream dryer, is it plausible to suggest that the licensee would not shut down the reactor to evaluate the cause of increased moisture carryover or is NEC asserting that the licensee would continue to operate the reactor with a failed steam dryer such that loose parts might impact the performance of safety systems during a possible LOCA at some later time?

3c.

If NEC is not asserting that the licensee would continue to operate under such failed conditions, is NEC concerned with structural capability of the steam dryer during a LOCA when the reactor coolant system would be depressurizing?

4.

Dr. Hopenfeld, in NEC-JH-54 at page 2 you state that "small pressure fluctuations in the steam lines (3-4 psi) indicate that even small pressure fluctuations on the dryer can generate altering stresses [sic] that exceed the endurance limit at some dryer locations" and cite to Exhibit NEC-JH-55, which is GE SIL No. 644. Can you please specify the precise location in GE SIL No. 644 that supports your statement?

11.

Questions for Dr. Hopenfeld Regarding Stress Analysis Performed bv Vermont Yankee durinn EPU Implementation NEC asserts that the Entergy and the Staff argue that Entergy's steam dryer AMP does rely on the steam dryer modeling conducted during EPU implementation for knowledge of dryer stress loads. NEC Rebuttal Statement of Position at 18-19. In support of this statement, NEC refers to the NRC Staff Initial Statement of Position at page 19, which states that stress analysis "is not necessary because the results of the EPU power ascension program demonstrated that the pressure loads during the EPU operations do not result in stress on the steam dryer that exceed ASME fatigue stress limits." NEC has further asserted that Entergy's steam dryer AMP must include some means of estimating and predicting stress loads on the steam dryer. See e.g., Exh. NEC-.IH-54 at 5. The following questions are proposed to explore the bases for NEC's assertion.

1.

Dr. Hopenfeld, are you aware that the monitoring of strain gauges on the main steam line piping during EPU power ascension did not reveal any significant pressure fluctuations that could impact the structural integrity of the upgraded Vermont Yankee steam dryer?

2.

What changes in plant performance do you believe could cause pressure fluctuations that would result in a long-term fatigue concern for the steam dryer?

- 1 0 -

3.

Dr. Hopenfeld, when you state that, "[tlhe only way of determining stresses on the dryer is to actually measure them," Exhibit NEC-JH-63 at A29, are you proposing the installation of strain gauges on the radioactive steam dryer at Vermont Yankee?

4.

Dr. Hopenfeld, in your rebuttal testimony (Exh. NEC-JH-63 at A33) you assert that a small increase in steam velocity in the Vermont Yankee reactor vessel can cause severe vibrations of the steam dryer in light of plant-specific and industry experience.

4a.

Are you aware that during the EPU power ascension at Vermont Yankee, no significant excitation of plant performance parameters was observed during monitoring of the main steam line strain gauges or component accelerometers?

4b.

Are you aware of the fact that experience from other nuclear power plants shows that severe pressure loading on the steam dryer only occurred as a result of a large increase in flow from power uprate operation?

4c.

In light of the above facts, please explain the basis for your assertion that a small increase in steam velocity in the Vermont Yankee reactor vessel can cause severe vibrations of the steam dryer in light of plant-specific and industry experience.

11.

Questions for Dr. Rudolf Hausler

a. Questions Reqardinq Dr. Hausler's Qualifications for Providinn Testimonv Concerninq NEC Contention 4 In support of Contention 4 (flow-accelerated corrosion), NEC relies, in part, on the testimony of Dr. Rudolf Hausler. In his testimony, Dr. Haulser opines on Vermont Yankee's ability to effectively use CHECWORKS to predict FAC-susceptible locations during the period of extended operations, including the number of cycles worth UT inspection data Vermont Yankee will need to "recalibrate" CHECWORKS to EPU conditions. See NEC-RH-01 at A.6. Because experts must be qualified by knowledge, training, education, or experience, in order to provide testimony in support of NEC Contention 4, Dr. Hausler should be familiar with the CHECWORKS model. See Duke Cogema Stone & Webster (Savannah River Mixed Oxide Fuel Fabrication Facility), LBP-05-04, 61 NRC 71, 80 (2005). Based upon his curriculum vitae, it is not apparent that Dr. Hausler is familiar with CHECWORKS. Thus, the following questions are intended to explore Dr. Hausler's qualification to provide testimony concerning NEC 4.

1.

Have you ever used CHECWORKS?

l a.

If you have used CHECWORKS, describe when, where, how often and why you used it.

1 b.

If you have never used CHECWORKS, what is the basis for your expert testimony concerning the use of CHECWORKS?

b. Questions for Dr. Hausler Renardinq His Testimonv in S u ~ ~ o r t of NEC Contention 4 Dr. Hausler expresses concern for uncertainties in the methodology of ultrasonic thickness ("UT") measurements. See NEC-RH-03 at Appx. A. Dr. Hausler does not, however, articulate a basis for his assumption. Unsupported statements are of little assistance to the trier of fact because the decision should be based on information that is included in the record. See Pacific Gas & Electric Co. (Diablo Canyon Nuclear Power Plant, Units 1 & 2), ALAB-580, 11 NRC 227, 230 (1980) (stating that "it is a statutory requirement that the adjudicatory decisions of this Commission stand or fall on the basis of the record on which they rest"). Thus, the following questions are designed to assist the Board in understanding the basis for Dr.

Hausler's assertion.

1.

Dr. Hausler, you express a concern with the methodology for UT measurements, but you do not provide any supporting evidence or documentation for your concern. NEC-RH-03 at Appx. A. Please explain what your concern is based on.

1 a.

Dr. Hausler, you specifically state that one of your concerns is the inherent difficulty in taking measurements in the same location. Are you aware that Entergy has

- 1 2 -

a painted a grid on the pipe to help ensure that UT measurements are taken in the same place?

I

b.

Isn't it true that a painted grid would help alleviate this concern?

2.

You state, Dr. Hausler, that UT wall thickness technology is capable of attaining measurement accuracy for high frequency UT transducer of +I-1% to 2%. NEC-RH-03 at Appx. A. Please explain how you arrived at this number and what this number is based on.

Ill.

Questions for Mr. Ulrich Witte

a. Questions for Mr. Witte Reqarding NEC Contentions 2A and 2B In his late-filed rebuttal testimony, Ulrich Witte makes a number of statements regarding NEC Contentions 2A and 2B that appear to be irrelevant, unsupported, or both. Experts, however, must provide and explain the basis for the opinions. See Savannah River, LBP-05-14, 61 NRC at 80-81. Thus, the following questions are intended to assist the Board in understanding the relevance and factual basis of Mr. Witte's assertions.

1.

Mr. Witte, in A4 of your rebuttal testimony you assert that you are qualified to provide testimony concerning NEC contentions 2A and 2B and, in support of that assertion, state that you conducted detailed correlation studies of non-linear finite element analysis code predictions against actual in situ testing and components at Indian Point 1 after the plant was closed and the results of your work were published in EPRl Report Number 8450.

l a Explain how this work is relevant to your testimony on Vermont Yankee fatigue calculations.

1 b.

Explain how this work qualifies you to testify about Vermont Yankee's metal fatigue calculations.

2.

Mr. Witte, in A5 of your rebuttal testimony on the top of page 4, you refer to an event at another facility on December 26, 1986 at 6 am where you were required to notify the Technical Support Center.

2a.

What facility are you talking about?

- 1 3 -

2b.

What is the relevance of that event to Vermont Yankee's calculations?

3.

Mr. Witte, in A5 on page 5 of your rebuttal testimony you refer to a scram event at Vermont Yankee on December 1, 1972. How does that event impact the fatigue analysis?

4.

Mr. Witte, in A5 of your testimony on page 5 you state that Vermont Yankee had 42 unplanned forced shutdowns between 1972 and 1977. In support of your statement you reference Exhibit UW-25.

4a.

Isn't it true that UW-25 simply lists the number of shutdowns per year?

4b.

Isn't it true that UW-25 does not indicate the reason for the shutdowns?

4c.

What then is your basis for asserting that every shutdown between 1972 and 1977 was a forced shutdown?

4d.

What is your basis for asserting that the 10 shutdowns in 1976 were unplanned?

5.

Mr. Witte, in A5 on page 5 of you rebuttal testimony, you state that number of shutdowns Vermont Yankee experience between 1973 and 1977 is "significant" and expended much of the fatigue life of the reactor vessel and feedwater nozzles.

5a.

What is your basis for assertion that the number of shutdowns was "significant"?

5b.

Is the number of shutdowns Vermont Yankee experienced between 1973 and 1977 unusual for a plant during its first five years of operation?

5c.

What is your basis for asserting that the shutdowns expended much of the fatigue life of the reactor vessel and feedwater nozzles?

6.

Mr. Witte, in A5 on page 5 of your rebuttal testimony, you state that there are transients that appear to have not been incorporated as input in the refined fatigue analysis.

6a.

In your testimony, you do not provide a reference for your assertion.

What is the basis for your assertion that Entergy did not consider these transients?

- 1 4 -

7.

Mr. Witte, in A5 of your rebuttal testimony on the bottom of page 5 top of page 6, you refer to an event on July 6, 1976 but you do not explain the relevance of the event to Vermont Yankee's fatigue calculations. What is the relevance of this event to Vermont Yankee's calculations?

8.

Mr. Witte, in A6 of your rebuttal testimony you state that the estimated transient history may or may not be conservative.

8a.

What is the basis for your assertion?

8b.

Can you provide specific examples?

b.

Questions for Mr. Witte Reqardinq NEC Contention 4

i.

Questions Reqardinq Mr. Witte's Qualifications NEC relies upon the testimony of Mr. Witte to support its contention regarding FAC.

Experts, however, must be qualified by knowledge, training, education, or experience. Duke Cogema Stone & Webster (Savannah River Mixed Oxide Fuel Fabrication Facility), LBP-05-04, 61 NRC 71, 80 (2005). In addition, a number of Mr. Witte's statements are not supported by evidence and therefore, may provide little use to the trier of fact. Therefore, the following questions are intended to explore Mr. Witte's expertise and to gain a better understanding for the bases of his assertions.

1.

Mr. Witte, in your rebuttal testimony, you admit that you are not "intimately familiar with the empirically based CHECWORKS algorithm." NEC Exhibit 3 at 10. Can you please explain the extent of your knowledge and understanding of CHECWORKS.

2.

Mr. Witte, is it fair to say that if you are not intimately familiar with CHECWORKS, you may not be aware of the significance of all inputs into the model?

3.

Despite the fact that you are not intimately familiar with CHECWORKS, you testify that Entergy improperly updated the program. See NEC-UW-01 at 4. If you are not intimately familiar with CHECWORKS, what is the basis for your conclusion?

4.

Mr. Witte, throughout your rebuttal testimony you make a number of observations and conclusions, but fail to provide any supporting evidence for these statements. Can you please describe the reasoning and bases for the following statements:

4a.

"Entergy apparently failed to update CHECWORKS" and this "lapse may have significantly weakened the trending and predictive capability of the software." NEC-UW-01 at 4.

4b.

Entergy "apparently used an outdated version of the CHECWORKS software." Id.

4c.

There appears to have been a pipe rupture in 2006. Id. at 5.

ii.

Questions for Mr. Witte Reqardinq NRC "Commitments" In his initial testimony and written analysis, Mr. Witte makes a number of statements regarding "commitments" Entergy has made. Mr. Witte does not, however, seem to understand the proper definition of commitment. By definition, a commitment is made by a licensee "in docketed licensing correspondence such as licensee responses to NRC bulletins, generic letters, and enforcement actions, as well as licensee commitments documented in NRC safety evaluations or licensee event reports." 10 C.F.R. § 54.3; see also SECY-00-0045, Acceptance of NEI 99-04, Guidelines for Managing NRC Commitments (Feb. 22, 2000). The following questions are intended to explore Mr. Witte's understanding of commitments.

1.

Mr. Witte, throughout your initial testimony and written analysis you reference a number of commitments Entergy has made. Exhibits NEC-UW-01 at 5; NEW-UW-03 at 11, 20.

la.

Isn't it true that a Generic Letter from the NRC to licensees cannot be a commitment?

I

b.

Isn't it true that in your initial testimony your indicate that Generic Letters from the NRC to licensees, including Vermont Yankee, contain commitments?

Ic.

Isn't it true that commitments must be made by a licensee in writing in docketed correspondence to the NRC?

Id.

If you disagree with the proposition that commitments must be in writing in docketed licensing correspondence with the NRC, what is your understanding of commitments?

le.

What is the basis for your understanding of what constitutes a commitment?

2.

Also on the topic of commitments, Mr. Witte, you asserted in your initial testimony that "Entergy apparently reduced the number of FAC inspection data points between the 2005 refueling outage and the 2006 outage, in violation of its commitment to increase inspection data points by 50%" Exh. NEC-UW-03 at 717. You made this assertion again in "Prefiled Rebuttal Testimony of Ulrich Witte Regarding New England Coalition, Inc.'s Contentions 2A, 2B, and 4" at A15 but you fail to provide a reference for your assertion. What is the basis for your assertion?

iii.

Questions for Mr. Witte Reqardina the Availabilitv of Benchmarking Data Mr. Witte asserts that "given the uniqueness of the design of Vermont Yankee's power uprate, CHECWORKS has little industry benchmarking data, and is of marginal use." NEC-UW-03 at 8. Mr. Witte, however, fails to articulate a basis or provide evidence to support his assertion. Unsupported statements are of little assistance to the trier of fact because decisions should be based on information that is included in the record. See Diablo Canyon, ALAB-580, 11 NRC at 230. The following question is posed so that the Board can understand the issue of the availability and use of benchmarking data.

1.

Mr. Witte, you state that there is little benchmarking data and it is of marginal use given the uniqueness of Vermont Yankee's power uprate. NEC-UW-03 at 8. Can you please explain the basis for this statement?

- 1 7 -

IV.

Questions for Enternv Questions for Entersv Reqardinq Contention 4

i.

Questions for Entersv Renardina UT Measurements Dr. Hausler expresses concern for uncertainties in the methodology of ultrasonic thickness ("UT) measurements. NEC-RH-03 at Appx. A. Dr. Hausler does not, however, articulate a basis for which this assumption is based. The following questions are designed to allow the Board to explore the methodologies which Entergy uses and to gain a better understanding of Dr. Hausler's concerns.

1.

Can you please explain the methodology Vermont Yankee uses to take ultrasonic thickness measurements?

la.

Dr. Hausler expresses two areas of concern regarding UT methodologies:

1) the inherent variability of the instrument, and 2) inherent difficulty of placing the probe in the same location for repeat measurements. Exhibit NEC-RH-03 at Appx. A. Do you agree that these are areas of concern?

1 b.

Isn't it true that there is a painted grid at Vermont Yankee which helps alleviate concerns for placing the probe in the same location?

lc.

Describe the type of training that UT technicians at Vermont Yankee receive.

Id.

Dr. Hausler asserts that UT wall thickness technology is capable of attaining measurement accuracy of +I-1-2%. NEC-RH-03 at Appx. A. Do you agree?

le.

If not, in your experience, what is the level of accuracy that UT wall thickness technology is capable of attaining?

ii.

Questions for Entersv Renardins the Availability of Benchrnarkinq Data Mr. Witte asserts that "given the uniqueness of the design of Vermont Yankee's power uprate, CHECWORKS has little industry benchmarking data and this data is of marginal use."

NEC-UW-03 at 8. Mr. Witte, however, fails to articulate a basis or provide documentation to support his assertion. Unsupported statements are of little assistance to the trier of fact because decision should be based on information that is included in the record. See Pacific Gas & Electric Co. (Diablo Canyon Nuclear Power Plant, Units 1 & 2), ALAB-580, 11 NRC 227, 230 (1980) (stating that "it is a statutory requirement that the adjudicatory decisions of this Commission stand or fall on the basis of the record on which they rest"). The following questions are posed so that the Board can understand the issue of the availability and use of benchmarking data.

1.

The Staff suggests that there is enough benchmarking data. Do you agree?

Please explain.

2.

Does the plant's operating power level matter when it comes to using CHECWORKS? Please explain.

Resp ctfully submitted,

/.&

Dated at Rockville, Maryland this 20th day of June, 2008 Susan L. Uttal Counsel for NRC Staff

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION In the Matter of

)

)

ENTERGY NUCLEAR VERMONT YANKEE, LLC, )

)

and

)

)

ENTERGY NUCLEAR OPERATIONS, INC.

)

Docket No. 50-271-LR

)

(Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Station)

)

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that copies of the foregoing LB MEMORANDUM (SUBMISSION OF PROPOSED QUESTIONS INTO THE OFFICIAL RECORD) have been served upon the following persons by U.S. mail, first class, or through NRC internal distribution.

Office of Commission Appellate Adjudication U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, DC 20555-0001 Administrative Judge Alex S. Karlin, Chair Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel Mail Stop - T-3 F23 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, DC 20555-0001 Administrative Judge Richard E. Wardwell Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel Mail Stop - T-3 F23 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, DC 20555-0001 Administrative Judge William H. Reed Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel 1819 Edgewood Lane Charlottesville, VA 22902 Lloyd B. Subin, Esq.

David E. Roth, Esq.

Mary C. Baty, Esq.

Susan L. Uttal, Esq.

Jessica A. Bielecki, Esq.

Brian Newell, Paralegal Office of the General Counsel O15D21 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, DC 20555-0001 Sarah Hofmann, Esq.

Director for Public Advocacy Department of Public Service 112 State Street - Drawer 20 Montpelier, VT 05620-2601

2 Docket No. 50-271-LR LB MEMORANDUM (SUBMISSION OF PROPOSED QUESTIONS INTO THE OFFICIAL RECORD)

Matthew Brock Assistant Attorney General Environmental Protection Division Office of the Attorney General One Ashburton Place, 18th Floor Boston, MA 02108 Anthony Z. Roisman, Esq.

National Legal Scholars Law Firm 84 East Thetford Rd.

Lyme, NH 03768 Callie B. Newton, Chair Gail MacArthur Lucy Gratwick Town of Marlboro SelectBoard P.O. Box 518 Marlboro, VT 05344 Dan MacArthur, Director Town of Marlboro Emergency Management P.O. Box 30 Marlboro, VT 05344 David R. Lewis, Esq.

Matias F. Travieso-Diaz, Esq.

Elina Teplinsky, Esq.

Blake J. Nelson, Esq.

Pillsbury Winthrop Shaw Pittman LLP 2300 N Street, NW Washington, DC 20037-1128 Peter C. L. Roth, Esq.

Senior Assistant Attorney General State of New Hampshire Office of the New Hampshire Attorney General 33 Capitol Street Concord, NH 03301 Robert L. Stewart New England Coalition 229 Kibbee Ext.

Brookfield, Vermont 05036 Alan A. Pemberton, Esq.

Derron J. Blakely, Esq.

Covington & Burling LLP Counsel for Electric Power Research Institute (EPRI) 1201 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W.

Washington, DC 20004-2401

Docket No. 50-271-LR LB MEMORANDUM (SUBMISSION OF PROPOSED QUESTIONS INTO THE OFFICIAL RECORD) 3 Ronald A. Shems, Esq.

Karen Tyler, Esq.

Andrew Raubvogel, Esq.

Shems Dunkiel Kassel & Saunders, PLLC 91 College Street Burlington, VT 05401

[Original signed by Nancy Greathead]

Office of the Secretary of the Commission Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 3rd day of December 2008